Christian bronies: meet, greet, and mingle!

[I used to be a stranger 7,993]

So a thing happened on reddit/r/space today.

 

A number of videos released by NASA were attacked by conspiracy theorists, calling astronauts and like-topics "masonic", "pseudoscien[tific]" and "against god". What's their beef against Scott Kelly breaking the American record for most consecutive days spent in space, I have no idea.

 

I bring this up on this thread specifically because I often find myself concerned when people seem to raise some objection about there being a compatibility with God and scientific understanding. I don't know about you but I think they're wonderful examples of both God's creative powers, and his adoration of us, that the Universe might come into existence through a Big Bang, or that humans could explore the moon. I have yet to comprehend the mind that would try to say moon landings and the Big Bang are ideas diametrically opposed to God's providence or Jesus's love.

 

I also bring this up on this thread because space is cool and I like having friends who are Christians who also like space.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Blue

[StormLantern the 1st 427]

SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE!

 

But seriously, I have no issue with scientific progress, particularly with anything to do with space.

 

I do take issue with certain subsets of biological and genetic research, but that's a personal thing. Like you, I don't think that scientific progress and discovery are incompatible with faith. Quite the opposite. The more I understand about science and the universe, the more awe I feel about God, His providence, and the intricacies of His creation. Space in particular fascinates me, and I hope that humans will be able to colonize other worlds, and discover more about the universe.

 

Space, space. Wanna go to space.

[DarkHaert 277]

@,@@Blue,

 

I take science to be what humanity has learned of God's creations. Granted, there are some things that should not be known by us— those certain subsets of genetic and biological research. Space is just another thing God made, and the more we learn about it, such as how the universe is expanding, then I agree with Spirit Lantern, I'm in total awe of the awesome things that God created.

[I used to be a stranger 7,993]

This post has been redacted by the author.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Blue

[Steel Accord 6,660]

@,@@Blue,

 

I take science to be what humanity has learned of God's creations. Granted, there are some things that should not be known by us— those certain subsets of genetic and biological research. Space is just another thing God made, and the more we learn about it, such as how the universe is expanding, then I agree with Spirit Lantern, I'm in total awe of the awesome things that God created.

 

What's wrong with those subjects? It's against God to understand how biological life works? If He gave us dominion and responsibility over our kin life, then surely such studies would fall under that.

[StormLantern the 1st 427]

What's wrong with those subjects? It's against God to understand how biological life works? If He gave us dominion and responsibility over our kin life, then surely such studies would fall under that.

 

It's not the knowledge or its use I take issue with; it's certain, morally questionable means of obtaining that knowledge. I don't mean to say that genetics or biology isn't useful and right, only that there are people pursuing those subjects without a grounding in godly morals. If the understanding can be obtained and used without crossing the line into sin, I have no issue with using it to the fullest extent.

 

I mean no disrespect.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

It's not the knowledge or its use I take issue with; it's certain, morally questionable means of obtaining that knowledge. I don't mean to say that genetics or biology isn't useful and right, only that there are people pursuing those subjects without a grounding in godly morals. If the understanding can be obtained and used without crossing the line into sin, I have no issue with using it to the fullest extent.

 

I mean no disrespect.

 

Well what immoral ways are you even referring to? Surely just looking at cells under a microscope couldn't be considered a sin.

 

 

I mean no disrespect.

 

I didn't think you meant any. 

[Once In A Blue Moon 895]

 

 

Well what immoral ways are you even referring to?

 

There are immoral ways of performing science. A statistics lecturer brought one up as an example of how statistical methods can be limited by real life:

 

"The harmful effects of high levels of exposure to asbestos are well known, but what is not known is the effect of moderate to low levels of asbestos on humans - if any. Indeed, this lecture theater is quite old and almost certainly has asbestos insulation, so we are all being exposed to low levels of it right now. If we wanted to find out for sure, what we could do is set up randomised control trial of, say, 10,000 people. We would expose 5000 of them to low levels of asbestos for about 20 years, whilst the others would not be exposed to any at all for the same period. We could then examine the average life expectancy of each group to see if there is a difference. Obviously we aren't allowed to do this, as if there is a detrimental effect then we have contributed to or hastened the death of a number of people."

 

However I would say that this is a flaw in the method, rather than the objective. I cannot think of anything within the physical universe that it is inherently immoral for us to know (if understanding the mind of a rapist or an abuser of children allows us to help prevent such atrocities, then that is a good thing for us to know. Indeed, understanding the minds and actions of criminals is a key component of modern policing and criminal rehabilitation.)

[I used to be a stranger 7,993]

This post has been redacted by the author.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Blue

[Steel Accord 6,660]

@@Blue,

 

Wait though, if the placenta is all that is needed, why ARE babies used? 

[I used to be a stranger 7,993]

This post has been redacted by the author.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Blue

[Sudo Krenton 243]

 

 

That is a stupendously good question.  

 

I DON'T KNOW.

 

 

One possible answer would be to justify abortion as having some "beneficial" value to it, thus making ill-informed, would-be parents eased at the though of aborting their child for the possible betterment of mankind. Then again, that's assuming I read all that was being said correctly.

