Faith In God
A little FIG is all we need...
they can't. they try to tie evolution into it to appease scientists. make it flow by saying that Genesis is not literal.Holly3278 said:
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
they can't. they try to tie evolution into it to appease scientists. make it flow by saying that Genesis is not literal.Holly3278 said:I personally believe in Young Earth Creationism. I honestly don't see how someone could come up with a much different interpretation by reading Genesis.
In other words, people should close their eyes and open them only when reading the Bible and hope they don't see too much of the natural world around us.butxifxnot said:I don't believe the bible has to be filtered through science.
Then it would cease to be science.I think (at the very least for Christians (who follow the bible ie the thread topic)) that science should be filtered through the bible.
butxifxnot said:trust in the bible to be true and know that if something is wrong with sciece(ie they don't match up) then science needs to be altered, not the word.
and besides, we do not know that the earth is not the physical center of the universe. saying the earth is not the center is like saying a point on a line is not in the center, which cannot be proven.
Mechanical Bliss said:In other words, people should close their eyes and open them only when reading the Bible and hope they don't see too much of the natural world around us.
nah. science literally means 'knowledge'. you don't need theories for knowledge.Then it would cease to be science.
If Genesis cannot be interpreted other than literally, then the only other result is that it must be considered conclusively disproved because YECism is.Holly3278 said:I personally believe in Young Earth Creationism. I honestly don't see how someone could come up with a much different interpretation by reading Genesis.
That only works if you try not to look at the natural world in too much detail at all.butxifxnot said:i think you should read the bible first and then try to talk about the world.
Science works via a specific method. Science is not merely knowledge. And theories are knowledge, as they are the pinnacle of science. I hope you're not going through that whole "just a theory" nonsense. If you take away the method by inserting an irrational bias, it ceases to be science.nah. science literally means 'knowledge'. you don't need theories for knowledge.
Arikay said:Yet you don't practice what you preach. You just used science to interpet the bible. Or is this one of those, "Science should be filtered through the bible, except the science I know is right." ?
No one seems willing to filter some science through the bible, yet they are too willing to try and filter evolution through the bible. I think it has less to do with filtering through the bible and more to do with trying to get the bible to uphold your personal opinions.
so?The earth moves.
you ignored the bit about the line. can you say that a point on a line is not the center?The earth orbits the sun, so either the center of the universe moves with the earth, or the sun is actually the center.
no matter where a point is on a line, it is the center.The sun orbits the center of the milkyway, so either the center of the universe moves with the sun or the milyway is actually the center.
Etc.
Why would scientists need to be "appeased?"butxifxnot said:they can't. they try to tie evolution into it to appease scientists. make it flow by saying that Genesis is not literal.
Mechanical Bliss said:If Genesis cannot be interpreted other than literally, then the only other result is that it must be considered conclusively disproved because YECism is.
I think Augustine said it better, but your message got through loud and clesrArikay said:Isn't it nice for us evil atheists that christians are so willing to say the bible is false (indirrectly of course).
The irony is that I bet if someone came up and said, "I believe in Amorkism, and the only way to read the Amork holy book is to believe the earth is flat. Since the Amork holy book is true, the earth must be flat."
I bet they would jump at the chance to say, "The earth isn't flat because [insert evidence here], so Amorkism is false, you should come to your lord and savior, instead of such false religions as Amorkism."
Yet, when they set themselves up against sound science, like the Amorkian here, and atheists say, "well christianity is false then." They ignore them and claim the atheist is blind to the truth.
Mechanical Bliss said:That only works if you try not to look at the natural world in too much detail at all.
Science works via a specific method. Science is not merely knowledge. And theories are knowledge, as they are the pinnacle of science. I hope you're not going through that whole "just a theory" nonsense. If you take away the method by inserting an irrational bias, it ceases to be science.
Furthermore, filtering science through the Bible does not result in knowledge; it results in ignorance when it forces you to ignore facts.
makes Christians who don't like opposition happy.Nathan Poe said:Why would scientists need to be "appeased?"
I am curious. do you feel that evolution and the bible can go hand in hand?Arikay said:Isn't it nice for us evil atheists that christians are so willing to say the bible is false (indirrectly of course).
The irony is that I bet if someone came up and said, "I believe in Amorkism, and the only way to read the Amork holy book is to believe the earth is flat. Since the Amork holy book is true, the earth must be flat."
I bet they would jump at the chance to say, "The earth isn't flat because [insert evidence here], so Amorkism is false, you should come to your lord and savior, instead of such false religions as Amorkism."
Yet, when they set themselves up against sound science, like the Amorkian here, and atheists say, "well christianity is false then." They ignore them and claim the atheist is blind to the truth.
Right... FEAR the Big Bad Scientists!butxifxnot said:makes Christians who don't like opposition happy.
In other words, don't look at the world around us in too much detail.butxifxnot said:well, if one of your observations is contrary to the bible, i'd say side with the bible and study further.
So if it's not a science book then why trust it on the age of the earth and a global flood when they are clearly false?the bible is not primarily a sciencebook, but it tells us some things for credibility.
You repeat this as if it has any meaning in the context of the discussion, when it clearly doesn't. The etymology of the word means knowledge, but in the context of the discussion it means more than that. Science is a method of studying the world around us. If you insert anything else, it ceases to be science.the word science literally means knowledge.
If your faith is that a literal Genesis trumps reality, then yes, that is a bias that is unscientific. If you do not make that irrational presupposition, no bias is involved regardless of your religion.as for the bias, that is a matter of where your faith lies.
I hope not. I know i haven't. that's why i'm arguing here.Nathan Poe said:Right... FEAR the Big Bad Scientists!
So mainstream Christianity has accepted evolutionary theory as true just to humor a few guys in lab coats?
Then the topic is irrelevent. The question Christians should be asking is "Do you feel that evolution and God can go hand in hand?" Lest they lose sight of what's important.butxifxnot said:I am curious. do you feel that evolution and the bible can go hand in hand?
that is the topic of the thread, you know.
And as a result that means if it does not, then the Bible is false. If it does, then the Bible still has validity for its believers.butxifxnot said:but the whole point of the thread is not whether or not evolution is true, but whether it works alongside the bible.
Fact, nobody can conclusively prove Jesus walked on water.fact; man cannot walk on water in a liquid state.
conclusion; Jesus was not man.
faulty conclusion as the bible says Jesus was man.
God does not bind Himself to His rules that He made for this world sometimes.
in that case, since there are no more Christians to debate the actual topic at hand, i'm off.Mechanical Bliss said:And as a result that means if it does not, then the Bible is false. If it does, then the Bible still has validity for its believers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?