Evidence for God from Science

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

By the way, use of the word logos goes at least as far back as Heraclitus. So when you talk about "the word" in the Bible, it is a very literal english translation for a conceptual object that seems as though it carries a lot of additional meaning and tradition in ancient greek.

The idea of an objective reality that can be gradually understood, modeled, etc seems commendable to me. Things that don't seem commendable to me are the playing up of the elements of it's encapsulating mythos. The best things about Christianity seem to be the things that ordinary people are least likely to appreciate. If Christianity is about cutesy refrigerator magnets with feel-good poems about getting carried on the beach during rough times by Michael Landon or Jesus Christ or something then I don't think it carries much merit.

One major criticism I have right now is regarding the "old law vs new law" loophole that seems to be frequently exploited by all the slacker bourgeois (I use the word bourgeois with an air of irony, lest ye grow concerned for my poor little misguided marxist collegiate soul) Christians. It seems to me that whenever some truly bizarre element of the old testament is pointed out as being incoherent, nonsensical, or morally suspect, it can be written off as "old law" that is no longer applicable. Yet frequently, during the debate over some hot button issue, some bizarre and obscure old testament law may be invoked as the ultimate authority on the matter.

Who gets to decide which OT laws are "old law", and which OT laws are still applicable? You'll probably chuckle and say "God, of course". But where is the decision really coming from? Is it because some middle aged white dude from the midwest was "divinely-inspired"? Someone has to decide this, and if I don't know how they came to the conclusion and it wasn't achieved in an environment involving some kind of serious rigor than it is probably complete BS.

The problem is that getting as close as possible to objective reality involves really boring stuff that most people are too lazy to deal with (I should know, I am one of the laziest people out there). Stuff like math, formal logic & analytic philosophy, physics, science. This is the continuation of the logos, the continuation of the account of objective reality. Yes, the more exciting and cutting edge something is, the more boring it will appear to those on the outside. This is the strangeness of reality.

sweetadeline112358 wrote:If Christianity is about cutesy refrigerator magnets with feel-good poems about getting carried on the beach during rough times by Michael Landon or Jesus Christ or something then I don't think it carries much merit.

I have one of those fish symbols on the back of my car! I'm sure Jesus protects me from rear-enders during Gay Pride Week!

sweetadeline112358 wrote: Yet frequently, during the debate over some hot button issue, some bizarre and obscure old testament law may be invoked as the ultimate authority on the matter.

Probably because you only debate with ignoramuses!

sweetadeline112358 wrote:Who gets to decide which OT laws are "old law", and which OT laws are still applicable? ...Someone has to decide this, and if I don't know how they came to the conclusion and it wasn't achieved in an environment involving some kind of serious rigor than it is probably complete BS.

I say we give you the job of deciding! You seem to have a handle on BS!

sweetadeline112358 wrote:The problem is that getting as close as possible to objective reality involves really boring stuff that most people are too lazy to deal with (I should know, I am one of the laziest people out there). Stuff like math, formal logic & analytic philosophy, physics, science. This is the continuation of the logos, the continuation of the account of objective reality. Yes, the more exciting and cutting edge something is, the more boring it will appear to those on the outside. This is the strangeness of reality.

So...How long have you been in jail?

FL

sweetadeline112358 wrote:The idea of an objective reality that can be gradually understood, modeled, etc seems commendable to me. Things that don't seem commendable to me are the playing up of the elements of it's encapsulating mythos. The best things about Christianity seem to be the things that ordinary people are least likely to appreciate. If Christianity is about cutesy refrigerator magnets with feel-good poems about getting carried on the beach during rough times by Michael Landon or Jesus Christ or something then I don't think it carries much merit.

Lol, did I just walk on a set with a Bill Moyers interview going on? Wait a minute . . . you wrote that Jesus Christ wrote feel good poems? As for the rest of it, yeah, when Christian families get squished to death by soldiers using bull dozers in North Korea, the precious moments tote bag just doesn't seem to cut it.

