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.
This one little sentece is going to be tricky , as it leads into a great deal of the issue, but here goesNo where in my post did I say science was perfect.
in a reply to chief you stated:
I have several elaborations on this . First you stated this in such a manner that unless the anwser is given to you in the exact manner you demand then you are unwilling to listen to it.I have yet to see anyone going from TE->Creationist actually understand evolution. For example, most Creationists say they use to believe evolution. You don't believe in a theory, you accept it based on the evidence. Until I find a TE->Creationist that can correctly give me the scientific definition of a transitional fossil and then explain why none exist, I will continue to believe that no Creationist actually understand evolution. (Go ahead and try, no Creationist has ever done this).
If, you do not hold science as the" do all end all, be all" method of communication, or debate, then, Why is no other explanation acceptable to you?
Much like the manner you claim that creationist do.
I never claimed you stated science was perfect, But I will say I think you hold to it like you would a wife, "omitting her imperfections" and singing her praises.
Or maby a better analogy would be a classic car, that has seen better days, that You (as well as all the other scientist you keep refering to ) are continually tuning up, and patching, much in the way you keep stating about your supposed not viewing science as perfect.
another quote to demonstrate
Yes after re reading this I do think the "tuner" car is the better analogy, in that You are devoted and commited to working on it, and it will always be a project, a "work in progress"In fact, you quoted me saying that the may be problems with the theory and it must be refined. If I though science was perfect, why would I also say that evolution is continually being updated. Not only that, if you look through my history, you'll constantly find me posting that science is nothing more than a tool for studying the natural world. .
Perfectionist are never satisfied, and if you want to know how I would know that then you need to hand me a mirror, and ask me what I see in it.
See you have been so defensive and rejecting of what I am attempting to show you that you assume that my replies and statements were done in the form of insult or attack, When my purpose is to try to get you to reflect on these things from another perspective, you love science so much what can you tell me about a frame of reference and observation?This seems very dishonest, but on par for being a Creationist
While i am thinking about it, I am not a creationist, and I do not believe in creation science, (or you could toss in accept where I stated believe as I am about to explain)
This is another flaw of science, it ask so many questions yet never looks upon itself and ask whether or not it should.This is why scientists tend to not listen to the general public, since they only seem to hold back science.
a wise man once said inScience is reckless, and is in far too many cases careless, and inconsiderate of consequences, and much as stated in your own reply rebellious (how many scientist have you heard in the past year alone that have broken the law in the name of scientific "progress") Rebellion is Not a value of someone who should be obedient.Luke 14
26] If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
[27] And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
[28] For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
[29] Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
[30] Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
[31] Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
[32] Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.
[33] So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
[34] Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?
[35] It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Like I tried saying in another post, Is a miracle still a miracle if you know how it is done?Science is a tool, and it is not the only way to gain information. However, until you figure out how to supernatural or why including the supernatural would improve science, science will be perfectly content to continue to study the natural world.
Perhaps I should go a step further, and ask in a manner that will cause some to question which is true.
The Bible speaks of how Jesus Fed the masses with mere scraps. Now I have seen many modern so called "scientific" explanations for many biblical miracles even how Jesus walked on water, But I ask you and anyone else who cares to respond, how can science explain where he pulled tangable (and edible) matter completely and totally out of thin air?
The problem Is many of the Facts used in science take dinosaurs for example are not observations, but extrapolations from current living animals, therefore it is NOT in fact an observation.It seems if anything, you continue to fail to understand science. Facts are observations.
I call it the "shuffeling" of the genetic deckEvolution (change of allele frequencies over generations) can be observed.
acording to your fact/theory statement some post backEvolution is also a theory
(selection+mutation drive the observation).
it is an observation highly influenced, antd therefore tainted by a pre concieved expectation as to what the results will be.
The basic flaw of the scientific method is that it assumes a reality without God. It should not be surprising if one then ends up with theories that exclude Him from actively working.
How about as you state later in this post, it (science)the problem is that this is simply not true.
Ignors things, a great many of them.
