Satan And Science

[Franktalk]

There is a big difference between reading about moral relativism and seeing it's face. In reading or hearing people speak of man's ideas and how we should consider all things equal and we should place our self along side the animals and not consider us as being worth more than they, we should be able to project these ideas to their natural conclusion. But many don't, they get wrapped up in the group think and feel that if so many people feel this same way maybe they too should go along to get along. This starts a long line of tunnel vision type of thinking. Now some will say how can that be tunnel vision when the thoughts are designed to encompass all animals in nature. But let me tell you that to leave out the Creator of the universe and the rule maker so we can make the rules is the worst kind of tunnel vision. The world is not equal. Just take the equality thought and bring it to its logical conclusion. It does not work.

Our schools don't want competition so games are played and there is no winner, every one gets a trophy. So a trophy is worthless. Why should we try when there is no success just equality. Why work when we could just get a pay check for doing nothing. The ideas of socialism are a manifestation of equality. And in every country that it has been tried it is a complete failure. Why is it we can't see this. Could it be that we are not teaching this to our kids. Could it be that the idea of moral relativism is more important than truth? Just how did we get our self into this situation? Why are so many people pushing for a system that will destroy this country and all countries? Is it a bad idea or is there more to it?

[DH]

Many think of science as pure intellectual pursuit of truth. It is not. Ever since the 1700's it has become a club for naturalist that seek to destroy the belief in God.

My, you are quite the cynic, aren't you?

It's true that scientists are humans, can make mistakes, and may get caught up in agendas like the rest of us. But I do think that for the most part, they are sincerely seeking truth, and are not morally worse off than people in other fields of endeavor. Scientists receive rigorous training in truth seeking, and know perfectly well that whatever they publish will be examined by others, and subject to challenge, so they'd better be able to back up what they say.

I'm going to go all empirical on you and ask for *gasp!* actual evidence that science is a vast conspiracy to lead people astray. And no, the fact that many scientists (though certainly not all) are agnostic or atheists does not count as evidence, for that doesn't mean they aren't honestly seeking truth.

[Nathair/|\]

The Cree tribe in Quebec divide their beaver grounds into territories, each assigned to a steward. The steward's job is to ensure an appropriate beaver harvest every year. He could take all the beaver one year, but then there wouldn't be any the next. The steward has to know intimately the ecology of his territory, how many beaver the land can carry, how to maintain a healthy breeding population, etc. They also have to maintain a good relationship with the beaver spirits, what ceremonies to practice and what else to do so the beaver will give themselves to the hunter.

Hunters in Bavaria are also a highly respected class. Prospective hunters have to know a great deal about their local ecology. They have to take a certification exam. Each hunter is responsible for creating a game management plan, how many deer of what age they will take, etc. They also have ceremonies to show gratitude and respect for their harvest.

Everything you eat and most other resource production involves taking life. That's a very sacred thing. Our scriptures and church leaders tell us that every organism is loved by our Heavenly Parents and deserves a chance for happiness and to "fill the measure of its creation" in its sphere.

So, Franktalk, if you're down to the last member of a species and there is nothing else to eat, you are in more trouble than eating that one individual can fix. At best, you are only delaying things for a short time.

How can Father trust you to inherit His power, glory and responsibilities if you can't care for what He's assigned to you here? He made that clear all the way back in the first chapters of Genesis and in Moses.

Yours under the sustainable oaks,

Nathair /|\

[thesometimesaint]

FrankTalk:

As I am, and a whole host are scientists, and are active members of the Church. We are not in some grand conspiracy to remove faith.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Albert Einstein

[Nathair/|\]

FrankTalk:

As I am, and a whole host are scientists, and are active members of the Church. We are not in some grand conspiracy to remove faith.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Albert Einstein

I agree with you 100%.

Does anybody else find it offensive when someone accuses another of not being a faithful/believing Saint because we disagree with their dogma or traditions in areas where the Church doesn't have an official position? Especially when many GA's agree with the one being condemned?

[thesometimesaint]

Nathair:

I would be the last person to tell someone else what they believe. I personally have found a very comfortable spot in knowing my science and believing my religion at the same time.