 

..... hello friends, I'm back.

[Sunwalker 981]

@@Blue,

 

Wait though, if the placenta is all that is needed, why ARE babies used?

 

One possible answer would be to justify abortion as having some "beneficial" value to it, thus making ill-informed, would-be parents eased at the though of aborting their child for the possible betterment of mankind. Then again, that's assuming I read all that was being said correctly.

It is politics rather than anything else, it is just a way to attack and attempt to discredit Christianity. When you want to spread your power and your morals as much as possible, the only thing in a global scale that is standing in your way is Christianity. Do you know about "divide and conquer"? When you want to spread your power over a certain society, you first start by discrediting its existing foundations, and religion and family are two important ones.

 

About the subject of stem cells. One must take care to differentiate stem cells from embryos and from the placenta, as they are not the same. From a scientific standpoint, a treatment based on embryonic stem cells is complete nonsense, even if there weren't any moral problems with it. Yes, theoretically they can turn into any kind of body cell, but that is the problem. Their division cannot be controlled, once you administer them to a patient. The cells can begin to divide uncontrollably, in other words, a cancer. To this date, there is not a single positive result coming from embryonic stem cell treatment, and only negative ones. Whoever try to sell embryonic stem cells research as a panacea, that paralyzed people are going to walk with it, yadda yadda...; either they are completely ignorant about the subject or are outright lying. If it weren't for the political side, this research line would have been abandoned long ago. On the other hand, research with stem cells from the placenta does show promising results, and have no moral problems.

 

About the moral side of things, it is pretty simple: the ends do not justify the means. From the moment of conception, the zygote is a genetically unique person, who will continue its development unless some external force stops it. A human being is human at any stage of its development, and he will go through all the stages of life unless something prevents him from doing so. If a teen is killed, he will not become an adult; if a kid is killed, he will not become a teen and an an adult. If an embryo is killed, he is not going to become a kid and so on... The stage of development is irrelevant for humanity of someone, a person is a human in all of them, and destroying him at any point is murder. Even if embryonic stem cells could be used for a successful treatment, this would be still immoral. It would be not unlike killing an adult person for the sake of getting his organs for a sick patient.

 

---

 

..... hello friends, I'm back.

Welcome back, @Sudo Krenton!

 

I hope your course is going well

[Once In A Blue Moon 895]

 

 

It is politics rather than anything else, it is just a way to attack and attempt to discredit Christianity. When you want to spread your power and your morals as much as possible, the only thing in a global scale that is standing in your way is Christianity. Do you know about "divide and conquer"? When you want to spread your power over a certain society, you first start by discrediting its existing foundations, and religion and family are two important ones.

 

I'm not entirely convinced that abortion is part of a conspiracy to undermine Christianity - far more believable is that it is a convenience offered by modern technology. Options offered my modern technology certainly make it difficult to be a Christian at times, but one should not mistake that for deliberate and conscious persecution. As we have already concluded, science can be used for good or for evil - so an invention or discovery that is made with the best of intentions can make being a Christian more difficult entirely by accident as it makes evil actions easier or good more difficult (nuclear weapons spring to mind - their use would result in the deaths of millions of innocents, and is entirely unacceptable, but if we didn't have them then we could be held hostage by those that would use them... fun times. All because of nuclear physics that might just solve our energy problems.) 

 

 

 

From the moment of conception, the zygote is a genetically unique person, who will continue its development unless some external force stops it.

 

Well that is the whole issue: when does the zygote actually become a person? I err on the side of caution, and would recommend against (almost) any abortion (I don't know enough about the conditions that lead to an abortion being medically recommended to be absolute there) but if I had to argue that point then I don't have any real counter-argument to the claim that it is only when the brain develops that s/he becomes a person, which is the currently recognised legal position (in the UK at least.) If one takes that view, then any action taken before the development of the brain is morally acceptable. I am very cautious about this whole business, as I do not view it as acceptable to force the matter through the law until I am certain (or at least have been convinced beyond all reasonable doubt.)

[Steel Accord 6,660]

 

 

I'm not entirely convinced that abortion is part of a conspiracy to undermine Christianity - far more believable is that it is a convenience offered by modern technology. Options offered my modern technology certainly make it difficult to be a Christian at times, but one should not mistake that for deliberate and conscious persecution.

 

I don't think that's what he was suggesting. Certainly not "conscious persecution" but rather "yet another reason to view our faith as regressive." Not that I claim to speak for him. 

 

@@Sunwalker, 

[Sunwalker 981]

I'm not entirely convinced that abortion is part of a conspiracy to undermine Christianity - far more believable is that it is a convenience offered by modern technology. Options offered my modern technology certainly make it difficult to be a Christian at times, but one should not mistake that for deliberate and conscious persecution. As we have already concluded, science can be used for good or for evil - so an invention or discovery that is made with the best of intentions can make being a Christian more difficult entirely by accident as it makes evil actions easier or good more difficult (nuclear weapons spring to mind - their use would result in the deaths of millions of innocents, and is entirely unacceptable, but if we didn't have them then we could be held hostage by those that would use them... fun times. All because of nuclear physics that might just solve our energy problems.)

