Why we can't agree

[Botz]

and it takes me aback to hear others say they did not

believe it or not...everyone on the planet isn't like you.

I don't really think AnthonyJM does believe it, but he probably thinks they should be !!!

[kross]

-whoever turns another from destruction covers a multitude of his own sins

too often I have seen those who seek to cover a multitude, not save the one they speak to

these have always failed and only make matters worse for all, and they too cite scripture as a reason for disobeying scripture

I have no more to say

I went back and looked at your posts, I did not see any scripture.

We are to contend with Satan. We are to do what we can to drag people out of the fire.

Where do you see scripture that teaches otherwise?

No matter, I believe we take great risk not to contend for the gospel with those who do not believe. Paul was beaten and whipped and imprisoned for contending with those who do not believe. That is our example.

What possible danger is there that would make it unwise to strive to save a soul? Surely looking out for self and not boldly contending with Satan is a selfishness that is not taught in scripture.

[nebula]

Sorry I didn't get to answer you sooner, NC, but I have been unable to spend time on the Board for a while . . . I'm getting swamped and sunk it seems....

But anyway. . . .

Great post Nebula although I think a case could be made for rearranging the "how", "what" and "why".

I'm not following you, please explain.

I'm trying to think of anything major where art/religion and art/science intersect and result in disagreement of the magnitude of say the creation/evolution argument. Can you think of anything or do you think that art perhaps is just more prone to harmony.

I think art and science collide when an artist comes up with a painting that looks like a bunch of squiggles lines, labels it "Untitled," and then get offended when people don't get his meaning.

Seriously, though, true art is the visual expression of emotion, and although it has it's element of words, in essence it is a wordless form of communication. One really can't put art under the scientific microscope so to speak.

I think of movies, books and plays portraying historical events where at times historical accuracy is sacrificed for the sake of artistic expression. A silly example is a song a woman I know wrote about forgiveness that came out of her experience of being hit by a car that ran the light. Now in reality the car came from the left, but "left" doesn't rhyme with "light," so she sang in her song of having been hit from the "right" (so that it would rhyme with "light"). Or perhaps in some movie an event occured on a sunny day, but the director chose a cloudy day to create more of a mood to provoke a certain emotion out of the audience.

So, in that way, art will conflict with science. For science is about facts.

So in this sense, going back to my evaluation/claim - if scientific accuracy, facts for facts sake and all of that, is your mode of apparatus, artistic expression is going to conflict with your values.

Does that make sense?

Where would you place philosophy? As a subcategory of art, religion or science or perhaps in the intersection of two of them?

Hmmm, good question.

It is interesting to note that although Aristotle is called the first scientist, he really wasn't a scientist by our standards. He was actually a philosopher. He just philosophied about the natural world, which apparently was a switch in thinking.

Hmmm, I have to ask, can philosophy exist without art, religion and/or science (i.e. to express it)?

[Guest yod]

Is there a solution?

well....the solution can be achieved in many ways....almost all of them bad. One view will always have to suppress the other view for "peace" as this world gives it.

There have been many times in Greco-Roman-European christian history where an attempt was made to "terminate" anyone who might disagree with church dogma through the use of creatively interpreting the scriptures to justify a dogmatic position or to proclaim another position "heretical" and therefore open to attack. Catholics and Protestants are equally guilty, btw. American christians helped subjugate Native Americans by their indifference to broken treaties and by forcing Greco-culture on them through missionaries. We probably shouldn't talk about it. Too many shameful testimonies.

But wait....it would be scientific to eradicate an entire race, right? Nazi Germany tried to accomplish termination of their enemies through science. They performed experiments on their captive "patients" with gassing and ovens. It was a scientific approach to genetic (alleged) superiority of the aryan race.

But lest we get smug, there are scientific terminations going on in the USA to the tune of over 50 million babies who didn't get a choice in the decision of their life.

If there is no god then the greatest man is the one who amasses the most power.

This was the foolish utopia of The Third Reich. Science.

But not much uglier than the Spanish Inquisition. Religion.

[Fraught]

$.02 more.

Religion is a list of do's and don'ts designed to get man closer to GOD. Christianity is a relationship with GOD through HIS work to reconcile us to HIM apart from any works we can do.

Thus, Christianity is as much a religion as your relationship with you mom and dad. Both relationships are based in who you are and who they/HE is. Both require respect for the law/rules giver and both are founded in an unconditional love. Neither of them is a religion.