I know faithful members of the Church that do struggle with the issue, but it just isn't for me. Paraphrasing Galileo; The Church can tell me how to go to Heaven, but they can't tell me how the heavens go.

[Nathair/|\]

Nathair:

I would be the last person to tell someone else what they believe. I personally have found a very comfortable spot in knowing my science and believing my religion at the same time.

I know faithful members of the Church that do struggle with the issue, but it just isn't for me. Paraphrasing Galileo; The Church can tell me how to go to Heaven, but they can't tell me how the heavens go.

That last paragraph wasn't about you. The person we are both responding to seems to be accusing us of being in apostasy for disagreeing with his dogma.

Yours under the clarifying oaks,

Nathair /|\

I'm a heretic not an apostate, darn it.

[Ralph Man]

Believing that animals are deserving of rights normally given to humans is almost never the product of moral relativism. Frank is confusing "moral ideas that emphasize equality" with "moral relativism." The idea that all human beings should be equal before the law, while not necessarily upheld in practice, is widely believed in principle by Americans. That doesn't make them moral relativists eith. Moral relativism is the belief that a moral idea is true or not based on criteria that is relative to the convictions and practices of either the group of people doing the judging or being judged. Few people actually think that. And a hardcore animal rights activist criticizing his or her broader culture is a highly unlikely candidate to think that.

[cinepro]

The other day some police and firemen in Oakland stood by as someone drowned them self in a suicide. It took an hour. They said it was their policy not to attempt water rescues. They said the budget was cut so they were not trained and did not have the right equipment. If I was there I would have gone in and tried to bring back the person. I may have died trying.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_18177424

You seem to be assuming that the policemen and firemen are atheists, which wasn't in the article you posted. Was this information made available elsewhere?

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

I think the issue was that the firemen, and policemen had neither the training nor the equipment to properly carry out their duties. There is no good one answer to the question: Is it better to have one man at risk, or by ignorance put many at risk?

[Franktalk]

Does anybody else find it offensive when someone accuses another of not being a faithful/believing Saint because we disagree with their dogma or traditions in areas where the Church doesn't have an official position? Especially when many GA's agree with the one being condemned?

Now you speak for the GA's I am sure that soon you will speak for JS. The Pharisees spoke for Moses. Not so sure they got the message right though.

Romans 1:27

King James Version (KJV)

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

I think this message is clear. But I am sure you would not agree with me about what it says.

Yet:

".....according to queer theorists, we should not think of sexuality as having any particular nature at all."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

"The JSM's readers should recognize that there are several biological factors in MH. However, these findings do not seem to be able to explain all cases of homosexuality. Some others may be due to particular environmental factors. The issue is complicated and multifactorial, suggesting that further research should be undertaken to produce the final answer to the question raised in this Controversy section."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21053405

So my question is what side of the fence do you suspect the GA will come down on? On the side of science or of scripture? Or do you take that scripture and the GA both agree with science? Just what do you think Rom 1:27 says?

[Franktalk]

You seem to be assuming that the policemen and firemen are atheists, which wasn't in the article you posted. Was this information made available elsewhere?

My point was dealing with people of strong character and strong universal moral structure verses people of moral relativism. I have no idea what the faith is of these people. We have creeps that call them self Christian and we have atheists that are creeps as well. I am sure that there are many atheist that would not have stood by and watched a man drown.

[Nathair/|\]

Now you speak for the GA's I am sure that soon you will speak for JS.

I've already quoted one Apostle (Elder Neal A. Maxwell) supporting a position you've called apostate. Are you arguing that he didn't actually say that? Or is quoting their own words "speak[ing] for" them now? Since you asked, yes I do have a good quote from Joseph Smith that agrees with my position as a Latter-day Saint and Druid.

