Christian Science

[bg23]

Is this a real thing? Like, is this accepted anywhere within the scientific community?

How on earth do you go through the educational process, learning about critical thinking and evaluating evidence and arrive at...this?

I have nothing against Christianity but what the fuck is Christian Science?

Question: If God created man, why do men have nipples? Surely this is a wasteful way to create.

Answered by John Mackay,

If evolution were true, male nipples would be redundant. Time and circumstance should have eliminated them by now. They should have been naturally selected against! But the Biblical position paints a different picture. The data base to answer this question starts with Genesis 1:26-7: the first man Adam was made in the image of God.
More details are provided in Genesis 2:7 where we learn that the first man Adam was made from dust, but no woman was made at that time. God breathed into Adam, and he became a living soul.
Then Adam was commissioned by the Creator to name all the animals and he soon reached the conclusion that none of the animals would be suitable mates for him. We then learn in Genesis 2:21-24, that the Creator put the man to sleep and took tissue out of his side, used this to make a woman, and brought her to Adam to be his wife. The man awoke and responded to his new wife with the poetic statement; ‘Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh – she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man’. From Genesis to Revelation the biblical text repeats this theme that the Woman is taken from the man – she was and is meant to be one flesh with man. She is not a separate creation.
Given that vital backdrop, it should be obvious that all physical attributes that would eventually be included in the Eve’s bodily design and construction had to pre-exist in the man Adam. The one flesh concept is dependent on this. God did not make a new creation in order to make a woman who would therefore have been separate and unrelated to the man. This is why man has the XY chromosome combination and woman has XX. Nothing new had to be invented. It also means, even though we trace mitochondrial DNA only through women, the first woman got it from a man.
So why do men have nipples? Perhaps a poetic ditty I made up years ago will help.
Why do men have nipples?
It’s not meant to deceive!
If Adam neva’ ad’em,
Then neeva would ’av Eve

there's more hilarity at http://askjohnmackay.com/

The dude is doing a public debate soon, I'm just...fascinated.

 

[pointless]

i'm pretty sure they don't believe in medicine, either.

on the plus side their "paper" is apparently respectable.

http://www.csmonitor.com/

 

[pornstarwannabe]

Well, if Psychology is a Science like some here believe, then I suppose they'll also think Christian is a Science too.

 

[pointless]

it's just one of those extra weird, uniquely americanized forms of christianity like the jehovah's witnesses and the mormons.

and the seventh day adventists.

and the shakers and quakers even though you really have to blame the english for those guys and they actually had good points despite their sex weirdness.

 

[naughtycakes]

It's a contradiction in terms, doublespeak.

They don't "believe" in blood transfusions.

 

[pointless]

hey, if god didn't want us to bleed to death he wouldn't have invented sharp things.

 

[naughtycakes]

Good point.

So does that mean that God wants men to have tiny, useless nipples for sport?

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

It's a contradiction in terms, doublespeak.

They don't "believe" in blood transfusions.

who is "they"?

 

[pointless]

it's a test.

or something.

stop asking questions!

 

[naughtycakes]

who is "they"?

Who are we talking about here?

People who practice Christian Science.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

Who are we talking about here?

People who practice Christian Science.

just another nutter bunch of idiots that are not accepted by sane Christians who distort the bible to fit into their own crackpot theories.

 

[Stewart_Pidd]

nipples on Adam, belly-buttons on Adam and Eve, and the appendix...they don't give much weight to creationism bro!

Stew

 

[CHNOPS]

"Naturally selected against."

Hoo boy.

 

[bg23]

i just want to know, if based on all things in woman having been created in man first, whether adam also had a uterus and vag.

since he also had nipples and whatnot.

 

[bg23]

john mackay is a christian scientist. i'm going to be watching him at a public debate this week. i was curious about him so i googled, which is what led me to this.

Question: Noah’s Ark: How did Noah fit all the animals on the ark?

Answered by John Mackay

Ken Ham and I were in an Australian Government High School many years ago when a student put his hand up and asked the same question with a snigger in his voice intended to mean it was not possible.
So I turned the question around and asked him; “How many animals did Noah have to fit on board the Ark”?

“Well I don’t know sir, but it wasn’t possible, was it?” he said.
So I asked, “How big was the Ark”?

He replied; “Well I don’t know, but he couldn’t have done it, could he?”
Quickly I told him; “Just stop there a moment. You’ve got a boat, you don’t know how big it is, and you’ve got a number of animals and you’re not sure how many, yet one can’t fit inside the other. You don’t do very well at mathematics either do you?” I retorted. And the rest of the class got the point and laughed. The student’s attitude was the problem, not the evidence.
In order to answer this question you can start by asking the size of the Ark, and the number of animals that had to be on board. Most people don’t get this far because they don’t take the Bible seriously and use the information it supplies.

Let’s start with the size of the Ark. It was very large. You can read about in Genesis 6, which in the original description tells us the Ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. But how long is a cubit? It’s an ancient measure meaning the length of the lower portion of a man’s arm, from elbow to finger tips. Today that averages around half a metre, or about 18 inches. Turning that into today’s measurement means the smallest the Ark would have been is about 150 metres long. 25 metres wide and 15 metres high (Approximately 450ft x 75ft x 45 ft). This makes it around two thirds the size of the Queen Mary. You could have fitted some 600-700 standard railway wagons in terms of volume on such a boat. So to figure out how much space you’ve got, go to the railway yards and look at how big 600 railway carriages is and that’ll give you an idea of how much space Noah had as a minimum. But, keep in mind that if Noah was a bigger guy, he had a bigger cubit, and that made for a bigger boat.