Hi Kross,

Would you say that Islam is not a religion? How about Judaism? The list goes. I don't know why some people don't want to see Christianity as a religion; to me this makes no sense at all. The Oxford Dictionary of English give the following definition for religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.... You said that Christianity is a relationship with God. The Oxford Dictionary says religion is especially belief in a personal God. That is Christianity to a T. Unless you want to change the dictionary definition.

Hitchey

it is confusing! to most, it's a question of semantics. if religion is defined the way you stated, then yes, christianity is a religion. but how to tell between different religions. most people would look to the rules of the religion. so this is what we refer to when we say it's not a religion. there are no rules.

judaism & islam have certain rules attached to them and so people look to these rules to determine if they are obedient to the religion and thus in favor with God. break a rule and shame on you now God is not pleased with you.

but God came to this planet and took on the life of a man and saw how it was to be a human being coping with the stresses of life on earth. he saw first hand how easy it was to become trapped in our own greed and selfish desires at the expense of other people. he knew it would be impossible to become the kind of person we were meant to be by following a list of rules. even if a person could always follow the rules, never short-cutting around one just a little bit, that person would become full of pride, soon thinking themselves better than others and deserving of more; so continuing the cycle of selfishness, perpetuating injustice on the earth.

i'm really trying to keep this short, but it sure is tough. i'll get to the bottom line. this is christianity: God gave His life so that His spirit could come and live in each person, changing them from the inside so that they don't need rules in order to contribute to justice and love on the earth. they become the kind of person that instinctively lives as if all other people are just as important as they are. everyone on earth is as important as me!

following a religion wouldn't get me to that way of living. only God's spirit relating to me on the inside and telling me about Him can get me there. only me letting God know i need Him, that i am not able to lift myself to that level on my own can get me there.

when it gets us all there, and we stop expending all our energy on getting things and defending them once we get them (whether it's material goods, peace of mind, money or power, it doesn't last anyway - we can't take it with us after all LOL) try to imagine what we could do with that energy! but that's the thing about God. He knows our imaginations are limited by our physical reality. His isn't.

in His mercy, He has given us a messiah to look to, to show us how a human being is supposed to be, with the breath of God inside, transcending the everyday degradations of worldly life, helping us understand that this is not all there is, that when your mind sometimes tells you things are not as they should be, there must be more to life, your mind is speaking the truth and mercifully, God has not just turned His back on us as He well could have but has shown us the Way.

[Botz]

Nebula

If science is your standard of standards by which all other things must be measured, than any expression of art or religion that contradicts what is considered established in science, is discarded as myth or what have you.

Hitchey

Nothing replaces established scientific dogma unless it fits the data better. The dogma in the early 20th century was that our galaxy was the universe. This view was replaced with the knowledge that the universe contains billions of galaxies. Similarily continental drift had a difficult time when it first was promoted, but now it is the new dogma. True dogma of course never changes, and never allows for new insight. So, for example, many Christians would never consider that Jesus may not have been born of a virgin. Scientific dogmas are dogmas in name only. Repeatedly in science old applecarts are discarded as new vehicles of understanding come along. Science doesn't really have a dogma. No theory is so sacrosanct that it can't be adapted or discarded.

I would say the theory of evolution may have evolved somewhat from what its creator(s) first suggested, but by and large it is sacrosanct. Newton's law of gravity seems pretty solid too, and the second law of thermodynamics has become part of established understanding.

I have a problem with the concept of evolution, but I have no problem with Newton's law of gravity, or the thermodynamics.

For someone who believes in G-d (talking from a purely Judeo-Christian aspect) they accept the vast majority of Scientific discovery and information available...conflict only occurs when the fluctuating standards of some scientific discoveries fly in the face of what has always been known as biblical truth...most often by those in Science that are diametrically opposed to the Biblical evidence.

I would no more reject the law of gravity, than I would reject the virgin birth.

By and large I have always seen Science as only the dicovery by man of what G-d has already accomplished or set in motion, therefore to leave Him and what He has revealed out of the equation seems scientifically unreasonable.

[nebula]

There is a different way to look at it. Art, of the type you've described, conflicts with history, not science. History is about facts, but it is not science. Science, I don't think conflicts with art. There is science fiction, but it doesn't conflict with science as it is understood as fantasy.

I understand what you are saying. But my perspective is that history is seen through the lens of scientific thought. I hope you understand what I mean by this?

As for science fiction not conflicting with science, though? When was the last time you saw a sci-fi movie that was not filled with scientific inaccuracies? I used to interact on an astronomy message board, and we spent a good deal of time ragging on the scientific inaccuracies in movies. As of the time of my last interaction, our most "gag" movie was Armageddon for all it portrayed wrong (that is, it was such a scientific travesty, none of us could enjoy it as a movie).

