My Homiletics Challenge

[AV1611VET]

In your opinion, should every church have an on-site scientist to verify the sermon first before it is preached, and to make corrections as necessary where applicable?

 

[Gene2memE]

If religion stayed out of science, then there'd be no reason for science to go into church. Your proposal is ridiculous, but I suspect that you already knew that.

You'd obviously need a battery of scientists to counter the ridiculous claims of biblical literalists.

At the very least you'd need an:

Astrophysicist and/or cosmologist
General physicist
Geologist, chemist or a geochemist
Evolutionary biologist and/or paleontologist
Anthropologist and/or archaeologist

I'd also opt for a general historian, a climate scientist, a philisopher of science, a moral philisopher, a mathemetician, a linguist, an expert in textual criticism, two dwarves and a stripper.

 

[Strathos]

No more than a pastor is required in every science class to point out when something contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible

 

[AV1611VET]

You'd obviously need a battery of scientists to counter the ridiculous claims of biblical literalists.

At the very least you'd need an:

Astrophysicist and/or cosmologist
General physicist
Geologist, chemist or a geochemist
Evolutionary biologist and/or paleontologist
Anthropologist and/or archaeologist

I'd also opt for a general historian, a climate scientist, a philisopher of science, a moral philisopher, a mathemetician, a linguist, an expert in textual criticism,

In other words, a run-of-the-mill scientific methodist will do?

 

[selfinflikted]

In your opinion, should every church have an on-site scientist to verify the sermon first before it is preached, and to make corrections as necessary where applicable?

Yes.

 

[RickG]

In your opinion, should every church have an on-site scientist to verify the sermon first before it is preached, and to make corrections as necessary where applicable?

Face palm.

 

[AV1611VET]

Face palm.

Why the face palm?

If you're so worried that theology is being propagated in the pulpits erroneously, what's wrong with my suggestion?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes.

Thank you.

I hope you meant that.

If so, your honesty is noted.

 

[selfinflikted]

Serious thread is serious.

 

[selfinflikted]

Thank you.

I hope you meant that.

If so, your honesty is noted.

No I didn't mean it. I thought this was a joke thread?

 

[AV1611VET]

No I didn't mean it. I thought this was a joke thread?

No, it's not a joke thread.

I love exposing scientists for the ... well the ... the scientists that they are.

 

[selfinflikted]

No, it's not a joke thread.

I love exposing scientists for the ... well the ... the scientists that they are.

I'm not understanding the point you are trying to make.

 

[Split Rock]

In your opinion, should every church have an on-site scientist to verify the sermon first before it is preached, and to make corrections as necessary where applicable?

No.

In my opinion, pastors and persist should not try to teach about nature during sermons.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not understanding the point you are trying to make.

In your opinion, would this country be better off if every church cared enough to run their sermons through the mind of a scientist first, so they won't preach such things as virgin birth, walking on water, a literal Genesis 1 creation, and the like?

I know this is a challenge thread, meaning the chances of getting an honest answer is challenging, but once I'm done with this thread, I plan to start a like thread about running our hymnals through scientific scrutiny.

(Unless I do it sooner. )

 

[Split Rock]

I'm not understanding the point you are trying to make.

AVET thinks he is scoring points by "exposing" scientists for who they are. Who they really are..... owwwwwhhhhhh!!!!!!

 

[AV1611VET]

No.

In my opinion, pastors and persist should not try to teach about nature during sermons.

Then why do you say, "no"?

 

[AV1611VET]

AVET thinks he is scoring points by "exposing" scientists for who they are. Who they really are..... owwwwwhhhhhh!!!!!!

Not in this thread.

I'm literally putting scientists before pastors and priests in this one.

I would have thought you guys would have been all for this.

 

[selfinflikted]

In your opinion, would this country be better off if every church cared enough to run their sermons through the mind of a scientist first, so they won't preach such things as virgin birth, walking on water, a literal Genesis 1 creation, and the like?

No. Because scientists have better things to do than putting their energies toward debunking religious myths.

Still not entirely convinced this thread is serious.

 

[selfinflikted]

AVET thinks he is scoring points by "exposing" scientists for who they are. Who they really are..... owwwwwhhhhhh!!!!!!

And who would that be? I must just be purposefully daft today because I'm just not getting it.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. Because scientists have better things to do than putting their energies toward debunking religious myths.

Still not entirely convinced this thread is serious.

Wow.

Give you guys a chance to clean up this country and get us back up to par with the rest of the world scientifically, and what do you do?

Say you have better things to do!?

Post of the Year?

And did I say a word about "debunking religious myths"?

Do you even understand my challenge?