Science vs. Religion
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#1190 Sep 4, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be "generalizing" that most of the Christian clergy of Washington's time were certain of his Christian beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bishop White was considered the father of the Protestant Episcopal church of America, and, Washington, with his wife, attended churches in which Bishop White officiated. In a letter to Rev. B.C.C. Parker of Massachusetts, dated Nov. 28, 1832, in answer to some inquiries respecting Washington's religion, Bishop White wrote:
"His behavior [in church] was always serious and attentive, but as your letter seems to intend an inquiry on the point of kneeling during the service, I owe it to the truth to declare that I never saw him in the said attitude.... Although I was often in company with this great man, and had the honor of dining often at his table, I never heard anything from him which could manifest his opinions on the subject of religion....Within a few days of his leaving the presidential chair, our vestry waited on him with an address prepared and delivered by me. In his answer he was pleased to express himself gratified by what he had heard from our pulpit; but there was nothing that committed him relatively to religious theory" ("Memoir of Bishop White," pp. 189-191; Sparks' "Life of Washington," Vol. ii., p. 359).
In a letter dated Dec. 21, 1832, Bishop White also wrote to Rev. B.C.C. Parker:
"I do not believe that any degree of recollection will bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in the Christian revelation..." ("Memoir of Bishop White," p. 193).
You state that the majority of clergymen did not consider him a Christian (far from it), and then quote one person.

Clergymen who affirmed his Christianity:

Rev. Lee Massey (Washington's early Pastor & family friend)

Rev. Parson Weems (Washington's later Pastor & family friend)

Rev. Nathaniel Randolph Snowden, friend of Isaac Potts;

Rev. Dr. Timothy Johnes, Presbyterian Minister of Morristown and Valley Forge, served George Washington Communion;

Rev. Samuel H. Cox also verifies Washington taking Communion and says that "to all Christians, and to all Americans, it cannot fail to be acceptable."

Rev. General Peter Muhlenberg, a Lutheran pastor who became a military officer serving personally under George Washington, witnessed George Washington praying in a stable.

The Rev. Mr M'Guire,'The Religious Opinions and Character of Washington,' published in 1836, verified the Valley Forge Praying by several sources.

Rev Gano the Princeton Alumni Baptist Minister and Revolutionary Chaplain, who Baptized Washington during the war. He is the one Washington called upon to pray and officially end the Revolutionary War

Rev. Origen Bacherer, insisted that Washington was a communicant,

By the way, what do you get out of Washington's writings (since you can't visually judge his behavior) that cause you to believe that he wasn't an evangelical/fundamentalist Christian (one who believes that the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God)?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#1191 Sep 4, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave you an example of a modern religious conflict with Chritians killing Cristians and there are still doctrinal differences between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants. The doctrinal differences have not gone away.
The war is officially over, but to get to your point, you made a comment that when Christians disagree with each other that's when problems arise like violence and discrimination. The quote is too far back to try and search for it now to 'give' the quote, but that as I remember was the gist of it.

There are modern conflicts regarding doctrinal differences. Without looking for isolated instances where someone shoots or punches someone over a doctrinal argument, the vast majority of Christians make no public display of disagreement. They believe a certain doctrine, and leave it at that. The most aggressive action they may take is merely say "I disagree with....". A smaller segment may get into an argument on an internet forum. When we really narrow things down, we may see heated conflicts due to a Christian author writing a book, or creating a website or blog giving a negative view towards a doctrine, ministry, church, minister, etc,; that may result in a retaliation (a book defending their position, and maybe giving a counter-attack). I'm not aware of any civil wars between Baptists and Pentecostals, or Baptists refusing to rent apartments to Pentecostals.

You're attempting to add one and one together, and get three. You provided an example of two warring factions divided primarily for political reasons.....political unification. When I asked you to give me evidence of the violence and discrimination being directly due to theological differences, you had to go back to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. I'm not denying the 'conflicts' roots. I'm not implying that the conflict is not 'rooted' in theological differences. There are a number of issues that are 'rooted' in certain conflicts that don't apply as a major point in the present, like modern interracial marriage/dating disparities.

