Except that we are attached by invisible strings. Each person is attached to another by the relationships that they make. This enables a person to pull/push another and to be pushed/pulled.
Meanwhile, @Dywyddyr:
So, you're saying that Christians can't be open-minded? I think you just invented a new definition for hypocrisy, good sir.
Also, there are plenty of spectral terms and invisible strings in science. Dark energy. Dark matter. Higgs boson. Newtonian gravitational theory. These things are believed to be perfectly accurate with no actual evidence to support their existence other than vague observations. I'm not saying that the universe isn't increasing it's acceleration or that galaxies aren't held together when they shouldn't be, I'm merely suggesting the notion that maybe scientists cling to things that they can't see just as avidly as any theologian. The Higgs boson has yet to be discovered, despite the fact that we were absolutely certain that the LHC could find it. We were also certain that FermiLab could find it. And now that we're getting closer to finding out that the LHC can't find it, we're considering making a bigger LHC that we're certain can. Because Science help us if the Higgs mechanism occurs in nature without a corresponding Boson, because then we can't explain how it would occur.
Meanwhile, 96% of the universe can't be accounted for, so science makes up a couple of new particles to describe where it all went, and then goes looking for them. This is because no scientist on Earth wants to consider the alternative: Newtonian gravitational theory might not be accurate on a cosmic scale, meaning that it needs to be modified. While some scientists have, in fact, proposed some remarkable new ideas into that (including dark fluid, which attributes dark energy and dark matter to mere properties of space itself and seems to satisfy all known equations for both phenomenon), no one really talks about them, because they're not following doctrine, er, I mean what scientists have been claiming for about thirty to forty years.
I am a G-d fearing Christian, Catholic by denomination if it means anything. I was taught in a Catholic school, meaning that I was taught the theory of evolution alongside religion, because, guess what? Pope John Paul II incorporated the theory of evolution into Catholic doctrine. I can accept that what the Bible says is the Word of G-d and still reconcile evolution by making a simple assumption: G-d can lie. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, the concept of a billion wasn't very apparent in Hebrew in Moses' time, nor was the concept of single-celled prokaryotic organisms adapting into single-celled eukaryotic organisms. In fact, I'm almost positive that out of that whole clause, only the word "single" even appears in ancient Hebrew/Sumerian/Egyptian/whatever.
But back to the actual question at hand: is Richard Dawkins accurate? Not really. People take it to that particular extreme, but at its core Christianity is about loving (Greek agape, meaning unconditional love) your neighbor as yourself and loving G-d with all your being. As far as why He should be concerned with sin, think of it this way: He's everywhere, with everyone, at all times, and is perfectly aware of everything we say or do. We don't get lost in the system. We don't come up as a speck of dust to Him, because that's what omniscience is. And whenever you sin, whenever you break that simple fundamental command that I mentioned above, you hurt someone, either yourself or someone else. Given that, given that He can feel your feelings at all times and can know you like no one else can, how can He not care about when you get hurt?
Anyway, that's my opinion. Let the bashing of religion continue.
Meanwhile, @Dywyddyr:
So, you're saying that Christians can't be open-minded? I think you just invented a new definition for hypocrisy, good sir.
Also, there are plenty of spectral terms and invisible strings in science. Dark energy. Dark matter. Higgs boson. Newtonian gravitational theory. These things are believed to be perfectly accurate with no actual evidence to support their existence other than vague observations. I'm not saying that the universe isn't increasing it's acceleration or that galaxies aren't held together when they shouldn't be, I'm merely suggesting the notion that maybe scientists cling to things that they can't see just as avidly as any theologian. The Higgs boson has yet to be discovered, despite the fact that we were absolutely certain that the LHC could find it. We were also certain that FermiLab could find it. And now that we're getting closer to finding out that the LHC can't find it, we're considering making a bigger LHC that we're certain can. Because Science help us if the Higgs mechanism occurs in nature without a corresponding Boson, because then we can't explain how it would occur.
Meanwhile, 96% of the universe can't be accounted for, so science makes up a couple of new particles to describe where it all went, and then goes looking for them. This is because no scientist on Earth wants to consider the alternative: Newtonian gravitational theory might not be accurate on a cosmic scale, meaning that it needs to be modified. While some scientists have, in fact, proposed some remarkable new ideas into that (including dark fluid, which attributes dark energy and dark matter to mere properties of space itself and seems to satisfy all known equations for both phenomenon), no one really talks about them, because they're not following doctrine, er, I mean what scientists have been claiming for about thirty to forty years.
I am a G-d fearing Christian, Catholic by denomination if it means anything. I was taught in a Catholic school, meaning that I was taught the theory of evolution alongside religion, because, guess what? Pope John Paul II incorporated the theory of evolution into Catholic doctrine. I can accept that what the Bible says is the Word of G-d and still reconcile evolution by making a simple assumption: G-d can lie. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, the concept of a billion wasn't very apparent in Hebrew in Moses' time, nor was the concept of single-celled prokaryotic organisms adapting into single-celled eukaryotic organisms. In fact, I'm almost positive that out of that whole clause, only the word "single" even appears in ancient Hebrew/Sumerian/Egyptian/whatever.
But back to the actual question at hand: is Richard Dawkins accurate? Not really. People take it to that particular extreme, but at its core Christianity is about loving (Greek agape, meaning unconditional love) your neighbor as yourself and loving G-d with all your being. As far as why He should be concerned with sin, think of it this way: He's everywhere, with everyone, at all times, and is perfectly aware of everything we say or do. We don't get lost in the system. We don't come up as a speck of dust to Him, because that's what omniscience is. And whenever you sin, whenever you break that simple fundamental command that I mentioned above, you hurt someone, either yourself or someone else. Given that, given that He can feel your feelings at all times and can know you like no one else can, how can He not care about when you get hurt?
Anyway, that's my opinion. Let the bashing of religion continue.
Last edited:
