Bible-Creation-Evolution (3)

[1611AV]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Bible-Creation-Evolution (2)"

 

[selfinflikted]

Ok. So you admitted you could be wrong on a few points, so I stand corrected. But I wonder, how in the world, out of millions of posts, could you locate those specific ones? Are you keeping count of how many times you admit fallibility?

 

[pgp_protector]

Ok. So you admitted you could be wrong on a few points, so I stand corrected. But I wonder, how in the world, out of millions of posts, could you locate those specific ones? Are you keeping count of how many times you admit fallibility?

Searchable Database maybe?
(Or a good bot program )

 

[AV1611VET]

Faith Guardian, you might want to take a look around you -- at some of the other posters here like Split Rock, Thaumaturgy, Nathan Poe, and California [something].

These guys, at one time, were where you are now -- i.e. Church-going believers who read their Bibles.

But at some point in their life, their allegiance to science led them to having questions that their undershepherds couldn't answer, and the cognitive dissonance was so great, they are now no longer believers -- (guys, please correct me, if I'm wrong).

I get the impression you're on that path as well, but [Ar Cosc take note of these next 4 words:] I could be wrong.

If you don't fall completely away, it's probably because you are a nanotech, and don't see nature as they do, from their respective fields.

In short, these guys love science and nature just as you do, but apparently you see something (or Something) in nature that they once saw, but no longer do; and I'm afraid for you, lest you too err from grace.

 

[TheReasoner]

Faith Guardian, you might want to take a look around you -- at some of the other posters here like Split Rock, Thaumaturgy, Nathan Poe, and California [something].

These guys, at one time, were where you are now -- i.e. Church-going believers who read their Bibles.

But at some point in their life, their allegiance to science led them to having questions that their undershepherds couldn't answer, and the cognitive dissonance was so great, they are now no longer believers -- (guys, please correct me, if I'm wrong).

I get the impression you're on that path as well, but [Ar Cosc take note of these next 4 words:] I could be wrong.

If you don't fall completely away, it's probably because you are a nanotech, and don't see nature as they do, from their respective fields.

In short, these guys love science and nature just as you do, but apparently you see something (or Something) in nature that they once saw, but no longer do; and I'm afraid for you, lest you too err from grace.

To be honest, and feel free to correct me - Split Rock, Thaumaturgy, Nathan Poe, or California [something], but I'm rather certain people who insist science is anti-christian and work hard to make it seem that way - like you - are probably the largest source for that. In fact I almost threw my faith out because of people like you a while back. I cannot find any arguments against Christianity better than what you present with such fervor. None. If your reading is correct Christianity is false. It's that simple and that tough. I think you're wrong. Dead wrong. And I can point to many reasons why. And I have.

And you know what AV, if Christianity cannot stand up to scrutiny it isn't worth anything. If it is proven wrong, which you keep insisting it has been better than Dawkins or any anti-theist can, then it's false.

 

[selfinflikted]

I could be wrong.

Wait, just a minute. Let's all relish this moment.





Just kidding, AV.

Have you ever thought you could be wrong about the Bible? ..your interpretation and insistence that the Bible be read literally?

 

[AV1611VET]

To be honest, and feel free to correct me - Split Rock, Thaumaturgy, Nathan Poe, or California [something], but I'm rather certain people who insist science is anti-christian and work hard to make it seem that way - like you - are probably the largest source for that.

That's not why these people fell away -- (in my opinion).

They refused to draw a line at some point, and gave science full preeminence; and now science has them blinded to the Truth.

You (and Lucaspa), on the other hand, have apparently drawn a line -- just like I have, I might add -- where you refuse to allow science to dictate the validity of your faith.

In other words, you'll only allow science to go just so far, then you'll let faith do its thing.

But unlike you guys, I won't give science the time of day when it comes to my faith.

 

[sandwiches]

Faith Guardian, you might want to take a look around you -- at some of the other posters here like Split Rock, Thaumaturgy, Nathan Poe, and California [something].

These guys, at one time, were where you are now -- i.e. Church-going believers who read their Bibles.

But at some point in their life, their allegiance to science led them to having questions that their undershepherds couldn't answer, and the cognitive dissonance was so great, they are now no longer believers -- (guys, please correct me, if I'm wrong).

I can't speak for them, but for me, it wasn't about an allegiance to science, but a commitment to reality. And it wasn't about unanswered questions of religion but the answered ones that led me away from it.

