My Homiletics Challenge

[AV1611VET]

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

His remark was way off -- for this thread anyway.

 

[selfinflikted]

Do you even understand my challenge?

Not in the slightest.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not in the slightest.

You know ...

Like Hellholewood* does with some of their movies.

They have a scientist check the script for accuracy.

(At least I think they do.)

* That's "Hollywood" to you educatees.

 

[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?

I do not support that, nor do I support the deliberate misrepresentation of science by religious organizations.

 

[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?

I do not support that, nor do I support the deliberate misrepresentation of science by religious organizations.

So let me get this straight:

1. Nuts to corrections as necessary where applicable?
2. The cure is worse than the disease?

 

[selfinflikted]

You know ...

Like Hellholewood* does with some of their movies.

They have a scientist check the script for accuracy.

(At least I think they do.)

* That's "Hollywood" to you educatees.

Why? What would be the point of an "on-site scientist" at a church? Are we trying to get rid of unscientific sermons? Because, the whole of religion, especially Christianity, is unscientific. Still not getting the point.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you doing this on purpose?

Are we trying to get rid of unscientific sermons?

No.

You would be trying to correct any science about to be erroneously conveyed in the sermon.

Example:

Pastor's sermon, submitted to scientist, contains the words:

Einstein wrote the book Origins, and in it he said...

Scientist to pastor:

You need to change "Einstein" to "Darwin."

 

[TLK Valentine]

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?

In your opinion, should every laboratory have an on-site Biblical literalist to tell them which evidence can take a hike?

 

[sfs]

No, there's no need for on-site scientists. On the other hand, a competent pastor should take advantage of available resources, including scientists, to avoid saying incorrect and stupid things. A good pastor will find out where his (or her) sermons might intrude on scientific or historical matters and will learn as much background as needed -- in the same way he will learn the linguistic and cultural background of a text to understand what it meant and how it should be translated.

 

[selfinflikted]

Are you doing this on purpose?

No.

You would be trying to correct any science about to be erroneously conveyed in the sermon.

Example:

Pastor's sermon, submitted to scientist, contains the words:

Scientist to pastor:

And the point of that would be... ?

 

[bhsmte]

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?

Within the walls of your church, preach whatever you like, knock yourself out.

After all, it is you who states; "science can take a hike", so I would assume you're church should be a sanctuary from scientific evidence.

By the way, I have noticed your posts have gone down hill even more than typical, congrats on that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You know ...

Like Hellholewood* does with some of their movies.

They have a scientist check the script for accuracy.

(At least I think they do.)

* That's "Hollywood" to you educatees.

And they still get it wrong -- because Hollywood only needs experts to make it all look and sound realistic, not real. Big difference.

Of course, Hollywood's motivations are strictly entertainment -- the average pastor is trying to pass himself off as an expert.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Are you doing this on purpose?

No.

You would be trying to correct any science about to be erroneously conveyed in the sermon.

Example:

Pastor's sermon, submitted to scientist, contains the words:

Scientist to pastor:

You're assuming a pastor cares about being correct.

 

[selfinflikted]

You're assuming a pastor cares about being correct.

Exactly. The premise of this thread is flawed from the start. People don't go to church to learn about scientific accuracies.

 

[sfs]

You're assuming a pastor cares about being correct.

The pastors I know do.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The pastors I know do.

I bet those pastors don't say a whole lot on scientific matters, preferring to talk Christianity.

 

[bhsmte]

The pastors I know do.

In regards to theological interpretations, or scientific matters which may conflict with scripture?

 

[sfs]

I bet those pastors don't say a whole lot on scientific matters, preferring to talk Christianity.

They prefer to talk Christianity and to avoid saying anything scientifically wrong. I'm talking about the pastors in my own church.

 

[sfs]

In regards to theological interpretations, or scientific matters which may conflict with scripture?

Both. They're interested in finding interpretations of scripture that don't conflict with reality.

 

[bhsmte]

Both. They're interested in finding interpretations of scripture that don't conflict with reality.

Ok, thanks.