You just broached upon my miracle question.or instance, today's sermon at church was on John 5.
there is a problematic verse at:
Jhn 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
how would you show that an angel "troubled the waters?"
if you showed scientifically that the water's turbulence was due to a air bubble released from a crack deep in the earth, would you eliminate "angel troubling the water" as a primary cause?
science does not eliminate God from any explanation.
it simply doesn't know how to include God or angels in science, and as a result doesn't want to try to force them into the scienceIf any of these do, or ever existed I would call them demons,or green pixies or woodland sprits
otherwise it does go along with the original posters assertation that Science, assumes reality without God, or any other "spiritual" forces. See by ignoring the possibility, it is also ignoring one of the possible explanations it seeks. I realize that much of it is done in the attempt to legitimize it. As I obviously do not believe that many false religions, or myths are true. But by science ignoring the possibility it basically defines by exclusion all religion as myth, or hoax.
Why do you have to "show " them?the interesting thing is neither do you. tell me how to show to an impartial observer that "an angel troubled the waters" when they can not see this angel, nothing can detect the angel etc etc.
Thats part of the problem is that science seems to focus on a particular aspect of an event, and focus on that excluding many other things , and "misses the whole point"
And thus you reveal another flaw in that it makes presumptions without all of the evidence. I don't know how many atheist I have debated , that Just don't care about the origin of life itself, as long as they can proudly proclaim that evolution proves the bible is false, because the scriptures do not match what they propose.what is interesting is that science did this "silence about God and supernatural talk" long before any but a very few scientists were anything in the west but Christians. Christians themselves realized that to try to keep science as a branch of natural theology was fruitless in the near term because no one could agree on the first cause for phenomena. So essentially they agreed not to talk about
Aristotelian primary or first causes like God but concentrate on secondary naturalistic causes that everyone could agree on and see.
I myself figured out that neither did many of their origins theories, but they dont care they have built their evolutionary house like a sand castle on the beach.
Many so called christian "founders" were freemasons, and secularist. I distain the sugar coating of proven history ,(and I would call letters fairly good proof of someones true thoughts and feelings) to try and make it sound like this country has divine mandate.in an analogous manner to the disestablishment of denominations from the Federal US government and the break with an established state church from Europe was achieved because Christians did not want another denomination to capture the commanding heights of the Federal government, Christians argued for the naturalistic explanations because they were all too aware of the divisiveness of God-talk.
If jesus had no place to lie his head why would his followers?
I don't agree with "christian science"But try an experiment, explain how you would show "angel troubleing the water at the pool of Bethesda".
science is silent either for or against the existence of the supernatural, it doesn't eliminate God from science, it just does not know how, nor desire to try to introduce supernatural talk into the domain. the interesting thing is neither do you, if you did then you could apply those common principles and convince everyone that your theology is correct, since no one interpretation of Christian theology is overwhelming accepted, then supernatural talk is not intersubjective but rather very subjective and the evidence is not convincing.
Science is too steeped in philosophy, sure there are some similarities, on the surface, but deep comparison of scripture, with the "great philosophers" of antiqioty reveals many diametric differences.
I call it leaven
Which is why I don;t understand the embelishment of it, the laying it on of all our so called "scientific " accomplishments, Face it science has acomplished nothing in comparison to Godwhen the Church can convince itself of a single theology, then i will be glad to listen to how it could use this technique to broaden science to theistic science, but until that day, science as methodological materialism and naturalism is apparently the best us poor human beings will manage.
You had to give me a name to look up that I am actually curious about.until that time the division and divisiness of Theology convinces me that the attempt even to try to create a theistic science is a fools errand. sadly so, i really appreciate Abraham Kuyper's desire and passion to build a 2nd science, but it seems well beyond our grasp.
And Again I reiterate, I distain the "compromise" of attempting to "scientifify" scripture, and to "biblify" science.
Now granted , I have not see nany scripture Science has "disproven" Except scripture from false religions like Islam
But that doesnt mean I buy into everything science professes either, I do find it fery cult like in its methodology, doctrines, and function.
I am open to possibility that the theory of evolution is not correct, and that there's some other explanation. However, the only alternative I'm aware of is creationism, all the evidence I've seen points towards evolution.
If sufficient evidence appeared, then changing my position would be a possibility.
Same here.
Gotta love how people make my points for me, it makes assumptions. (and again I advise people to read those last 3 words and chew them up before swallowing them and forgetting (dismissing)Actually, the scientific method assumes a reality, but does not assume a God. Big difference.