The idea that you seemed to give with that original quote (the one that is too far back to look for) is that when two (or more) Christian groups divided by different theologies and doctrines interact, then problems occur like discrimination and violence. And the example you are giving in the modern context is not directly related to theological differences but various social differences (politics, religion, class/education, ethnic background, etc.).

There have been ethnic groups and tribes who fought each other who practiced different religions. They weren't 'religious' wars perse. The fact that their religions are different doesn't help, but they don't war because of the difference in religion. They war due to a combination of differences. They war because they are "different".

Now I know people casually may say the war in Northern Ireland was a 'religious war'. Sometimes it's done out of dishonesty and contempt. But I think many times they are not really thinking about what they are saying. They're thinking like you (Catholics were fighting Protestants. Catholicism and Protestantism are religions. Therefore, it's a religious war).
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#1192 Sep 4, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
You are simply trying to confuse the issue by turning the question around and saying that you believe all men are deserving of eternal punishment. You still believe that only those who believe that Jesus is "God" and savior will aviod eternal punishment. Nothing is changed. Belief in Islam according to you will still result in eternal punishment. Are you claiming that you can respect a man's decision to believe something that will result in his eternal damnation.
Yes, I do respect their decision.

When you question my, or Christians'(in general) ability to tolerate and respect those of other views, I'm guessing you are suggesting that I (or us Christians) are 'intolerant' and 'disrespectful' or 'unrespectful'(an actual word to some degree). How do you think I would act intolerant or disrespectful to a Muslim or Hindu?

By the way, do you tolerate and respect fundamentalist Christians?
Common Sense

San Diego, CA

#1194 Sep 4, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>Did you by chance read the link I gave you?
As far as Muslim nations, there have been recent testimonies of Muslims receiving visions of Jesus Christ as savior, thus converting to Christianity. Which would indicate that peoples in remote areas receive similar spiritual encounters 'before' missionaries even arrive (Again, see link). In any country where persecution is prevalent, true Christianity becomes more evident because they are less likely to merely be 'Cultural Christians'. With that in mind, it's tough to say how many Christians really exist in even the U.S. Also, just because a nation claims to be tolerant doesn't necessarily mean that they are. China is a great example this.
I opened the link but it doesn't address the fact there are 41 countries with a majority population of muslims..Many of those countries do not give reprisals to people with other faiths yet the majority 'remains' muslim...This proves being born in a muslim country means a person will be more likely to live & die muslim making your christian god unfair...Yes, there are christian missionaries over there trying to convert people, and people claiming to have visions etc..There are also christians leaving christianity for other faiths as well..I think these facts make you argument "the christian god is fair" meaningless..IMHO you were grasping at straws and failed..

Again, Here's the link again providing you the evidence being born in a muslim country reduces a persons chance of becoming christian..This of course makes your christian god unfair torturing them because they were true to their native faith they were born into.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country
Common Sense

San Diego, CA

#1195 Sep 4, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I fully understand that you believe 'evolution', and reject the Genesis account/fall of man. But why would these 'fish' commonly used for bait be of more 'controversy' than a 'mouse' living without fear in a pre-fall scenario?
In order to answer that, I need to know what is your "pre-fall scenario is regarding a mouse"? Please keep it reasonable..
Job wrote:
<quoted text>2. It's true that there are, and have been different types of deists. The general Thomas Paine inspired 'activist' deist generally believe that a creator 'does' exist, and is basically 'good' and 'just'. They just don't believe that the creator intervenes in nature and the affairs of men.
Have any of the Deists you mentioned addressed the savage predator/predator design they witnessed in nature while studying it?? Viewing nature to get answers is what Deism is about..
Job wrote:
<quoted text>3. I can't really have a problem with it because your stance is not completely clear. Is there a problem with the question I asked?
Here's my stance again. Please let me know what part of it isn't clear to you so I can clear it up. If I didn't answer one of your questions, I missed it so ask it again.

