/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.1 (updated 2021-12-13)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 20000

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


Science and religion Sperit 05/12/2022 (Thu) 06:58:41 No.10949
So I have been lurking on Christian since 8chan was relevant and I have been wanting to start a science and religion discussion. I have read a few things about how particle physicians believe that there is something beyond out level of reality, however there are also a ton of people that don't even understand that there are concepts beyond even our understanding of matter. Like I've had debated with people where I would claim that there could be a being that exists beyond out perception of matter and they just say shit like "if it is there then why haven't we found it yet?" Like we are bound to material so ofcourse we can't see it or interact with it. Idk tho that's just sort of me ranting. What do you all think?
>>10949 >What do you all think? I think science and theology are two complementary areas of study for two sides of the same coin. Namely God & His handiworks. New-Atheists claim they are at war with each other, same as Young-Earthers. They aren't. In fact they are quite complimentary; in fact they are both studies we are all commanded by God through scriptures to engage in as Believers. Physics is real, Metaphysics is real. I don't see any issues here. Neither did the Church Fathers, BTW.
>>10949 >something beyond out level of reality >there could be a being that exists beyond out perception of matter What does this have to do with Christianity?
Open file (173.46 KB 584x900 hermetical_triumph.jpg)
>>10949 My perspective is that of pre-Enlightenment: Science, properly understood, starts and ends with God. "Science" without God was called degraded science. Thus, alchemy is a science. Chemistry is a neat hobby. Very different from the modern view, I get that. However, it doesn't come from nothing. It's based on Aristotle and Plato, which no philosopher has been able to discredit thus far, to the point where Enlightenment "thinkers" simply defined them out and started living in a made-up simplified model of the world rather than reality. Before the argument comes: Widespread physical achievements are not an indicator of superiority. Consider the alchemist's tools: A few bottles of glassware, a fire, a still, an oven. And, most importantly, his own soul. With these tools, what a modern man might call miracles can be worked, through an understanding that starts with God and leads towards a deeper understanding of Him. The idea was never to build a billion dollar machine to hammer out a million cans of soda per hour, because that's ultimately pointless, as it solely serves physical comfort, which is fleeting at best. Consider old cathedrals. Merely by stepping into them, one feels the presence of the Divine. Why is that? Because the entire building is constructed out of shapes, measurements, materials, colors, that reflect the truth of scripture. Sacred Mathematics. Now walk into a modern glass and steel church. Compare. The same argument can be made for any modern "science" in some form or another. The cutting edge of modern physics is just looping round again. Just like a few milligrams of lead were turned into gold in the LHC. Something that's been done before. In a century or two, they'll probably get it, God willing.
>>10949 True science is understanding the action of the Holy Spirit.
Open file (313.30 KB 640x697 FSgZI0rX0AUNOV8.png)
I hate science! I hate science!
>>10999 Ehh I love God I believe. So therefore I relish both theology and science. (The honest, search-for-the-truth versions of both ofc).
>>10950 Science is not inherently at war with religion, it's a certain type of science. Science is not just some neutral enterprise. The same evidence is interpreted according to different lenses within a paradigm. The atheist looks at the evidence through a godless naturalist paradigm and wears blinders. He can only interpret things in accordance with physical phenomena and matter in motion, nothing supernatural can enter into the picture. He believes that the laws of nature have always been identical, he believes that the past go back billions of years. All of these are groundless philosophical assumptions that cannot ever be proven. They are assumed at the outset. The creationist begins with God as the beginning of wisdom and does not discount the Bible as an explanation for things unseen (such as creation) and other realities. We operate on a Biblical paradigm, and thus interpret the evidence according to the one true paradigm, i.e. God's Word, and thus we know that the earth is not billions of years old, that man is not highly-evolved pond-scum, and that humanity is unique. Science that we can do here-and-now, such as repeatable experiments, the creation of technology, etc. are all legitimate science that for the most part (so long as it is permissible according to God's commandments) one has no problem with. The science that is unbiblical is science according to a naturalistic paradigm that does not interpret the evidence in line with God's Word.
>>11225 based
Open file (141.31 KB 926x935 1652750068846-0.jpg)
Open file (219.49 KB 605x933 1652750068846-1.png)
Open file (112.41 KB 720x480 1652750068846-2.png)
Open file (153.30 KB 800x800 1652750876356-0.png)
Open file (76.31 KB 800x800 1652750876356-1.jpg)
>>11261 Looks like such an abomination, a true mockery of life.
>>11261 I hate the antichrist.
>>11262 Truth be told anon, I've been a long time lurker here because, despite my interest in theological liturgy and my appreciation of religion as an agent of social cohesion, I am actually agnostic in my spiritual outlook; my main skepticism in any case being towards institutionalized religion and orthodoxy as opposed to orthopraxy and private and personal practice, which get inevitably manipulated by worldly political interests. Regardless, please hear me out: What I find most hypocritical about the current "secular" paradigm in the west is that it is still very much informed by Abrahamic idiosyncrasy, because the prolongation and proliferation of life for life's sake is not questioned and is seen as an intrinsic moral good; but euthanasia, eugenics, population control and just letting people die of diseases which, from a theological perspective exist for a fucking reason in the first place as a natural population control measure, are seen as moral taboos despite them being scientifically sound responses to deal with social discord brought about by overpopulation, dysgenics and the overall welfare and survival of the species. Hence, these pointless artificial crutches like artificial wombs in order to deal with the ever increasing dysgenic state of the population wouldn't be necessary if people fucking died more, lived less, and those who are not fit to live in the first place without medical crutches would be spared from being brought into the world in the first place. For instance I do not necessarily disagree with performing abortions, what I do utterly disagree with is leaving it to the free will and choice of retarded commonfolk who do so in order avoid financial and motherly responsibilities without any rational or altruistic intent, just a purely selfish reflex of their unfitness to be parents in the first place. It should rather be enforced as a eugenics measure to avoid the aforementioned dysgenic and unfit to live from wasting resources and generally being forced to live a perennially painful and unsatisfactory life. That is to say, not just aborting for abortion's sake, but rather using it as an extreme measure for extreme cases that warrant it, be it due to the aforementioned unfitness of the prospective child to be able to live and function sufficiently and/or in a broader societal sense if the prospective parent is really unfit to care for said child in the first place. That is all. Thank you for hearing me out.
