[_ Old Earth _] The Christianity In Science

[Doulos Iesou]

Hey, don't get upset.
I'm having fun!

It's just so much fun to be accused of ignoring Jesus and Scripture.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Of course I might be in error.
I may also not be alive.
I may simply be some computer program coming out of a spaceship somewhere.

But that won't change my belief that God gave this to Moses, and he gave it to the Jewish people, and what they believe has been passed down to us forever since then.

And if God wanted them to believe something else, he would of said so.

Nice dodge.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The Bible is not a scientific book, it is a theological book.

Sounds like it disqualifies scripture from being used as evidence doesn't it? But that's simply not the case.
It describes events as well. As we record events so has the bible. I've even read "science" books that record events that in many cases is the very basis of the "scientific" subject at hand. And as you know, events of creation are not confined solely to the OT but are also recorded events in the NT.

But here again, the word "scientific" (science) is being used as if it's some kind of being of it's own. Say "science" and all else is supposed to be disqualified like "science" is the end all of everything. But science is the tool that gathers data. And has been used to record events no less. And man makes the conclusions. Besides, scientific texts have assuredly used events to make conclusions. I see no reason to disregard events recorded in scripture. After all, scientists do it. So for some reason biblical events are off limits? That seems a bit biased to me.

Sounds like it qualifies Scripture as evidence on subjects that it addresses.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

It's just so much fun to be accused of ignoring Jesus and Scripture.

Then stop doing it.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Nice dodge.

I felt it to be a worthy answer to your option 4.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Then stop doing it.

We DISAGREE on the interpretation of Scripture.

Get that into your cranium.

We're done here. It doesn't matter how many times this is stated, you guys keep on with the accusations.

You'll never be content until we raise our hands up and say, "alright you win.. we reject God."

 

[Rick W]

Sounds like it qualifies Scripture as evidence on subjects that it addresses.

And scripture addresses creation quite well.
It even addresses transformation of matter and that not in secret either.
Events in biblical text are events none-the-less. It's not uncommon for the scientific community to highlight events no matter where those events are recorded. Some monk in the outer reaches of eastern Mongolia records an event and if it relates to the "scientific" subject at hand it's used as evidence oftentimes leading to the discovery of this or that. Archeologists do that quite a bit too.

Reject God? No, I don't believe that but you are trying to reject biblical events for some reason.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

And scripture addresses creation quite well.
It even addresses transformation of matter and that not in secret either.
Events in biblical text are events none-the-less. It's not uncommon for the scientific community to highlight events no matter where those events are recorded. Some monk in the outer reaches of eastern Mongolia records an event and if it relates to the "scientific" subject at hand it's used as evidence oftentimes leading to the discovery of this or that. Archeologists do that quite a bit too.

Reject God? No, I don't believe that but you are trying to reject biblical events for some reason.

Do you not understand that we see Genesis as an allegorical account, not a historical account.

Do you accuse everyone of rejecting Scripture, when they disagree with you on how a particular passage is interpreted?

 

[Rick W]

Do you not understand that we see Genesis as an allegorical account, not a historical account.

I could reciprocate with a question like that one but I really see no need for it or any reason why I should insult your intelligence.

Do you accuse everyone of rejecting Scripture, when they disagree with you on how a particular passage is interpreted?

I thought we were talking about events. How did we get off track to interpreting passages?

 

[Rick W]

This is what I'm addressing.

No, not even a Christian scientist would view that as a valid basis.

1. The Bible is not a scientific book, it is a theological book.

Events are events and "science" uses events quite extensively even though the events recorded in the texts are not bonafide, dyed-in-wool, pure-bred science books. Especially those "scientific" documentaries we see a lot of.

 

[Rick W]

To clarify:
"The Bible is not a scientific book, it is a theological book implies" all 66 books are disqualified. If you care to believe Genesis as allegorical then stating so would be a lot clearer than just including the entire bible. I know it's the mantra of the evolutionist but remember, it was coined by non-believing evolutionists who do not believe the bible at all. Therefore they state very clearly, "The bible..". Be careful using secular incantations.

I've debated with secular evolutionists and that phrase is front and center. Along with some other choice words I won't mention here.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

We DISAGREE on the interpretation of Scripture.

Get that into your cranium.

We're done here. It doesn't matter how many times this is stated, you guys keep on with the accusations.

You'll never be content until we raise our hands up and say, "alright you win.. we reject God."

Reject God?
All science comes from God.
If one truly seeks the answers to life, they will come to one conclusion; "Who is God?".
Thus, science is actually a study to find out the true nature of God.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

To clarify:
"The Bible is not a scientific book, it is a theological book implies" all 66 books are disqualified. If you care to believe Genesis as allegorical then stating so would be a lot clearer than just including the entire bible. I know it's the mantra of the evolutionist but remember, it was coined by non-believing evolutionists who do not believe the bible at all. Therefore they state very clearly, "The bible..". Be careful using secular incantations.

I've debated with secular evolutionists and that phrase is front and center. Along with some other choice words I won't mention here.

It was coined by a non-believing evolutionist? Care you prove that claim?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Reject God?
All science comes from God.
If one truly seeks the answers to life, they will come to one conclusion; "Who is God?".
Thus, science is actually a study to find out the true nature of God.

Science can tell us some things about God, but the true nature of God was revealed on the cross.

Science doesn't have anything to do with that.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Science can tell us some things about God, but the true nature of God was revealed on the cross.

Science doesn't have anything to do with that.

I disagree.
I think everything in life has to do with God.
You cannot separate anything from God.
The cross revealed God only to those you choose to see it.
Science reveals God only to those who choose to see it.

I believe this disagreement we have has to do with interpretation of Scripture, because you choose to fit Scripture into your interpretation of science.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I disagree.
I think everything in life has to do with God.
You cannot separate anything from God.
The cross revealed God only to those you choose to see it.
Science reveals God only to those who choose to see it.

I believe this disagreement we have has to do with interpretation of Scripture, because you choose to fit Scripture into your interpretation of science.

Ah again with the accusations.

I think I know my own basis for interpretation, I don't need you assuming such for myself.

This is why I find it so hard to fellowship with Creationists online. One of the most divisive groups around, and they always assume to know your thoughts and will quickly renounce you as not a Christian.

Perhaps I should remove my Christian tag because I'm an evolutionist.

 

[Gary]

Jesus as a man probably didn't know much about science.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

I suppose you missed the part where I stated "as a man."

 

[Gary]

I suppose you missed the part where I stated "as a man."

Read the scriptures.

 

[Free]

Read the scriptures.

I hope you realize that we can use your argument, like some scientific naturalists have, to say that Jesus didn't perform miracles, he just used medicine (science).