Homosexuality in geneology?

[SilentKnight]

Hi steven,
I have thought further upon this, and have been drawn to the conclusion, that it is not only Mother Church who is remiss on this facet of truth, but most religions, and most governments.
It has to be said though that, at least in English law, gender, if not obvious, is allocated as a matter of legal convenience, and there is, at least some acceptance in higher legal circles, that this allocation-of-convenience is just that, and the allocation can be challenged.
However, the gender of ‘n/a’, which is in many cases correct, is still not legally recognised.
There is still a long way to go.

Voco, I am curious to know what causes you to draw the conclusion that basically everyone under the sun is wrong on this except yourself? What has you convinced that ambiguity in gender is not a biological abnormality?

SK

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Voco, I am curious to know what causes you to draw the conclusion that basically everyone under the sun is wrong on this except yourself? What has you convinced that ambiguity in gender is not a biological abnormality?

SK

Lord forgive me if I am presenting these ideas as my own.
They are not.
This is just the way Science tells is that things are not what they seem.
About 5 posts ago, a friend wrote ‘1 + 1 = 2’
Now that is fine in one dimensional geometry, but it falls over when we find the universe has more dimensions than one, and when applied to speeds, we get 1 x c + 1 x c = 1 x c.
Yes, I agree that 1 x 30mph + 1 x 30mph on the same road, and on the same carriageway, = 2 x 30mph.
Once you leave your comfortable environment, your natural logic fails, and a new science is needed to explain.
What is the square root of -1.
We all know that X x X = X^2, and this is always positive, no matter whether X is positive or negative.
But in math, these odd things exist, and are meaningful.
Math is more than simple arithmetic.
Gender is more than just male and female.
Yes normally, that is, in your simple universe, gender is defined by XX or XY chromosomes.
However, XX, and XY are not the only possible combinations, and worse, gender is not absolutely defined by XX and XY, but the propensity of gender is so defined. This propensity can be disturbed by many influences, for it is quite fragile.
Generally, gender, at least in animals is accepted as neuter, if the procreative equipment is not functional, and has no potential to become functional. Hence castrated animals are happily catagorised as neuter, though they are commonly referred to by their pre-castration gender.
Yes, black and white is very firmly impressed in our consciousness, but that does not make it absolutely correct.
Einstein, and Lorenz and Fitzgerald had this problem when relativity crawled out of the woodwork.

 

[SilentKnight]

Ok…So, basically because variations exist, they’re supposed to.

SK

 

[fix]

Lord forgive me if I am presenting these ideas as my own.
They are not.
This is just the way Science tells is that things are not what they seem.
About 5 posts ago, a friend wrote ‘1 + 1 = 2’
Now that is fine in one dimensional geometry, but it falls over when we find the universe has more dimensions than one, and when applied to speeds, we get 1 x c + 1 x c = 1 x c.
Yes, I agree that 1 x 30mph + 1 x 30mph on the same road, and on the same carriageway, = 2 x 30mph.
Once you leave your comfortable environment, your natural logic fails, and a new science is needed to explain.
What is the square root of -1.
We all know that X x X = X^2, and this is always positive, no matter whether X is positive or negative.
But in math, these odd things exist, and are meaningful.
Math is more than simple arithmetic.
Gender is more than just male and female.
Yes normally, that is, in your simple universe, gender is defined by XX or XY chromosomes.
However, XX, and XY are not the only possible combinations, and worse, gender is not absolutely defined by XX and XY, but the propensity of gender is so defined. This propensity can be disturbed by many influences, for it is quite fragile.
Generally, gender, at least in animals is accepted as neuter, if the procreative equipment is not functional, and has no potential to become functional. Hence castrated animals are happily catagorised as neuter, though they are commonly referred to by their pre-castration gender.
Yes, black and white is very firmly impressed in our consciousness, but that does not make it absolutely correct.
Einstein, and Lorenz and Fitzgerald had this problem when relativity crawled out of the woodwork.

We know God created male and female. We know He created a complementarity. That variations exist does not prove that is what God ordained. It proves they exist. God permits all types of things to exist.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

We know God created male and female. We know He created a complementarity. That variations exist does not prove that is what God ordained. It proves they exist. God permits all types of things to exist.

That is faith without science.
The earliest varieties were asexual, or bi-sexual, however you choose to interpret.
Female came first, and male is a derivative of female.
The ‘Y’ chromosome is actually a broken ‘X’ chromosome, which is why the ‘YY’ variant, which does occur, never matures, but dies in early development. There is something on the ‘X’ chromosome which is vital. you MUST at least hold one copy.

