Morality

[HoreTore]

creationist scientists

There is such a thing as a creation scientist...?

[Fragony]

' For me, shades of grey don't come into it. Strictly speaking, the Christian position would be that, as Jesus said, if you commit murder in your heart, you are no better than a murderer. Likewise, if you lust after women in your heart, you are no better than an adulterer. The fact that some people might not carry through such desires, or carry them through to limited degrees, doesn't make the desires or the limited actions themselves any less immoral.'

Sorry but wht shouldn't I lust for me friend's girlfriend. She is pretty, and he does't mind

[Vincent Butler]

There is such a thing as a creation scientist...?

The inventor of the MRI, Raymond Damadian, is a creationist. Dr. John Baumgardner, a leader in the field of plate tectonics, is a creationist. As I said, Maxwell's equations work the same for you and me (I use Maxwell because I am studying electrical engineering). As I have already pointed out, Bacon (who formulated the scientific method, and who has an awesome name), Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Pasteur, to name a few, were creationists. That is really what a scientist is, he experiments and observes. Part of science is observation. If it can be repeated with the same results, then it starts to fall into the category of true observational science. Then your view on origins does not come into play either way, at least as far as the science itself works. I cannot recreate my view of creation, you cannot recreate yours.
The e.coli example. It is still an e.coli bacteria. It has not changed into anything else. It has lost some information, which loss enables it to survive in the presence of an antibiotic. Not good for us. If I recall, though, it has problems surviving in the absence of that antibiotic. Not saying that for sure, I may not be remembering correctly what I read.
On to the thing of lust, Jesus said that to look upon a woman to lust after her is the same as committing adultery. The point of what he is saying is that it is impossible to keep the whole law (any man I know of, outside of Jesus Christ, has been guilty of lustful thoughts, to use that example), so nobody can rely on keeping the law to get to heaven. That is why Christ came, as the Lamb of God, to make the payment for sin once and for all. Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. John 1:29 Humans, including Christians, commit sin. Now Christians are held to a higher standard, and rightfully so, but they are still human, and still need to confess those sins and get them out of their lives. If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me: Psalm 66:18

[Rhyfelwyr]

On to the thing of lust, Jesus said that to look upon a woman to lust after her is the same as committing adultery. The point of what he is saying is that it is impossible to keep the whole law (any man I know of, outside of Jesus Christ, has been guilty of lustful thoughts, to use that example), so nobody can rely on keeping the law to get to heaven.

There is so much truth in the verse: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend on one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10).

Just think of what adulterous thoughts entail - perversion of the institution of marriage, cheating on your own wife, disrespecting and objectifying another woman, fuelling your base desires, corrupting your own perception of relationships, rebellion towards God, lukewarmness in your faith.

There is not one sin, that does not show in somebody's heart a sense of anger, malice, perversion, deceit, selfishness, rebellion - everything bad within them. But sadly in this day and age it is so rife and so normalized that even Christians become blind to it.

[HoreTore]

Einstein wasn't religious though.

[Vincent Butler]

Just think of what adulterous thoughts entail - perversion of the institution of marriage, cheating on your own wife, disrespecting and objectifying another woman, fuelling your base desires, corrupting your own perception of relationships, rebellion towards God, lukewarmness in your faith.

Not to mention the reproach you bring to the name of Christ if you follow through with the thoughts. Sadly, many Christians fail to think about that, or they do not care enough to put aside their own lusts. Any action begins with a thought. That is why we are supposed to guard our thoughts.

[HoreTore]

Actually, he was. He believed in a constant universe that abided by universal rules. He believed in God. He wasn't a bible thumper, and I don't know that he ever called himself a Christian (or anything else), but he was a religious man. It is one of the reasons quantum theory pissed him off so much for most of his latter years--he didn't like the metaphysical implications.

First of all, he was Jewish - christianity is a stretch

Secondly, Einstein said he believed in Spinoza's god - which is a dickish way of saying he doesn't believe in god.

EDIT: He was also a socialist, of course - as any man with brains is

[Vincent Butler]

Actually, he was. He believed in a constant universe that abided by universal rules. He believed in God. He wasn't a bible thumper, and I don't know that he ever called himself a Christian (or anything else), but he was a religious man.

That is my understanding as well. He was Jewish, and I believe it was he who basically gave the Allies the atomic bomb in exchange for a Jewish state. Correct me if somebody else knows otherwise, it might not have been Einstein, though I think I remember it right.

[HoreTore]

That is why we are supposed to guard our thoughts.

Stalin and Big Brother approves of this post.

[HoreTore]

Einsteins own reply to a claim he was religious:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Case closed.

[Vincent Butler]

He was also a socialist, of course - as any man with brains is

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Margaret Thatcher
Churchill said something to the effect that if you are in your twenties and not a socialist you have no heart, but if you are in your forties and a socialist, you have no brain. Socialism sounds nice and good, but it does not work. Communism is essentially the same situation as socialism, with a more oppressive government, but the end result being the same. One huge issue I have is that here in America, we take money from defense, and put it to social programs, while our enemies are increasing their militaries. Charity is not the government's role. Individuals should take accountability for themselves.
"A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have."