In my case, I told you if a Deist creator created life on earth, it would be a sadist unless it compensated for the fear, humiliation & pain it created for species through no fault of their own..If 2 Crocodiles tore a gazelle in half, and the gazelles consciousness continued when it's body dies finding itself in unimaginable bliss, this would be compensation for what it was forced to suffered on earth..This possibility is the only reason I'm not an atheist on the existence of any creator god..The anecdotal evidence from near death experiences backs up this possibility..
Patriot

Denver, CO

#1196 Sep 4, 2013
True science and religion have no controversy, they come from One Source. It's when the love of money and/or power gets in the way that there's controversy...

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#1197 Sep 4, 2013
followerofSatan wrote:
<quoted text>
really einstein?... do you even comprehend the meaning of the word "scientific theory" or you prefer to remain ignorant with your imaginary fairy in the sky to guide you? Educate yourself instead of babbling nonsense
The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.
In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2
It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation.
It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
All that to say that the word theory has multiple meanings ? Actually it does not lol.

the·o·ry

/&#712;TH&#275;&#6 01;r&#275;,&#712;THi( &#601;)r&#275;/

noun

noun: theory;&#8195;plural noun: theories

1.

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

example : "Darwin's theory of evolution"

synonyms:

hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition;

Not once do I see the word "fact" listed here. Also the example using the word theory, just so happens to use Darwin theory of evolution lol.

Do yoursrlf a favor and seek the definiton of words prior to defending it's meaning.

How do you even argue with people who don't even know the basics about science ?

This is not even worth an argument.(SMH)

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#1198 Sep 4, 2013
@ followerofsatan:

Also just for the record Einstien, "scientific theory" is not a word lol.
lol

Welch, WV

#1199 Sep 4, 2013
Charle B wrote:
<quoted text>All that to say that the word theory has multiple meanings ? Actually it does not lol.
the·o·ry
/&#712;TH&#275;&#6 01;r&#275;,&#712;THi( &#601;)r&#275;/
noun
noun: theory;&#8195;plural noun: theories
1.
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
example : "Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms:
hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition;
Not once do I see the word "fact" listed here. Also the example using the word theory, just so happens to use Darwin theory of evolution lol.
Do yoursrlf a favor and seek the definiton of words prior to defending it's meaning.
How do you even argue with people who don't even know the basics about science ?
This is not even worth an argument.(SMH)
Pseudo science has made up a pseudo language to make their pseudo cases seem semi-important.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#1202 Sep 4, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
You state that the majority of clergymen did not consider him a Christian (far from it), and then quote one person.
Clergymen who affirmed his Christianity:
Rev. Lee Massey (Washington's early Pastor & family friend)
The Rev. Lee Massey was at one time the rector of Pohick Church, where Washington occasionally attended and is merely quoted as saying that Washington was “so constant an attendant in church”, which is contradicted by Washington’s own diary which shows his best year of attendance to be 1774 when he went only 18 times, and in 1785, 1786, 1788 only attending once.
Job wrote:
Rev. Parson Weems (Washington's later Pastor & family friend)
"Weems was neither a 'Parson,' nor 'formerly rector of Mt. Vernon parish,' but a professional writer of tracts and biographies.…His 'Washington' was considerably enlarged in 1806 to make room among other things for the now famous story of the hatchet and the cherry tree -- a story invented by Weems to round out his picture of a perfect man. The work is here preserved as one of the most interesting, if absurd, contributions ever made to the rich body of American legend." - Mark Van Doren, editor of the 1927 edition of “'Life of Washington” by Rev. Mason L. Weems
Job wrote:
Rev. Nathaniel Randolph Snowden, friend of Isaac Potts;
Rev. Nathaniel Randolph Snowden merely recorded the story of Nathaniel Potts who claimed he saw Washington praying at Valley Forge. He did not attest to Washington’s Christian religious beliefs.
Job wrote:
Rev. Dr. Timothy Johnes, Presbyterian Minister of Morristown and Valley Forge, served George Washington Communion;
Rev. Samuel H. Cox also verifies Washington taking Communion and says that "to all Christians, and to all Americans, it cannot fail to be acceptable."
“As the story is generally told, Washington addressed a letter to a Presbyterian minister, the Rev. Dr. Johnes, asking him if he would admit to the communion a member of another Church. The clergyman replied,‘Certainly. this is not a Presbyterian table, but the Lord's table…Accordingly, we are told, Washington attended the meeting and partook of the sacrament. Sparks gives as his authority Dr. Hosacks''life of De Witt Clinton.' Dr. Hosack's authority was the Rev. Samuel H. Cox, who tells us he had it "from unquestionable authority...a venerable clergyman, who had it from Dr. Johnes himself.’…Asa C. Colton [author, 1804-1881] could find no evidence that it was a fact. He found a son of the Rev. Dr. Johnes, who had no recollection of the alleged event, and could give no testimony.”- Franklin Steiner

