@divegeester saidI'm not a history buff, but this is my impression.
Just saying.
Discuss if you want to…
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.
@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.
Other than that your question is pointless hyperbole.
@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?
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4251
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 grammarian/logician, here is what I was told.
"The sentence could be interpreted differently depending on the context. For instance, it could mean that Jesus did not explicitly criticize scientific methods or theories. Alternatively, it could mean that Jesus did not specifically preach about science. Without additional context or clarification, the sentence could be ambiguous."
By saying "Just saying" what on earth is the creator of the thread saying?
"Jesus never preached against science" is only one side of the coin. If we want a complete and impartial coin, and which is not biased to any one side, we also need to include that, Jesus never preached in favor of science.
Still, even with a fair coin, are we to just flip the coin and see which side comes up?
Are we looking for the actual word, science, in the New Testament? By "science," are we to understand it as a reference to the systematic study of the natural world? Or are we looking for rocket science? For instance, would the act of ascending and then descending from heaven be considered as a reference to rocket science, and Jesus' takeaway on science?
And when the name of Jesus is referenced, are we to also look in the Old Testament, since the overwhelming majority of Christians believe that Jesus, through the trinity concept, is also understood by them to be the God of the Old Testament?
Can "Natural Philosophy" be substituted for "science," since it would be understood as the same idea. And because "science" involves knowledge, and wisdom to understand what exactly is knowledge, would the terms, knowledge and wisdom, suffice, if used in conjunction with the objects which science is concerned with?
Just saying that we are to be more specific in creating threads on, and of this nature.
@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)
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."
@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.
Not getting drawn into your endless questionings.
Why don't you ask divegeester about his OP?
Like that will ever happen.
@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."