One major criticism I have right now is regarding the "old law vs new law" loophole that seems to be frequently exploited by all the slacker bourgeois (I use the word bourgeois with an air of irony, lest ye grow concerned for my poor little misguided marxist collegiate soul) Christians. It seems to me that whenever some truly bizarre element of the old testament is pointed out as being incoherent, nonsensical, or morally suspect, it can be written off as "old law" that is no longer applicable. Yet frequently, during the debate over some hot button issue, some bizarre and obscure old testament law may be invoked as the ultimate authority on the matter.

Who gets to decide which OT laws are "old law", and which OT laws are still applicable? You'll probably chuckle and say "God, of course". But where is the decision really coming from? Is it because some middle aged white dude from the midwest was "divinely-inspired"? Someone has to decide this, and if I don't know how they came to the conclusion and it wasn't achieved in an environment involving some kind of serious rigor than it is probably complete BS.

The problem is that getting as close as possible to objective reality involves really boring stuff that most people are too lazy to deal with (I should know, I am one of the laziest people out there). Stuff like math, formal logic & analytic philosophy, physics, science. This is the continuation of the logos, the continuation of the account of objective reality. Yes, the more exciting and cutting edge something is, the more boring it will appear to those on the outside. This is the strangeness of reality.

So, are you referring to homosexuality, I wonder? There's obviously a whole lot of OT law Christians don't follow. It's spelled out in the NT that we don't need to follow the old regulations. It's also clear in the NT that while we're free in Christ, He still wants us to obey His laws. And if we sin, we will feel convicted and confess our sin. In the NT, it was made plain that we can eat foods that God said were unclean, yet it was also made plain that sexual sin was still sexual sin, in whatever form. It doesn't mean we are not to love sinners. We are to love the sinner (and we're all sinners) but hate the sin. What Jesus said we are to do - Love God, and do unto others as we would have them do to us - if we lived those two things, then there would be no questions about laws.

I don't know who you think finds knowledge and new knowledge and the astonishing beauty and complexity of the natural world boring. I get bored and uninterested in people who think they're better than the people they're talking with . . . or down too. If my eyes get glazed over in such situations, the other person might think I'm bored with the subject, whereas I'm actually bored with the interchange.

This is the same old same old liberal collage lies spewed at the ignorant youth. They get a dose of it in High School as they are told lies after lies (and yes they are lies as I have been to high school and I have heard them) and they are never encouraged to look at the other side of the argument. The only time that they give an alternative argument, it is always one that does not represent the Christian People as a whole yet it is represented as doing so. Then they go to collage and get the same thing, only worse as it is often more militant than the high school indoctrination that they just got. So they believe things like what you posted and they won't hear otherwise. It is just a guess, but did you not read anything on the main site? See a lot of people just google God and Science and see a discussion board where they think they can just rant their views with little to no resistance. I am not saying you did that, but many have done so, so I wonder how you came here? Let me give you a link to the main site and hopefully you will read the articles and learn a few things before posting such thoughts again.

sweetadeline112358 wrote: One major criticism I have right now is regarding the "old law vs new law" loophole that seems to be frequently exploited by all the slacker bourgeois (I use the word bourgeois with an air of irony, lest ye grow concerned for my poor little misguided marxist collegiate soul) Christians. It seems to me that whenever some truly bizarre element of the old testament is pointed out as being incoherent, nonsensical, or morally suspect, it can be written off as "old law" that is no longer applicable. Yet frequently, during the debate over some hot button issue, some bizarre and obscure old testament law may be invoked as the ultimate authority on the matter.

Eye for an Eye or Love Thy Neighbor? Are the Messages of the Old and New Testament Different?

sweetadeline112358 wrote: Who gets to decide which OT laws are "old law", and which OT laws are still applicable? You'll probably chuckle and say "God, of course". But where is the decision really coming from? Is it because some middle aged white dude from the midwest was "divinely-inspired"? Someone has to decide this, and if I don't know how they came to the conclusion and it wasn't achieved in an environment involving some kind of serious rigor than it is probably complete BS.