I distain creationism, its like it is trying to legitimise the holy scripture by wrapping it up in the guyse of science, thus paganizing the scriptureA theory which includes God actively working (i.e. Creationism) assumes Him, but leaves reality highly questionable... and that just won't work, because a theory needs to have some sort of ability to make predictions.
as for prediction, forecasting was a sin in the OT in that it was divination. (again don't just get all huffy thinking I am being insulting, and carefully loo kat what was said, and for that matter look into it a bit)
looks like my above comment really belongs hereGlorious, yes, but can we make predictions? Can we perfrom experiments? Can we ever set up a "Control" condition where God does not intervene?
Its not perfect, but it seeks perfection., and in its quest, it presumes, it can make itself perfect.I've never seen anyone refer to science as "perfect." But the best part about it is that it is self-correcting... when it is wrong, it contains within itself the means to fix its own problem.
(again read what both of us said, and ponder it)
it is highly esteemedHigher than what?
Which would you rather defend the faith or science?So...science is fallible, but our understanding of Scripture is not?
This whole thread is new territory for me as all my past evolution debates have been with atheist ,again I ask if some people in the board could clarify their beliefs, or point to a web page that does.Hopefully you'll not make the same mistake... I would love to see some positive evidence for Creationism instead of perceived flaws in evolutionary theory... for a change.
Many such threads have been asked for, but they seem to go nowhere.
Everywhere but church, 5+ days of government liberalized thought, philosophy, and ways of thinking ,vs 1 in churchMost likely... but where are they taught that there is no God?
And what larger picture are you refering to?But not at the expense of the larger picture.
Man you all are so combative, I asked to keep it simple, so that others reading will understand. As for the wilson cycleYou seem to be admitting here that you do not understand the Wilson cycle and its relevance to supercontinents. Yet you are so hasty to reject the notion of Pangaea. What sense does that make?
I did try and put it in laymans terms,and asked how my explanaion was, Is it really that difficult to do to , correct my version if it was wrong?Like you, I don't have all day to sit around and translate a 20 page technical document for you into laymen's terms. Instead, I suggest you take the time to educate (not indoctrinate) yourself on the matter so that you can make an educated assessment of the feasibility of supercontinents, rather than just 'hand-waving for Jesus'.
these replies are already fairly lengthy as it is.
Is that not what I said? it still functions as a liquid, in that the continents are adrift, and they (according to the theories) are drifting into each other and merging (, I guess the bouncing part of my comment could be debated)Yes, you are wrong. The earth's mantle does not simply act like a wavy sea of magma (in fact, it is nearer to a solid, but has the properties of a liquid over long periods of time). The Wilson cycle speaks of ocean basins opening on one side of the world, and closing on the opposite side of the world. You can see this happening today, for example, with the opening of the Atlantic ocean and the subsequent closing of the Pacific. If this process continues as it has for the last hundreds of millions of years, North America with eventually collide with Asia, creating yet another supercontinent.
I might could buy it more(the evolutionary view of pangea spreading genetic "seed" across the globe) if it were speaking about the contintinents still adrift, and when they make contact with each other then animals migrated, but then we get back into the rebound i mentioned ,and I Just dont know if I buy even that.
And would they stil lbe inter related, if they disregarded each others scientific findings and evidence?They are inter-related; not inter-dependent. Geology obviously does not rely on evolutionary biology since not all rocks contain fossils. Plate tectonics do not rely on evolutionary biology because there are several lines of evidence in support of tectonism that are abiological (e.g., ancient glacier deposits, fit of the continents, rate of sea-floor spreading, etc.). Similarly, while evolutionary theory does make use of the fossil record in order to better explain the history of the world's diversity of life, it is also supported by non-geologic evidence like morphological homology and genetics. So no, to answer your question, the above scientific fields you mention are not inter-dependent.
another one of those statements that I feel needs to be chewed on moreI am not against the Bible at all. I am against what I see at the YECist perversion of science in order to fit a biblical cosmology that the original authors were not intending to propagate.
take when I alter 3 words
I am against what I see at the scientist/TE/atheist perversion of scripture in order to fit a scientific cosmology that the original authors were not intending to propagate.
