|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of me is loathe to post here again. I'm just a little tired of people posting negative press articles in the name of "civility" or posting a decent article but then bringing to light one comment that was in poor taste. It's like people are looking for all the negative in life. If that's true, that's really a pretty sad life to be living.
In any case, my wife found an article that I felt a number here might appreciate. I didn't look at all the comments -- I really don't care to -- but what was said in the article was pretty good. I'm not going to say that I agree with what he says 100%, but he's got some good thoughts that many people should think about.
Anyway, enjoy --> The Skinny on Science and Religion.
How Not to Do Evangelism, an insightful article on how to evangelize (anything).
Anyway, enjoy --> The Skinny on Science and Religion.
I LOVE this part:
5. I do not think that “science” is as flawed and misguided as YEC’s and other charge. If YEC’s are correct in their interpretations, it is not just the specific discipline of biological evolution that is wrong, but all the scientific disciplines. The entire scientific enterprise from astronomy to zoology is built upon models of understanding how the universe and world work that contradict the narrow Biblical literalism of YEC proponents. But tell me, who should I, a lay person, believe when it comes to scientific claims? Someone like Francis Collins or John Polkinghorne? Or someone like Ken Ham and those who write the articles at Answers in Genesis?
I do not deny that science has its zealots and anti-religion folks, maybe even more than its share. And their side is not without guilt when it comes to playing political games and launching attacks against those who hold other views. Also, it is certainly true that the scientific consensus should be continually challenged. (In fact it is, all the time, as scientists do their work, publish articles for peer review, and push for new understandings. That is the nature of the scientific process.) But to this educated layman’s perspective, I don’t see much that offers a genuine challenge to the basic models by which current scientific disciplines analyze and interpret nature’s processes—and certainly nothing leading to findings that would confirm a YEC viewpoint.
A lot less anti-science and a lot more intelligent answers like this guy's would have left me a LOT less bitter and antagonistic in the latter part of this thread, and a lot more willing to grant the benefit of the doubt. And the guy posts another point which is even better:
4. I am not afraid to say, “I don’t know.” How does the “creation” account in Genesis 1 fit with the evolutionary findings of science? I have a few ideas, but bottom line—I don’t know. How does the story of God creating Adam fit with the evolutionary development of human beings? I made an unsatisfactory effort the other day to figure it out, but when it comes right down to it, I don’t know. How does death before the Fall fit with Paul’s assertion about the consequence of Adam’s sin? Again, I don’t know.
This guy is awesome. Consider me a fan.
This guy is awesome. Consider me a fan.
Really? He struck me as very mundane. (Making allowances for things I would expect any Christian to say but are grating anyway in the name of charity.) Certainly all the usual baggage is there.
This is a bit of a whopper, though:
3. My first commitment is to reading the Biblical text carefully. I believe the narratives of Genesis 1-11 are: (A) Theological in nature, not scientific or even “historical” in the sense that we have come to expect in modern terms; (B) Written in the genre of Ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies that reflect the “science” of the day, not of our time; (
A flatly contradicts B, unless he's using the scare quotes to denote some rather eccentric special meaning. I don't know how he'd get the idea that the ancients were not out there trying to explain the universe, which would make both Genesis creation stories scientific and historical in their intentions.
I thought about asking, but the comments were not encouraging so I gave it up as a poor prospect.
I would say he's a step mostly in the right direction, especially as he seems to be operating under the notion that if science says X and religion says not-X, it's the religion that needs adjusting. If he's that explicit when it comes to Jesus's resurrection, then I'd be impressed.
Really? He struck me as very mundane.
I would say he's a step mostly in the right direction, especially as he seems to be operating under the notion that if science says X and religion says not-X, it's the religion that needs adjusting.
Two steps in the right direction is what I count: (1) admission of non-omniscience; and (2) the one you noted. That's enough to get me excited about someone -- those admissions are rare enough in print that I can't apply "mundane" in the sense of "commonplace."