Sounds like to me you don't know who even formed the Bible and therefore who decides on what is what, so...
Is Christianity a Made-up Myth Written by the Disciples?
Did Paul Invent Christianity? Is the Founder of the Christian Religion Paul of Tarsus or Jesus of Nazareth?
God Invented in the Image of Man? I think that this will also be good for you to read.
I hope you will read them, please visit http://www.godandscience.org that is the main page for this site, I hope that you can find what you are looking for!

sweetadeline,

cslewislover and Gabrielman are very nice people. They were much more respectful of your original post than I was. Listen, honey...if you're going to come to a gunfight with a knife, make sure your knife is sharp. Yours was pretty dull.

FL

One major criticism I have right now is regarding the "old law vs new law" loophole that seems to be frequently exploited by all the slacker bourgeois (I use the word bourgeois with an air of irony, lest ye grow concerned for my poor little misguided marxist collegiate soul) Christians. It seems to me that whenever some truly bizarre element of the old testament is pointed out as being incoherent, nonsensical, or morally suspect, it can be written off as "old law" that is no longer applicable. Yet frequently, during the debate over some hot button issue, some bizarre and obscure old testament law may be invoked as the ultimate authority on the matter.

It is less OT vs NT than it is Jewish versus Gentile.

Jews will tend to hold more to the OT because of their covenant with God, the new covenant supersedes the old one for Gentiles (most here in the US for example, and elsewhere).

SOME Christians will use the OT when it meets their own personal/Church needs when they cannot find something in the NT to back them up. I don't side with them.

The NT is far more spiritual then the OT, and the OT is much more practical - and I think that is where things come to a head for many folks.

Don't eat shellfish, don't get a tattoo, etc - had practical applications - but are not seen as sins (especially for Gentiles) in the NT. One reason some folks had a problem with Jesus and his disciples was that they bucked the trend and looked beyond such things and focused more on both the spiritual and the new 'practical' for the newly forming church.

Some folks, sadly, seemed more focused on what is sin - what they can or cannot do - than the deeper message (which Jesus touched on, one reason he was so hated by some).

It is a delicate balance at times to decipher what is practical by God's rules in the OT and what is sinful/wrong.

There were some in this world who respected God more at times than the Jews did, even though they had more direct communication. Jesus, et al, set this all straight. God himself did not need all the ritual and such, he set that down as a guideline to help along the society - to keep it growing and true. His commands were more for us than for him.

Interlaced throughout all of this was also his will/desire - so it can be tough to sort through at times. Hence the idea that some followers were only able to handle the milk and others the meat. I don't begrudge those who hold onto the OT laws as it may well help them, but I don't think they should be forcing such laws on others (Jesus hit on that with his be in this world not of it speech).

In the NT you saw Jesus telling his followers to convert people - their hearts and minds, and not to go out and change the laws of the Romans. The church, the body of Christ, became something spiritual. Too many want to make it something more physical - where we force others to follow laws based on our religious beliefs. You cannot legislate morality. That is something personal between you and God.

The Amish, to me, are a good example here. They live outside of our world, yet live within it. Whether they follow the OT and NT, etc, does not matter - they live separate from our world while living within it. A good example, to me anyway, of church and state being separate from each other. Give people the freedom to worship, or not to. Keep our country out of religion and your religion out of our laws.

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:sweetadeline,

cslewislover and Gabrielman are very nice people. They were much more respectful of your original post than I was. Listen, honey...if you're going to come to a gunfight with a knife, make sure your knife is sharp. Yours was pretty dull.

FL

wow. so i ask a legitimate question and you insult me. how do i become a member of YOUR church? sign me up for the next witch burning while we're at it.

