M'Riiiight. What I am saying is that there is much more to life than your scientific facts. They have a place, but you saying they are the crux of living is totally wrong.
please go further and tell me why science wouldnt be as far along if it wasnt for religion ? you made the statement but didnt say why ?M'Riiiight. What I am saying is that there is much more to life than your scientific facts. They have a place, but you saying they are the crux of living is totally wrong.
"take the word of people" Man, that was the understanding of the day - it EVOLVES. I thought you were trying to come off here as 'current'. You might as well say "dude, like, they didn't even have cd players back then, how could they have listened to music?"
If you take away all that was in the world, in a religious sense, your science would not be were it is now. And no, it would not be further ahead as you would wish to believe. The two work together. Somewhere along the line, maybe a new generation of scientific bent, added ridicule and arrogance as a positive trait?
Makes sense I guess, since most kids these days live at home till they're 35 and act like they're adults
that is a mightily bold statement your trying to feed us got any sauce for that? cases like Copernicus and Galileo speak against what your saying but i would like to see where your coming from
I've gotta say your use of the word evolve when it comes to religion is hilarious. The whole point is Christianity HASNT evolved. Last I checked you guys still think being gay is immoral according to the words in your holy bigot book. Or maybe you're the liberal kind of Christian that ignores those parts eh. How about Christian endorsed slavery?M'Riiiight. What I am saying is that there is much more to life than your scientific facts. They have a place, but you saying they are the crux of living is totally wrong.
"take the word of people" Man, that was the understanding of the day - it EVOLVES. I thought you were trying to come off here as 'current'. You might as well say "dude, like, they didn't even have cd players back then, how could they have listened to music?"
If you take away all that was in the world, in a religious sense, your science would not be were it is now. And no, it would not be further ahead as you would wish to believe. The two work together. Somewhere along the line, maybe a new generation of scientific bent, added ridicule and arrogance as a positive trait?
Makes sense I guess, since most kids these days live at home till they're 35 and act like they're adults
i think as a whole christianity has changed its morals some what over the years a kinda evolution but its done it kicking and screaming when its had to. its just a very slow process that would be made much quicker if you could ever get rid of the damn dogma [/devils advocate]
Yeah you're right but only kicking and screaming like you said. They're the equivalent of a politician doing a U-turn for votes. I'd prefer they stuck to their old ass book rhetoric, it'd be outdated but at least it'd be sincere.
| "The scientist's condition as a sentinel in the modern world, as one who is the first to glimpse the enormous complexity together with the marvellous harmony of reality, makes him a privileged witness of the plausibility of religion, a man capable of showing how the admission of transcendence, far from harming the autonomy and the ends of research, rather stimulates it to continually surpass itself in an experience of self-transcendence which reveals the human mystery". Pope John Paul II, 7/17/85. |
