@moonbus saidBut being a Christian doesn't mean you have to be an f'ing moron. I wish more Christians would get the memo.
This is where he’s coming from: he’s afraid science disproves religion, so he thinks he has to discredit science in order to hang onto his religion.
1 edit
@suzianne saidOf course. Sensible Christians abandoned literalism at the Salem witch trial. But some Evangelicals are still re-trying Scopes.
But being a Christian doesn't mean you have to be an f'ing moron. I wish more Christians would get the memo.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
2 edits
@moonbus
I think more people have seen the propaganda film "Inherit the Wind" then have actually read much of the court proceedings of the Scopes trial.
After reading some of the actual proceedings and how W.J. Bryant fielded some of those questions I realized how I'd be influenced by Hollywood to assume the Christian on stand made a fool of himself, which he did not. Darrow's attorney did not make a baffoon of Christian fundamentalist Bryant on the witness stand.
If you've only seen the movie or play "Inherit the Wind" you've gotten a biased version of the courtroom proceedings.
@sonship saidHollywood was bound to do that.
@moonbus
I think more people have seen the propaganda film "Inherit the Wind" then have actually read much of the court proceedings of the Scopes trial.
After reading some of the actual proceedings and how W.J. Bryant fielded some of those questions I realized how I'd be influenced by Hollywood to assume the Christian on stand made a fool of himself, which he did ...[text shortened]... n the movie or play "Inherit the Wind" you've gotten a biased version of the courtroom proceedings.
Movies generally do better when most of the audience can easily tell who won, and who lost.
This does not necessarily make a film 'propaganda'.
@moonbus saidLol
This is where he’s coming from: he’s afraid science disproves religion, so he thinks he has to discredit science in order to hang onto his religion.
Scientific method is great for finding reproducible method for accomplishing goals.
It figures out what man can do.
It does not figure out what God can do. True believers in man cannot understand anything other than what man can do.
Just goes to show everyone who has responded to me in this discussion believes in man. Suzi's God is limited to what man can do as well. From my point of view it makes her no different than the rest.
@bigdoggproblem saidA supernatural event that can be explained by natural means? No
@Eladar
Can you explain a supernatural event?
If yes, please do. It can be the event of your choosing.
A supernatural event that can be proven to be true? No
Are you willing to accept a supernatural event recorded in a book but cannot be proven as true? If so, then yes.
@eladar saidForget about 'proof' for a minute.
A supernatural event that can be explained by natural means? No
A supernatural event that can be proven to be true? No
Are you willing to accept a supernatural event recorded in a book but cannot be proven as true? If so, then yes.
Can you, or can you not, explain how a supernatural event happened?
@bigdoggproblem saidHow? A supernatural being who is not limited to natural laws interacts with a created natural universe. This is how the Bible explains it.
Forget about 'proof' for a minute.
Can you, or can you not, explain how a supernatural event happened?
@eladar saidYou have completely convinced me . . . that you know nothing you have not personally and directly perceived. You don't know the interior of the sun is hot, you don't know your parents were conceived by their parents, you don't know you have a brain -- you assume all these things, because you cannot have personally and directly observed them. I do know who your patron saint is: George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne. Esse ist percipi.
Lol
Scientific method is great for finding reproducible method for accomplishing goals.
It figures out what man can do.
It does not figure out what God can do. True believers in man cannot understand anything other than what man can do.
Just goes to show everyone who has responded to me in this discussion believes in man. Suzi's God is limited to what man can do as well. From my point of view it makes her no different than the rest.
@moonbus saidThat is the explanation. Something greater than us created everything. It may not be the explanation you like. You do not need to believe it. You just need to understand that what applies to a natural explanation does not apply to a supernatural.
The Bible explains nothing. It merely says 'this is what you must believe.'
Do that and you will be a lot less offensive to people who hold a different belief than your belief.
@moonbus saidYou can believe what you like. To believe that your belief is absolute truth is foolishness.
You have completely convinced me . . . that you know nothing you have not personally and directly perceived. You don't know the interior of the sun is hot, you don't know your parents were conceived by their parents, you don't know you have a brain -- you assume all these things, because you cannot have personally and directly observed them. I do know who your patron saint is: George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne. Esse ist percipi.