Connecticut Shootings, Christmastime, and Christianity

Which is why you don't put your faith in people, Indy. They will let you down every single time.

As for the debate that always ensues about science being more definitive than faith. My question is always why can't the two coexist?

 

I don't mean to speak for IP, and please correct me if I am in error or mistake your position in any way.

First, from reading a copious amounts of his writings on this subject, I would say that IP's biggest beefs with "religion" are neither with God nor any other deity, but the respective followers and believers of each. That is a large and distinguishing differentiation to make.

Secondly, IP doesn't despise God, but the mystery which surrounds him, instead. If anyone were to provide IP with tangible, empirical and inarguable proof of God's existence, IP would be the first to admit his error, IMO. But absent that proof, he is unwilling to suspend or deny his own intellect in order to so, despite however unpopular, uncomfortable or disagreeable such a refusal may be to some.

Finally, if the average Christian was 1/100th as introspective, contemplative, sincere, honest and courageous with their own beliefs as he is, the world would be transformed in less than a month's time. And if Christians would embrace him and his many doubts and questions, instead of attacking him, the Church would be equally and radically transformed, as well, and may have some hope to stop of its now slow (but accelerating) descent into what is soon to be a largely meaningless and an almost entirely irrelevant existence.

You might beat him into being quiet, and while such will almost certainly win the battle, it will be just as likely to cost the war.

Just my $.02

 

Very well put. I admire the gusto in which IP believes what he believes.

 

My stance is that IP is not saying these things to be disrespectful. I don't just don't see why everyone is so offended.

 

I can't judge intent. However, there are times that IP does take a jab at the intelligence of those that believe.

 

This is not an attack, but my observations on Religion and Science:

I believe it is because religion deals with Truth and science deals with Facts (as seen at the moment, subject to change™). No one is going to look to a black hole or a stellar nebula or a chemical reaction for the Meaning of Life. People go through life lost, wondering if their lives mean anything. They feel small and insignificant.

Yet, if they believe in God and preach His laws and commandments, they are, in a way, special. God loves them. They are not alone. A black hole 10,000 light years away cannot fill that.

And then God tells them the world was created in 7 days, or that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day after his death, or the world is flat and rests on the back of a large turtle and science comes along and questions that, they feel slighted. Their specialness is in doubt, and they lash out. Or in some cases, it threatens their power (if they are in charge of a large Church, for instance), and they then lash out from the pulpit.

Again, my personal opinion as a layperson who has watched the human condition for many years, with no science or psychology training in this field to fall back on. And no offense intended.

 

I'm not saying they can't. It's just hard to back up belief in an argument when the only reason for your beliefs is faith. Some people find it hard to believe something they can't touch or see. I totally understand that, and I think organized religion only makes it worse.

 

I don't think this was one of those times, so I can see why he would have a problem with people coming back at him in the manner that they did. That's all I've said all along.

 

Am I missing something with regard to IP?

I mean, is it not time to put on the big boy pants?

 

I support IP be because it is the right thing to do, and because he is my friend.

He certainly doesn't require it.

 

If that is the case he also needs to get better at looking from things from a different perspective.

 

Until he plays the victim card

 

Agree.

 

Science and religion can and should coexist. I absolutely love reading and seeing what scientist have been able to discover and achieve. The way I look at it is that it gives me with a better understanding of how God operates and if nothing else provides me a better appreciation that what I had originally.

 

Exactly. A faith not worth defending is not worth having.

 

And I absolutely agree. Like the Dalai Lama says, if Buddhist tradition says one thing, and science says another, then the Buddhist tradition must be tossed out with the garbage. But it seems that a lot of people have a hard time reconciling their beliefs with science, as if the science some how invalidates everything they believe instead of augmenting it.

 

The reason this thread got off track from a debate on science and spiritual warfare (although that wasn't my original motive for posting) is because IP attacked the motives of Russell Moore as disgusting, etc. which made no sense.

 

Perhaps if IP were less crass in his criticisms of others' beliefs, he would open himself up to more friendly debate on the subject.

 

Ok, but the links I listed are texts that you might read in a college setting. They are written from a historical scholarly perspective. Not a theological one. Of course the authors are Christians, but they are writing for historians not the church. 21 years old is too young to conclude that something can't be figured out.

 

Not true.

Way before then I had concluded that women cannot be figured out, and I stand by my conclusion more solid than ever.