Overall, I'd say this guy is more pro-science than most of the so-called "atheist scientists" like Ruse who are clogging the op-ed market with accommodationist pieces.
Two steps in the right direction is what I count: (1) admission of non-omniscience; and (2) the one you noted. That's enough to get me excited about someone -- those admissions are rare enough in print that I can't apply "mundane" in the sense of "commonplace."Really? He struck me as very mundane.
I would say he's a step mostly in the right direction, especially as he seems to be operating under the notion that if science says X and religion says not-X, it's the religion that needs adjusting.
Ok. I don't entirely disagree. (A little bit, but it's a matter of degrees.) I think I read too much enthusiasm into your endorsement.
|
3. My first commitment is to reading the Biblical text carefully. I believe the narratives of Genesis 1-11 are: (A) Theological in nature, not scientific or even “historical” in the sense that we have come to expect in modern terms; (B) Written in the genre of Ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies that reflect the “science” of the day, not of our time; (A flatly contradicts B, unless he's using the scare quotes to denote some rather eccentric special meaning. I don't know how he'd get the idea that the ancients were not out there trying to explain the universe, which would make both Genesis creation stories scientific and historical in their intentions.
I thought about asking, but the comments were not encouraging so I gave it up as a poor prospect.
I would say he's a step mostly in the right direction, especially as he seems to be operating under the notion that if science says X and religion says not-X, it's the religion that needs adjusting. If he's that explicit when it comes to Jesus's resurrection, then I'd be impressed.
I didn't read this as contradicting, rather point A was his personal belief, and point B his understanding of the contextual circumstances under which the story developed, and regardless of point A.
6 For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD?
Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings?
7 In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared;
he is more awesome than all who surround him.Who are the heavenly beings in verse 6 and the council of holy ones in verse 7?
I'm assuming angels...
To summarize events in another thread: me!
|
|
6 For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD?
Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings?
7 In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared;
he is more awesome than all who surround him.Who are the heavenly beings in verse 6 and the council of holy ones in verse 7?
I'm assuming angels...
Interesting.
After doing a little bit of research -- very little -- I found this --> Here. That's probably the best answer I found. The article mirrors what many others say while addressing things that many others don't.
|
|
6 For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD?
Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings?
7 In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared;
he is more awesome than all who surround him.Who are the heavenly beings in verse 6 and the council of holy ones in verse 7?
I'm assuming angels...
Interesting.
After doing a little bit of research -- very little -- I found this --> Here. That's probably the best answer I found. The article mirrors what many others say while addressing things that many others don't.
I always took that passage as being less literal. I can see why scholars would argue over the exact semantics there, especially when terms like Elohim are thrown around. It's from psalms as well, which (if written by David) places it in a time frame when the Old Canaanite Gods might be worshiped still.
I think, however, that it's an affirmation that nothing in creation is as worthy of praise than God. I don't think it's supposed to be read into so deeply. It'd be like delving into a death metal song to understand the nature of Scandinavia.
6 For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD?
Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings?
7 In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared;
he is more awesome than all who surround him.Who are the heavenly beings in verse 6 and the council of holy ones in verse 7?
I'm assuming angels...
Other members of the Jewish pantheon, probably. The Jewish scriptures were written during a transition from fairly traditional polytheism to the monotheism. (Deuteronomy even records one of the necessary purges and, not very subtly, indicates it was written to legitimate the purge.) Psalms has a fair number of these passages, and there are some elsewhere too. Many are at least a little ambiguous with how Elohim is always plural by some grammatical oddity of Hebrew, but others are not.
This is Psalm 82:1 and 82:6
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
[...]
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
It's pretty clearly a declaration that Yahweh is one of many gods, if also the one that created them and rules over them. A lot like Zeus, really.
Here's 86:8:
Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works.
Psalm 96:4
For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods.
Psalm 97 has an interesting riff:
Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods.
Sort of a mix of admitting polytheism and denying it by claiming that other religions just worship their statues.
And then there's Psalm 136:2:
O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.