The tales in Genesis are not, and never were intended as matters of history or science, they were, and are an attempt to make sense of the universe in the light of existing science.
As a result, some approximations have been made, which are on the whole, reliable, however, as our understanding improves, so our approximations should be refined.
Sometimes an approximation will be found to be false if applied to the whole universe, whereas it is quite satisfactory where applied to a small part thereof.
Flat earth works fine when you are building a house, but when you are building the Forth road bridge, you find that there is an error in vertical, at the top of the towers, resulting in a separation of four inches greater at the top, than at the bottom.

You cannot know what G_d ordained.
You see only an approximation to the creation, limited by your science, and you then have the audacity to apply reverse engineering to that creation to postulate the purpose.
Your reverse engineering is again limited by your science.
So your ideas of what G_d’s purpose and ordination were/are is only a very poor approximation.

The best understanding can be gained from the assumption that: how it is, is how it is intended. Such variations as are permitted, are as intended to be permitted.
It is just these variations which are the key to evolution.

You take a working model, and tweak it.
If it works worse, you scrap it.
If it works better, you make copies of the new version.
Then you tweak it again.

You only have to look at the wolf pack, to see that having gender neutral members is not an overall negative, but sets aside pack members to be ‘aunts’ and ‘uncles’ to look after the pups while the pack hunts. These gender neutral individuals have a reduced sense of competition, as they are not subject to the instinct to breed.
In the lack of gender neutral members, junior, gender immature members are used, but this stage only lasts one season. Having virtual juniors, which live up to twelve years can be a great advantage to the pack.

The parallel between Wolf packs and Human civilisation has been recognised by many, particularly the Romans, and Native Americans. This similarity explains why it is that dogs and men work together so well. There is no other inter specie relationship which is so close, even to the point of some cross understanding of communications, so that a shepherd can control his dog so precisely, and at a great distance.

Maybe, just maybe, the purpose of gender neutrals in mankind is a parallel of that in the wolf pack.
Indeed, the insistence upon chastity in the ministry of the Church reflects a notion of a requirement for gender neutral individuals in a role similar to aunts and uncles in wolf packs.

 

[fix]

That is faith without science.

No, it is truth. Does science tell us what God ordained?

The earliest varieties were asexual, or bi-sexual, however you choose to interpret.
Female came first, and male is a derivative of female.
The ‘Y’ chromosome is actually a broken ‘X’ chromosome, which is why the ‘YY’ variant, which does occur, never matures, but dies in early development. There is something on the ‘X’ chromosome which is vital. you MUST at least hold one copy.

The tales in Genesis are not, and never were intended as matters of history or science, they were, and are an attempt to make sense of the universe in the light of existing science.
As a result, some approximations have been made, which are on the whole, reliable, however, as our understanding improves, so our approximations should be refined.
Sometimes an approximation will be found to be false if applied to the whole universe, whereas it is quite satisfactory where applied to a small part thereof.
Flat earth works fine when you are building a house, but when you are building the Forth road bridge, you find that there is an error in vertical, at the top of the towers, resulting in a separation of four inches greater at the top, than at the bottom.

You cannot know what G_d ordained.
You see only an approximation to the creation, limited by your science, and you then have the audacity to apply reverse engineering to that creation to postulate the purpose.
Your reverse engineering is again limited by your science.
So your ideas of what G_d’s purpose and ordination were/are is only a very poor approximation.

The best understanding can be gained from the assumption that: how it is, is how it is intended. Such variations as are permitted, are as intended to be permitted.
It is just these variations which are the key to evolution.

You take a working model, and tweak it.
If it works worse, you scrap it.
If it works better, you make copies of the new version.
Then you tweak it again.

You only have to look at the wolf pack, to see that having gender neutral members is not an overall negative, but sets aside pack members to be ‘aunts’ and ‘uncles’ to look after the pups while the pack hunts. These gender neutral individuals have a reduced sense of competition, as they are not subject to the instinct to breed.
In the lack of gender neutral members, junior, gender immature members are used, but this stage only lasts one season. Having virtual juniors, which live up to twelve years can be a great advantage to the pack.

The parallel between Wolf packs and Human civilisation has been recognised by many, particularly the Romans, and Native Americans. This similarity explains why it is that dogs and men work together so well. There is no other inter specie relationship which is so close, even to the point of some cross understanding of communications, so that a shepherd can control his dog so precisely, and at a great distance.

Maybe, just maybe, the purpose of gender neutrals in mankind is a parallel of that in the wolf pack.
Indeed, the insistence upon chastity in the ministry of the Church reflects a notion of a requirement for gender neutral individuals in a role similar to aunts and uncles in wolf packs.

You take your notions from a wolf pack?

Good science does not contradict the faith. It seems the problem is you start from a position that denies Truth. If you start there then all else is wrong.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

No, it is truth. Does science tell us what God ordained?

Dear Fix,
I explained clearly that science does not do this, but science assumes that what is, is what is intended, if the system is as designed.
Religion tells us that G_d is perfect, therefore logic tells us that G_d’s creation is as designed.
Therefore science can deduce from the design, the designer’s intent, indeed, that is the reasoning behind ‘natural law’

You take your notions from a wolf pack?

Your simplification does you no credit.
I explained that there is a structural parallel.
I explained that it runs very deep, and the species of Wolf and Man have co-operated for as long as the two species have shared the planet.

Good science does not contradict the faith. It seems the problem is you start from a position that denies Truth. If you start there then all else is wrong.

You see faith as truth.
That is your prerogative.
That is however putting faith before science.
As you say:
Good science does not contradict the faith.
I say:
Faith which denies science is bad faith.
I do not deny the truth.
I accept that I do not know the truth, so I seek the truth.
Science seeks the truth, so I follow science.
Remember, the writers of Genesis thought they were writing science. They tried to understand the universe on the basis of their understanding.
That is science.
They tried to understand the motives of the designer from the design.
That is logic.
Science, from the Latin ‘scio’ : I know.
Thus science is knowledge.
Faith is belief.
You have belief when you lack knowledge.

 

[jcrichton]

Lord forgive me if I am presenting these ideas as my own.
They are not.
This is just the way Science tells is that things are not what they seem.
About 5 posts ago, a friend wrote ‘1 + 1 = 2’
Now that is fine in one dimensional geometry, but it falls over when we find the universe has more dimensions than one, and when applied to speeds, we get 1 x c + 1 x c = 1 x c.
Yes, I agree that 1 x 30mph + 1 x 30mph on the same road, and on the same carriageway, = 2 x 30mph.
Once you leave your comfortable environment, your natural logic fails, and a new science is needed to explain.
What is the square root of -1.
We all know that X x X = X^2, and this is always positive, no matter whether X is positive or negative.
But in math, these odd things exist, and are meaningful.
Math is more than simple arithmetic.
Gender is more than just male and female.
Yes normally, that is, in your simple universe, gender is defined by XX or XY chromosomes.
However, XX, and XY are not the only possible combinations, and worse, gender is not absolutely defined by XX and XY, but the propensity of gender is so defined. This propensity can be disturbed by many influences, for it is quite fragile.
Generally, gender, at least in animals is accepted as neuter, if the procreative equipment is not functional, and has no potential to become functional. Hence castrated animals are happily catagorised as neuter, though they are commonly referred to by their pre-castration gender.
Yes, black and white is very firmly impressed in our consciousness, but that does not make it absolutely correct.
Einstein, and Lorenz and Fitzgerald had this problem when relativity crawled out of the woodwork.

…so boys will no longer be boys and girls will no longer be girls? Would calling a woman “sir” enhance her status?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[comfort1st]

…it seems that you are suggesting that the Holy Spirit had it wrong… that somehow He did not reveal the Truth but a reproduction of it, which was flawed from its design and that modern theologians and scholars now have the task if defining what the Word of God truly mean to disclose.

Not true in the slightest. What I’m asking people to do is recognise that when the scriptures were written people didn’t have the scientifice knowledge and understanding that we do now. Try explaining how an aircraft flies without resorting to a knowledge of aerodynamics and engines and you only go back a century. Then think back 2000 years and put your ideas into a Deuteronomic context of blessings for doing right and curse for doing wrong and you might begin, only begin, to imagine why the explanation of homosexuality for Biblical people doesn’t adequately respresent what we now know. Much the same principle as led Biblical people to believe the earth was flat and the centre of the universe - something we’ve long accepted as not being true.