>>11265 >or in a broader societal sense if the prospective parent is really unfit to care for said child in the first place what is adoption
>>11261 What am I looking at?
>>11272 I don't disagree, but again, it should not be left up to the free will of any moron with money who may be just as unfit if not moreso. There should be some form of regulation towards seeking someone who is actually fit to take care of that child, and taking it even further, with a monetary incentive by the regulating body/government in order to encourage prospective good parents to take the extra burden of adopting a child, especially since the only way to measure someone's parenting skills in a tangible manner is if they already have children of their own. I personally would prefer my taxes going towards that sort of endeavors rather than paying for some rich cunt's abortion.
>>11265 >For instance I do not necessarily disagree with performing abortions, what I do utterly disagree with is leaving it to the free will and choice of retarded commonfolk who do so in order avoid financial and motherly responsibilities without any rational or altruistic intent, just a purely selfish reflex of their unfitness to be parents in the first place. It should rather be enforced as a eugenics measure to avoid the aforementioned dysgenic and unfit to live from wasting resources and generally being forced to live a perennially painful and unsatisfactory life. Irony aside, I dont think you truly understand the meaning of life. Why would God allow for the "dysgenic and unfit to live" to exist if all their life was, was just unhappiness and pain? Some of the most worse off people in the world (autists, down syndrome's, deformed, etc) are some of the happiest in the world. Should they not get a chance to enjoy what little they can? Yes life is painful, especially for people like them, but an ounce of happiness is worth it all.
>>11277 Because I consider that the artificial medical measures that permit such people to function and live as long as they do currently are just that, artificial, worldly, and that the fact that in a natural environment lacking those medical measures they would quickly succumb and die off is the Godly and natural mechanism that is intended to take place, and humans in their imperfect grayish nature in-between Godly and worldly with which they've had to live with since their fall from Eden, should look towards the natural mechanisms that take place among the creatures untouched by that original sin instead of succumbing to their own hubris of wanting to modify their environment and staving off the mechanisms that rule over them for their own selfish needs.
Furthermore, I understand the objections towards artificially accelerating a person's death, but from my perspective entropy is the guiding principle of the universe, and in pragmatic terms when there is a choice between artificially prolonging a person's life and artificially accelerating that person's death in order to avoid pain, I consider the latter the lesser evil because it is less disruptive to the process of entropy, that is to say, that all life is meant to be finite and return to a state of inert matter in order to provide the resources for new life to be created from.
science and technology is evil. no-one's life should be extended, and we should all be living healthy lives on farms. we should sabotage all tech, science and videogame companies.
>>11284 nature makes drugs and drugs are evil so nature is evil you heretic
>>11286 >nature makes drugs and drugs are evil so nature is evil That is a disingenuous statement. The chemical compounds naturally found in plants are not comparable in concentration and potency to chemically isolated, concentrated and manufactured drugs, and the wild strains of said plants do not produce nearly as much of the amount of said compounds as domesticated strains. And furthermore those compounds have a purpose to the plants functioning completely independent from humans consuming them, so arguing that their purpose is for humans to utilize them is simply false.
>>11288 φαρμακεία (pharmakeíā) >pharmacy; the use of drugs or medicines >sorcery, witchcraft https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%86%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%B1#Ancient_Greek φάρμακον (phármakon) >A drug, whether healing or noxious >A healing drug, medicine, remedy >A potion, charm, spell >A deadly drug, poison https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%86%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%BD#Ancient_Greek φάρμακος (phármakos) >a poisoner, magician, sorcerer https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%86%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%82 Revelation 9:21 >nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries (φαρμάκων (pharmakōn)) or their sexual immorality or their thefts. Deuteronomy 18:10 >There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer (φαρμακός) Deuteronomy 18:12 >Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.
>>11290 What is your point? I am not arguing in favor of drugs, I am pointing out that utilizing naturally produce chemical compounds is a purely artificial human conception, and that their existence in nature has nothing to do with what humans have decided to use them for, and therefore saying that nature is evil because humans, who are the creatures that carry the burden of the original sin, utilize them for their own selfish needs does not make their existence in itself, which is independent of humans and has a completely different purpose for the lifeforms that produce them, is a false equivalency.
Nature is perfect and exists in accordance to God's universal laws, humans are the creatures that were kicked out of Eden for their defiance to God in their arrogant pursuit of knowledge beyond what God had deemed was appropriate for them to know. What evil humans decide to do with the resources found in nature is their own fault, not nature's.
>>11286 Drug use is evil and is sorcery.
>>11292 >God says thou shall not kill >Fills planet with pointed sticks, rocks, gunpowder, and uranium. Checkmate, Christians!
>>11327 Why are you here, golem of the synagogue of satan?
Open file (3.89 MB 716x1280 chevaux.webm)
>>11484 It was a joke. I didn't think that could be any more obvious.
>>11518 Ironic shitposting is still shitposting

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

no cookies?