One can fairly say of course that one should not attempt to do science off the Psalms, as they're not meant as theological texts. But that's true of the great majority of the canon.
That puts the first commandment into a different light. One I find more reasonable.
That puts the first commandment into a different light. One I find more reasonable.
It's a bit like advertising, as long as one neglects that it really was intended as a kind of law.
"Have no other gods before me"
"Drink Mountain Dew"
"You'll never wear ordinary underwear again"
Now I'm picturing Moses coming down from the mountain with all sorts of sponsorship logos on his dress.
I think it's pretty outrageous to demand that your employees follow your preferred religious observances and when told the law says you can't do that decide to cut the rug out from under everybody. It reeks of vengeful personal pique.
If he's had a business for any length of time and employed women for that time, he's almost surely paid for some birth control pills out of their regular checks. He's probably paid for condoms too. There may even be some sex toys and irreligious books purchased with the money. By paying anybody he's giving them as much occasion to sin and I'm sure there are plenty of sins cheaper than a month of birth control. Consensual nookie is free, after all.
I'm a big believer that freedom means nothing if we aren't willing to give others the freedom to do stuff we don't like. As such, I support the employer doing this. I hope his business crashes as a result, but I support his right to do this. And, by the way, considering the level of unemployment and underemployment and cutting of benefits all over the place, the employees might want to consider just how bad off they really are that they have paychecks with which they can pay for birth control.
But since this is a "squabble" between the US federal government and a Catholic employer, his employees' considersation of how bad off they are has nothing to do with it.
But if I worked there, I'd go on strike.
I'm a big believer that freedom means nothing if we aren't willing to give others the freedom to do stuff we don't like.
Except buying birth control, apparently.
What if you worked for a Christian Scientist?
God* help you if you work for a Jehovah's Witness...
* literally. :P
What if you worked for a Christian Scientist?
Pray you don't get sick and that if you do, you die quickly.
Ideal solution: Emplyer bans all insurance because some aspect of it might violate his personal ideas as to what constitutes morality; employees all quit; business goes under (or enough holy rollers come to work for it that he stays afloat, and the former employees all end up happier elsewhere, and everyone wins). Government stays out of it, and watches him crash and burn, or succeed, and doesn't have to do anything.
But that requires (a) plenty of other jobs, so that the employees can quit; and (b) no binding non-competition clauses, etc.; and (c) the guarantee that the employees can talk to one another about this kind of stuff, and maybe all go to the boss and work out an agreement with him. It also assumes that (d) the government isn't giving this employer all kinds of faith-based tax breaks and incentives in order to ensure that he stamps out his competition.
Where we're headed is that (a) jobs are scarce and don't seem to be getting more plentiful, so if you quit you starve; (b) laws that say corporations are always right and citizens have no rights; and (c) a supreme court that believes if you let employees talk to each other and/or question management, that's a form of communism. And (d), we have a government that will rubber-stamp anything you call a "faith-based initiative."
So the ideal solution fails because the prerequisites for it are rapidly being eroded.
What if you worked for a Christian Scientist?Pray you don't get sick and that if you do, you die quickly.
But I only sprained my toe!
But I only sprained my toe!What if you worked for a Christian Scientist?Pray you don't get sick and that if you do, you die quickly.
There is no sickness, only error. Get right with Jesus and you'll discover your toe is not sprained.
...and yes that is really the dogma.
What if you work for a Christian Scientist? Then you discover during your interview that the company doesn't provide medical insurance and you negotiate a higher salary to compensate.
Your employer isn't your surrogate mommy. It's not there to kiss your boo boos and make them go away. It is your responsibility to negotiate the best salary/benefits package you can and if it's not good enough to either make yourself more competitive or become self-employed.
Surrogate mommy, I stubbed my toe! Come kiss it!
Surrogate mommy, I stubbed my toe! Come kiss it!
Surrogate sexual partner is already deciding if you can or can't use birth control. Kissing seems just seems silly in comparison.