 

[comfort1st]

And what does an Anglican define as “context”? What is the framework within which understanding of divine revelation must take place?SK

This Anglican, along with his Jesuit and Uniting Church colleagues from theological college, defines “context” as including the situation in which the passage was set, and the understanding (including limits on that) of the hearers. We can only understand as far as our human knowledge base will allow.

Steven

 

[comfort1st]

Really, “Christian” is the name of the person, “Catholic” is the name of the Church. All Christians are Christians. The pope has never suggested otherwise. He has simply been honest and precise in noting that there are certain things that qualify one for being in communion with the Church and Anglicans do not have all those things. Anglicans are Christians but they are not in full communion with the (Jesus founded only one) Church.

Jesus began what was called the Jesus Movement within the Jewish faith. The scriptural reference to Peter being “the rock on which I will build my church” is a clear theological construction which was written after the Christians were separated from the Jews, not in Christ’s lifetime. Please don’t expect the Gospels to be historical documents the way we would write them today.

This is so silly. Define “ecumenism”. If by “ecumenism” one envisions all Christian denominations affirming each others difference as valid, then it isn’t ecumenism we’re talking about.(And we have some serious logical deficiencies that we’re working with as well.) Ecumenism is Christians gathering together to dialogue honestly about our differences and to see, in the context of this honest dialogue, what we can’t do about mending those differences.

Ecumenism also means worshipping together as fellow Christians. It’s very difficult to do something about mending differences when one party says “we’re the TRUE church.”

BTW As a follower of Christ I’m happy to be called a heretic. After all, a heretic is one who promotes a teaching which is different from that promoted by the established faith leaders and that’s precisely what Jesus did for the Jewish people.

 

[fix]

Dear Fix,
I explained clearly that science does not do this, but science assumes that what is, is what is intended, if the system is as designed.
Religion tells us that G_d is perfect, therefore logic tells us that G_d’s creation is as designed.
Therefore science can deduce from the design, the designer’s intent, indeed, that is the reasoning behind ‘natural law’
Your simplification does you no credit.
I explained that there is a structural parallel.
I explained that it runs very deep, and the species of Wolf and Man have co-operated for as long as the two species have shared the planet.
You see faith as truth.
That is your prerogative.
That is however putting faith before science.
As you say:
Good science does not contradict the faith.
I say:
Faith which denies science is bad faith.
I do not deny the truth.
I accept that I do not know the truth, so I seek the truth.
Science seeks the truth, so I follow science.
Remember, the writers of Genesis thought they were writing science. They tried to understand the universe on the basis of their understanding.
That is science.
They tried to understand the motives of the designer from the design.
That is logic.
Science, from the Latin ‘scio’ : I know.
Thus science is knowledge.
Faith is belief.
You have belief when you lack knowledge.

Well, it seems you acknowledge you do not know the truth. Right? If seeking the truth means we cannot not know right from wrong then do you mean science will tells us what is right?

 

[SilentKnight]

That is faith without science.
The earliest varieties were asexual, or bi-sexual, however you choose to interpret.
Female came first, and male is a derivative of female.
The ‘Y’ chromosome is actually a broken ‘X’ chromosome, which is why the ‘YY’ variant, which does occur, never matures, but dies in early development. There is something on the ‘X’ chromosome which is vital. you MUST at least hold one copy.

Voco,

You have accused fix of exercising faith without science. But you are clearly doing just the opposite: Exercising science without faith.

Faith, let’s be clear, is not a deistic collection of intellectual guesses about the ultimate designs of the universe that we must come to strictly by way of the study of the physically observable. Faith is an adherence to That Which Is (beyond the physically observable). That which, you should certainly appreciate, exists in a “dimension” different from the ones which we are naturally able to perceive, but a dimension which is still terribly real nonetheless. (In fact some would say “more” real than the ones that we know.)

Let’s say for the sake of argument that what you’ve written above is flawlessly worded and painfully accurate, scientifically speaking. Doesn’t really mean anything in the grand scheme of things as far as what should be because what should be and what we perceive “should be” are sometimes two very, very different things.

I.E. The slave trade of old. It was “obvious” to many for so long that blacks were less than human - I mean, just look at them - they’re even a different color than the rest of us! - etc., etc…Obviously most of us now know better. Note that we do not know better now because of any sort of improved scientific understanding of this culture. We know better simply by way of a repented of way of thinking - an “awakening of conscience”, one might say, that has nothing at all to do with science.

And so it is that that which science observes is very real and it is important. It is subordinate, however, to that which is more real", that which is beyond our immediately perceivable senses, an understanding of which can only come from Him who has designed all of this in the first place.

