Hopefully all that answered your question, Cata, and gives you all something to chew on.

Ooft, bloody US constitution post here. Also it appears another one doesnt understand that this is what is commonly referred to as a "troll thread"


Also thelegend, just for you information, you cant exactly use that as evidence (flood thing), despite what you believe (and im not saying anything you are saying is necessarily wrong and i am christian too). The reason is like this

Say i have a maths equations

x + y = 11

If you go into the maths equation with the idea that x must = 7 because it fits in with your worldview, then you will logically conclude y = 4, however, there are infinite possibilities for the variables, making any argument using this kind of logic kinda invalid in terms of making your point.

Edited 4/26/2018 13:40:58

>christianity can explain a lot of things in science
>opens bible
>talking snake in first chapter

kk

I am confused by legend. He makes it sound like Catholics are the progressive branch of christianity. In reality, THEY are the ones who still discriminate against females and gay males. Not protestants.

Edited 4/26/2018 16:33:06

@thelegend

also, is it possible to be catholic and scientologist? or would i be excommunicated right away?

i'm attracted to the traditional nature and sense of community that catholicism offers, but i've been reading this scientology handbook i received free from the scientology website, and it makes a pretty good pitch.

Edited 4/26/2018 19:24:31

Well, I will answer questions one by one.
First, my friend Thessalos. I don't remember saying that I was using the flood as evidence for Christianity, but I do remember saying that I was using it as evidence to support my claim that looking at the world through different worldviews gives different answers. Your maths equation, for example. I would argue that atheistic evolutionists are doing the exact same thing as I did, and I thought I made that clear. If evolutionists assume that the world came about by assuming that the forces of nature they see today were more or less exactly the same for all time, then of course they will assume that the world took long ages to form.
Creationists, however, assume that the world processes were not always the same (like a catastrophic global flood). This worldview will explain the world today, without the need for eons of time.
So basically, I wasn't giving evidence for Christianity, I was simply explaining how different worldviews explain things differently.

Second, OxtheAutist. Again, if you look at things through a Christian perspective, a talking snake isn't really that weird, when you consider the snake was actually an evil spirit. And there's another time in the Bible when an animal talks, but this time, it was God making the donkey talk. And again, when you compare it to other miracles in the Bible, it really isn't that absurd. However, if you want me to explain some other things in science as a Christian creationist, then hit me up.
Kretoma, next time, please say something intelligent. Personally I agree with you about the Catholics being a little bit backwards in some aspects, however your comment was extremely cheeky, if I understand correctly, by saying that evolution is "progressive". I will debate tht with you, if you wish.

Finally, buffalo. I don't really know all that much about scientology, so I'll have to do some research. However, I would definitely say that science and Christianity are definitely compatible. If you're serious about finding stuff out, I highly recommend Lee Strobel's Case for Christ, Case for a Creator and Case for Faith books. They will show you the evidence for Christianity and creationism, but leave you in the end to make the verdict yourself.

@thelegend - you mentioned self-contradictions of Buddhism, but did not give specifics: I invite you to do so, and although I am no expert I am reasonably well versed in this subject so might be able to think it out. From the standpoint of science, Christianity does not have a good track record: the imprisonment of Galileo for example (At a time when a decent portion of the non-western world was comfortable not only with the idea of a sphere earth (In Sanskrit for example, the "Earth" is often referred to as "Earth-ball") as well as the symmetry of the solar system with the sun at it's center).

I would like to point out that Christianity has quite a few self-contradictions of it's own, as I perceive them to be at least. Let me point one point which I consider to be self-contradiction within Christianity: "God" is supposed to be merciful, kind, and fair. Also, there is no concept of rebirth. So, how is it fair that one child is born with disabilities and another is born healthy? Does it mean "God" is unjust/unfair or unkind?..

**

Let me make it clear what defines a "consistent philosophy", and to define what philosophy is - i feel that most people dont understand this very simple thing:: Consider a collection of points - each point represents a statement, which can either be true or false or independent of our logical system. Furthermore, these points form an inference diagram - the truth of some points implies the truth of other points. Science assigns some of these points as "true" or "false" or "independent" in a self-consistent manner. Definition: Philosophy is an assignment for a sub-collection of these points as "true", "false" or "independent". A *consistent philosophy* is a philosophy such that (1) that the natural restriction map to science agrees with the assignment made my science (2) the assignment is consistent with the implications of the inference diagram.

Remark: As long as one follows a consistent philosophy, tautologically nobody can tell you your philosophy is wrong.

**

EDIT (other remarks): Under my definition of philosophy, atheism is the minimal consistent philosophy. The restriction map here is simply the identity map and therefore the philosophy is tautologically consistent (so it is an acceptable world-view). However, atheists must recognize that while their philosophy is consistent, it does not exclude the possibility for a more complete philosophy (with richer structure) whose image under the restriction map is precisely their philosophy. Such a philosophy would also be an acceptable world view. In fact, any revolutionary shift in scientific thinking has been because someone conjectured a consistent "richer philosophy" which restricted to the minimal philosophy.

90

Edited 4/26/2018 22:42:44

I am confused by legend. He makes it sound like Catholics are the progressive branch of christianity. In reality, THEY are the ones who still discriminate against females and gay males. Not protestants.

