Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:29:28 PM
yes, i can see it happening. i can't see how any current religions could stand for much longer without undergoing significant change. i could perhaps refer to you the works of John Shelby Spong, author of "Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers In Exile". i will emphasize that even his works are too attached to old belief systems for my liking, but i find his ability to reflect on and seriously consider wholesale change to be a ray of hope in an otherwise stifling community of conservative retrobates. and don`t worry too much about attacking my beliefs, since they aren`t really anchored in any existing convention. i`m more interested in engaging open, honest discussion, as is happening here. so, it`s been a giggle, but i`m sure we`re both ready to move on to another post, i`m sure we`ll meet again.
Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:26:16 AM
>> says otherwise. The whole creationism vs evolution is probably the most recognisable of this. Many parts of science dispute (and often disprove) what religion is claiming. Geology, paleontology, cosmology etc..they all have aspects that disprove the creation storys in most religions.
And thats just the beginning of a great big debate. Medical science often comes to blows with those of a religious stance. The use of stem cells for example. A large amount of christians would claim its wrong! The simple use of a condom is a no no for catholics. I'm sure many in medical research would claim its a stupid stance for all the obvious reasons but the church isnt likely to change it`s stance.
Sure..you could claim it`s a morality ethics issue rather than science vs religion issue..but in many cases religion is responisble for setting certain "moral" standards.
I honestly have hundreds of reasons why the two will never come together and it would take a major >&g
Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:13:30 AM
>> or power at work. Dogma (and yes..it may not apply to you) is an absolute. It's all there, black and white. The answer to everything!
As for meditation, yes it was part of my martial arts training program though I dont see that it has any relevance to the discusion. It`s rather easy to alter the minds perception of reality. I could just as easily drop LSD and claim it was a spiritual encounter.
Just to be fair, I`m not trying to trod on your beliefs here. My whole point was, from word go, was science and religion will never meld (and the hymn thing made me..WTF?..but I digress). Forget the whole "absolutes" debate because thats a diffrent argument anyway and not relevant.
Now I agree..your idea of the two coming together is noble. I respect that but here`s exactly why the two will never truely mesh.
Science (again as a broad broad area) will allways be (and allways has) pushing against religion. It takes established doctrine and says..hold on..this evidence &
Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:01:00 AM
I really dont get what your acctual argument is anymore! I've proven you wrong about hymns (wiki or no wiki..my point was allways valid). I`m stating science dosnt deal (for the most part) in absolute truths which it dosnt. As I`ve stated there is many diffrent types of science but when we are talking about visionary scientists, people like Carl Sagan, they do not deal in absolutes. They cant because it`s all unkowable and its that "uncertainty of human knowledge" that drives them! So please..disagree all you want but you know, as well as I know, that science (as one giant broad subject) is not absolute. History has proven me right about science and religion being at loggerheads. Yes, I agree we are talking about the future but the two will never go hand in hand. Spirituality or religion..same thing. It`s faith without facts! It`s an absolute that there is a higher being >>