The tales in Genesis are not, and never were intended as matters of history or science, they were, and are an attempt to make sense of the universe in the light of existing science.

I agree. However, we in the Church also know that God guided the pen of those who wrote them, such that while they do not “teach science (or history)” in the strict sense of the phrase, they do in a broader (and, really, more important) sense. These “tales” are not simply “random musings”, but** divinely inspired** “thelogical blueprints” to the universe, if you will.

As a result, some approximations have been made, which are on the whole, reliable, however, as our understanding improves, so our approximations should be refined.

And here is where a clear distinction is in order. If one wants to take these “approximations” and make science out of them, then - certainly - there are bound to be some scientific mistakes made that will eventually need to be remedied. But science and theology, again, are separate fields. Theological truths are absolutely knowable beyond the need for any science to confirm them and do not - typically - stem from observable scientific facts.

Sometimes an approximation will be found to be false if applied to the whole universe, whereas it is quite satisfactory where applied to a small part thereof.
Flat earth works fine when you are building a house, but when you are building the Forth road bridge, you find that there is an error in vertical, at the top of the towers, resulting in a separation of four inches greater at the top, than at the bottom.

I like this image.

You cannot know what G_d ordained.

We can if He shares what He has ordained with us. And this is the whole premise of the theology and the term “divine revelation”. Some of the ultimate truths of the universe are ascertainable by way of simple physical observation, but not all. Nowhere near all. And that is where theology, as an independent field of study, comes in.

You see only an approximation to the creation, limited by your science, and you then have the audacity to apply reverse engineering to that creation to postulate the purpose.
Your reverse engineering is again limited by your science.
So your ideas of what G_d’s purpose and ordination were/are is only a very poor approximation.

On the contrary, while fix’s and others’ approach to theology may be a little on the simplistic side, it is only **you ** whose “approximations” (theology?) are limited by your scientific observations precisely because you choose to rely only on science and your own sense of reason to deduce meaning from the universe. The rest of us (to be overly simple myself for a moment) already understand completely what the universe is “all about” because we have obtained the information from its Creator.

There is an old adage about a group of scientists striving day and night to reach the top of a large mountain (symbolizing all the “secrets” of the universe); the finally reach the summit one day, only to be greeted by a group of theologians eating their lunch and having a picnic at the top. Of course, they had been at the summit for quite a long time before the scientists ever got there.

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

Dear Fix,
I explained clearly that science does not do this, but science assumes that what is, is what is intended, if the system is as designed.

And how does science know when it is seeing a “correctly” designed system and when it is not?

Religion tells us that G_d is perfect, therefore logic tells us that G_d’s creation is as designed.

Now you’re being simplistic. Are wars a part of God’s design? (That is, do they happen because they are “supposed to”, because designed them to?) Famines? Diseases? Rape? Robbery?

God designed his creation perfectly but man has since messed it up and now cannot see things clearly without the aid of grace because of all the spiritual ash in the air from all the destruction.

Therefore science can deduce from the design, the designer’s intent, indeed, that is the reasoning behind ‘natural law’

Definitely…But not infallibly. To attempt to use science by itself to construct theology is something like using a play kitchen set to fix a wonderful meal. By doing so…one can gain a semblance of what an actual wonderful meal might look and taste like, but it’s simply a long throw from the real thing.

You see faith as truth.
That is your prerogative.
That is however putting faith before science.

Considering the fact that divine revelation is God revealing truth to us, rather than us attempting to glean truth about only the physical universe on our own…I’m not sure I see what the problem with putting faith “before” science would be. The two, as you note below, should not contradict each other anyway.

As you say:
Good science does not contradict the faith.
I say:
Faith which denies science is bad faith.

And I say, of course, that you’re both right, that real faith and real science are complementary fields.

I do not deny the truth.
I accept that I do not know the truth, so I seek the truth.
Science seeks the truth, so I follow science.

And this is where you limit yourself to learning about the house simply by looking at it after it was built. Why not go also to those that built it and ask about the history and the intended design of this alcove or that niche, etc.?

Remember, the writers of Genesis thought they were writing science.

No, they didn’t. You’re confusing the writers of Genesis with Christian fundamentalists.

They tried to understand the universe on the basis of their understanding.

This is true.

That is science.