Protestants, too.

also I believe Catholicism as a whole was generally more tolerant to syncreticism.

Personally, I think you'll find that the Dune canon (Frank Herbert only) has no such contradictions. It also gives your life greater meaning to strive towards bringing about the Kwisatz Haderach. The Buddha ain't coming back. Jesus's second coming is whenever he feels like it. But the Kwisatz Haderach, the Shortening of the Way, he will come about through our work to create a sophisticated breeding program and achieve widespread space colonization with lots of psychoactive drugs along the way. Isn't that what meaning actually is, in the grand scheme of things?

I subscribe to it, and it's worked out very well for me. It's also open to gays as long as they're willing to renounce any technology more advanced than a calculator (I'm not using a computer to type this, the Spice just gives me superpowers).

Also there's some pretty considerable tax benefits involved.

Edited 4/26/2018 23:33:33

@90 you are misrepresenting what God does. God doesnt give the child a disability, which is the result of a fallen world according to christianity, and according to christianity, all people ave a disability of some kind

@Thessalos - ah but surely some disabilities are worse than others.. On what basis are disabilities assigned to people? Christianity does not accept rebirth, so there is no past history by which the disabilities can be rewarded. If you say that they are assigned by a randomized process, well i would accept that, but if this is created by "God", then you accept "God" as someone who is not compassionate/fair (for the randomized system is presumably created by "God").

90

Edited 4/27/2018 01:23:58

I am still confused by the sentence "A ton of things can be explained simply by using proper science and looking at it through a Christian worldview."
This is so wrong, because alot of science is simply not compatible with religion.

The point of science is that you must look at it from an objective worldview, which is no worldview at all. Not Christian, not muslim, not Hindu, hell not even atheist (there is still the possibility that god(s) exist, but we cant explain them with science yet).

Edited 4/27/2018 01:48:45

Well @Cata, if you are suggesting we view science in a manner devoid of philosophy, then i strongly disagree with you. On the contrary, it is often philosophical motivation which brings new thoughts to science. See above my definition of philosophy and definition of science. As I explained earlier, we have a restriction map Res: {consistent philosophies} -> {subnetworks within science}, and a major scientific breakthrough often involves "guessing a new lift" which restricts appropriately.

That said, i agree that the "Christian worldview" has not really been very compatible with science in the past.

However, philosophy and science are fundamentally linked (via the restriction map), and this connection which is often overlooked should not be ignored..

90

Edited 4/27/2018 02:02:21

@90

You are assuming that God assigns things and that it is not just a corruption. And are certain disabilities worse than others from a christian point of view?

What you have to understand, is that through a christian viewpoint, a physical disability doesnt even matter that much, it is a "disability" or sinful nature of the soul which is what you have to look at, which is what is hindering you from eternity, not your (in the long term) very very short period of time with a physical disability). Having material attachment is the disability which is the real problem in terms of Christianity. In some ways, being disabled could theoretically be helpful in terms of spiritual development (which is the case in terms of my deaf friend).

Also, Satan in Christian theology has been known to create disabilities in people and generally make people miserable to try and keep them from salvation.

@Thessalos

Well, let us start our thought experiment small. I will ask questions and you answer them. I will write "Question n" for the nth question and you respond with "Answer n".

Question 1: Suppose a child is about to be born but the mother is hacked to death. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the child? That is, from the christian point of view, does this child go to heaven or not? The child has not done anything bad, but has not done anything good either..

90

First of all, Wulfhere, you wrote lots of fancy words, but gave no evidence whatsoever for your claim. If you want us to take you seriously, give some supporting arguments and evidence. And a question for you: What do you think of Jesus?

It is the truth that for every being there exists a corresponding nonbeing and something beyond the being and nonbeing itself. A theistic God is a being. So it is the truth that there is something beyond God if he does exist. Christianity preaches that there is nothing beyond God. So Christianity does not preach the truth.

You don't have to use evidence to show something is invalid. If something is logically invalid it is invalid. You don't need to recite some textbook line to back it up. To say that I "gave no evidence whatsoever for my claim" is dishonest and not a refutation of the claim. You can dismiss a claim made without evidence without evidence but you have not dismissed my claim you are simply accusing me of something that isn't relevant.

Christianity could be USEFUL as long as it acts as a bulwark against decadence. It would have to be practiced by an aristocracy that is organic i.e. coming from its culture and ruling over it. Basically the plebs are too stupid to follow ethical systems that would promote the health of their souls and the soul of their culture. They would rather be utilitarians and materialists in the absence of a strong religious tradition. So Christianity, which is historically an organically Western faith, is a good religion for the masses to follow because it elevates them. Regardless of whether or not it is a true religion.

What I think of Jesus: no Roman historians during Jesus' life give him any consideration. Only people writing DECADES after his life talked about him. He was in all likelihood not a miracle worker but simply a theologian.

but I don't blame you for needing further clarification I'm happy to provide it.

Explanation in 1 hour @90

Edited 4/27/2018 02:40:37

Explanation in 1 hour @90

Edited 4/27/2018 02:40:47

Is it syncretism if I don't blend Scientology and Catholicism, but practice them fully independently of one another. The only contradiction I know between the two is original sin vs "everyone is born basically good". that doesnt seem so big to me.