1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    26 May '07 04:16
    This question is mainly for thos of faith. When science seems to contradict the Bible which selection below do you fall under?

    1. When science contradicts the Bible, science is wrong.
    2. When our interpretation of the scientific record contradicts the Bible, our interpretation of science needs to be updated.
    3. When our interpretation of the words of the Bible contradict the knowable record of nature, then our interpretation of the word of God needs to be updated.
  2. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    26 May '07 04:20
    Originally posted by whodey
    This question is mainly for thos of faith. When science seems to contradict the Bible which selection below do you fall under?

    1. When science contradicts the Bible, science is wrong.
    2. When our interpretation of the scientific record contradicts the Bible, our interpretation of science needs to be updated.
    3. When our interpretation of the words of th ...[text shortened]... t the knowable record of nature, then our interpretation of the word of God needs to be updated.
    you forgot
    4. when science contradicts the bible, the bible is wrong.
  3. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    26 May '07 04:42
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    you forgot
    4. when science contradicts the bible, the bible is wrong.
    And so I did. Add that to the list then. Having said that, are you then saying that science is inerrant or infallible?
  4. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    26 May '07 04:45
    Originally posted by whodey
    And so I did. Add that to the list then. Having said that, are you then saying that science is inerrant or infallible?
    Not at all. Are you saying the bible is inerrant or infallible?
  5. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    26 May '07 04:57
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Not at all. Are you saying the bible is inerrant or infallible?
    What I am attemting to say, or at least it is my position, is that there is an infallible truth with in regards to nature just as there is around the word of God. Then you have the human study of nature (science) and the study of the word of God (theology), which are both susceptable to fallibility. Errors do not occur in nature just as they do not occur with God, rather, errors occur via human interpretations of both of them.
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52618
    26 May '07 17:46
    Originally posted by whodey
    What I am attemting to say, or at least it is my position, is that there is an infallible truth with in regards to nature just as there is around the word of God. Then you have the human study of nature (science) and the study of the word of God (theology), which are both susceptable to fallibility. Errors do not occur in nature just as they do not occur with God, rather, errors occur via human interpretations of both of them.
    Another set of sad delusions, the obsession and inner need for there to be a god. Why don't you grow up and use your own brain for a change? Challange religious authority, ask questions of your delusional masters?
  7. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    26 May '07 18:292 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Another set of sad delusions, the obsession and inner need for there to be a god. Why don't you grow up and use your own brain for a change? Challange religious authority, ask questions of your delusional masters?
    Sonhouse, you've made a good number of assertions already.

    Tell us now where you think this "inner need" to have a god comes from. Why does man have this inner need to have a god anyway?

    Why should there be such a need? Instead of just asserting explain to us why there exists this need for a god in man to begin with.
  8. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    26 May '07 18:44
    Originally posted by whodey
    What I am attemting to say, or at least it is my position, is that there is an infallible truth with in regards to nature just as there is around the word of God. Then you have the human study of nature (science) and the study of the word of God (theology), which are both susceptable to fallibility. Errors do not occur in nature just as they do not occur with God, rather, errors occur via human interpretations of both of them.
    What about a baby born with two heads? By any interpretation that seems like an error.
  9. Joined
    29 Oct '06
    Moves
    225
    26 May '07 19:37
    Originally posted by whodey
    What I am attemting to say, or at least it is my position, is that there is an infallible truth with in regards to nature just as there is around the word of God. Then you have the human study of nature (science) and the study of the word of God (theology), which are both susceptable to fallibility. Errors do not occur in nature just as they do not occur with God, rather, errors occur via human interpretations of both of them.
    What if nature is God?
  10. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    26 May '07 20:38
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Sonhouse, you've made a good number of assertions already.

    Tell us now where you think this "inner need" to have a god comes from. Why does man have this inner need to have a god anyway?

    Why should there be such a need? Instead of just asserting explain to us why there exists this need for a god in man to begin with.
    Man does not have an "inner need" to have a god. That's pure hogwash. Most people, as social creatures, have been externally conditioned to believe in a god. If you raised a child with no exposure to the god concept, he would grow up having absolutely no conception of god.
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52618
    26 May '07 20:58
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Man does not have an "inner need" to have a god. That's pure hogwash. Most people, as social creatures, have been externally conditioned to believe in a god. If you raised a child with no exposure to the god concept, he would grow up having absolutely no conception of god.
    I was talking about those already infected with the god virus.
    There may be a nodule in the brain that is responsible for the epiphany feeling and lets face it, religion is just a feeling inside.
    I felt that epiphany once but it was due to being 15 in Alaska watching a particularly vivid Borealis, it was incredible and gave me a rush like I have felt only a few times since. That kind of feeling can revive the incipient religious brainwashing to the extent (fortunutely for me, it did not occur) that you think you are in the presence of a god. I knew full well even at 15 I was in the presence of the northern lights, the neon light of the north as a result of the sun sending particles to earth. I knew that at the time so did not just fall into the obsessive behavior of religion.
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    27 May '07 01:061 edit
    Originally posted by kirksey957
    What about a baby born with two heads? By any interpretation that seems like an error.
    What I mean is that there is a truth behind why the baby has two heads that is infallible. You and I would interpret the meaning to be that the baby was a "mistake" simply because the baby in question is beyond what is considered the norm. The interpretation may be accurate or may not be.
  13. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    27 May '07 01:11
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Another set of sad delusions, the obsession and inner need for there to be a god. Why don't you grow up and use your own brain for a change? Challange religious authority, ask questions of your delusional masters?
    Right back at ya!

    Another set of sad delusions, the obsession and inner need for there not to be a God......

    I would appreciate constructive responses. I think my response did as much good as yours, no?
  14. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    27 May '07 01:39
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Sonhouse, you've made a good number of assertions already.

    Tell us now where you think this "inner need" to have a god comes from. Why does man have this inner need to have a god anyway?

    Why should there be such a need? Instead of just asserting explain to us why there exists this need for a god in man to begin with.
    Some people just don't do well without a constant father figure in their lives, and they'll make one up, if one doesn't exist.
  15. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    27 May '07 01:41
    Originally posted by whodey
    You and I would interpret the meaning to be that the baby was a "mistake" simply because the baby in question is beyond what is considered the norm.
    No, we'd consider it a mistake because the baby is beyond what could survive.
Back to Top