  

I don't think that's what he was suggesting. Certainly not "conscious persecution" but rather "yet another reason to view our faith as regressive." Not that I claim to speak for him. 

 

@@Sunwalker,

 

@Steel Accord is more or less correct. The world does not like Christianity, and and one of the reasons it is because the faith stands on its way. The world is greedy and want to get things on its own way no matter the cost. In other words, "to be like gods". Christian morals, on the other hand, are unflappable and are not going to change because of convenience, and thus they stand on the way.

 

Christianity offers resistance when some ideology is being implemented in a society, that is why dictatorial regimes are so anti-Christian (and anti other religions too by the way). But this does not need to be with something as big and obvious. The legalization of embryonic stem cells research is a steep in the redefinition of the concept of person, it can gives precedent to things like abortion. Since the value of human life in Christianity is non-negotiable and irrevocable, it will stand against it.

 

When there is something about getting more power through immoral means, Christians are the major force who will stand against it, and that is the reason that they are attacked and discredited, which an attempt of making them weaker and getting across the immoral thing. Christians are indeed asked to respect the civil authorities (Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s...), however this respects goes for as long those authorities do not go against God (...and to God what is God’s). When there are some civil law that goes against God's laws, Christians not only can disobey it but they also have the duty of doing so. "No one can serve two masters".

 

Well that is the whole issue: when does the zygote actually become a person? I err on the side of caution, and would recommend against (almost) any abortion (I don't know enough about the conditions that lead to an abortion being medically recommended to be absolute there) but if I had to argue that point then I don't have any real counter-argument to the claim that it is only when the brain develops that s/he becomes a person, which is the currently recognised legal position (in the UK at least.) If one takes that view, then any action taken before the development of the brain is morally acceptable. I am very cautious about this whole business, as I do not view it as acceptable to force the matter through the law until I am certain (or at least have been convinced beyond all reasonable doubt.)

The concept of life is not a legal one, and thus State has no power to legislate over it, life precedes State. The purpose of laws should be to ensure fundamental natural rights, and laws that go against nature are moot. I mean, the state cannot just decree that you are no longer a person, as much it cannot decree that the law of gravity is abolished. Regardless of what the State says or not about embryos, this isn't going to change the nature of the act of killing them. It is arbitrary to establish that life starts when the brain is developed. On the top of that, the brain development does not finishes at the uterus. After the birth, the brain and the nervous system continue to develop after birth. The brain is not fully developed until mid-twenties.

 

My reasoning was that a human being is a human being all the stages of his development. Being in any of those stages naturally presupposes all the following ones, unless the process is interrupted. Egg and sperm alone does not have this potential to develop into a complete human body, the sperm must fertilize the egg first. So I see no moral issues if they are destroyed before fertilization. The zygote has this potential, however. My idea here is that it is a person from the instant that the cells have the capability to develop by themselves into a full-fledged human body, that is, the conception.

 

I consider this to be a self-evident fundamental truth (axiom). But even if I would concede that there is doubt about when someone becomes a person, that still would undermine abortion. If you are not sure whether someone is alive or not the most reasonable assumption is to assume he is alive, this is like when you see someone hurt lying on the ground, and you are not sure at first if he is unconscious or dead. If there is doubt whether an embryo is a living person or not, then to be on the safe side is is better to just assume that he is alive.

 

On the spiritual side, things are more straightforward. What defines a person is not the body, but the soul. According to Christian tradition the soul is created by God at the moment of conception. "Soul" in Latin is "anima", soul is what animates the body, without it we would not be self-aware and we would be a meat machine instead of a person. I know that this cannot be shown beyond any doubt, but in this case we can also just assume that someone is alive to be on the safe side.

[I used to be a stranger 7,993]

This post has been redacted by the author.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Blue

[DeletedAcc. 32]

I do not believe that birth control is sinful, but use of abortion as a contraceptive is sin, in my opinion.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I do not believe that birth control is sinful, but use of abortion as a contraceptive is sin, in my opinion.

 

I'm with you on that one. It's one thing to prevent a life from being formed so that one may express physical love to your girlfriend/wife, but entirely another to end a life.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Steel Accord

[DeletedAcc. 32]

I'm with you on that one. It's one thing to prevent a life from being formed so that one may express physical love to your girlfriend/wife, but entirely another to end a life.

What do you think of abortion in the sense that a woman is raped?

[Steel Accord 6,660]

What do you think of abortion in the sense that a woman is raped?

 

Than the scum should be persecuted, but have the child pay for the sin of the father with their life?

[DeletedAcc. 32]

Than the scum should be persecuted, but have the child pay for the sin of the father with their life?

I believe that the mother should have to carry the child until he/she is born, morbid I know.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I believe that the mother should have to carry the child until he/she is born, morbid I know.

 

They get to live, especially nowadays where that stage of life practically has a target painted on it? That's the opposite of morbid.

[DeletedAcc. 32]

What is your definition of marriage?

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I would imagine it's the same as most people's, a binding union between two people that love one another.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Steel Accord