[nebula]

An excellent post Nebula.

Thank-you!

So what insight does this give me on why we can't agree? Simply put, where the intersection between these disagree, we have to either reject one or redefine out understanding of both or either.

Yes, redefining understanding is a solution. The problem is neither side wants to redefine its postion. There is a middle ground represented by individuals such as Francis Collins, who accept evolution as fact but who see it as the instrument of God.

OK, since you started by saying that neither side wanting to redefine its position is a problem, and since you gave a proposition for religion doing the redefining -

Would you likewise please provide a proposition for science doing some re-defining?

To the one who already rejects religion (granted, this provokes the side-track question of what this person uses to satisfy the need for source, purpose, and meaning?), the answer is simple - reject religion.

No, I don't think the non religious see themselves as deliberately rejecting religion in order to satisfy some need, they simply don't see religion as filling the need. They see religion as having been replaced by something that answers more questions in greater depth.

I am curious as to what a non-religious person sees as answering questions like, "What value is my life?" or any other question relating to satisfying the need for source, purpose, and meaning.

If science is your standard of standards by which all other things must be measured, than any expression of art or religion that contradicts what is considered established in science, is discarded as myth or what have you.

Nothing replaces established scientific dogma unless it fits the data better. . . .

But do you agree or disagree with what I have stated? Or have a better way to explain it?

Now, I don't know what the atheist and the agnostic look to for meaning, but obviously the belief in a "supreme being" challenges what is core to them.

I think it is my family that gives me meaning. For many others it might be family as well or even their life's work.

Why? And what makes this so?

I don't see that other's belief in a supreme being challenges my views in any way. I just see others as mistaken; those beliefs don't give me any reason for pause, anymore than Islamic beliefs give Christians reason to question their understanding.

I beg to differ. When a person of religion argues against you in regards to Evolution, at the core of the argument is their belief in a Creator. (Now by challenge, I don't mean it causes you to question, but that believing in a Creator goes against your grain, so you discard it.)

But take me for example. Being in the sciences and having come to understand what the theory of evolution actually states rather than how it is inaccurately portrayed as stating, I can see a lot to the evolution argument, and have come to accept many aspects of it. However, I have a line I refuse to cross - the line that takes the Creator out of the equation. Time and time again, I would relay my acceptance of evolutionary theory, but up to a certain point. However, instead of being satisfied with my progress, atheists and agnostics always want me to go all the way. "Why can't you just take the next step from there?" and the like.

I have concluded that they aren't satisfied I can believe in an old Earth and universe, that speciation occurs (one type of meadow lark evolved into the Eastern and Western meadowlarks for example), and such. No, a partial redefining is not enough. I have to redefine myself all the way to the end in order for their satisfaction.

So, no, one cannot believe in a system that looks at nature as coming from nature when one believes that nature comes from a Source outside of nature.

My God is my all in all. Can you be OK with that and not try to take that away from me (convince me otherwise, or what have you)?

[nebula]

**Too many quotes for one post - had to make a new post for this last one**

This, I believe, is why we disagree.

Agreed, for the most part -- now where do we go from here? Is there a solution?

It all depends on what solution one is after. Do you want the other side to conform to your side? Or can you accept and respect their side and be OK with agreeing to disagree? Or something else?

[kross]

I quoted from James 5:20 - if you didn't see that I guess you wouldn't see any of the others either

you are NOT to contend with Satan, you are to tell him to get behind you - the LORD will rebuke Satan, not us, vengeance is HIS not ours

going out to fight Satan is Pride

what possible danger? false conversions that do not last - people who call themselves Christian but are not born again, who fall away and are in a graver situation than they were before

the Born Again DO NOT call other brethren selfish, cowardly, faithless, and question their motives

I will gladly leave this forum but you keep calling me back - why won't you let me depart in peace?

I want to understand what you are saying and why. If you feel some desire to leave, I am not intending to stop you.

I agree with your statement of what Christian bretheren idealy should be. But there are some on these forums who do not exemplify that character.

Still, I have to disagree with your statement above. Lost people who are going to spend eternity in hell can not be made to be in a "graver situation then they were before". It don't get any graver than eternal damnation.

We are told to resist the devil. Does that mean only to resist him for our purposes? We are told that the gates of hell will not prevail. Do you believe gates attack people or do people attack gates. In the power of the gospel we are to take the fight to Satan. Not sit back and let him run free amoungst those who need JESUS.