Somebody who has the sharper knife can simply use it to disarm the enemy, instead of pointing out how dull the other's knife is, otherwise the statement is useless...ie...show him why the OT and NT are related!

sweetadeline112358 wrote:

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:sweetadeline,

cslewislover and Gabrielman are very nice people. They were much more respectful of your original post than I was. Listen, honey...if you're going to come to a gunfight with a knife, make sure your knife is sharp. Yours was pretty dull.

FL

wow. so i ask a legitimate question and you insult me. how do i become a member of YOUR church? sign me up for the next witch burning while we're at it.

You say you asked a legitimate question, yet you haven't responded to anyone else's answers to you. Was it your intent to actually converse, or to come and simply state your opinion?

sweetadeline112358 wrote:

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:sweetadeline,

cslewislover and Gabrielman are very nice people. They were much more respectful of your original post than I was. Listen, honey...if you're going to come to a gunfight with a knife, make sure your knife is sharp. Yours was pretty dull.

FL

wow. so i ask a legitimate question and you insult me. how do i become a member of YOUR church? sign me up for the next witch burning while we're at it.

I find it interesting that you didn't comment the thoughtful responses given to you by others.

You have a chance now to show your interest in knowing more about Christianity: consider the others' reponses thoughtfully and comment on them intelligently. If you do this, I will respect you.

FL

cslewislover wrote:

sweetadeline112358 wrote: Wait a minute . . . you wrote that Jesus Christ wrote feel good poems?

No. I set up a conditional statement. I said IF Christianity is about... THEN ... The token "feel good poem" as it were is this meme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footprints_(poem).

As for the rest of it, yeah, when Christian families get squished to death by soldiers using bull dozers in North Korea, the precious moments tote bag just doesn't seem to cut it.

Have no non-christians ever been killed in horrible ways? I am not sure why you have brought this up.

I don't know who you think finds knowledge and new knowledge and the astonishing beauty and complexity of the natural world boring.

I was referring to the situation that modeling reality accurately requires a dedication to mastering very precise language and being familiar with a long tradition of concepts. Most people (and I consider myself to be a part of this class of beings) do not have the dedication necessary to really leverage this stuff. I think that a suspicion towards the academic elite arises from this ignorance. The really cool stuff is really hard! As Barbie once said: "Math is hard!"

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

sweetadeline112358 wrote:

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:sweetadeline,

cslewislover and Gabrielman are very nice people. They were much more respectful of your original post than I was. Listen, honey...if you're going to come to a gunfight with a knife, make sure your knife is sharp. Yours was pretty dull.

FL

wow. so i ask a legitimate question and you insult me. how do i become a member of YOUR church? sign me up for the next witch burning while we're at it.

I find it interesting that you didn't comment the thoughtful responses given to you by others.

You have a chance now to show your interest in knowing more about Christianity: consider the others' reponses thoughtfully and comment on them intelligently. If you do this, I will respect you.

FL

i'm not here for your respect. and your lack of manners makes me less interested in acquiring it. this isn't about you. don't flatter yourself.

Gabrielman wrote:This is the same old same old liberal collage lies spewed at the ignorant youth. They get a dose of it in High School as they are told lies after lies (and yes they are lies as I have been to high school and I have heard them) and they are never encouraged to look at the other side of the argument. The only time that they give an alternative argument, it is always one that does not represent the Christian People as a whole yet it is represented as doing so. Then they go to collage and get the same thing, only worse as it is often more militant than the high school indoctrination that they just got. So they believe things like what you posted and they won't hear otherwise. It is just a guess, but did you not read anything on the main site? See a lot of people just google God and Science and see a discussion board where they think they can just rant their views with little to no resistance. I am not saying you did that, but many have done so, so I wonder how you came here? Let me give you a link to the main site and hopefully you will read the articles and learn a few things before posting such thoughts again.