[HoreTore]

A quote from an upper class twit and a mad old bag. You, sir, have convinced me.

Enjoy your crime and paying for your doctors, I'll be sure to think of you at least one of the days of my 12-week paid vacation.

[Greyblades]

I've said it many times: socialism without capitalism is unsustainable but capitalism without socialism is intollerable.

Anyone who extols one while excluding the other should be viewed with suspicion and/or derision.

[HoreTore]

I've said it many times: socialism without capitalism is unsustainable but capitalism without socialism is intollerable.

Anyone who extols one while excluding the other should be viewed with suspicion and/or derision.

Personally, I'm more of a socialist on the social side of things, ie. gay rights, anti-racism, feminism, anti-war, etc.

On the economic side, I favour a working private sector for everything except the fundamentals(infrastructure, healthcare, justice, and so on), with a strong state with a proper whip to deal with those who cause trouble(currently: finance). In euroweenies terms, that puts me a little to the left of center, I think.

So yeah, in economic terms I would agree with your statement.

[Kadagar_AV]

A "creationist" who looks at the sum total of scientific discovery so far and decides that it is all so wondrous that surely there is a God behind it all, and who believes that surely God invites more research and truth-seeking by the very mechanisms we've been given to discover the sum total of scientific discoveries so far, well... that's someone I respect and agree with.

A "creationist" who uses man-made dogma to try and revise the sum total of scientific discovery so far because ignorance is preferable to the unknown, well... that's not someone I respect at all.

Most great scientists were indeed religious men. Your Einsteins and your Newtons. But they were the former, not the latter. Especially once you correct for the cultural differences.

The bolded part is the problem.

I totally agree with your statement at large. Totally.

I have no problem what so ever with people looking at the world, and just think there might be more to it than we know. Heck, I am one of them.

To have a big bang - creating a universe that can spring to life... Is nothing short of a miracle.

Science is just trying to EXPLAIN this miracle, science in no way state this isn't a miracle, though. As many creationists seem to believe.

I have said over, and over, and over again:

When theology, philosophy, and science all reach their individual peak, they will meet and greet at the very top.

There clearly is a universal strive towards complexity... The more you learn about the world, the more you believe in it.




Now, my problem is when people state that they have the answer, and that answer means that you should cut your penis or pray before bed or whatever (generally donate cash or waste your energy making the meme spread). Bollocks, to put it mildly.

We're not even close to grasping the true wonder of the universe.

I believe in a "God", in my way. I just don't believe in the material way that different churches want to dictate my everyday life.

The ultimate complexity = God.

Doesn't have to be harder than that, science support the view. And there's no need to start wars over it, or mutilating people who think otherwise (nor their own people).

From this perspective, people who adhere to a religious dogma made by a bronze age desert living tribe is....

I mentioned ridiculous already, didn't I?

[Vincent Butler]

And there's no need to start wars over it, or mutilating people who think otherwise (nor their own people).

Agreed.

Enjoy your crime and paying for your doctors

Don't know what you mean by the crime part. As for the doctors, at least I get to choose my doctor and what treatments I get, the problem with the government paying for my health care is that they get to tell me how I live, and who my doctor is, and they get to decide if I get health care at all, see Barack Obama "Give your grandma a pain pill instead of a pacemaker". The problem with giving them that kind of power is "Well, we don't like what you believe" or "We don't like how you voted. You won't get the cancer care you need." I know that is an extreme case, but I have a severe distrust of government. Now I do know that European social medicine, at least Dutch, seems to be working better than the American idea, don't know about the other countries. But the private sector is still involved. Take a look at our social medicine, Obamacare, and how well it is being implemented.

The natural tendency is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground. -Thomas Jefferson

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A "creationist" who looks at the sum total of scientific discovery so far and decides that it is all so wondrous that surely there is a God behind it all, and who believes that surely God invites more research and truth-seeking by the very mechanisms we've been given to discover the sum total of scientific discoveries so far, well... that's someone I respect and agree with.

A "creationist" who uses man-made dogma to try and revise the sum total of scientific discovery so far because ignorance is preferable to the unknown, well... that's not someone I respect at all.

Most great scientists were indeed religious men. Your Einsteins and your Newtons. But they were the former, not the latter. Especially once you correct for the cultural differences.

Pithily expressed and exactly on point. Kudos.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Einsteins own reply to a claim he was religious:


Case closed.

I remember reading that. I would not classify Einstein as religious in the sense we use the term. Spiritual, possibly. Believing in some "higher power" as the Friends of Bill W. phrase it, yes. I do not believe Einstein would have or did agree with any of the then extant depictions of this higher power. For him, the music of the spheres was enough.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am studying electrical engineering).

God help us all.

[Husar]

Agreed.

