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.
Science is unconcerned about bible translations.
I disagree, but I'm happy to show why I can do that and still abide in the confines of the modern scientific narrative.The Keplerian model improves on the Copernican one, but the Sun is in the middle of our stellar system. What came before Copernicus was junk. Today we have modern ephemerides that take their place with great accuracy.
I concur with AV, with the constant appeals to the scientific method, science seems to be translating the laws of nature into formulas, much like what theologians would consider Bible translations (or, in this situation, could be considered a "formula" to understand the Word) to be. Likewise, the scriptures aren't concerned with scientific formulas.Science is unconcerned about bible translations.
Reality cares not about your "opinions".I disagree, but I'm happy to show why I can do that and still abide in the confines of the modern scientific narrative.
Your ignorance seems almost as great as his.I concur with AV, with the constant appeals to the scientific method, science seems to be translating the laws of nature into formulas, much like what theologians would consider Bible translations (or, in this situation, could be considered a "formula" to understand the Word) to be. Likewise, the scriptures aren't concerned with scientific formulas.
With the geology of the Earth, because that's what I'm most familiar with, geologist work with what the Earth is showing them. How are they to do otherwise?I concur with AV, with the constant appeals to the scientific method, science seems to be translating the laws of nature into formulas, much like what theologians would consider Bible translations (or, in this situation, could be considered a "formula" to understand the Word) to be. Likewise, the scriptures aren't concerned with scientific formulas.
Which leads to the question I often raise but never get an answer to: How do you determine of a particular part of the Bible is meant to be taken literally or not?The point is to explain the mistake that many people made by interpreting the Bible literally when it comes to reading God's Word.
Why is it that Christians so often believe that atheists are just determined to not believe in God. The vast majority of atheists just want evidence. They would, if given evidence that actually checks out, be quite happy to believe that God exists.I didn't add a paragraph to say that while prayer verses are words of encouragement, there is a real God that help us -- because your posts show vehement determination not to believe in God.
You ever see creationists like Kirk Cameron posting videos about why evolution can't be true?Are you a real atheist or just a wannabe atheist? If you really don't believe in the existence of Jesus or His God the creator, then why spend time to argue over someone that doesn't exist (in your view)?
You think I'm obsessed with the existence of God?I have seen real atheists in various countries in Asia, example: the Japanese people. They don't believe that God exist and when asked, their response is 'i don't know' 'Not interested' and 'don't care'. They won't even waste another minute to talk about it. These are the real atheists. By contrast, you are here arguing high and low, like not able to get God out of your head and trying hard not to believe He exists.
I've never seen such wide disagreement as there is in Christianity or other religions.There is theoretical disagreement in nearly all fields as far as I can tell, and the "level" of disagreement has to be fully vetted out.
Well, it kinda does.Even then, citing a "level" of disagreement doesn't infer any necessary conclusions about the full significance or truth value of some core, essential idea since consensus is NOT really the supreme litmus test.
But do they present the things they disagree about as an objective fact?As for Quantum Mechanics, we can do a quick google search for "disagreements among quantum scientists" and see what comes up..........
No, I have read neither of those books. But if you'd like to buy them for me, I'll read them.Have you ever read Lee Smolin's book, The Trouble With Physics? It's a good one to read right after Leonard Susskind's book, The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design.
What contemporaneous sources do we have for the Gospels?Some. There are other writings which represent themselves as Gospels and other near-contemporaneous texts all of which have to be studied and evaluated as well. Unfortunately, some of these are lost and only known of from the writings of critical contemporaries or from fragments of text.
Provide multiple independent sources for the claim and I'll accept it. And give me a claim that doesn't violate the known laws of nature in the first place.By the same token, all the "stories" about all ancient personages would be entertaining fiction
Your argument is that "Even though Plato wrote about Socrates, it doesn't make Socrates true." Or Plato for that matter
Socrates could be fiction.
All Historical Record arre probably Ancients Hollywood, fictional and fable
You Must apply the same standard to all Historical Records.
You are propounding "Anti Sola Scriptura...IF It is in the Bible, it is Not True" because nothing in the Bible is true.
That is atheist screed but it is not good historical research
The independent sources for Socrates were members of his school or contemporariesProvide multiple independent sources for the claim and I'll accept it. And give me a claim that doesn't violate the known laws of nature in the first place.
You're right. There have been quite a number of disagreements and conflicts among Christians. I won't deny that. If we look at World History, I've found that many if not most of the disagreements began when with Luther and the Printing Press, and I say this even knowing that there are countless skeptics out there who will instantly reach for their Bart Ehrman sources, or one of countless other skeptical/atheist authors, to strongly aver otherwise.I've never seen such wide disagreement as there is in Christianity or other religions.
I see your point. But how much of what we human beings engage in is as relatively simple as "measuring a tree" or looking toward the East to see when and where the Sun rises each morning?Well, it kinda does.
I mean, if people measure the height of a tree, and they all get the same answer to within a reasonable margin of error, then it's likely that they've got the right answer, right?
I mean, if they all measure it and get a height of 20 meters, it's not likely to actually be 100 meters tall, is it?
Sometimes, scientists and theorists do "oversell" their scientific theories and scientific results and forget that science is in the business of "provisional truth." This fact is, even if its an all too brief summation, captures the basic criticism that Lee Smolin and folks like Sabine Hossenfelder have said about the way Theoretical Physics has headed in presenting its "findings."But do they present the things they disagree about as an objective fact?
No, I have read neither of those books. But if you'd like to buy them for me, I'll read them.
This is a statement, and "insults are arguements employed by those who are wrong" (Rousseau)Reality cares not about your "opinions".
Your ignorance seems almost as great as his.
It was not a dismissal of scientific formula, it was rather a response using the same logicWith the geology of the Earth, because that's what I'm most familiar with, geologist work with what the Earth is showing them. How are they to do otherwise?
I personally stick with books that I have to dust off before reading, and even when I open them, I have to fetch the cleric to read it to me in English (/j)
The joke was that I follow the Church's ancient (hense the dusty) Magisterium, which had much of its declaration (if not all) in Latin, and thus needing a Canonical Regular (cleric) to read it to me. It was not a joke about aesthetics, my fault if it sounded like that.If you prefer the aesthetic of dusty tomes and a cleric at the table, and if that draws you closer to Jesus in your faith, then I'm not going to interpose on that.
Im sure we can have great discussion sometime, God willing!However, I will defend my own point of view from within my own angle on the Christian faith, and when others interpose upon me, I'm only more than willing to nudge them back a foot or two.
Reality cares not about your "opinions".
Your ignorance seems almost as great as his.
With the geology of the Earth, because that's what I'm most familiar with, geologist work with what the Earth is showing them. How are they to do otherwise?
Which leads to the question I often raise but never get an answer to: How do you determine if a particular part of the Bible is meant to be taken literally or not?
Why is it that Christians so often believe that atheists are just determined to not believe in God.
Here here! Citation in such regard is Romans 1:20: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."2. Because God is going to hold them accountable for not believing in Him. That means He isn't going to buy into their "I looked for You, but You weren't there" excuse.
I am an atheist in that I lack a belief in God.
The only reason that it seems to you that I never talk about anything other than the existence of God is because you only see me when I am here, and I talk about these things why I am here. You have a view of me that gives you an incorrect idea of how much I talk about this.
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?