03 Jan '24 02:43>
Just saying.
Discuss if you want to…
Discuss if you want to…
@josephw saidAre't there 100s of millions of devout Christians who reject much of what science has learned about the natural world? If so, the question is whether doing so is extra-Biblical.
Why would he?
Just asking.
@divegeester saidI'm not a history buff, but this is my impression.
Just saying.
Discuss if you want to…
@josephw saidDo you as a biblical literalist accept all the scientific explanations of the natural world, such as the age of the earth and the universe for example?
Why would he?
Just asking.
@fmf saidBeing a Christian isn't about the rejection of science, but instead is about belief in the one that created science.
Are't there 100s of millions of devout Christians who reject much of what science has learned about the natural world? If so, the question is whether doing so is extra-Biblical.
@bigdogg saidI think that's true enough.
I'm not a history buff, but this is my impression.
Education wasn't so comprehensive. Some countries had strong science communities, and others didn't.
There was also no printing press yet invented.
Both of these things greatly limited the availability of scientific knowledge.
There was nothing much to rail against.
The earliest major religion vs. science feud I can think of is Galileo vs. Catholicism. Probably others can think of some earlier ones.
@divegeester saidI do not.
Do you as a biblical literalist accept all the scientific explanations of the natural world, such as the age of the earth and the universe for example?
@josephw saidMy question was not an example of "hyperbole" at all, and its point was to draw an answer from you: something that you didn't offer with your first post.
Being a Christian isn't about the rejection of science, but instead is about belief in the one that created science.
Other than that your question is pointless hyperbole.
@pettytalk saidWell put.
Some here create threads by the sackful. Their creations are easy enough, being literally just a single short thread, enough for mending a sock, or a single loose button on a shirt. Literally an incomplete sentence without an ending mark, and it lacks specificity and context.
Posing my concerns and opinion for the sentence to a trusted friend, an accredited and worthy g ...[text shortened]... ed with?
Just saying that we are to be more specific in creating threads on, and of this nature.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIt could be argued that Jesus preached a message that excluded lies.
Jesus preached against evolution (indirectly by his support of creationism) so it could be argued he preached against science.
Jesus said, “At the beginning the Creator made them male and female and said . . . the two shall become one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-6)
@fmf said"Are't there 100s of millions of devout Christians who reject much of what science has learned about the natural world? If so, the question is whether doing so is extra-Biblical."
My question was not an example of "hyperbole" at all, and its point was to draw an answer from you: something that you didn't offer with your first post.
@josephw saidYou don't think Jesus considered the Adam and Eve thing as a literal account of creation?
It could be argued that Jesus preached a message that excluded lies.
By quoting the Old Testament Jesus affirmed the truth concerning matrimony between a man and a woman. The context is in regard to divorce.
So you're reference to Matthew 19 does not support your assertion that "...he preached against science."