Don't know what you mean by the crime part. As for the doctors, at least I get to choose my doctor and what treatments I get, the problem with the government paying for my health care is that they get to tell me how I live, and who my doctor is, and they get to decide if I get health care at all, see Barack Obama "Give your grandma a pain pill instead of a pacemaker". The problem with giving them that kind of power is "Well, we don't like what you believe" or "We don't like how you voted. You won't get the cancer care you need." I know that is an extreme case, but I have a severe distrust of government. Now I do know that European social medicine, at least Dutch, seems to be working better than the American idea, don't know about the other countries. But the private sector is still involved. Take a look at our social medicine, Obamacare, and how well it is being implemented.

I get to choose my doctor as well for the most part and if I'm willing to pay the costs myself I can probably choose any doctor.
That you cannot trust your government is not a problem of socialized medicine but a problem with your way of thinking, your society and how your government works.

[HoreTore]

Agreed.

Don't know what you mean by the crime part. As for the doctors, at least I get to choose my doctor and what treatments I get, the problem with the government paying for my health care is that they get to tell me how I live, and who my doctor is, and they get to decide if I get health care at all, see Barack Obama "Give your grandma a pain pill instead of a pacemaker". The problem with giving them that kind of power is "Well, we don't like what you believe" or "We don't like how you voted. You won't get the cancer care you need." I know that is an extreme case, but I have a severe distrust of government. Now I do know that European social medicine, at least Dutch, seems to be working better than the American idea, don't know about the other countries. But the private sector is still involved. Take a look at our social medicine, Obamacare, and how well it is being implemented.

The sweet, sweet smell of ignorance... I choose my own doctor, and my treatment.

But you do an excellent job at parroting propaganda without checking whether or not it fits with reality. I do not understand how you became a creationist. /sarcasm

[a completely inoffensive name]

The end goal of Christianity should be socialism. People helping people. I can't ever remember Jesus ever advocating for varying quality of life based on your household income and credit score.

[rory_20_uk]

Apologies to most persons, but these just need to be reposted - in short healthcare works better in practically every developed country you care to mention - and many undeveloped countries:



Leaving aside the odd belief that doctors could treat based upon voting patterns (is Government ever that organised?) the cost of healthcare is off the charts - or more spceifically the charts have to be redrawn to keep the USA on them.

[rory_20_uk]

The end goal of Christianity should be socialism. People helping people. I can't ever remember Jesus ever advocating for varying quality of life based on your household income and credit score.

No, not really:

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

Appears to be a complete separation between temporal wealth and religion. As long as people die, they will return to God. When that happens is not much of an issue.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, not really:

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

Appears to be a complete separation between temporal wealth and religion. As long as people die, they will return to God. When that happens is not much of an issue.

"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

It's almost as if the Bible is not consistent. Note I said "should". I really couldn't care less about what I read in 90% of the Bible, including some of the things Jesus says. All I care about is the message of goodwill, something that is lacking among many political ideologies.

[Ironside]

Agreed.

Don't know what you mean by the crime part. As for the doctors, at least I get to choose my doctor and what treatments I get, the problem with the government paying for my health care is that they get to tell me how I live, and who my doctor is, and they get to decide if I get health care at all, see Barack Obama "Give your grandma a pain pill instead of a pacemaker". The problem with giving them that kind of power is "Well, we don't like what you believe" or "We don't like how you voted. You won't get the cancer care you need." I know that is an extreme case, but I have a severe distrust of government. Now I do know that European social medicine, at least Dutch, seems to be working better than the American idea, don't know about the other countries. But the private sector is still involved. Take a look at our social medicine, Obamacare, and how well it is being implemented.

We can use the Republican complaints as the testing measure. From the start they've hated the idea and gone for full repell. If they silently forget the issue, then it's because their own base has gotten it so much better under Obamacare that repelling it would be political suicide.

Full circle would be remembering that most of it was originally Republican ideas, and then accusing Obama of stealing those ideas, while the Republicans were supporting it all along. I say that this one got 50-50.

Short version, the US system is so inefficient compared to the rest of the world that you can increase cover, reduce costs and improve service in a single reform.

[Husar]

No, not really:

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

Appears to be a complete separation between temporal wealth and religion. As long as people die, they will return to God. When that happens is not much of an issue.

I do not think you can explain or grasp Jesus' entire "philosophy" based on a single quote.
"Love your neightbor as much as you love yourself" can also mean that if you would pay the best doctors to treat you, you should also pay for your neighbors to see the best doctors.

[rory_20_uk]

I do not think you can explain or grasp Jesus' entire "philosophy" based on a single quote.
"Love your neightbor as much as you love yourself" can also mean that if you would pay the best doctors to treat you, you should also pay for your neighbors to see the best doctors.

Indeed. trying to shoe-horn a religion to have one clear message on any modern system is pointless. If one wants to do it / thinks we should do it fine. But no point putting a religion in there to add weight.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Indeed. trying to shoe-horn a religion to have one clear message on any modern system is pointless.

Why? I would rather have the public dialogue centered around the concepts of community and charity rather than "culture wars" and ignorance.

[rory_20_uk]

Why? I would rather have the public dialogue centered around the concepts of community and charity rather than "culture wars" and ignorance.

Choosing a religion is going to be choosing a culture as you can't have one without the other.

I don't think that any group of persons has a monopoly on ignorance.