"...as pastor of the Episcopal Church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays George Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation -- always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants...I considered it my duty, in a sermon on public worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations, who uniformly-turned their backs on the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it. A few days after, in conversation, I believe, with a Senator of the United States, he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who, in the course of conversation at the table, said that, on the previous Sunday, he had received a very just rebuke from the pulpit for always leaving the church before the administration of the sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candor;...and that he would not again give cause for the repetition of the reproof...Accordingly, he never afterwards came on the morning of sacrament Sunday..." - Rev. Dr. James Abercrombie, rector of St. Peter's Church, in Philadelphia.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#1203 Sep 4, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Isaiah 49:6 "...I will also give you for a light to the Gentiles, that you may be my salvation unto the end of the earth". The rest is in there but offhand I don't know where.
And there is a prophecy that says that when the Jews return to Jerusalem with the coming of the Messiah that there will be 10 Gentiles hanging onto the coattails of each one to learn the way. There are also plenty of Psalms that are pure cheer-leading (Our God is the BEST God! Forget about the rest Gods! Yay God!) So what? At best, that shows that the God of the Bible is willing to accept converts from the Gentiles.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#1204 Sep 4, 2013
lol wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, He IS the Only Way. You calling Him a liar?
Are you of the church of Oprah? Here is the perfect example of the church of Oprah, the church of Nettielbelle/Cookie, the church of anyone who thinks there is some other way to heaven EXCEPT through and by the Atoning Blood of Christ.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =noO_dCWtB1EXX
Jesus was preaching Judaism when he said that..

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#1205 Sep 4, 2013
followerofSatan wrote:
<quoted text>
wow.. that's really brilliant moron.. now look up scientific theory in the encyclopedia, either Britannica or WIki or go to the National Academy of Science website...
my condolences to your mom...
You have no idea what you are talking about. If you have ever attended a college or university, you would know that scientific theories are not taught as fact lol. Engine search my name on Google, I have debated all across scientific forums, as well as the science forums on Topix. You wouldn't even be able to tie the shoes of the people that I have debated on those forums, let alone trying to engage with me. Here is what you can do, stop changing your Topix names, stop being a troll, and go find a friend who is higher up the food chain than yourself. When that is complete, then try getting back at me. Until then, don't even bother wasting my time. The level of your misinformation is brain numbing.

Are we resorting to mom jokes ? Let's not go there, it is you who claims that your mother is an ape lol.