I am disturbed that so many on here vehamently battle in defense of Science a supposed "tool" yet scripture, and the belief in it is seemingly cast aside, as foolishness, childishness, and ignorance.
Could you back this up with evidence? In all my science classes, I have never had a single professor ever teach that there was no God. In fact, I have had over 150 credits of classes (spread over math, science, and computer science) and not a single one of my professors have ever make such a statement. And yes, I go to a secular university. If anything, this sounds like you think that not speaking about God == God doesn't exist. If so, do math classes also disavow God's existence?
Well said!another one of those statements that I feel needs to be chewed on moreI am not against the Bible at all. I am against what I see at the YECist perversion of science in order to fit a biblical cosmology that the original authors were not intending to propagate.
take when I alter 3 words
I am against what I see at the scientist/TE/atheist perversion of scripture in order to fit a scientific cosmology that the original authors were not intending to propagate.
I distain creationism, its like it is trying to legitimise the holy scripture by wrapping it up in the guyse of science, thus paganizing the scripture
as for prediction, forecasting was a sin in the OT in that it was divination. (again don't just get all huffy thinking I am being insulting, and carefully loo kat what was said, and for that matter look into it a bit)
Its not perfect, but it seeks perfection., and in its quest, it presumes, it can make itself perfect.
(again read what both of us said, and ponder it)
it is highly esteemed
Which would you rather defend the faith or science?
This whole thread is new territory for me as all my past evolution debates have been with atheist ,again I ask if some people in the board could clarify their beliefs, or point to a web page that does.
Everywhere but church, 5+ days of government liberalized thought, philosophy, and ways of thinking ,vs 1 in church
And what larger picture are you refering to?
Doesn't quite work I'm afraid.another one of those statements that I feel needs to be chewed on moreI am not against the Bible at all. I am against what I see at the YECist perversion of science in order to fit a biblical cosmology that the original authors were not intending to propagate.
take when I alter 3 words
I am against what I see at the scientist/TE/atheist perversion of scripture in order to fit a scientific cosmology that the original authors were not intending to propagate.
The scientific method specifically requires repeatability. It excludes any actions from an interested, loving omnipotent God because they cannot be controlled. It investigates natural processes, not supernatural. As such, it yields results which exclude any workings by God.
When the silence is imposed out of fear of "the uneducated masses" or the desire not to argue a point yes.is silence about something the same as excluding that something from the conversation?
And it is in many many cases not in fact silent.
Your psychiatric example is a good reference, acording to psychiatry Demons do not exist, yet Christ himself spoke of them, and to them.
I assume you either pulled this from a psychiatric journal, or pulled it from a skeptics site as an arguement on the "foolishness of religion"consider:
if i never talk to you about the pink elephant who sits on my easy chair when i am not in it, am i telling you that it doesn't exist? in fact, i am silent about this elephant because i am afraid that if i talk about him, he will break my chair deliberately.
however, the psychiarist asked me last week if i had seen a pink elephant in the neighborhood, he explained that there had been a rash of pink elephant sightings on my block and he wanted to know if i had seen him. He was lying of course, seeing pink elephants while on the medicine i take is a common side effect and he was simply making up a sympathic story in order to gain my confidence. So i told him about my pink elephant.
well, i came home from that appointment and the easy chair was broken and unusable, i suppose that the pink elephant had overheard my conversation and deliberately broke it in order to punish me for talking about him.
the problem is that since he broke my chair he has disappeared and i really miss his company.
I almost didn't want to bother quoting it, but I did, not feel like trying to pare it down.
Ahh and now we have a tell, You are ashamed of the scriptures , because they appear as foolishness to the massesdo you really want things like this to move from the pages of psychiatric journals to the pages of biology and chemistry? even if God does stir the waters of the pool at Bethesda, do you think any group of people can agree on the cause and effect relationship if it is not visible to their physical eyes?
Oh I realize that its like a cancer (lukemia) that is so interspread within the entire educational system that it is impossible to remove .do you really want to introduce the divisiveness and subjectiveness of religion back into science? would you like to see university's have competing departments of chemistry? one dedicated to one supernatural cause for covalent binding and another to a different, competing and mutually exclusive one?
