What does /sci/ think of Christian Science?
>>7880634
Kek
I like their logo.
>>7880634
>Science
ohr.edu/838
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJu0oYvi-cY
>>7880634
Mmehhmehhee
>>7880634
Is this bait?
>>7880634
Christian science is heresy
bump for interesting feedback
In all honesty how the hell do scientifically literate Christians reconcile evolution and the concept of sin/the fall of man? The whole fucking system collapses.
>>7880691
Ask Ben Carson.
>>7880691
http://christiansciencemedia.org/files/2010/03/Science-and-Health-with-Key-to-the-Scriptures.pdf
that's their guide, their bible so to speak
>>7880706
You might have to speak to a catholic for clarity.
To put it simply, they believe that Genesis is mostly metaphorical/mythical to explain separation sacredness and human fallibility.
While protestants are the people who believe everything in genesis is literal, and the same group one mostly protest against evolution.
As for Orthodox, I'm not sure.
>>7880634
Religion is one method of Collecting and generating knowledge, science is a completely different method. Christian Science would be a paradox
>>7880733
But the point I'm trying to make is that the Catholic metaphor really doesn't make any sense with evolution. The world was wicked before man came along and that was because of God and no one else is to blame, human weren't even around yet to start sinning.
>>7880746
Ask a catholic.
>>7880746
>The world was wicked before man came along
Why? Because of natural disasters and predators? Catholics don't really consider nature to be evil, or even moral in any sense.
>>7880753
>Ask a catholic.
I'm a fallen Catholic.
There's no real conflict.
The "fall of man" story is entirely metaphorical, and doesn't have to fit any actual chronology because time it is actually a "what if", not "first this happened, then that".
It literally says "humans were perfect, then they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil", and that really means "the ability to tell right from wrong is a prerequisite for sin".
If we didn't have "the knowledge of good and evil", nothing we did would be truly sinful.
>>7880755
>Catholics don't really consider nature to be evil, or even moral in any sense.
THIS
Christian Science on /sci/ is neither Christian, nor science, nor /sci/.
>>7880755
>>7880772
Yes, there where sentient species who suffered before humans existed, and even near human species who suffered. It doesn't have to be "moral evil" to be wicked or unpleasant existence witch doesn't makes sense if they is an all good God but no sinners to defy him, not to mention non of these being can go to heaven so they have to suffer for no real reason.
And there probably was "moral evil" in pre homo sapiens species, even though its quite impossible to pick out a distinct point where we became intelligent enough to become understand right and wrong.
>>7880800
>unpleasant existence witch doesn't makes sense if they is an all good God
You seem to be assuming God is micro-managing he universe, and if any creature has a bad day, then God has failed somehow.
That just doesn't jibe with the theological notion of free will.
God has given us the ability to make our own decisions, and our happiness and suffering are therefore our own responsibility.
>>7880634
Not science, not christian, 100% cult
>>7880814
You seem to be assuming god.
>>7880822
>judaism
>heresy
Reminder that Jesus was Joshua
>>7880746
>The world was wicked
No, that's Gnostic nonsense and heresy. No Christian believes that.
>>7880800
No, in Catholicism, animals have "animus" or an animating soul. This isn't equivalent to a human's immortal soul. This is because animals act reflexively and unconsciously and therefore they have no free will. No free will means no immortal soul (this gets complicated when talking about angels and demons). When an animal dies, the animus is extinguished. When a person dies, they go to purgatory or hell (no one goes straight to heaven when they die).
Angels are considered to have free will but have infinite insight. If they are good, then they follow God's will unconditionally because they see in their infinite foresight that it is the right thing to do. Angels who refuse to follow God's will to the letter are cast down to Hell. So do angels have free will? Yes, but once they exercise it, they become demons. So if you're allowed to have free will but you're not allowed to do what you want, what's the point? Idk, \_o_/
>>7880839
Wow that sounds really unfair to the angels. I think we should bust open hell and free all those angel-demons
>>7880829
>Rejecting Christ
>Not heresy
John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but as it is they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me also hates my Father. 24 If I had not done works among them that no one else ever did, they would not have sin; but as it is, they have seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But in order that the word written in their law might be fulfilled, ‘They hated me without cause.’
