Originally posted by googlefudgeI can handle disagreement. (Even being called 'irrational'. I'm a woman, I've been called 'irrational', mostly by boys who don't 'get' me, all my life.)
I read and pay attention to what you say [when I'm around and reading the relevant thread]
I just disagree with a lot what you say, on account of it being unsubstantiated and/or wrong.
It is indeed perfectly possible to be intelligent and Christian, and furthermore I am perfectly
happy to label you as an example of that.
You are however no ...[text shortened]... epts, which is almost everyone.
Your beliefs are stupid.
That doesn't mean that you are.
Disrespect and people making fun of my beliefs, not so much.
Originally posted by RJHinds"Your belief" is that my belief is garbage. Or at the very, very least, severely misguided. So who disrespected whom first?
Thanks for respecting my belief.
I'm not disrespecting your belief. I'm disrespecting your ignorance of science. You ignore scientific knowledge that doesn't support your religious knowledge. You make no effort to integrate the two.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnyone can claim the Holy Bible is not an historically accurate record. However, those that have attempted to prove their claim were unable to do so and some have actually proven that the Holy bible is an historically accurate document on the point they were contesting. 😏
When somebody disrespected your ignorance of history, you got quite miffed. (when they pointed out that the Bible is largely not an historically accurate record)
HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!
Originally posted by RJHindsI'm not disrespecting your belief. I'm disrespecting your ignorance of just about everything.
Anyone can claim the Holy Bible is not an historically accurate record. However, those that have attempted to prove their claim were unable to do so and some have actually proven that the Holy bible is an historically accurate document on the point they were contesting. 😏
HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!
Originally posted by SuzianneI don't see how it makes any sense to try to integrate the false belief of evolution and millions of years of death with the true belief from the Holy Bible.
"Your belief" is that my belief is garbage. Or at the very, very least, severely misguided. So who disrespected whom first?
I'm not disrespecting your belief. I'm disrespecting your ignorance of science. You ignore scientific knowledge that doesn't support your religious knowledge. You make no effort to integrate the two.
Originally posted by RJHinds"...millions of years of death..." Wait, what?
I don't see how it makes any sense to try to integrate the false belief of evolution and millions of years of death with the true belief from the Holy Bible.
Come on, Ron, it only takes a little stretching of the mind. Evolution seems to be the best explanation of how the diversity of species could be achieved.
Remember, I'm going on the theory that what mainstream science sees as "the evidence" was gathered in good faith (okay bad choice of words, but I mean to say that scientists aren't trying to deceive anyone). So I'm also going with the idea that man's free will must be maintained and therefore, it must appear that it could have happened just the way they say. And the easiest way for that to be true is if it did happen just that way, perhaps with a little push from the hand of God to direct it just the way He wanted. After all, the fossil record doesn't lie, and it's almost impossible to be faked.
Hey, whadayaknow 'bout that? I meant to click on a different thread, and now here I am at the "pinhead" thread. LOL
I actually made it a point to not look at this, but now it's too late... I had to look... couldn't stop myself... and no one to blame but myself... I'm a hapless victim of my own curiosity... that's right, so it's not really not my fault... I am not the victim here!
"meaningless swipes at people"... ? 😲
Originally posted by SuzianneI can see why you made A's in science. You believed your science teacher more that your pastor. Oh, that's right, I forgot your pastor was a woman and probably a theistic evolutionist too.
"...millions of years of death..." Wait, what?
Come on, Ron, it only takes a little stretching of the mind. Evolution seems to be the best explanation of how the diversity of species could be achieved.
Remember, I'm going on the theory that what mainstream science sees as "the evidence" was gathered in good faith (okay bad choice of words, but I mea ...[text shortened]... ay He wanted. After all, the fossil record doesn't lie, and it's almost impossible to be faked.
The fossil record doesn't lie? Yeah, I guess dead things would have a hard time telling a lie, but if everyone would leave them alone they could continue to lie in the ground. 😏
Originally posted by lemon limeWhat is your response to the OP?
Hey, whadayaknow 'bout that? I meant to click on a different thread, and now here I am at the "pinhead" thread. LOL
I actually made it a point to not look at this, but now it's too late... I had to look... couldn't stop myself... and no one to blame but myself... I'm a hapless victim of my own curiosity... that's right, so it's not really not my fault... I am [b]not the victim here!
"meaningless swipes at people"... ? 😲[/b]
Originally posted by FMFI didn't respond to it (the OP) because of how the question is worded, but since you're asking for a response...
What is your response to the OP?
I would have called it a science/theism dichotomy instead of the science/theism dichotomy, because imo this "dichotomy" only exists for people who want (or need for there to be) a dichotomy. So I see this idea (and hence your question) for the most part as being a rhetorical trick, in order to keep science under the control of a particular philosophy... which in turn would naturally (logically?) lead to keeping an opposing philosophy out of the loop.
Some things are inherently true... whereas some things may appear to be true, but when examined turn out to be simply universally accepted inventions of the mind. I don't have a problem with natural science limiting itself to natural phenomenon. But I don't accept the notion that anything outside the realm of natural phenomenon either doesn't exist or cannot be observed. I have no problem with the limitations of natural science, but this doesn't mean I must confine myself to those same limitations... so I won't.
Originally posted by lemon limeSo do you think notions like '6,000 year old earth' and '6 day creation' are nonsense if taken literally and only serve to truncate a genuine understanding of what is seen by Christians, for example, as being their God figure's creation?
I didn't respond to it (the OP) because of how the question is worded, but since you're asking for a response...
I would have called it [b]a science/theism dichotomy instead of the science/theism dichotomy, because imo this "dichotomy" only exists for people who want (or need for there to be) a dichotomy. So I see this idea (and hence your q ...[text shortened]... nce, but this doesn't mean I must confine myself to those same limitations... so I won't.[/b]