And again I reiterate that much of modern society, particularly the scientific, and "scholarly" and "education" community.
uses an entire mode of thinking, based on the philosophies that inspired science.
For example, (and I admitedly do not know where many of you that I have been conversing with on here stand as TE)
Most of the world is of the mind set that people in general are "basically good" inherently, where as scripture tells us other wise, that we are infact corrupted, and in need of salvation.
Society has permeated the church so much that this line of thought is even seeping into the teachings,
And again this is my point you and the test of the TE's straddle the fence, in that you want to play both sides of the field, you are all up in my "face" so to speak in defence of scientificly "enlightened" society, But do you in fact speak in defence of the faith to your agnostic/atheist, colleagues when they attack our faith?now my easy chair is broken, that is objective, how it got broken, who did it and the cause-effect relationship of the situation is anything but public and objective if you allow pink elephants to be a valid scientific force, even if i am sure that they are. You however are equally sure that they are not and that something is wrong with my perception of them.
Yet it seeks to alienate the "commoner" by inventing its own jargon, which it expects everyone else to know, and in so doing preventing any other interpretations from being presented without acknoledging the works that preceded them, even if they may in fact be wrong. Many Designations for scientific terms are used to differentiate them from more commonly used terms, and that is fine, if their is good reason, However in many cases like where I asked about the wilson cycle, (which apparently was not taught until after I got out of school)how do we find an objective judge to weigh our two theories?
i and my pink elephant and you with the thought that i really weigh too much for this old chair? science is all about attributing cause and effect in a way that a reasonable person in that field will arrive at the same conclusions.
There is a n aversion to trying to speak in laymans terms as if it were somehow beneath you. If you do in fact believe the scripture speaks to man in a manner he can comprehend, then why is it you show such distain for trying to "share" your scientific "gospel" . Its as if you look down upon those who do not understand, and while yes I am capable, of doing some of the research myself, and learning along with comprehending many of the concepts (I have had some rather profound thoughts on physics, and understand many concepts, however many of my own ideas were developed seperately, and therefore the terminology is different)
Sorry I ended up deviating off of my own point which was
NOT EVERYONE ELSE on these boards, as well as the world can. If you and I were havin ga discussion in person, and we were talking back and fourth fine use whatever terminology we both comprehend. However the public nature of the boards, plus the supposed desire I assume you have to convert people into "loving" science, and its ways, comes off as egalitatian, of many of the scientific community. And in many cases comes off as a distain for the common man.
Which again i put fourth as yet another example of how scientific thinking is a world view, and a way of thinking, not just observation as many alledge.
While you as a TE may think you can reconcile the faith with science, The majority of the scientific community, is decidedly atheistic, and at hits motst generous agnostic.do you really want to break science's self imposed silence about God and lose this extraordinary intersubjectivity and substitute for it the unending arguments of religion?
By keeping silent, you are in fact allowing the word of God to be trampled underfoot, by a world that has no concerne for anything other than appeasing itself.
Again like I did in a previous post all that would have to be done would be exchange God, for your elephant, and you would score another "win" for the atheist, who propose that religion, and particularly christianity is nothing more than their beloved "mental illness"let alone allow my pink elephant to be a valid physics cause for broken chairs.
i can't help thinking that if i never told the doctor about the elephant that i would still have his company and my intact chair.
I'm not being combative at all. It irritates me, however, when you reject evidence out of hand without having first understood it. As much as I'm sure you would like the science of supercontinents put into laymen's terms for the general audience, you seem to be admitting in your previous post a few pages back that you yourself are having a hard time grasping the "snoozefest" papers I alluded to. So why reject them out of hand?Man you all are so combative, I asked to keep it simple, so that others reading will understand.
Not at all. That's what I did in my previous reply to you -- correct your erroneous understanding of plate tectonism.As for the wilson cycle I did try and put it in laymans terms,and asked how my explanaion was, Is it really that difficult to do to , correct my version if it was wrong?
