 |
 |
 |
|||
|
On Faith Reply 1From: Chuck Kovalik In this article, you say that science and religion are at odds, and religion must come up with something new. Well, in your suggestion for a new deity, you compromise the entire nature of a god. It is not some temp you can just hire to fit your needs. Except for a few concepts, science and religion agree more than they disagree. I also bring up the flaws of radio-carbon dating and the fact that science's entire creation theory is discarded and rewritten every half century or so...not a great track record. I'm also confused as to the importance of our position in the universe to our existence. oh, and the whole "the earth is the center of the universe" thing - yeah, that was science.
My Reply No, the Church resisted and condemned anyone who suggested that the Bible was not 100 percent accurate and literal. The Earth had to be the center because simple observation made it so and because humans were the special creation of God and deserved the egocentric position. By the way, 500 to 800 years before the west rediscovered the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun, observers in India had already reach that conclusion but the information appeared to have gotten lost or maybe suppressed. The Church also refused to accept that the Earth could be older than 4004BC as calculated by Usher. Over the course of hundreds of years, this was gradually push back by saying the Earth was older but man wasn’t. Books and authors that departed from the Church’s dogma were exiled, excommunicated, or murdered. The Church, in my view, prolonged the Dark Ages by insisting that the Bible was the only science book needed. Yes, the Church did help by providing a source of government and law when civil governments were destroyed but they enforced their beliefs as justice. Millions were murdered to ensure the purity and progress of the Church’s dogma.
|
2004 Articles |
|||