Cya around DUMBA@@

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#1206 Sep 4, 2013
The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. Unfortunately, if you don't agree with this label, you too are labeled. Regardless of whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist, if you disagree with the stereotype, you're condemned and "exposed" as a religious fanatic who is secretly trying to pass religion off as science or, even worse, trying to disprove science in order to redeem a ridiculous, unscientific, religious worldview. The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution). Whether we like to admit it or not, those of us who subscribe to the theory of evolution do so by faith. And while the recognition of design in biology may have theological implications, it is not based upon religious premise, rather it is based upon empirical observation and logic.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Tijeras, NM

#1208 Sep 4, 2013
Charle B wrote:
The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. Unfortunately, if you don't agree with this label, you too are labeled. Regardless of whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist, if you disagree with the stereotype, you're condemned and "exposed" as a religious fanatic who is secretly trying to pass religion off as science or, even worse, trying to disprove science in order to redeem a ridiculous, unscientific, religious worldview. The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution). Whether we like to admit it or not, those of us who subscribe to the theory of evolution do so by faith. And while the recognition of design in biology may have theological implications, it is not based upon religious premise, rather it is based upon empirical observation and logic.
Whether you like it or not, evolution accounts for the diversity of life on Earth beyond reasonable doubt.

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#1209 Sep 4, 2013
The universe is all about math. Based on math, it is odd to rule out intelligent design. If we had to come up with a number to describe the odds of a big bang theory, it would be 100 trillion zeroes, with the number 1 at the end of it. Even then, you would not be close to the actual number. You would have a better chance of winning the lottery everyday of your life, than for a universe such as ours to randomly be created.

#t=11

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#1210 Sep 4, 2013
Darwin suggest that humans evolved to survive. However humans wanting to know what is going on inside atoms and black holes is far beyond Darwin's theory of evolution. We as humans do not need to know how atoms work, in order to ensure and promote our everyday survival. Just as it is not needful for a lion to have knowledge of black holes in order to ensure it's survival. Such intelligence is done by design, rather than need.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Tijeras, NM

#1211 Sep 4, 2013
Charle B wrote:
The universe is all about math. Based on math, it is odd to rule out intelligent design. If we had to come up with a number to describe the odds of a big bang theory, it would be 100 trillion zeroes, with the number 1 at the end of it. Even then, you would not be close to the actual number. You would have a better chance of winning the lottery everyday of your life, than for a universe such as ours to randomly be created.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =EUe_Vfi5IL0XX#t=11
What about a universe where people didn't say stupid shít like that?

How many zeroes would that be?

God bless you.
Common Sense

San Diego, CA

#1215 Sep 4, 2013
Charle B wrote:
<quoted text>You have no idea what you are talking about. If you have ever attended a college or university, you would know that scientific theories are not taught as fact lol. Engine search my name on Google, I have debated all across scientific forums, as well as the science forums on Topix. You wouldn't even be able to tie the shoes of the people that I have debated on those forums, let alone trying to engage with me. Here is what you can do, stop changing your Topix names, stop being a troll, and go find a friend who is higher up the food chain than yourself. When that is complete, then try getting back at me. Until then, don't even bother wasting my time. The level of your misinformation is brain numbing.
Are we resorting to mom jokes ? Let's not go there, it is you who claims that your mother is an ape lol.
Cya around DUMBA@@
Do you have any journal articles published that have been peer reviewed to ensure they meet the journal's standards of quality, and scientific validity? Just because you debate on science forums doesn't mean you qualify for a science degree..My engine search said nothing about a Charle B scientist debating on science forums..You sound like you're trying to toot your air horn with no air..

lol

Welch, WV

#1216 Sep 4, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus was preaching Judaism when he said that..
Hardly. He was preaching His Way. I take it you are talking about Deuteronomy 6:4? That was just a shadow of the Messiah, which was Jesus Christ.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Dating Morals 11 hr arrow 10
SCIENTIFIC ERRORS of the BOOK OF REVELATION. (Sep '08) Wed arrow 43
Can You Be A Christian AND Believe In Reincarna... (May '09) Apr 17 pelham2micci 526
doggy style Apr 17 DeDominicis 3
What Does the Word Say Apr 16 arrow 3
In What Epoch or Era Apr 16 Joey 2
Atheism destroyed with one question (Jan '14) Apr 16 Joey 52