Why not God AND Science?

[spookboy0]

Does anyone else agree with this observation?

nope.

 

[hero]

He can observe the effects of his brain.
He can see visual evidence of anothers brain he can see an MRI of his own.

It`s an evidenced FACT that he could not exist without his brain

That was the point of his statement as if you didn`t realise.

I think I now know why you`ve spent 4 pages unable to learn anything in a debate with two or three of the most knowledgeable posters here on these subjects.

It was a question to enable me to inquire further. One could say that he can see what God has done, but it doesnt prove that God did it, such as a persons brain. Plus its just funny to insinuate that someone doesn't have a brain. More to the point however, the point I wont to make is that "facts" are relative.

 

[linwood]

More to the point however, the point I wont to make is that "facts" are relative.

Yes they are.

I`d wager the fact I mentioned is valid for both of us as I`m almost certain we hold the same relative frame of reference .

 

[linwood]

Does anyone else agree with this observation?

I would have a few years ago.
It may still hold true as I`m thinking those Christians pushing for creationism in public schools are just a very loud powerful minority and the Christians you speak of are quieter less noticed by the media.

 

[spookboy0]

I would have a few years ago.
It may still hold true as I`m thinking those Christians pushing for creationism in public schools are just a very loud powerful minority and the Christians you speak of are quieter less noticed by the media.

Minority?

As of 2001, 76% of Americans were Christians.

 

[linwood]

Minority?

As of 2001, 76% of Americans were Christians.

Yes, minority.

You must know all Christians don`t follow the same edicts and I pointed out two distinct groups in the post you`re referencing.

Fundamentalist Christianity is still a minority in my country.

If it wasn`t I wouldn`t still live here.

 

[spookboy0]

You must know all Christians don`t follow the same edicts and I pointed out two distinct groups in the post you`re referencing.

Yes I realise this, but that "fact" remains that 76% of Americans claimed to be Christians, according to

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#ubiquitous

.

And could you PM me on what you mean by "Fundamentalist Christianity"?

 

[linwood]

Yes I realise this, but that "fact" remains that 76% of Americans claimed to be Christians, according to

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#ubiquitous

.

Yes, I know Christians are around a75-80% majority in this country but I was talking about two different groups of Christians who have different beliefs in creationism.

I believe those that believe a literal interpretation of Genesis and are adamant about everyone else believing it are a minority.

I recently saw some stats somewhere about a poll taken that showed a rough breakdown ..anyone have a clue what poll I`m talking about?
can`t rememeber where it was.

And could you PM me on what you mean by "Fundamentalist Christianity"?

Certainly.

 

[hero]

Yes they are.

I`d wager the fact I mentioned is valid for both of us as I`m almost certain we hold the same relative frame of reference .

Yes, but the concept was what I was getting across, not the reference to the brain, I simply found that as amusing means.

 

[spookboy0]

Yes, I know Christians are around a75-80% majority in this country but I was talking about two different groups of Christians who have different beliefs in creationism.

I believe those that believe a literal interpretation of Genesis and are adamant about everyone else believing it are a minority.

Ahh. Well, I wouldn't consider myself "adamant" persay, but thanks for the comment. But the Bible does say that it is up to no man's interpretation (Greek word επιλυσις, meaning "impulse"), and that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.*

(*Is given by inspiration of God. All this is expressed in the original by one word \~yeopneustov\~ theopneustos. This word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means, God-inspired--from \~yeov\~, God, and \~pnew\~, to breathe, to breathe out. The idea of breathing upon, or breathing into the soul, is that which the word naturally conveys. Thus God breathed into the nostrils of Adam the breath of life, Genesis 2:7; and thus the Saviour breathed on his disciples, and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," John 20:22. The idea seems to have been, that the life was in the breath, and that an intelligent spirit was communicated with the breath. The expression was used among the Greeks, and a similar one was employed by the Romans. Plutarch ed. B. ix, p. 683, 9. \~touv oneirouv touv yeopneustouv\~; Phocylid. 121. \~thv de yeopneustou sofihv logov estin aristov\~. Perhaps, however, this is not an expression of Phocylides, but of the pseudo Phocylides. So it is understood by Bloomfield. Cicero, pro Arch., 8. poetam--quasi divino quodam spiritu infiari. The word does not occur in the Septuagint, but is found in Josephus, C. Ap. i. 7. "The Scriptures of the prophets who were taught according to the inspiration of God, \~kata t hn epipnoian thn\~ \~apo tou yeou\~" In regard to the manner of inspiration, and to the various questions which have been started as to its nature, nothing can he learned from the use of this word. It asserts a fact--that the Old Testament was composed under a Divine influence, which might be represented by breathing on one, and so imparting life. But the language must be figurative, for God does not breathe; though the fair inference is that those Scriptures are as much the production of God, or as much to be traced to him as life is. The question as to the degree of inspiration, and whether it extends to the words of Scripture, and how far the sacred writers were left to the exercise of their own faculties, is foreign to the design of these Notes. All that is necessary to be held is, that the sacred writers were kept from error on those subjects which were matters of their own observation, or which pertained to memory; and that there were truths imparted to them directly by the Spirit of God, which they never could have arrived at by the unaided exercise of their own minds.)

So yes I take the Bible literally.