>>7880866
Jesus never existed.
>>7880733
>>7880746
>>7880753
Another thing to understand is that there are many sects of Catholicism, each with their own flavor of crazy. For the most part, catholics tend to be a little more moderate than your average fundy-baptist, but there are some schools of thought that would even give those guys a run for their money (see The Legion of Christ or Catholicism in the Philippines).
For the most part (at least within Catholic Universities), biblical literalism is severely frowned upon. This type of disdain is reserved for openly gay "art" students and subhuman fanatics.
The Catholic Church actually has a long history of supporting the sciences. Galileo wasn't placed under house arrest because he said Jupiter has moons, he placed under house arrest because he was saying douchey things about the Pope (something you wouldn't do to any monarch without risking execution). The whole "chopped off his middle finger" thing was some grave-robber 200 years after he died.
The vatican has an observatory and employs astrophysicists. Their prospective is that if God created the heavens, it's our duty to understand His creation in order to better understand Him.
Science within intellectual catholicism is generally considered orthogonal to faith. Meaning that if you have faith in God, then that faith is not under threat from anything that you could possibly ever learn. The whole idea that your faith is under attack from knowledge -to them- is laughable. It's basically publicly crying out that your faith wasn't that strong in the first place. And the whole idea of this constant battle of "Well Science may have explained this phenomenon regarding this biblical story but will never explain ____" is considered, at best, adorably naive. That particular argument is known as "The God Of The Gaps".
(source: I work in a hard science department at an incredibly conservative catholic university)
>>7880866
Jesus was basically nothing more than a cult leader, most everything written in the New Testiment is a lie.
>>7880824
If you need to make an argument, then an axiom is necessary, otherwise you're not saying anything at all.
>>7880853
Agreed, but usually they're cast down because they fucked with people and God was all like "Not cool, brah". So maybe not such a great idea to bust them out.
>>7880877
> implying that religion is not about control
> implying that any religion is not considered a cult at first
>implying
>>7880881
He's assuming god, meaning he's assuming there has to be a god to explain why we're here.
>>7880824
>You seem to be assuming god.
Yeah, I got a little carried away, but I'm moderately drunk (tequila and banana schnapps).
Then again, I'm a deist, so yeah, I do assume God in real life, if not on /sci/.
>>7880897
That pic is hilarious.
>>7880634
I am a direct descendant of Mary baker eddy.
>>7880898
same dude already liked and favorited it plus shared it with all my facebook pals
god i love reddit
my best friend's dad says it's like horse radish ... neither one nor the other
>>7880706
Evolution can describe a path that the world took after it became fallen. As a mathematical parallel, the only function of the world's state we have is its current value and its derivative over our own projections of time--in the simplest sense, you cannot reconstruct a function with complete accuracy with this information alone. Further, as you know, evolution is a theory, meaning that it's not an absolute.
As a Christian who believes in an all-powerful God, I don't discount the possibility that the world was created in a perfect state and then fell, creating the cascade of events leading to the current time as a result of the essential sudden decrease in energy that came with the fall.
Also, original sin isn't an inherent theological precept in all denominations of Christianity.
Many (certainly not all) of the classical fathers of science, even contemporaries of Darwin, were themselves extremely religious and devout Christians. It's no new trend for minds--mundane or great alike--to be able to embrace objective thought without dismissing their faith.
>>7880634
I don't understand them but so long as someone's method is sound and their chasing answers I'm interested in learning then who gives a shit if they're Christian?
>>7880691
To take this from another perspective, lets talk about a side of Christianity which is often forgotten since it disconnected from Christianity around the enlightenment.
The concept of sin is fundamentally about the misanthropic nature of human beings, who are often treacherous, nasty, cruel and violent. The old testament should be take to be an explanation of the world to the israelites of their world as they could perceive it. The new testament is primarily about philosophy.
The books of Moses are the laws.
The books of the Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Sam, Kings, Chronicles are the histories. The both provide an example for the use of faith to inspire and the insight needed to enlighten people to the thinking of kings.