Secondly how many animals had to fit on the Ark? Again, Genesis tells us that only land dwelling, air breathing animals had to go on board the Ark. Any creature that lived in water did not need to be saved from a flood. Fish, whales, crocodiles, turtles and most kinds of invertebrates wouldn’t be asking Noah for room on the Ark. Since most insects live part of their lives in water, they were no hassle either. Maybe two fleas came on each dog and we all regret that. Furthermore, we need to takes careful note that Genesis states it was two of each kind God sent, not two of each species. That makes a very big difference in how many went on board.

Thirdly let’s consider how many air breathing, land dwelling animals could fit on a boat the size of the Ark. We need to consider: “What is the average size of an animal”? Think how many big animals there are in the world. There are far fewer elephants than there are dogs, and far fewer dogs than fleas, and fewer fleas, etc. In other words the average size of animals these days is pretty small. Most of the world’s animals average somewhere between a cat and a sheep.

Now let’s put the animals and the Ark together. If you take an ocean liner such as the Queen Mary, you’ll find that you can fit two of every kind (not species) of air breathing land dwelling animal on about two thirds of it. There would easily be enough room left over for Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives to live on one floor, with plenty of room for storing food.

But there is one more aspect that most people don’t think about. Consider the question: “How many rabbits got on board, and how many got off?” Since God sent the animals to Noah and God told him how big to build the boat I am sure he knew what size animals would fit and he also understood the rabbit problem. We get a clue to solving this problem when we look at human lifespans. Before the flood people lived for nearly 1000 years, and didn’t have children until they were 65-100yrs of age. Noah was 500 when he had the first of the sons who joined him on the Ark. I suspect that across their whole life cycle mans biological stages were also elongated. Now it’s a horrifying thought for parents to contemplate having teenagers at home for 55 years, but if we had a longer start to reproduction, then most likely so did the rabbits and other animals. Therefore, one simple solution was for God to send juveniles who were old enough to not be dependent on parents, but still sexually immature and small enough to not use up much space or food. It also makes sense in terms of the overall aim of the ark – to preserve animals to re-populate the earth. Young animals would have a longer reproductive life after the flood to begin the process of replenishing the earth.

 

[1sickbastard]

God has nipples?

 

[Laurel]

I'm kinda dumb, but my impression has always been that science observes things, draws conclusions, the tests the conclusions to prove them wrong. If they can't prove them wrong, then it's assumed true - until it can be disproven. Scientists are always testing and retesting assumptions, trying to disprove them.

Christian "science" starts with a set of conclusions, then collects proof for those conclusions - disregarding stuff that doesn't back them.

So it's kind of the opposite of the science, in a way. I can prove the existence of Santa if I select data that supports that (presents under the tree) and ignore other data (I saw my parents in the living room wrapping the presents).

Like I said, I'm dumbish - but that's always been my impression.

 

[CHNOPS]

God has nipples?

Three of them.

The Holy Trinititty.

 

[bg23]

God has nipples?

it would appear so

I'm kinda dumb, but my impression has always been that science observes things, draws conclusions, the tests the conclusions to prove them wrong. If they can't prove them wrong, then it's assumed true - until it can be disproven. Scientists are always testing and retesting assumptions, trying to disprove them.

Christian "science" starts with a set of conclusions, then collects proof for those conclusions - disregarding stuff that doesn't back them.

So it's kind of the opposite of the science, in a way. I can prove the existence of Santa if I select data that supports that (presents under the tree) and ignore other data (I saw my parents in the living room wrapping the presents).

Like I said, I'm dumbish - but that's always been my impression.

exactly!

that's the part that baffles me. the people who teach this stuff are well educated, intelligent individuals, people who have been trained in science and research and reasoning. they've earned doctorates, they're on lecture circuits, they've been published. and yet their methodology and reasoning is completely at odds with what science actually is.

given that one needs requires peer review and acceptance in order to be regarded as credible, this means there's an entire community of "scientists" who basically...are the opposite of scientists.

it's frightening.

 

[ksmybuttons]

Oxymoron. Especially when applied to creationism.

As far as the religion goes, I've never met a Christian Scientist I didn't admire.

 

[Stewart_Pidd]

I'm kinda dumb, but my impression has always been that science observes things, draws conclusions, the tests the conclusions to prove them wrong. If they can't prove them wrong, then it's assumed true - until it can be disproven. Scientists are always testing and retesting assumptions, trying to disprove them.

Christian "science" starts with a set of conclusions, then collects proof for those conclusions - disregarding stuff that doesn't back them.

So it's kind of the opposite of the science, in a way. I can prove the existence of Santa if I select data that supports that (presents under the tree) and ignore other data (I saw my parents in the living room wrapping the presents).

Like I said, I'm dumbish - but that's always been my impression.

your good at science and stuff bro!

Stew

 

[Laurel]

Thanks, bro!

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

I am Agnostic but attended catholic school and have a decent understanding of the Bible.

God is faith based. If God could be proven scientifically then there would be no need of faith. Attempts to prove God scientifically by certain Christians utterly defeats the purpose of faith. According to scripture Jesus performed miracles to prove who he was and fulfilled the prophecy of God's prophets to prove he is the Messiah.

Jesus said to Thomas, "You believe because you've seen me. Blessed are those who haven't seen me but believe." This one statement for me seems to state the crux of Christianity and that is belief in what we ourselves cannot see or know but by faith. Christian Scientist sad attempts defeat the cornerstone of true Christianity.

I doubt God wants to be proven scientifically because then the lot of you would gain everlasting life and ruin the realastate value in Heaven.

 

[Liar]

Well, if Psychology is a Science like some here believe, then I suppose they'll also think Christian is a Science too.

Christian is an adjective.

 

[CHNOPS]

Christian is an adjective.

And Bale is a noun!