 

[linwood]

It asserts a fact--that the Old Testament was composed under a Divine influence, which might be represented by breathing on one, and so imparting life. But the language must be figurative, for God does not breathe; though the fair inference is that those Scriptures are as much the production of God, or as much to be traced to him as life is. The question as to the degree of inspiration, and whether it extends to the words of Scripture, and how far the sacred writers were left to the exercise of their own faculties, is foreign to the design of these Notes. All that is necessary to be held is, that the sacred writers were kept from error on those subjects which were matters of their own observation, or which pertained to memory; and that there were truths imparted to them directly by the Spirit of God, which they never could have arrived at by the unaided exercise of their own minds.)

The above tends towards a liberal non-literal view of Biblical verse at least to some extent.
I don`t know how one would seperate inspired words from the authors own but thats not my problem.

So yes I take the Bible literally.

But you`ve just stated the above.
Thats not a literal view of the Bible.

 

[spookboy0]

The above tends towards a liberal non-literal view of Biblical verse at least to some extent.

How so?

 

[Scott1]

But the Bible does say that it is up to no man's interpretation

.... and then you procede to quote a rather long interpretation of scripture.:banghead3

Me no gets.

For the record, the largest Christian Church on the planet (Roman Catholic if you are playing the home game) is trying to drown out the " very loud powerful minority ".

 

[linwood]

How so?

This statement speaking of the word yeov

"It asserts a fact--that the Old Testament was composed under a Divine influence, which might be represented by breathing on one, and so imparting life. But the language must be figurative, for God does not breathe; though the fair inference is that those Scriptures are as much the production of God, or as much to be traced to him as life is"

To my mind a "literal" understanding of the Bible is one which takes each word literally for exactyl what it says as the word of God.

The statement above promotes a figurative/liberal view of Biblical text that isn`t shared by fundamentalists.

A figurative view of the Bible does not deny the truth of the Bible.
It accounts for poetry, prose,allegory, and possible errors but asserts that the truth of Gods word is there regardless of whether books or passages such as those found in Songs are poetry or prose.
With prose it is not so important that each word be understood for it`s common definition but that the overall message of the work is understood as it was meant to be understood.

Christians can believe the "message" of Genesis while understanding that it`s an allegory for how God created the world.

Thats a figurative understanding and it is what you`ve described above.

 

[linwood]

For the record, the largest Christian Church on the planet (Roman Catholic if you are playing the home game) is trying to drown out the " very loud powerful minority ".

Can you fill me in on this Scott?
I`m interested.

 

[Scott1]

Can you fill me in on this Scott?
I`m interested.

Hmm... I thought you knew that the Church does not view Creationism as valid "science".... and also rejects scientists who feel the need to input a philosophy into their theory of evolution and overstep the boundaries of valid science and attempt to be theologians.

John Paul II's view on the subject:
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

Pope Benedict is a bit more harsh towards the "neo-Darwinists".....

 

[linwood]

Hmm... I thought you knew that the Church does not view Creationism as valid "science".... and also rejects scientists who feel the need to input a philosophy into their theory of evolution and overstep the boundaries of valid science and attempt to be theologians.

Yes, I thought maybe you were refering to some new statement I was unaware of .

This is an aspect of the Church I do appreciate.

 

[flupke]

It all goes back to the lack of what we know about so many things. I simply choose to make no opinion. I believe that is why their are so many meaningless debates. Everyone wonts to have something to say about something. I think it is a pride issue really, but I would just prefer not to argue for something ignorantly. I know what you mean about the logical error, but I made statements for all three. I find no point in arguing "if" evolution theory is right or wrong. It seems too much like arguing for the sake of arguing. I will acknowledge that it could contradict my belief on what is said in Genesis, but don't find what is said there very relevant to what I hold true about the bible(Not that I hold part true and part false). I guess my answer is more yes than no, but it all goes back to your harry potter argument, in an alternate universe.........

Sorry to say this, but if you don't see the logical error you made... good luck in science classes !

Next question: do you either:
1. adopt the idea that evolutionary theory COULD BE right, and the way god created us was by creating the beginning of the universe and it's laws
2. think that god must have created humans as stated in the bible and therefore the evolutionary theory HAS TO BE FAULTY.
3. think that we just can't know and the debate is pointless

choose 1 of the three options


And another question: do you
1. KNOW FOR SUREthat god exists because you feel it
2. KNOW FOR SURE that god exists because the bible tells so and everything the bible says HAS TO BE true
3. THINK that god may exist because you feel it
4. THINK that god exists because the bible tells so and the bible MAY be true

Choose either one or two of the options. Especially, if you choose 1 and/or 2, I would like to know how you know for sure.


CHeers

 

[flupke]

This I disagree with this. In my walk I don't consentrate on the destination, I could care less whether I live or die. Perhaps this is the nature of love.
(My)Thought: The present is the pasts future, and the futures past. In all elements of time their is the present(perspectively). To live in the future is just a dream, and the past naught but a memory. Is all the life that we see and know a journey then. Maybe so. What then is the destination?

Sounds very much like determinism to me; weird to hear from a 'believer' ...

 

[flupke]

I can not prove an analogical statement, your supposed to use logic. This "preaching" your speaking of is called philosophy, and all you've managed to do is complain about it. It is either debate or stay quiet on the matter, but complaining without reason is far more childish than philosophy. In fact weren't many of the early scientists philosophers, Galilao, Newton... Maybe the only reason this "childish discussion doesn't help is because the side your on isn't a discussion, but a complaint. If you wont to complain, use logic.

Hero, you started off ok, but you're making less and less sense. Here's the difference between preaching and arguing:

1. You are wrong. No arguments needed, because you are wrong.
2. You are wrong because a. you have a logical error in sentence X
b. your statement has been disproved by Y
c. ......

You, hero, are using 1 and 1 only. And it's getting tiring...