The Psalms are songs for common people to remember to keep their faith and provide simple insight on morality.
The poetry of Job, Proverbs Ecclesiastes and the songs of solomon touch the wisdom of life.
The Prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, and all the minor prophets are literally on rejecting and defeating degeneracy.
The Gospels are philosophy and faith
The Epistles are essentially more anti-degeneracy and setting the grounds for the practise and growth of the new religion.
The entire bible is a fantastic book of wisdom and truth.
Even in the bible, God "evolves" his contract with the descendents of Noah makes evident that he changes and matures. Even for an omnipotent, omniscient being, I would argue it stands to reason that he attempted to make the world perfect in the way which is easiest for him. Evolution allows his creations to always rise and fall, in a constant struggle for survival. It allows for the birth of endless innovation driven autonomously by his creations.
It stands to reason also that he would be a scientist and mathematician if he made the universe obey the laws. Why doubt it within the field of evolution, merely because the word of god interpreted through the mouths of men could not be comprehended.
Leave it to /sci/ to get into a religious debate
>>7881710
Something I've noticed about the greatest disbelieving minds is that they're still able to respect those who hold beliefs that they do not themselves hold.
Do you really think you'll be a great scientist when you keep your mind forcibly shut to things you don't understand? Assuming that the only possible reason somebody could disagree with you on something--something you yourself can't prove--is the absolute epitome of a lack of understanding.
Is God subject to logic, or is God the source of logic? Can God make a square circle or a 4 sided triangle?
>>7881734
> keep your mind forcibly shut to things you don't understand?
I don't understand topology, are you saying I'm keeping my mind forcibly shut to it?
There's nothing to understand about unsubstantiated, infantile claims about your daddy figures.
>>7880876
Galileo was put under arrest for going against canon law with geocentricism.
Isn't that the real reason he was put there?
>>7880691
>implying all Christian denominations reject evolution
There's that Burger education again
>>7880839
When did human gets this "immortal soul" in evolution and how can you tell the difference between reacting animal and a "free agent"? How do you know you know that free will is a thing yet alone that we even have it?
Even if God did give a soul to humans this would imply a lot of weird things. Would their non-souled parents not be able to get into heaven? Would they not be judged for their sins like proper soul owning humans? These beings would virtually identically, having the same levels or cognition and moral/social life yet one is a arbitrarily a human and one is not.
>>7881897
The Church didn't like because he put down the basics of relativity and BTFOed the principles of absolute motion witch aristotelian physics, thus aristotelian metaphysics thus a lot of Catholic philosophy is based on, but you'll never meet a Catholic who will admit that.
>>7882467
Do you not know what the word reconcile means?
Oxymoron.
>>7881897
>Galileo was put under arrest for going against canon law with geocentricism.
No, the pope gave Galileo the thumbs up to go ahead and study heliocentrism's worth. Galileo then wrote a fedoratastic book insulting everyone who disagreed with his enlightened [math] opinion [/math] and got into trouble.
>"Bu-but he was right, wasn't he"
Right by accident doesn't count. There was no evidence for heliocentrism over geoheliocetrism and people preferred geo* as it better explained the lack of a stellar parallax at the time. It would be hundreds of years later before someone manages to measure the parallax of the stars in 1838.
>>7882630
>There was no evidence for heliocentrism over geoheliocetrism
But that's wrong you idiot.
>>7880691
They either will do some fairly impressive mental gymnastics to accept that bible part 1 is indeed the word of god but is all metaphors. Or they are believe that being a christian is following the teachings of christ, and that really has nothing to do with the bible part 1.. so they don't really care about the bible and accept it to be fables.
>>7880895
>Look mommy, I just found out about the noble lie
>I must be smarter than all of humanity!
>>7882683
>if a book has one metaphor, then it's all metaphors
Yeah, any science book with any examples is clearly all bullshit since the examples are made up (a fiction). I would need impressive mental gymnastics to figure out what was supposed to be understood as made up and what isn't. I sure as hell can't do it so no one can. Checkmate scientists!
![patchpic[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/0IBjXxE.jpg "patchpic[1].png")
>>7880634
How does it compare to Spirit Science?
