Why do Christians value the Bible more than science?

[sojourner]

Wouldn't you consider Science searching for evidence to a flood, theology based? Here is what I do not understand; Scientist found evidence that a great flood may have happened around the time of Noah, in the general vicinity; the Bible stated it was the entire Earth, is it possible it was written that is was the entire earth due to the perception of the person writing? It seems to me that people on both sides are fearful of being proved wrong.

No. Searching for evidence of a flood is science-based. Searching for God in a flood is theology.

Sure, I accept that there may have been a flood, and that it may have been a large, regional flood. Evidence suggests that a large flood took out the strip of land at the edge of the Black Sea. To an ancient, such a flood could have been perceived as world-wide. The flood image is ANCIENT, and is promulgated throughout several cultures. Something happened way back. In the search for God, we ascribe to that ancient myth of a flood.

 

[waitasec]

It seems to me that people on both sides are fearful of being proved wrong.

you mean scientists and theologists?

 

[Storm]

No not world wide, just in the general area in which the flood of Noah may have been written.

But doesn't that highlight the trouble with choosing the Bible over science?

Bible: "There was a worldwide flood."
Science: "No, there wasn't."

So, the Bible was
1) Metaphor
2) Exaggerated
3) Lying.

Now, I tend to favor 1, but science is a lot more clear.

 

[outhouse]

Not if the flood was a metaphor.

it really wasnt a true metaphor

there was a attested flood in 2900BC in which the sumerians wrote about.

in places there are many word tracks almost identical to the hebrew version.


If one looks at the pattern of how ancient hebrews wrote there early storys. Many times we see a grain of truth in them.

We know many people came from that area of the levant, taking with them the local storys and religions that would end up being melted in with other influences in the levant

 

[outhouse]

what im trying to get at, early on they wrote in a mythical nature.

One should not use that over a science book ever

 

[Storm]

it really wasnt a true metaphor

there was a attested flood in 2900BC in which the sumerians wrote about.

in places there are many word tracks almost identical to the hebrew version.


If one looks at the pattern of how ancient hebrews wrote there early storys. Many times we see a grain of truth in them.

We know many people came from that area of the levant, taking with them the local storys and religions that would end up being melted in with other influences in the levant

Who says metaphors can't be inspired by facts?

what im trying to get at, early on they wrote in a mythical nature.

One should not use that over a science book ever

Holy crap! You and I are in total agreement!

What color is the moon?

 

[horizon_mj1]

you mean scientists and theologists?

Yes.

 

[horizon_mj1]

But doesn't that highlight the trouble with choosing the Bible over science?

Bible: "There was a worldwide flood."
Science: "No, there wasn't."

So, the Bible was
1) Metaphor
2) Exaggerated
3) Lying.

Now, I tend to favor 1, but science is a lot more clear.

I tend to lean toward Science as well for the same reasons, but at the same time can understand how people can be manipulated into certain mind-sets.

 

[horizon_mj1]

what im trying to get at, early on they wrote in a mythical nature.

One should not use that over a science book ever

Yeah, I agree as well:faint:

 

[waitasec]

Yes.

if a scientist is afraid of being proved wrong then that scientist has a bias and isn't a scientist...

 

[David T]

Because they are exactly as reductively stupid as science but in a religious way? Why else, one is an aspect of the other. In this culture we have The Zeus Temple on one side, or the Pythagorean cult on the other, apparently the poster here is a pythagorean cult member that thinks being a Zeus Temple worshiper is stupid I see no difference please illuminate what is the difference. One looks at a book reductively, the other looks at nature reductively. Why we are evolving in perfect linear reductive fashion why we change our opinion daily as to the nature of the cosmos. We had a 7 sphere cosmos at one time and more recently, a smurf ball that expanded and contracted over and over and over self cycling, self created self expanding self collapsing self absorbing self transforming. Why that was wrong and we have switch even better, multiverses of Each of us forever and ever.

What part am I getting incorrect here in regards to the profound aspect of what science actually is. Great at making buildings terrible at much else. Aspergers cant' get away from them.

Look at nature non reductively and read your cultural spiritual text non reductively and suddenly, you no longer have a book of magic but of logic, and you no longer have a dead world around you it becomes magical. So as long as science insists on feeding people a fantasy of a dead cosmos as the fact, they are going to seek a bit of magic from that nonsense somewhere. it's better than drinking. Are they wrong, well is science right do we live, in a dead, linear reductive, cause and effect reality? Hmmm.....

 

[waitasec]

Look at nature non reductively and read your cultural spiritual text non reductively and suddenly, you no longer have a book of magic but of logic, and you no longer have a dead world around you it becomes magical.

iow, you get creationism

 

[sojourner]

iow, you get creationism

This is what happens when you compress myth into fact and fact into myth.

 

[Adonis65]

Theology is not God.

Theology is the study of God. :yes:

Theology is a futile attempt to eff the ineffable. This coming from someone who's made it her life's work.

You have no idea what you're talking about. God is inaccessible only to those who refuse to open up to Him. This is why your life's work was a failure.

Faith and devotion are all well and good, but don't let them make you stupid.

I can say the exact same thing about science.

 

[Storm]

Theology is the study of God. :yes:

Yeah. There's a big difference.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah, I do.

God is inaccessible only to those who refuse to open up to Him. This is why your life's work was a failure.

:biglaugh:

1) I didn't say inaccessible, I said ineffable. The dictionary is your friend.
2) Who said anything about failure? Arrogant much?

I can say the exact same thing about science.

Yeah, but first you have to do this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v439/Stormhawk/head-in-sand.jpg

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes it is.

Science often provides answers that are speculative at best. God gives me all that I need.

To even compare the great creator with science is an insult to Him.

I think comparing god to the ancient superstitions of primitive goat herders is a far greater insult to him.

Science has logic and evidence to support it, whereas theology does not. The former has practical application whereas the later is merely empty speculation and arbitrary, irrational and unsubstantiated claims. To suggest otherwise is an exercise in willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

:flirt:

 

[Father Heathen]

Theology is the study of God. :yes:

Theology is what humans simply make up about god, whether or not such a being exists.

Tell me, how exactly does one carry out studies, examinations and experiments to gather data on god?

 

[Father Heathen]

Btw, if you don't like science, what business do you have using any sort of medicine or technology (such as the computer your rear is sitting at)? I mean really...

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Many Christians unfortunately look on scientists who change their minds from time to time as a kind of weakness and they prefer the false certainties of the Bible. There were many competing theories in relation to evolution for instance, such as the out of Africa theory verses other alternative theories. I personally favour the out of Africa theory, but I cannot rule out the possibility that further fossil evidence may discredit that theory. But I look on the changing ideas particularly in relation to cosmology and evolution as a kind of strength and shows greater flexibility

 

[waitasec]

You have no idea what you're talking about. God is inaccessible only to those who refuse to open up to Him. This is why your life's work was a failure.

and you know what you're talking about when making statements like these about people you don't even know? seriously?

telling people they refuse and are failures... really? you had to go there...
you mean nothing more than a toll to me...