Surrogate sexual partner, come rub me down!
|
I've come into the conversation late, so it is very possible for me to be taking something out of context here. But, it is kind of irksome to hear that some people think that they are entitled to something, and if someone doesn't give it to them, for whatever reason, they are not doing their job properly, when in fact it is the opposite. As someone that is basically doing a doctor's, a pharmacist's, and a nurse's job, we have both a moral and legal obligation to concider all factors before giving out meds to a patient.
It doesn't matter if it is because we have a personal religious, or non-religious opinion on the meds, or if we feel that the PT is hiding something, or whatever. We do not have to fill a prescription if we don't want to. Because if something is wrong, it all comes back to us.
If I don't feel confident in the cituation, from granting birth control to offering tylenol or some simple OTC, it isn't happening, because my job is not to give people what they think they need, but to help them within my scope of practice and ability/knowledge, or if that isn't possible, to not cause further harm.
It isn't at all an issue to take a prescription to another pharmacy (or pharmacist), unless that individual has given cause to not be helped, like a history of abusing meds.
|
|
I disagree. In fact I see it often, for both religious and non-religious reasons. It is just as easy to shift the blame to the hospital or doctor that wrote the prescription and sent it to a pharmacy that they would know would either not carry it or refuse to fill it. That is all on the doc. It is also just as easy to blame the individual for taking a prescription to be filled at a place that either does not carry or will not fill it. Prescriptions are both paper (reciepts for the patient) and digitally sent to a pharmacy and the individuals insurence company. It is documented in their records, not sent like an email or an order.
Now while the individual may not honestly have know, the medical facility they visited very well should have (which would be a reasonable place to say is not doing their job), but the pharmacist(s) are completely within the moral and legal rights to refuse to offer certain services, for whatever reason. It is no different than a gas station refusing to carry or sell tobacco, or refusing to sell (for example) Pepsi products because of some personal issue with the company's business practices.
Note that I am not saying it is okay to be prejudice against race, sex, etc. . . which is actually not the same issue at all.
It is your responsibility to negotiate the best salary/benefits package you can and if it's not good enough to either make yourself more competitive or become self-employed.
Except that there are systemic prerequisites for this winning strategy to be possible, and those prerequisites are being swiftly eroded (see previous post).
Become self-employed? Unless you're heir to a fortune, good luck. My wife tried to open a yoga studio, only to discover that getting a large enough loan to do so requires you to be halfway to being a millionaire to begin with.
Statement: "Then get a different job!"
Response: There aren't that many jobs, vs. the number of highly-qualified applicants. Decent ones have like 50 applicants per position. Of course, you can claim the other 49 people "deserve" to be unemployed -- I won't even go there.
Statement: "Then start your own business!"
Response: Generally requires capital investment on a scale that most people cannot accommodate. Of course, one could claim that anyone not inheriting wealth on the basis of their noble birth "deserves" to be unemployed -- again, I won't go there.
That's a good question.
I mean, naysayers like Aberzombie and Crimson Jester are right: this is a ridiculous forum in which to be having political discussions.
But I like it here and it amuses me; that's why I do it.
That's a good question.
I mean, naysayers like Aberzombie and Crimson Jester are right: this is a ridiculous forum in which to be having political discussions.
But I like it here and it amuses me; that's why I do it.
Eh, I think all forums are equally good for it but all of them also require that the relevant parties want to actually have a discussion. This is extremely rare and one can generally pick the posters who do out fairly easily, or there's always what I do which is mostly waste a huge amount of effort on those who do not.
Why do I bother?
I've bothered a bit less since I installed the ignore script.
I'm not totally happy with what using it implies, since to me it's that the person you're ignoring is so far gone that they've surrendered one of the most basic of moral obligations one owes to a fellow person. If a person can't be reasoned with, how can you end a dispute? The tools left are extremely unappealing, to put it mildly, and run heavily to atrocity.
But I do think it's how some people really do want to be treated and we all have finite resources that can often be better spent elsewhere. We're only human and some of that time could be better spent on blasphemy, onanism, WoW, stamp collecting, or whatever.