I have heard this particular charge against the University setting (that it only provides a liberal perspective) many times and I don't think that it is completely accurate. The problem is that there are a multitude of views and accounts for reality besides the Bible. The whole purpose of a University is to provide access to these accounts. It seems that by liberal, what is often meant is "the class of those accounts which are not the Christian account". In that case, I would say the thought is accurate, yet the way in which it has been expressed in language has dropped some useful information. If I agree to share terms for a moment, I am still left with the impression that whether the University is liberal or not is more accurately understood on a course-by-course basis. In other words, each student's particular experience is actually comprised of some combination of courses they took at the University. Christian students who are Math, CS, or engineering majors are unlikely to find the majority of the accounts they are exposed to objectionable for a multitude of reasons.

In my own personal experiences (read: weak inference) I have seen well-constructed arguments put fourth by apparently Christian students rewarded by philosophy professors. I have also seen many situations where an objection raised in class by an apparently Christian student was avoided by virtue of the fact that it was either off-topic, incoherent, based on a misconception of the current topic, or simply would have required an involved digression that would have side-tracked the construction of a complicated concept the professor was attempting to render before the class.

they are never encouraged to look at the other side of the argument. The only time that they give an alternative argument

Christian theology courses in high school would be a great idea. The tricky bit would be perhaps finding a particular flavor of interpretation that everyone could agree on. Likewise, it would probably be prudent to expose people to other traditions as well, such as Islam, etc. In my mind, more of what a University setting offers (ie, a multitude of focused courses) ought to be brought to the high school setting.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is a common perception of how the Old Testament deals with conflict between two parties...

Everything I read beyond this point is interesting. What would be interesting to see is a list of every single commandment (not the 10 commands, but every behavioral command or description of right conduct) compiled and set against New Testament statements that describe those that have been nullified and those which still stand.

sweetadeline112358 wrote:Christian theology courses in high school would be a great idea. The tricky bit would be perhaps finding a particular flavor of interpretation that everyone could agree on. Likewise, it would probably be prudent to expose people to other traditions as well, such as Islam, etc. In my mind, more of what a University setting offers (ie, a multitude of focused courses) ought to be brought to the high school setting.

This approach is now being tried at the high school level in the province where I live, Quebec. It's a bad idea - a very bad idea - because it presents all faiths as being equally valid and deserving equal respect...in other words, all roads lead to God. While this may be a good point for an atheist, it isn't for a Christian. It is also a lie.

FL

sweetadeline112358 wrote:

cslewislover wrote: Wait a minute . . . you wrote that Jesus Christ wrote feel good poems?

No. I set up a conditional statement. I said IF Christianity is about... THEN ... The token "feel good poem" as it were is this meme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footprints_(poem).

If Christianity is about cutesy refrigerator magnets with feel-good poems . . . by Michael Landon or Jesus Christ . . .

Jesus Christ didn't write feel good poems.

As for the rest of it, yeah, when Christian families get squished to death by soldiers using bull dozers in North Korea, the precious moments tote bag just doesn't seem to cut it.

Have no non-christians ever been killed in horrible ways? I am not sure why you have brought this up.

Lol, I was agreeing with you. But you're missing the point. Christians get killed for their faith in various places, even today. It is their true faith that gets people through torture and impending death. Anyway, you seemed to be cutting Christianity down in general because of as aspect of commercialism in it, without knowing the serious side.

I don't know who you think finds knowledge and new knowledge and the astonishing beauty and complexity of the natural world boring.

I was referring to the situation that modeling reality accurately requires a dedication to mastering very precise language and being familiar with a long tradition of concepts. Most people (and I consider myself to be a part of this class of beings) do not have the dedication necessary to really leverage this stuff. I think that a suspicion towards the academic elite arises from this ignorance. The really cool stuff is really hard! As Barbie once said: "Math is hard!"

Yes and no. Christ said you need to have faith like a child. He didn't mean we are to be uneducated, but that we can "know" things as children "know." I think children know, inherently, "right" from "wrong," even if they still do "wrong" because of their impulses. There are a number of threads here on morality, and it seems like adults try to discuss and argue away "right" and "wrong." This is just an example. There are things we can "know" that are of the highest importance to us and are the most beautiful, without becoming super educated in certain subjects.