I get the impression you're on that path as well, but [Ar Cosc take note of these next 4 words:] I could be wrong.

If you don't fall completely away, it's probably because you are a nanotech, and don't see nature as they do, from their respective fields.

In short, these guys love science and nature just as you do, but apparently you see something (or Something) in nature that they once saw, but no longer do; and I'm afraid for you, lest you too err from grace.

If a state of grace exists, it'll be consistent with reality, not against it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you ever thought you could be wrong about the Bible? ..your interpretation and insistence that the Bible be read literally?

Once or twice --

 

[AV1611VET]

I can't speak for them, but for me, it wasn't about an allegiance to science, but a commitment to reality. And it wasn't about unanswered questions of religion but the answered ones that led me away from it.

Just out of curiosity, were you a 'bus kid' or a 'church kid' ?

 

[selfinflikted]

That's not why these people fell away -- (in my opinion).

They refused to draw a line at some point, and gave science full preeminence; and now science has them blinded to the Truth.

You (and Lucaspa), on the other hand, have apparently drawn a line -- just like I have, I might add -- where you refuse to allow science to dictate the validity of your faith.

In other words, you'll only allow science to go just so far, then you'll let faith do its thing.

But unlike you guys, I won't give science the time of day when it comes to my faith.

Well, to be completely honest here, AV, only those who do not possess a truly open mind will "draw the line." And, imo, only those with a completely open mind are the ones making an honest attempt at the search for truth - and they are likely to be the ones who might one day find it.

 

[selfinflikted]

Once or twice --

Considering the source, AV, this more than satisfies.

 

[TheReasoner]

That's not why these people fell away -- (in my opinion).

Have you asked them? Let's do.

They refused to draw a line at some point, and gave science full preeminence; and now science has them blinded to the Truth.

Let's ask them

You (and Lucaspa), on the other hand, have apparently drawn a line -- just like I have, I might add -- where you refuse to allow science to dictate the validity of your faith.

I don't know, AV. I think no matter what we discover we'll find that it ultimately teaches us more about God and ourselves. Rejecting that lesson would be foolish I think.

In other words, you'll only allow science to go just so far, then you'll let faith do its thing.

Not really. I'm somewhat flattered but I don't consider science antithetical to faith at all. They are different perspectives entirely.
Science is like eyes that let us observe that which God has made. Religion is the relationship with God. How can observing that which He has made invalidate Him in any way? That's like saying obsessing over "Sunflowers" should indicate Van Gogh isn't real. It might teach us about how he made the painting, teach us about Van Gogh's mind and philosophy, but it can't remove Van Gogh from the equation. Of course if enough people tell everyone around them that it DOES that's what even the art critics might end up thinking.

So, sua culpa.

But unlike you guys, I won't give science the time of day when it comes to my faith.

Isn't that rejecting God's creation's validity AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, to be completely honest here, AV, only those who do not possess a truly open mind will "draw the line."

A refreshingly honest post.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I find it refreshingly honest.

 

[AV1611VET]

It might teach us about how he made the painting, teach us about Van Gogh's mind and philosophy, but it can't remove Van Gogh from the equation.

Speaking of Van Gogh, I have to go run an errand in my van -- BBL.

 

[Belk]

That's not why these people fell away -- (in my opinion).

They refused to draw a line at some point, and gave science full preeminence; and now science has them blinded to the Truth.

You (and Lucaspa), on the other hand, have apparently drawn a line -- just like I have, I might add -- where you refuse to allow science to dictate the validity of your faith.

In other words, you'll only allow science to go just so far, then you'll let faith do its thing.

But unlike you guys, I won't give science the time of day when it comes to my faith.

That is some mighty brittle faith you have if you think science is in competition with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is some mighty brittle faith you have if you think science is in competition with it.

Science can take a hike.

 

[sandwiches]

Just out of curiosity, were you a 'bus kid' or a 'church kid' ?

I've never heard those terms before. What do they mean?

 

[TheReasoner]

I can't speak for them, but for me, it wasn't about an allegiance to science, but a commitment to reality. And it wasn't about unanswered questions of religion but the answered ones that led me away from it.

May I ask what specifically you're referring to?

 

[Belk]

Science can take a hike.

Yes, I know, I am truly sorry that you feel you must hide from science AV.