DJA wrote:
Paul G. Allen wrote:
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 15:00 -0700, DJA wrote:
In fact, in following this thread, I've seen many posts by many people
that do not have an understanding of Christian teachings.
Exactly _which_ Christian teachings? Can you point me to one
specific Bible (last time I was in a Christian bookstore, there were
dozens - all different)?
I have a computer program with no less than 6 different translations as
well as the original Greek and Hebrew texts. I'll see if I can get it up
and running and show you several different translations all saying the
same thing regarding various subjects.
Look again. There _are_ no originals of any of the text contained
within the Bible. In fact, it's been shown by real scholars that much
of the New Testament is quite inaccurate, with some of it just made up.
Oh, yes, and I have "real scholars" that say otherwise, so nyah!
Classic response. I have experts, really. Really, I do. I do, I tell you.
There's lots of that. Trouble is, many people are so bent upon
disproving it (Christianity, God, and anything to do with either or both
in this case), they tend to ignore the data or twist it around and
around in order to further their view. (Yes, the same could be said for
some on the other side of the coin, so let's not go there and start that
argument.)
So, your best argument is that those of us who disagree with your
particular religious beliefs are just ignorant of The Truth?
Why not? Your best argument seems to be "I have real scholars who ...".
Someone mentioned evolution in another post. Well, evolution is still a
theory, was NOT penned by Darwin, and has yet to be proven. (Note: I'm
not referring to evolution within a species or sub-species here. I'm
referring to the general term that people speak of when they want to
convey the progression of life from a single cell organism all the way
to what we as homo sapien sapiens are today). There is no scientific
proof of it, though it is taught in schools as fact and provable. There
is proof of natural selection (Darwin's discovery), evolution within a
species, and other such things that *may be* a part of evolution.
Evolution is used as a scientific truth to disprove one belief of
Christianity, and therefore that God exists at all.
Just one example of data and research being twisted to support an end.
There's far more empirical evidence supporting evolution than there is
evidence of any kind supporting Creationism (or whatever it's called
today).
Empirical, Hah! The only reason that there is far more "evidence
supporting evolution" (i.e. documentation by evolutionary scientists [1]
*interpreting* the real evidence in accordance with their bias [2]) is
that the evolutionists need to have such abundance because "if you
repeat a lie loud enough and often enough, the people will believe it".
That, and the majority of scientists today are evolutionistas. Each
scientist who is an expert in his field knows that HIS field of
expertise does *not* prove evolution (much to his dismay).
[1] not biased at all, Noooo!
[2] while ignoring the exceptions
Evolution and Creation are both beliefs. They both embody things during
a time that cannot be observed and they both involve processes that defy
the current laws of physics. In other words, neither can be observed by
science, therefore science can only make guesses about either one.
Science can only study the observable, and then speculate as to what may
or may not lie beyond the observable.
You are trying to do things with the evidence that true science just
won't allow.
(Nice try, the use of the ominous sounding word "empirical" by the way.
With it you imply that the story that the evidence tells supports your
position and is irrefutable. Again, nice try.)
but rather what someone thought/claimed/believed/hallucinated god
said. Even worse it's really what someone thinks someone thought
someone else thought someone said they heard someone say god said.
And they're ALL DEAD!
In any case, no one of that particular religious persuasion really
wants to know what _I_ think or believe. Because what I think didn't
come from their bible, and if if I say _I_ talked to god and it said
what I said was true, I'm some kind of nut case.
This is what science is for. To prove (or disprove) things that are not
otherwise proven or disproven. So, show me some science, and I'll show
you some.
What I have seen from science thus far, in its attempts to disprove the
existence of God (or any creator), is more proof that God exists than
proof that He doesn't.
Saying that science attempts to disprove the existence of god makes as
little sense as saying Linux wants to be an excellent desktop. Like
either science or Linux are sentient beings.
Nice deflection. You really avoided *his* point (by picking nits with
his choice of words).
Whether or not the universe was created in 7 days or a million years is
not a key issue when it comes to the basic beliefs of Christianity. The
same is true for some other things. Some things are of more importance.
Apparently it's important to you. It's not been mentioned before.
Excellent observation. (But I wonder if you're conclusion is accurate.)
But then they have no trouble believing that a bunch of guys who
lived thousands of years ago talked to [G]od - but they /weren't/
nut cases. But then maybe I'm being to rational; and rationality is
anathema to religion.
No, only certain religions and some people within religions, just as it
is with many people within any group.
All religions, because a religion is, by definition, a monoculture.
By *your* definition perhaps. The Bible's definition isn't quite so
limiting "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this,
To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep
himself unspotted from the world."
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