That depends on what it is we addressing specifically. When you say “understand the universe”, if you mean “understand how it functions physically”, we’re dealing with science. If you mean “understand the ultimate reason why this, that or the other thing exists” or “how men and women should conduct their lives”, we’re dealing with theology.

Science, from the Latin ‘scio’ : I know.
Thus science is knowledge.
Faith is belief.
You have belief when you lack knowledge.

I had a feeling that this was where you were coming from but did not know for sure until just now. (I had not read this part of your post prior to writing what I did at the beginning of my last post. )

Voco, I’m afraid you’ve unwittingly fallen into the exact same trap you’re admonishing others for.

Yes, the word “science” means “knowledge”. That is why we refer to theology as a science. It is knowledge of God, apart from physically observable phenomenon. You are making the mistake of introducing the word “science” and then arbitrarily restricting it to a man wearing a white coat doing tests in a laboratory. That is one “vein” of science, but only one veing among a plenthora more.

If God reveals something to your spirit directly, what does that have to do with science? Nothing really. And is the knowledge of whatever He reveals fully accurate? Obviously! God obviously cannot lie.

For more, see the first paragraph of my last post.

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

This Anglican, along with his Jesuit and Uniting Church colleagues from theological college, defines “context” as including the situation in which the passage was set, and the understanding (including limits on that) of the hearers. We can only understand as far as our human knowledge base will allow.

Steven

Yes and no. In the strict sense of the sentence, yes, we can only grasp that which we are able to grasp. Obviously we “cannot know things that we cannot know”. In the broader sense, though, we can obviously know things we did not know before * if someone reveals those things to us*. Right?

Sorry, but in the interest of keeping this thread on track and of making sure that I have enough time to get some school work done that I am already behind on, I need to stop here for now.

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

Jesus began what was called the Jesus Movement within the Jewish faith.



I think you’re confusing the label given to the early Christian movement with the intensely peculiar organization of Marcus Borg. (Or is it the “Jesus Seminar”? Anyway…)

Technically, the early Christians were called “the Way”, as noted in Acts, I believe. but, what’s in a name…

The scriptural reference to Peter being “the rock on which I will build my church” is a clear theological construction which was written after the Christians were separated from the Jews, not in Christ’s lifetime.

 

[SilentKnight]

Ok, homework time…

SK

 

[fix]

On the contrary, while fix’s and others’ approach to theology may be a little on the simplistic side, it is only **you ** whose “approximations” (theology?) are limited by your scientific observations precisely because you choose to rely only on science and your own sense of reason to deduce meaning from the universe. The rest of us (to be overly simple myself for a moment) already understand completely what the universe is “all about” because we have obtained the information from its Creator.

The problem I have with his position is that he seems to say there is a God, but we canot know what His will is regarding man and women. We have to rely on science to determine what gender is, whether homosexual inclination is “natural” and so on.

The problem is he starts from a premise that says truth is out there some place and we can only find it through materialistic means. No one denies the importance of science, what I deny is that science provides moral truth.

No amount of scientific investigation can show God intended there to be three sexes, or four, or more. No investigation will prove homosexual inclination, or inclination to steal, or anger, or lust is part of God’s ordaining will.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

And how does science know when it is seeing a “correctly” designed system and when it is not?

Dear SK,
I will try to be humble.
Science does not know when it is seeing a correctly designed system, or even if it is coirrectly seeing a system at all.
It is religion which says that the system is correctly designed, as it is the product of G_d who is perfect, hence the products of G_d are perfect, in as much as they are as designed.

Now you’re being simplistic. Are wars a part of God’s design? (That is, do they happen because they are “supposed to”, because designed them to?) Famines? Diseases? Rape? Robbery?

Not to put too fine a point, , yes.
Remember the bit on evolution?
Evolution requires evolutionary pressure.
That is, nasty things are required to be overcome, in order to improve the ability to overcome nasty things.
If there were no wars, famines, diseases, or crime, we would still be happy bonobos fornicating in the forest.

God designed his creation perfectly but man has since messed it up and now cannot see things clearly without the aid of grace because of all the spiritual ash in the air from all the destruction.

But Man is part of G_d’s creation, so the messing up by Man is part of the design.

[sign]Therefore science can deduce from the design, the designer’s intent, indeed, that is the reasoning behind ‘natural law’[/sign]
Definitely…But not infallibly. To attempt to use science by itself to construct theology is something like using a play kitchen set to fix a wonderful meal. By doing so…one can gain a semblance of what an actual wonderful meal might look and taste like, but it’s simply a long throw from the real thing.