We crossed the Embarras River and encamped on a small branch of the same about one mile west. In pitching my tent, we found three massasaugas or prairie rattlesnakes, which the brethren were about to kill, but I said, "Let them alone--don't hurt them! How will the serpent ever lose its venom, while the servants of God possess the same disposition and continue to make war upon it? Men must become harmless, before the brute creation; and when men lose their vicious dispositions and cease to destroy the animal race, the lion and the lamb can dwell together, and the suckling child can play with serpents in safety." The brethren took the serpents carefully on sticks and carried them across the creek. I exhorted the brethren not to kill a serpent, bird, or an animal of any kind during our journey unless it became necessary in order to preserve ourselves from hunger.

History of the Church 2:71-72 May 26, 1834

Quoted in Stratton, Richard D. compiled: Kindness to Animals and Caring for the Earth

You don't know me. You don't know the study and prayer I've put in and continue to put into be sure my path is acceptable to the Lord It's extremely offensive to be condemned as an apostate when I am merely taking the scriptures and the General Authorities at their word and aligning my position with their words.

Yours under the long-suffering oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Nathair/|\]

President N. Eldon Tanner said, “The Church has always urged us as members to get a good education and to learn everything possible about ourselves, history and geography, science, the universe, and especially the gospel of Jesus Christ” (regional representatives’ seminar, 2 April 1971).

http://lds.org/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-b/lesson-26-seeking-knowledge?lang=eng&query=Science

[Nathair/|\]

If science is not an appropriate tool for Latter-Day Saints to use, why did the Friend magazine run a series of articles on basic science when I was a toddler, why have so many scientists provided beautiful and powerful testimonies on Mormon Scholars Testify, why does Brigham Young University have science programs, why have scientists been called to the Quorum of the Twelve, why are we talking about this on computers and the internet?

[IloveaMormon]

If I had the choice to save a human or save a fish the human would win every time. Please tell me how they have equal rights?

The mindest the earth was created for us (instead of we are apart of it) is an egotistical and dangerous perception.

When we honor our bodies (vegetarianism) do we not automatically help relieve suffering of other beings (no matter what species) who share this planet?

In my view, the constant emphasis the LDS faith places on life beyond the veil and 'earning your way into the highest Kingdom' mentality creates a barrier with the joy of living here on this earth and experiencing the joy of standing up for it, protecting it and all life forms and honoring Heaveny Father by doing so.

It makes sense to me a faith which focuses so much on judgment (what glory you'll be eligible for) has little time to care about the sufferings of other 'lesser creatures' (non human) just like Mormons seem to take a superior position to their wayward brothers and sisters who are not LDS.

No- fish do not have legal 'equal rights' but what is the harm in valuing life and extending Jesus's love to all the world human and no human alike?

[Franktalk]

Let us say a man goes into the mountains during the winter. He takes a rifle for protection and goes on a ten mile walk. He comes across a family that got lost in the snow and now is freezing and too weak to walk. The man knows that his cellphone does not work in the mountains.

Does he:

A: Cut down some small trees and start a fire. Then finds some small game and cooks it for the family. Then when they have their strength back he helps them walk out of the mountains to his vehicle. He then takes them back to town.

B: He thinks about cutting down a small tree but realizes that the tree has just as much right to live as the family. So he heads back to his vehicle to make a call to the authorities so they can help these people. As he is walking back to his vehicle he passes by a deer. He thinks about shooting it to supply food for the family but then thinks that the deer has just as much right to live as the family. As he approaches his vehicle his cell phone rings, there is a message from his brother. His brother is having a big party and he has invited a woman to the party that he has wanted to meet for a long time. He knows that if he calls the police that they will make him stay there and he will miss the party. So he figures that someone else will come along and help the family out. He goes to the party.

The issue is not about conservation. The issue is what is our first thought. Where are our priorities? I do not think that many are taught what our priorities are. This is the problem. As the firemen and police watched a man drown they were following the rules. They had no personal rules to override the rules of the job.

"Moral Relativism - What's It All About?

Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it." "

http://moral-relativism.com/

I have not argued against conservation. But the idea of conservation has been used to oppose my position that we should have a different standard of worth for humans over the beast of the field. The argument comes from the ideas that have been taught in our school system. When anyone says that man is superior the automatic response must be to point out how we need to conserve resources and weight our options. It is a diversion from the real issue of absolute worth. It avoids the question and diverts the topic. If we divert the topic we don't have to admit we see all life as equal. The idea of moral relativism is so beat into us that most don't realize that they parrot back the mantra taught by a naturalist society. The idea of man's superiority is so repugnant to many that it causes an automatic response. A learned response that is not Biblical at all.

Ask your self this question. Is man superior in worth to all other creatures and plants on the earth? If your answer is no then please post your reasons.

[DH]

Franktalk,

It is my understanding that the Church does not consider other animals to be equal to humans, but that it is official Church doctrine that we have a responsibility to take care of the earth and all of God's creatures. We are allowed to make use of them, but not treat them unkindly, and not exploit them.

Our responsibility to the earth and to God's creatures are made clear right from the very beginning of the scriptures, in Genesis, chapter 1. God creates the earth, the lights in the heavens, etc., and then plants, and animals. All along the way, he calls them "good." Then in verse 22, God commands the creatures, including the whales, the birds, and "every living creature that moveth," to "be fruitful, and multiply," the same first two commandments he later gives to humans. Clearly, if we humans cause species to become extinct, those species are then rendered incapable of fulfilling God's commandments to "be fruitful and multiply."

After God creates Adam and Eve, he gives them the same two commandments, "be fruitful, and multiply," but also adds a third commandment, "replenish the earth and subdue it" (v. 28). What are they (and by extension, we) supposed to replenish? The earth. In other words, humans have the responsibility not only to perpetuate our own species, but also to replenish the earth, or put back what we take from it and make it fruitful. Clearly, if we are destroying entire species, we are violating this commandment.

Edited June 8, 2011 by DH

[DH]

[Accidental double post. Pardon me!]

Edited June 8, 2011 by DH

[Franktalk]

Just where does God place the love for God and the love for each other as a priority. I think the following verses make this point very clear.

Matthew 22:37-40

King James Version (KJV)

37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38This is the first and great commandment.

39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

It does not say love the plants or love the animals as thyself. So first is God and second is Man. I think this is very clear. You can also be a conservationist if it does not interfere with these two commandments. I have been arguing this priority for days now. The posts that come along that show how we should treat the world are below these great commandments. If we can love our neighbor and help the plants and animals fine. But if the question is can we help our neighbor OR help the plants and animals then we sacrifice the plants and animals.

And does anyone remember reading these.

Revelation 8:7

King James Version (KJV)

7The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.

and

Revelation 8:9

King James Version (KJV)

9And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.

[cinepro]

The issue is not about conservation. The issue is what is our first thought. Where are our priorities? I do not think that many are taught what our priorities are. This is the problem. As the firemen and police watched a man drown they were following the rules. They had no personal rules to override the rules of the job.

"Moral Relativism - What's It All About?

Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it." "

Moral relativism isn't new, and it isn't because of "science".

I'm also mystified by the attitude that human life is less valued today than in any time in the past. For example, was human life valued less on the day the police officers allowed a suicidal man to drown (with subsequent outrage and consequences for them), or Noah's flood?

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

I think they are two different things. Noah did everything he could to save the people, but was ultimately unsuccessful for all but 8 individuals.

[LeSellers]

I think they are two different things. Noah did everything he could to save the people, but was ultimately unsuccessful for all but 8 individuals.

Not so fast, there, pardner!

Noah was not "unsuccessful". He converted many to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but, except for himself and the other seven, his converts were all translated to the City of Enoch.

Lehi

Edited June 8, 2011 by LeSellers

[cinepro]

cinepro:

I think they are two different things. Noah did everything he could to save the people, but was ultimately unsuccessful for all but 8 individuals.

My point was, as a moral absolutist, I believe God is OK with people drowning if they haven't accepted the Gospel. So until I find out if Raymond Zack had been offered the Gospel and accepted or rejected it, I have to withhold judgement on whether allowing him to drown was moral or not.

Edited June 8, 2011 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

http://gospeldoctrineplus.blogspot.com/2010/01/ot-lesson-6-noahprepared-ark-to-saving.html