Which is far better than being an Christian extremist, imo.
You have no evidence to support that statement, the Bible is just a collection of documents, no sort of evidence whatsoever.
. That’s just ignorant! Biology just describes natural phenomena around living or extinct organisms. Belief or non belief in a deity or the supernatural has nothing to do with any of the sciences.Biology is atheist.
. That’s just ignorant! Biology just describes natural phenomena around living or extinct organisms. Belief or non belief in a deit or the supernatural has nothing to do with any of the sciences.
You’re a bilaterian, you’re a vertebrate, you’re a mammal , you’re a primate. You’re an animal ! Name one thing that humans do that animals don’t, besides make music .
Nature as described by scientists is the way it is . Bible stories of creation are inaccurate descriptions of natural phenomena . The Catholic Church was angry with Galileo for telling the truth about planetary systems . He ended up under house arrest for the rest of his life and probably only escaped being burnt alive because the pope was an acquaintance of his.So, science is over here and religion is over there? Here, the fact is God exists. And for some, God does not exist. Religion is concerned with the truth. The Catholic Church is concerned about the truth.
Crying ignorant will not start a conversation. So, please, don't start with that. Instead, we all have to live together in the same place and we both want the truth. The truth about God cannot disappear.
Nature as described by scientists is the way it is . Bible stories of creation are inaccurate descriptions of natural phenomena . The Catholic Church was angry with Galileo for telling the truth about planetary systems . He ended up under house arrest for the rest of his life and probably only escaped being burnt alive because the pope was an acquaintance of his.
Yes ,science is over here and religion is there. SJ Gould referred to it as non-overlapping magisteria
But I think the point is about what expectations you set yourself in the first place.
I suspect that much of the problem with virginity pledges is that they are not, generally, about expectations one sets oneself, but expectations which are imposed by others. And that, then, when those expectations are not fulfilled, there is much shaming of the young people concerned.
I have no problem with a young person privately committing to chastity in singleness. But when it becomes a public spectacle and particularly when a father is made the "guardian" of her "purity" or the like, the potential for abuse is very high.
As for this religion/science thing?I have degrees in both. A BSc majoring in genetics and immunology and an MDiv majoring in systematic theology. Once I got past some of the bad theology I'd been presented with growing up, I had absolutely no problem building an integrated worldview which incorporates the best elements of both.
It's helpful to have some understanding of the kinds of claims science does and does not make; the way scientific claims are made, tested and refined; and it's helpful to have some understanding of the way theological disciplines work (which is very different). What is not helpful is to insist that one is better or more valid than the other; they are different disciplines concerned with different questions, employing different methods and addressing different needs.
Galileo had a very useful analogy; he said that God is the author of two books (Scripture and nature). Since God does not lie, when those two books are interpreted correctly, they cannot contradict one another. Unfortunately, we are generally very prone to bad interpretation!
They both make mating calls and whales call each other by name . It sounds like singing to usBirds sing.
Whales sing.
Public virginity pledges are bad? Are public gay pride parades bad?
Science does make claims about human beings that are outside of its competence. Science even claims that religion grew out of some evolution-related idea. The Catholic Church can and does correct science when its interpretations go behind its self-imposed boundaries. Man has qualities no animals have and an eternal soul. Since science cannot study souls or God, it is up to the Church to provide critical information to people that science cannot. In this way, people know the whole truth.
If they are, it's for very different reasons.
Science can make observations about religiosity and neurology, and speculate about how those observations might be related to evolution, but science does not unequivocally claim what you're stating here.
As for the Catholic church correcting science...... there's not exactly a good track record there. I would say that, on the whole, I have seen religious people speak in ignorance and beyond the boundaries of what can be established by their religion, far more than I have seen scientists speak in ignorance and beyond the boundaries of what can be established by their science.
Yes, it is up to the Church to speak on matters of theology. But it is, frankly, rather self-defeating to denigrate science along the way.
Good pledge, but maybe they should be 'less public', seeing the vast wickednesses in and of the public (even in many churches!) - so as not (even accidentally) to be as if 'offering' a pure white undefiled soul and body in front of nor to those who would defile it, mock it, and even slaughter it !?Public virginity pledges are bad?
In the world, the world loves its own. They always do what is bad.Are public gay pride parades bad?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?