No, it is not what you said. There is more to tectonics than simple continental plates floating about randomly on the aesthenosphere. The plates are being physically pushed about from specific loci (like the mid-Atlantic ridge) and pulled down elsewhere (like the Mariana trench). These are the forces that drive continental plates into one another, creating supercontinents; not the wave action of the magmatic mantle, as you suppose. This is why you are wrong.Is that not what I said? it still functions as a liquid, in that the continents are adrift, and they (according to the theories) are drifting into each other and merging (, I guess the bouncing part of my comment could be debated)
Would the sciences of geology, biology, and palaeontology be related if they all disagreed with each other? No. But they don't, so what's your point?And would they stil lbe inter related, if they disregarded each others scientific findings and evidence?
Nice try. But your attempt at turning the tables by switching a few of my words doesn't work for the very reason that Assyrian pointed out above. Read it again. The logic doesn't hold. Instead, you seem to be agreeing with me that the ancient Hebrew cosmology isn't scientific, which I doubt you were trying to do.I am against what I see at the scientist/TE/atheist perversion of scripture in order to fit a scientific cosmology that the original authors were not intending to propagate.
Flat-earth geocentrists feel the same way about you!I am disturbed that so many on here vehamently battle in defense of Science a supposed "tool" yet scripture, and the belief in it is seemingly cast aside, as foolishness, childishness, and ignorance.
Why should I be concerned? Who am I to judge whether the bike manual writers are Christian or not?and notice your concern for them
as I stated earlier I am not a creationist,nor do I agree with their methods.Do I need a good reason to correct falsehoods? Pseudoscience is pseudoscience, and correcting misbelief is an important goal for me as I want to be an educator someday. Part of the reason is because I come from a poor immigrant background (war refugees), but through education, my family has been able to overcome much hardship to start a new successful life here. To see Americans actively hinder education is sickening to me. Not only that, if people think that they must choose between science and religion, how many people will we lose because of this false dictonomy. That's what sites like AiG and ICR promote, either you accept "Godless" science (many Creationists on this site echo this idea) or Creationism.
When I hear you state that scripture is allegorical, I realize that much of it is, however Genesis is never given as an allegory, of creation, and it is certainly not a Myth.If you said a screwdriver is useless, I would also say you're wrong and give some examples, but leave it at that. However, if you say evolution (and science in general) is anti-Biblical, then you are spreading misconceptions about science that may cause people to reject Christianity. This is why I fight strongly for my beliefs.
Tahts the problem I have with how TE presumes its myth, I am un aware of any parable or allegory, that is not presented seperately in a manner that it is distinguished as an allegory, Whereass Genesis is presented as fact, and the arguement, that the Hebrews, were "not enlightened" enought to comprehend a more elaborate explanation, doesn't jive with all the philosophical debates that existed back then within the Greco/Roman communities that infact believed in some form of evolution.As for my views on the Bible and faith, that is separate from science. I do believe that Jesus is real, and that He died for our sins, and I believe in the miracle of His Ressurection. It doesn't matter if science has never seen anyone rise from the dead or if later science can bring back the dead because science can never falisfy the act of Ressurection just like science can never falisfy God. I don't need science to prove my faith.
As for my views of Genesis, kenrapoza said it best in his first post, and I agree with him completely.
http://www.christianforums.com/t3309386-genesis-and-truth.html The rest of the Bible follows closely those views. I will never be sure what parts are 100% historical and what parts are myth, but I am sure of one thing: the truths and messages of the Bible are far more important than trying to figure out what part is historical and what part is myth.
Science is derived from many greco roman philosophies, and they were in fact pagansScience is a pagan invention?
When computer models are used that extend far into the future or past, I would say so, as for divination itself, I was attempting to demonstrated how those ideas and practices have permiated our society as innoculous.You're saying that predictions based on evidence and observation is the same as divination, and as such is prohibited by the Bible?
accuracy is not its only goalIt seeks accuracy. This is a sin?
whereas schripture apparently has not?It has a long proven track record of getting results. It has earned a certain degree of respect.
That wasn't the questionWho says I can't defend both? There is no conflict between them.
Again with the diversions, its like no one wants to really put themselves outThe bestthing to do would be to lurk on this board and read some threads.... you should get a decent enough idea of the people from that.
I do not see you denying it, if its paranoia, then present some examples of how it isThis sounds paranoid.
Jesus is the larger pictureThe message of Scripture.... all of it.
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?