** 30-Jan-2022 World View: Religion and Science and Theology
Cool Breeze wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:20 pm
> I shouldn't have to bother with this level of willful ignorance,
> but since he asked I will. The concept of God is that He is beyond
> existence. Forensic science does not apply to Him in a way that it
> constricts Him, His plan, or His providence. As such (and don't
> get mad at me for the literal definition of God), a Virgin Birth
> cannot possibly contradict "genetic science" anymore than science
> can explain the coming into being (origin) of real creatures,
> especially sentient ones (it can't). The issue at hand was that if
> the claim is that the native americans are from the Middle East
> originally, of course they should have middle eastern DNA, or we
> should doubt their position (they aren't God, no claims were made
> regarding something supernatural, etc). This is basic logic that
> someone who is smart should never ignore and it is embarrassing.
> Regarding walking on water over having power or created things,
> this is also the definition of God - so go complain about that one
> again to someone else if you don't like it. Again, God created the
> universe, then you ask about someone's "rights"? More estrogen
> coming out here, total nonsense.
This argument is extremely emotional and passionate, but from the
point of view of theology, it is logically contradictory.
You say, "Forensic science does not apply to [God] in a way that it
constricts Him, His plan, or His providence." In other words, God is
omnipotent (can do anything), and therefore can violate genetic
science bring forth a Virgin birth.
Similarly, Jesus can walk on water or change water to wine because an
omnipotent God can violate the molecular laws of physics and chemistry
at will.
So you say that science cannot constrict God in any way, but then you
go on to imply that Mormonism is invalid because it violates the same
genetic science -- native Americans have the wrong DNA. Obviously, if
God is Omnipotent -- can do anything including violating forensic
science and genetic science and molecular science -- then God could
have arranged for native Americans to have non-Middle Eastern DNA.
In fact, I'll make this stronger and state it as a basic principle of
theology -- you cannot ever use science to invalidate any religion
that has an omnipotent god, because omnipotence overrides science.
I'm not the only person to tell you this. Navigator wrote the
following:
> "Matters of faith are just that. A matter of
> faith. Not of "scientific proof". Science is constantly finding
> "new" answers and rejecting old theorems. God is never going to
> "prove" himself to man, because one of the main things we are
> tested on in this life is whether or not we will chose to exercise
> faith in God or not."
>
viewtopic.php?p=67882&sid=6aa8b29b4d159 ... 3ea#p67882
And spottybrowncow wrote this:
> "This thread is not about science and proof and
> reaching an objective universal reality for all, wherein you can
> say, "See, I told you man, 2+2=4, just look!" Every true religious
> believer has made his or her own Kierkegaardian "leap of faith,"
> for his or her own personal reasons. Therefore, no one's belief
> can be objectively proven or disproven."
>
viewtopic.php?p=67816#p67816
So those are three of us saying the same thing to you -- you can't use
science to invalidate a religion. When someone does try something
like this, it's always a political evaluation, not scientific and not
theological. It reminds me of the current situation where mask and
vaccine mandates are highly contentious, and each side claims to be
representing science, when it's mostly politics.
If we look back through millennia of history, civilizations rise and
fall, and religions come and go, although religions have the ability
to survive even when their founding civilizations are destroyed.
People in all religions perpetrate genocide, ethnic cleansing,
torture, rape, and massacres. It's part of the human DNA. In all the
books and articles that I've written, all religions behave the same
way. If there were any significant differences, then I would have
noticed them and civilization historians like Arnold Toynbee would
have noticed and remarked about them.
Then there's this:
Cool Breeze wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:38 am
> Should we not point out that Muhammad is not a good example to
> live by (the opposite of the claim of islam), if you examine his
> life?
Now, I spent many months researching the history of Islam and the life
of Mohammed for my book on Iran, and Mohammed had flaws, but so does
everyone, and I have no idea why he's being singled out.
Mohammed was an extremely charismatic rebel leader, living through a
generational Crisis era, leading a clan at war with another clan,
winning the war, and launching a major religion. In the end, he was
kind to his defeated enemies. What's wrong with that?
Jesus was an extremely charismatic rebel leader, living through a
generational Awakening era. He was not a war leader, since there was
no war to lead, but he did say, "I did not come to bring peace, but a
sword" (Matthew 10:34). And he was kind to his enemies.
Or maybe you think Putin is a good example to live by -- a murderous
KGB operative, and then leading an ethnic cleansing war against the
people in the Caucasus.
I think that most people have attributes that are good to live by, and
other attributes that one should avoid.
John Xenakis is author of: "World View: Iran's Struggle for Supremacy
-- Tehran's Obsession to Redraw the Map of the Middle East"
(Generational Theory Book Series, Book 1) Paperback: 153 pages, over
100 source references, $7.00
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... s.irbk.htm
https://www.amazon.com/World-View-Supre ... 732738610/