Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Michael]

You do not know your Savior.

Where have I heard the term: "Judge not lest thou be judged."? I know my Savior and you have no right to judge me for choosing to interpret the book of Genesis metaphorically.

If you did, if your arm offended you, you would cut it off and not defend it.

Neither my arm nor my beliefs about the age of the Earth offend me, so there's absolutely no point in cutting anything off.

You're a little fast and loose with attempting to take the moral and/or spiritual high ground. It comes off as rather egotistical, particularly when you paint whole Christian sects with the very same paint brush.

 

[Michael]

A tacit admission that the evidence in reality does not line up with the Bible.

It's more like a tacit admission that the evidence probably (he's actually a little vague) doesn't support *his personal* interpretation of the book of Genesis.

 

[ScottA]

Why should we take Moses at his word?

Obviously [you] would not, as you are here only to entertain yourself.

But those who actually care to consider it, would find that the word of God is made up of many books and is a written record of eyewitness testimonies that would otherwise be impossible to match up if not true, that spans all of recorded history. And just like those whose lives are recorded there, there are also countless others like myself, who have also experienced personal interaction with God in the same manner, confirming what is written.

 

[ScottA]

Where have I heard the term: "Judge not lest thou be judged."? I know my Savior and you have no right to judge me for choosing to interpret the book of Genesis metaphorically.



Neither my arm nor my beliefs about the age of the Earth offend me, so there's absolutely no point in cutting anything off.

You're a little fast and loose with attempting to take the moral and/or spiritual high ground. It comes off as rather egotistical, particularly when you paint whole Christian sects with the very same paint brush.

It is you who judge me. I have merely spoke in accordance with the scriptures. I am approved. But we have touched on many subjects that are not, nor would I be honest to say otherwise.

It is obvious what you believe, and where your heart is. I have appealed to you quite enough, in hopes that you would break away from your fixation on the cares of this world and consider Him who created it for a finite purpose, that you might give Him precedence over the affairs of would-be experts...but you would not.

Never mind.

 

[JackRT]

Sorry, but I just don't buy that claim. All Christians serve Christ, and there's just no point in villianizing whole segments of Christians.

There are some Christians who, when they have no enemies to love, feel compelled to go out and make some.

 

[Michael]

It is you who judge me. I have merely spoke in accordance with the scriptures. I am approved. But we have touched on many subjects that are not, nor would I be honest to say otherwise.

It is obvious what you believe, and where your heart is. I have appealed to you quite enough, in hopes that you would break away from your fixation on the cares of this world and consider Him who created it for a finite purpose, that you might give Him precedence over the affairs of would-be experts...but you would not.

Never mind.

I certainly do give Christ precedence over issues that are related to spirituality. I don't however bury my head in the sand with respect to "science". They are actually two different topics.

 

[Michael]

There are some Christians who, when they have no enemies to love, feel compelled to go out and make some.

Unfortunately so.

 

[ScottA]

I certainly do give Christ precedence over issues that are related to spirituality. I don't however bury my head in the sand with respect to "science". They are actually two different topics.

You are wrong. All the natural world is a manifestation of things on High. And if you give them a life of their own and consider them as unrelated...you are indeed burying your head in that sand.

When we render unto God what is His, it includes all of His creation. You cannot separate the two. And to render also unto science, what is science, is not to abide in it...but to let nature (the natural world) take its course - that's all.

Ask yourself, "Am I living a natural life AND a spiritual life, am I giving credence to both?" If the answer is yes...then you are not walking in the spirit, nor in the light, but remain in darkness.

 

[Michael]

You are wrong. All the natural world is a manifestation of things on High. And if you give them a life of their own and consider them as unrelated...you are indeed burying your head in that sand.

Fortunately I don't consider them to be unrelated.

When we render unto God what is His, it includes all of His creation. You cannot separate the two.

I don't, and neither do any Catholics I've ever met.

And to render also unto science, what is science, is not to abide in it...but to let nature (the natural world) take its course - that's all.

I simply see science as the study of God's creation. We have different views apparently about the value and usefulness of science as it relates to exploring God's creation.

Ask yourself, "Am I living a natural life AND a spiritual life, am I giving credence to both?" If the answer is yes...then you are not walking in the spirit, nor in the light, but remain in darkness.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but we all have a "natural" life, as well as a spiritual one. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive ideas however. Your use of the term "you" in most of your posts is a tad annoying, it's unrelated to the topic, and totally unnecessary.

 

[ScottA]

There are some Christians who, when they have no enemies to love, feel compelled to go out and make some.

Yeah, just when Christians go getting all comfortable along comes some other Christians shaking things up!

This topic asks a question that only exists, because Christians have gotten comfortable, while science has gotten stronger. Knowledge has been increased...and some Christians want to give all the credit to men and even re-write God's word to fit into their misadventures.

History is not on the side of God's children being critical of others in the flock, nor of those whom God has sent. Argue and fight and get bent out of shape and criticize all you want. But I did not come to make enemies, but to give credit where credit is due.

 

[Loudmouth]

You do not know your Savior. If you did, if your arm offended you, you would cut it off and not defend it.

Provide evidence that you do know a savior.

 

[ScottA]

Your use of the term "you" in most of your posts is a tad annoying, it's unrelated to the topic, and totally unnecessary.

Then "you" should stop lifting up and defending the things of the this world [the science] as the focus.

 

[ScottA]

Provide evidence that you do know a savior.

If you are not going to extend the same courtesy of like evidence for like realms, then stop asking.

 

[Loudmouth]

Obviously [you] would not, as you are here only to entertain yourself.

Why should we take Moses' word as infallible truth?

But those who actually care to consider it

, would find that the word of God . . .

It is the words of men.

is made up of many books and is a written record of eyewitness testimonies . . .

Moses did not witness anything described in the Genesis creation or flood myths.

that would otherwise be impossible to match up if not true, that spans all of recorded history.

Not that hard when you read what others have written and make sure your stories fit theirs. It is also not hard to go back through and remove any contradictions.

And just like those whose lives are recorded there, there are also countless others like myself, who have also experienced personal interaction with God in the same manner, confirming what is written.

And yet can't produce any evidence that what you claim is true.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you are not going to extend the same courtesy of like evidence for like realms, then stop asking.

If you aren't going to produce evidence to support your claims, then stop making them.

 

[ScottA]

Why should we take Moses' word as infallible truth?



It is the words of men.



Moses did not witness anything described in the Genesis creation or flood myths.



Not that hard when you read what others have written and make sure your stories fit theirs. It is also not hard to go back through and remove any contradictions.



And yet can't produce any evidence that what you claim is true.

You missed it again! If must be that part about the "enigma" that you conveniently left out.

 

[Michael]

Then "you" should stop lifting up and defending the things of the this world [the science] as the focus.

Why? Because "you" say so? I'm not lifting anything up in the first place. I simply don't have any "fear" of science as some folks seem to have.

 

[Loudmouth]

You missed it again! If must be that part about the "enigma" that you conveniently left out.

I missed nothing. The Bible is the words of men. Try to cover up that fact all you want, but the fact remains. You are free to put your faith in these men, but don't try to fool us into believing that it isn't the words of men.

 

[ScottA]

If you aren't going to produce evidence to support your claims, then stop making them.

You mean...if I am not going to produce empirical evidence of non-empirical truth? Yeah, right...that's a good own! What were you thinking?!

 

[Loudmouth]

You mean...if I am not going to produce empirical evidence of non-empirical truth?

Empirical evidence for what you claim affects the empirical world. If the universe is created, then that puts your claims squarely in the empirical world.