Originally posted by Darth Jello
Christians eventually allowed the Da Vinci Code and The Last Temptation of Christ, to mention Mel Gibson's snuff film Jesus Jamboree but a biopic on Darwin is too controversial?
don't forget "Jesus Christ Superstar"
also, this seems more a critique of the market in which movies are produced in America, rather than of religion
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
😂 It was for destroying the church's view that the Earth was the center of anything at all, let alone the universe.
No, the Inquisition reviewed his work and (over the protest of Galileo's enemies) said he could publish it if he wanted to. For some reason Galileo decided that the best way to argue in favor of heliocentrism was to be a total jackass when he wrote Discourses. The church deemed a blatant attack on them to be heresy and locked him up for that.
The idea of Galileo as a sort of martyr for science is largely a myth, he went out of his way to piss people off.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
It's a critique of culture, intolerance, and america's wealth of ignorance.
for it to be ignorant, you would have to assume that people born in fundamentalist Christian homes should naturally question the things those who are the most trustworthy to them told them are the most important matters in the universe.
You would also have to assume that all people should accept the subjective appeal of reason and non-supernatural logic over that of the subjective experience of faith.
These aren't issues, imho, of ignorance, but just of terrible education and lack of exposure.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The idea of Galileo as a sort of martyr for science is largely a myth, he went out of his way to piss people off.
how dare you question the absolute authority of the history of science
Saint Galileo was persecuted because he dared to say something logical to the truth hating religious establishment!
Originally posted by inimalist
you would include in this their 'acceptance' [sic] of genetic and historical evidence against their faith?
Yup. This was addressed in the troll thread made by Leo. You do know that as of 2006, the preface to the book of Mormon was changed from "primary ancestors of the Native Americans" to something about them being among the ancestors.
Here's more information on what I said in that thread.
"As far back as 1920, LDS members were counseled to not assume too much about Native American origins.
Also, it is quite apparent that you're not aware that Bruce R. McKonkie made the decision to put into the Book of Mormon preface, in the 1981 edition, his blurb about the Lamanites being the primary ancestors of the Native Americans, withOUT getting approval from the first presidency. He made the decision on his own and it was controversial inside the Church. Some members criticized it as too sweeping and inaccurate.
Low and behold, evidence comes forth, the Mormons change it to reflect properly."
IMO, that point is a very weak point considering it was added much later in the Book of Mormon preface based on the personal opinion of one man...which ran contradictory to what many had believed AND what Mormons were counseled against as far back as 1920s.
For further reading, go here: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMEvidence.shtml
they don't understand that theory and inference in science are different than in common usage. I shut up a friend who claimed global warming was based on "just inferences" by telling him his cell phone and $2,000 entertainment center worked entirely based on the inference that quantum mechanics represents an accurate picture of the universe. There are no such things as facts. Theories can never be conclusively proven, only disproven.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yup. This was addressed in the troll thread made by Leo. You do know that as of 2006, the preface to the book of Mormon was changed from "primary ancestors of the Native Americans" to something about them being among the ancestors.Here's more information on what I said in that thread.
"As far back as 1920, LDS members were counseled to not assume too much about Native American origins.
Also, it is quite apparent that you're not aware that Bruce R. McKonkie made the decision to put into the Book of Mormon preface, in the 1981 edition, his blurb about the Lamanites being the primary ancestors of the Native Americans, withOUT getting approval from the first presidency. He made the decision on his own and it was controversial inside the Church. Some members criticized it as too sweeping and inaccurate.
Low and behold, evidence comes forth, the Mormons change it to reflect properly."
IMO, that point is a very weak point considering it was added much later in the Book of Mormon preface based on the personal opinion of one man...which ran contradictory to what many had believed AND what Mormons were counseled against as far back as 1920s.
For further reading, go here: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMEvidence.shtml
so the official stance of the institution of the mormon church is that Jesus was never on the Americas. It is the official stance that there were no Jewish natives?
(true, I might not know the exact texts, and I'm not trying to be critical, but I sort of have trouble believing that the book of mormon would pass as a scientific document)
Originally posted by Darth Jello
they don't understand that theory and inference in science are different than in common usage. I shut up a friend who claimed global warming was based on "just inferences" by telling him his cell phone and $2,000 entertainment center worked entirely based on the inference that quantum mechanics represents an accurate picture of the universe. There are no such things as facts. Theories can never be conclusively proven, only disproven.
I don't even think those differences matter to them
a lot of the arguments where christians talk about "absolute proof" or "inference" are just there to deflect the fact that they don't have legitimate scientific arguments. They aren't trying to convince you, but rather prevent any self questioning.
Largely, I think scientific issues should be in the hands of scientists, especially issues like education. Whether or not a movie can get a producer? meh. Its ridiculous, but predictable given what we know about the American public
Originally posted by inimalist
so the official stance of the institution of the mormon church is that Jesus was never on the Americas.
No. That doesn't even make sense in context with what I said.
I have no idea where this is coming from.
Originally posted by inimalist
It is the official stance that there were no Jewish natives?
Absolutely not.