So mother Church’s take on Natural Law is fallible?
No, that is not fair.
I was only positing that the logic used by Mother Church could be applied to modern scientific knowledge, to get a better idea at the purpose of G_d’s design.

Considering the fact that divine revelation is God revealing truth to us, rather than us attempting to glean truth about only the physical universe on our own…I’m not sure I see what the problem with putting faith “before” science would be. The two, as you note below, should not contradict each other anyway.

So what is divine revelation, but the perception of Man, all be it inspired, recorded by Man, and interpreted by Man.
“Through a glass darkly” hardly describes it.
It is an article of faith, and has no place in science.
Science chooses to look for knowledge directly, by analysing the creation, to find behind it, the mind of the creator.
Science does not deny the creator, except in its most ignorant form.
The start position of assuming that there is no god, is part of the logic of ‘reducto ad absurdum’.
Just like Special Relativity found the luminiferous ether un-necessary, yet General Relativity seems to requie something very like the luminiferous ether.
The deeper science digs, the closer it seems to come to theology.
Ask a physicist about what was the state of the universe before the big bang, and…

[sign]As you say:
Good science does not contradict the faith.
I say:
Faith which denies science is bad faith.[/sign]
And I say, of course, that you’re both right, that real faith and real science are complementary fields.

I am inclined to compare faith and science with the concepts of postulate and proof.
A postulate may be valid, even if there is no proof.
Mathematics still has some unproven postulates.

And this is where you limit yourself to learning about the house simply by looking at it after it was built. Why not go also to those that built it and ask about the history and the intended design of this alcove or that niche, etc.?

If that were possible, there would be no place for faith, for it would be universally replaced by knowledge, or science.

[sign]Remember, the writers of Genesis thought they were writing science.[/sign]
No, they didn’t. You’re confusing the writers of Genesis with Christian fundamentalists.

No, I was saying that the writers of Genesis were trying to make sense of creation based on their limited understanding of physics.

[sign]They tried to understand the universe on the basis of their understanding.[/sign]
This is true.

I just repeated myself.

That depends on what it is we addressing specifically. When you say “understand the universe”, if you mean “understand how it functions physically”, we’re dealing with science. If you mean “understand the ultimate reason why this, that or the other thing exists” or “how men and women should conduct their lives”, we’re dealing with theology.

I meant both.
To the mind of those men, the two ideas were not different.

[sign]Science, from the Latin ‘scio’ : I know.
Thus science is knowledge.
Faith is belief.
You have belief when you lack knowledge.[/sign]
I had a feeling that this was where you were coming from but did not know for sure until just now. (I had not read this part of your post prior to writing what I did at the beginning of my last post. )

Voco, I’m afraid you’ve unwittingly fallen into the exact same trap you’re admonishing others for.

This is a confusing subject, and many of the ideas that arrise can be take in more than one way.

Yes, the word “science” means “knowledge”. That is why we refer to theology as a science. It is knowledge of God, apart from physically observable phenomenon. You are making the mistake of introducing the word “science” and then arbitrarily restricting it to a man wearing a white coat doing tests in a laboratory. That is one “vein” of science, but only one veing among a plenthora more.

We differ here. In principle, G_d is unknowable, therefore there can be no science of G_d.
I accept that scientific methods can be used to investigate the concepts of G_d, but the use of scientific methods does not make a science.

If God reveals something to your spirit directly, what does that have to do with science? Nothing really. And is the knowledge of whatever He reveals fully accurate? Obviously! God obviously cannot lie.

For more, see the first paragraph of my last post.

SK

If the revelation is knowledge, then it is science.

 

[jcrichton]

Thanks. I don’t know if there is just not enough info. out on genetics of homosexuality, or alcoholism, but I HAVE read somewhere that both can be a result of genetics. I truly don’t know the answer, but trying to clear it up for myself.

…there is much out there… the problem I find is that it is slanted–most of the studies done (in my opinion) are not pure studies in science (research “x” and analize the findings) but studies to define a predetermined “cause-effect” (the outcome desired is “xyz” hence whaterever is found must mean that we have determined the “xyz” factor).

I am including a few links for you to check, hope this satisfies your query:

americanpregnancy.org/pregnancyhealth/illegaldrugs.html

marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1169.asp

choosehelp.com/alcoholism/is-alcoholism-hereditary

serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1925

Maran atha!

Angel