This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies 禄
Frank52 路 70-79, M
A basic mistake made by some extremely vocal Christian groups is the same as that made by very vocal scientists. Even to attempt to turn the Bible into a scientific treatise is a waste of time. Large swathes of the Christian church understand the creation stories(yes plural) in Genesis as faith-based stories on the nature of humanity, sin, the relationship with God and how the world is the way it is. It could never be literal - for a start it seems the earth is flat. They are true of course, but not in a scientific way. There is no weighing and measuring love, but few scientists reduce that concept SOLELY to brain function, heart rate and physiological expression. It needs poetry and metaphor to get to the essence of spiritual thinking.
It is quite possible to hold to scientific method an accept experiential truths and believe in a God who intervenes and rescues those who recognise their need. This thread is placed in a group called 'Spirituality and Religion' yet it demands a response which may not include a spiritual element. It's a perfectly legitimate debating position to deny any spiritual truth exists: I guess it's even acceptable to deny science any sway (but give up your car and posting on here if you think that) but this age old attempt to force spiritual truth into scientific method is doomed to fail. Both sides will fail - as I believe has been proved below.
The only possible reward from engaging in an argument with no agreed basis of thought is, as far as I can see, the sense of self-satisfaction in believing that your side (whichever that is) has the 'truth' and the other side are idiots for not seeing it. But that's probably not unique to this debate.
Just in case you haven't worked it out, I am one of the many Bible believing Christians who is not a Creationist.
I retire before the onslaught. 馃槵
It is quite possible to hold to scientific method an accept experiential truths and believe in a God who intervenes and rescues those who recognise their need. This thread is placed in a group called 'Spirituality and Religion' yet it demands a response which may not include a spiritual element. It's a perfectly legitimate debating position to deny any spiritual truth exists: I guess it's even acceptable to deny science any sway (but give up your car and posting on here if you think that) but this age old attempt to force spiritual truth into scientific method is doomed to fail. Both sides will fail - as I believe has been proved below.
The only possible reward from engaging in an argument with no agreed basis of thought is, as far as I can see, the sense of self-satisfaction in believing that your side (whichever that is) has the 'truth' and the other side are idiots for not seeing it. But that's probably not unique to this debate.
Just in case you haven't worked it out, I am one of the many Bible believing Christians who is not a Creationist.
I retire before the onslaught. 馃槵
GodSpeed63 路 61-69, M
@Frank52 [quote]Just in case you haven't worked it out, I am one of the many Bible believing Christians who is not a Creationist.[/quote]
If I may, then what do you believe in, my friend?
If I may, then what do you believe in, my friend?
@GodSpeed63
Gonna go out on a limb here and say that he believes the message of the bible and salvation through christ but recognizes that the bible (even if it was inspired by god) was written by men and reflects the cultural and scientific achievements of the time.
Gonna go out on a limb here and say that he believes the message of the bible and salvation through christ but recognizes that the bible (even if it was inspired by god) was written by men and reflects the cultural and scientific achievements of the time.
GodSpeed63 路 61-69, M
@Pikachu [quote]Gonna go out on a limb here and say that he believes the message of the bible and salvation through Christ[/quote]
I'll let him answer my question.
I'll let him answer my question.
Frank52 路 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 I will gladly answer in my own words but Pikachu has summed it up well. I need more time and space to develop my position and I will start a new thread when I have time otherwise this one will become overly confused. Like Pikachu I notice you tend to come back with assertions or questions that don't actually involve a reasoned response. I look forward to picking this up in a few days when I can.