Originally posted by inimalist
(true, I might not know the exact texts, and I'm not trying to be critical, but I sort of have trouble believing that the book of mormon would pass as a scientific document)
The Book of Mormon is definitely NOT a scientific document. It is a spiritual document. It was an abridgement of a massive amount of records. However, FARM and other organizations have been working to actually derive "fact" from the 'facts' in the BoM
Originally posted by Robtard
So then, I guess the BoM isn't divinely inspired, unless God gets shit wrong from time to time?
That's odd that you would come to a conclusion since that was said nor implied by myself.
Originally posted by Robtard
Edit: Aren't Native Americans most closely related to Asians, from a genetic standpoint?
Yup. From Russia and Asia.
Originally posted by Darth Jellodarwin wasnt all that controversial apparently. the controversialness of the book developed from myth and legend i was reading an article about the whole thing in a history magazine, apparentyl the idea of evolution had been around before but darwin basically proved and refined it
Charles Darwin Film "Too Controversial" For Christian AmericaDoes anyone remember when faith was about the discovery of truth, not the concealment of it?
Here's something on topic.
Here's an alternative perspective from "second in command" of the LDS church, Henry B Eyring. He is discussing evolution and creationism.(Before you guys close of your minds, actually read what he has to say. It has little to do with his beliefs, and more about people ignoring science.
Such a topic becomes controversial partly because it is interesting to us, but it seems to be sufficiently nonessential to our salvation that the Creator has only briefly treated it in the scriptures. If you think about it, it makes almost no difference at all to the way we should live our lives and treat one another. Still, there are those who line up on both sides as if everything depended on the outcome of this year's "monkey trial....
What, then, is to prevent us from seeking to understand God's methods of creation by any and all means available to us? Many avoid seeking understanding from science because they believe that any theory in conflict with the Lord's revelations will finally be proven false. Of course, given those assumptions, the position is clearly correct, since I don't believe that God intentionally misleads his children.
We have a dilemma, however, because God has left messages all over in the physical world that scientists have learned to read. These messages are quite clear, well-understood, and accepted in science. That is, the theories that the earth is about four-and-one-half billion years old and that life evolved over the last billion years or so are as well established scientifically as many theories ever are. So, if the word of God found in the scriptures and the word of God found in the rocks are contradictory, must we choose between them, or is there some way they can be reconciled?
The scriptures state that Adam was the first man on the earth and that he was also the first flesh. Other scriptures teach that Adam was not subject to mortal and spiritual death before the fall, and that the fall brought these deaths into the world. Also, the scriptures say the earth is passing through seven periods ("days"😉 of temporal existence, and that it was not temporal before the fall. Each of these ideas seems to be in conflict with the scientific views of organic evolution, but are they?
The fundamental principle that has guided my religious life is that I need believe only what is true. The gospel is the truth as learned or discovered by whatever means and tools I can lay my hand or mind on. I appreciate the scriptures for their insights into how to love God and my neighbor and how to learn obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. These teachings are precious to all devoted Latter-day Saints. However, the brevity of the scriptures about God's methods of creation indicates that this may be a subject we will understand sometime but do not need to worry about for the time being...
In the meantime, I think it is perfectly appropriate for us to study and learn as much as we can about this wonderful place God has prepared for us.
We should keep in mind that scientists are as diligent and truthful as anyone else. Organic evolution is the honest result of capable people trying to explain the evidence to the best of their ability. From my limited study of the subject I would say that the physical evidence supporting the theory is considerable from a scientific viewpoint.
In my opinion it would be a very sad mistake if a parent or teacher were to belittle scientists as being wicked charlatans or else fools having been duped by half-baked ideas that gloss over inconsistencies. That isn't an accurate assessment of the situation,and our children or students will be able to see that when they begin their scientific studies.
"Now wait a minute," you say. "I thought you weren't an 'evolutionist'!" I'm not. I'd be just as content to find out that God stirred up some dirt and water and out stepped Adam, ready to occupy the Garden of Eden. The only important thing is that God did it. I might say in that regard that in my mind the theory of evolution has to include a notion that the dice have been loaded from the beginning in favor of more complex life forms. That is, without intelligent design of the natural laws in such a way as to favor evolution from lower forms to higher forms of life, I don't think the theory holds water. I can't see randomly generated natural laws producing these remarkable results. So, in my mind, God is behind it all whether we evolved or not.
Probably one of the most difficult problems in reading the scriptures is to decide what is to be taken literally and what is figurative. In this connection, it seems to me that the Creator must operate with facts and with an understanding that goes entirely outside our understanding and our experience. Because of this, when someone builds up a system of logic, however careful and painstaking, that gives a positive answer to this difficult question, I can't help but wonder about it, particularly if it seems to run counter to the Creator's revelations written in the physical world. At least I would like to move slowly in such matters.
The really awful thing about me is that I really don't care one way or the other. Sometime, a billion years from now, it may come up in some heavenly science class and I'll be glad to know, but until then I'll be content.
My opinion: If everyone thought a little more like this and a lot less close minded, we'd get along better as humans and scientific and social progress would...I would say, increase.
Originally posted by The big EH
darwin wasnt all that controversial apparently. the controversialness of the book developed from myth and legend i was reading an article about the whole thing in a history magazine, apparentyl the idea of evolution had been around before but darwin basically proved and refined it
some of the earliest elemental philosophers from ancient Greece, specifically those who thought the prime element was water, believed that all life originated in the oceans and progressed into humans.