Biblical literalism correlates with anti-science
- Thread starter River Jordan
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Sure, everyone has prejudices, if not then prove the opposite...River Jordan said:
The fact of the matter is that I asked you a couple of questions that you skirted around by suggesting that I have prejudices, whereas (supposedly) you don't. So let me ask them again... "River Jordan":
1) what is "literalism" supposed to be? And ..
2) how do we define "the science"?
Since it seems to be YOUR assertion that the "paper" is "science," then I think the burden is on YOU to prove that it is (which is a far cry from trying to claim that anyone who hasn't paid money to read the paper is prejudiced), don't ya think???????????????
So only Christians can be free of bias? :wacko:StanJ said:
You asked for an example of things in the Bible that I don't believe are absolute. I answered by saying I don't believe the OT laws are absolute.
Um....sure.UppsalaDragby said:
It's in the OP, remember? "if you're a Biblical literalist (defined as agreeing with the statement "The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word")"
You don't know what science is? Wow.
?????? What in the world are you even talking about? :wacko:
What do you mean by "word for word"?River Jordan said:
Well you're begging for it RJ, so here it comes again!
I didn't say that I don't know what science is. :lol:
You'd have to ask the authors and the people who self-described their beliefs that way.UppsalaDragby said:
Good, then you shouldn't be asking what science means.
River, you are very adamant about your position but sadly lacking in the will or ability to answer those that refute you. Basically you're answering all questions with questions, which does NOTHING to corroborate or support your opinions. If you're not willing to engage in meaningful dialogue, I see no reason to keep this thread going.
I don't know what question you think I'm not answering. You asked what from the Bible I don't see as absolute, and I told you....the OT laws.
What "authors" are you talking about?River Jordan said:
As far as I can determine ... "word for word" ... doesn't really mean anything at all.
If you disagree then explain exactly what you mean by "word for word".
For example, what in the Bible, according to you, should be interpreted "word for word", and what should not be interpreted in that way? Why and why not?
Consequently, instead of sending me off on some wild goose chase looking for these so-called "authors" (whoever they may be) then why don't you prove your points... (whatever they may be)...
Sure.... unless of course I was trying to get you to explain what you mean by "the science" (which by the way I was).
Are you going to tell us all... or are you going to try making even more wise cracks...
Your choice RJ.
Um.....the author of the paper in the OP. :blink:UppsalaDragby said:
Either go read the paper or stop trying to debate it. You can't do the latter without doing the former.
The products/outcomes of science.
Oh.. but haven't you read what the author/authors have said.. so that YOU can answer??? Or are we just going to take your word for it that the paper is "scientific"?River Jordan said:
Well you didn't make it particularly clear that the only ones that had the right to debate in this thread were those who had paid money to read the paper. I didn't see it in the OP.. and neither did I see you making that demand in any of the other posts.
What "science"? You are using circular reasoning here. I think you should explain what you mean by "science", before invoking its "products" or "outcomes", don't you think?
Ok UD, you're in your "no matter what you say I'm going to dispute it" mode again, so I'll just thank you for your time. ^_^
And that is the nail on the head!!UppsalaDragby said:
No, evolution is just as mutually exclusive with the bible as it is with science....River Jordan said:
But I certainly understand the need for god bashers to believe this. As usual, I have to ask why you agree with this. You are a Christian, this is a Christian site....Jesus is God....God is not a human that He should lie Numb 23:19....the bible is His word...
Yawn, I am wishing we had an actual scientist posting threads of value here.
- Aug 10, 2012
- 5,601
- 6,858
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
To what end? They would only create more questions. The more you know the better understanding you have of our own ignorance. Fools think they can disprove the existance of God by providing an alternative explaination from their limited understanding.KingJ said:
and ANOTHER question....I'm not the only one that has made this observation River. It gets tiresome to try and pin you down when you avoid answering pertinent questions.River Jordan said:
Yeah, that's what you believe, just like earlier Christians believed a moving earth was mutually exclusive with the Bible. And just like them, history will not be kind to you.KingJ said:
As we've been over before, just because you think a certain way, that doesn't mean every other Christian across the world has to fall in line behind you. You're just not that important.
Oh, don't worry. I'm a scientist, and that was just another of KingJ's attempts to be clever and insult me. It's pretty much all he has.lforrest said:
?????????? There wasn't a single question in my post. :blink: What question am I not answering?StanJ said:
Well, those trying to disprove the existence of God would fall into a similar camp. Hardly much between the ears if you can't see ID and every atom as proof of God.lforrest said:
I want the honest scientist that takes God as the 'known' part of the equation. I pray for one that takes Jesus = God. I wish for one that takes the bible = His inspired word.
What annoys the bejeebers out of me is when we have someone that claims to believe and defend Christianity...but then stands idly by whilst claims and statements that shatter its very foundation are made.
Getting TE's to be dead honest / face the conundrums in their defense of TE claims > climbing mount Everest.
A good example is Gen 2:7. Seems that is used as evidence of the time God gave us, intelligent monkey's, human spirits. Now if that was the case, that is a strong argument in support of TE's! But that is not the case. That verse is crsytal clear if read without a bias. God gave all living souls / breath of life. The way I see it, is if I believed that and held to that verse, I would no longer be a TE or at least be a very silent one.
I am also a scientist. Last week I was a doctor. I think next week I will be the president. My little boy is batman.River Jordan said:Oh, don't worry. I'm a scientist, and that was just another of KingJ's attempts to be clever and insult me. It's pretty much all he has.
They were not as naive as you think, please do some more research http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy.River Jordan said:
But lets for arguments sake say you are right. It is still apples and oranges. Do you really not get that?
The Galileo affair does not mock all scripture, God and the cross...http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21234-the-ever-changing-forked-tongue-theory-of-evolution/#entry245989
Yes, I know the RCC has tried to scrub history a bit to save face, but the fact remains, The RCC declared heliocentrism to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture" and charged Galileo with heresy, essentially what fundamentalists are doing today with evolution. The only difference is, you don't have any power to do anything about it.KingJ said:
Similar threads
