Christianity: Friend or foe to science?

[rossh]

No. I pointed out the fact that Jesus is quoted as contradicting Moses. That's a problem you must resolve if you want an inerrant Bible.

Because you claim to encourage people to study the history of the Bible. Is that claim true? It appears that it isn't true.

You denigrate my knowledge about the Bible. So that's what you do if you truly encourage people to read the Bible and its history and they reach conclusions you don't like.

I don't need to read your mind. I read your posts, and I can see they're full of falsehoods.

You dismissed Carrier's work as "biased" just like I said.

What do you mean by "balanced"?

Hey--it was you who first "trolled" me. If you don't like what I post, then don't respond to it.

You keep dodging my questions.

How can it be inerrant? Only God is inerrant.

God Bless You and Good on you..

 

[rossh]

Truth is an essential doctrine last time I checked..


Only if it applies to you.


Evolution is a settled science overwhelmingly documented by hundreds of thousands of science publications by tens of thousands of scientists all over the developed world. Only religious fundies, even those claiming to hold a degree in biology, deny the overwhelming evidence for it. Even the Catholic church had to concede it is true.


BS.


BS


Only promoted by religious fundies. The peer reviewed, reputable, science world has no idea what you are blathering about. You are merely feeding your target audience with more misinformation.


Documented by peer reviewed science in tens of thousands of scientific studies (see Pubmed). VERSUS your opinions about what the Bible means to Protestants.


If the shoe fits…

Evolution is justified by millions of YEARS/TIME..
Sadly we do come across the odd Neanderthal now and then, God Bless them.

 

[rossh]

No. I pointed out the fact that Jesus is quoted as contradicting Moses. That's a problem you must resolve if you want an inerrant Bible.

Because you claim to encourage people to study the history of the Bible. Is that claim true? It appears that it isn't true.

You denigrate my knowledge about the Bible. So that's what you do if you truly encourage people to read the Bible and its history and they reach conclusions you don't

I don't need to read your mind. I read your posts, and I can see they're full of falsehoods.

You dismissed Carrier's work as "biased" just like I said.

What do you mean by "balanced"?

Hey--it was you who first "trolled" me. If you don't like what I post, then don't respond to it.

You keep dodging my questions.

How can it be inerrant? Only God is inerrant.

No one has cottoned on YET, but Hebrew, even TODAY'S Hebrew, does NOT have the letter J ............. Yes it is true, never had nor has the Letter J.

So who is J esus

 

[Baltic]

No. I pointed out the fact that Jesus is quoted as contradicting Moses. That's a problem you must resolve if you want an inerrant Bible.

Because you claim to encourage people to study the history of the Bible. Is that claim true? It appears that it isn't true.

You denigrate my knowledge about the Bible. So that's what you do if you truly encourage people to read the Bible and its history and they reach conclusions you don't like.

I don't need to read your mind. I read your posts, and I can see they're full of falsehoods.

You dismissed Carrier's work as "biased" just like I said.

What do you mean by "balanced"?

Hey--it was you who first "trolled" me. If you don't like what I post, then don't respond to it.

You keep dodging my questions.

How can it be inerrant? Only God is inerrant.

"Only God is inerrant." because God is able to correct the errors if wants...

 

[rossh]

No. I pointed out the fact that Jesus is quoted as contradicting Moses. That's a problem you must resolve if you want an inerrant Bible.

Because you claim to encourage people to study the history of the Bible. Is that claim true? It appears that it isn't true.

You denigrate my knowledge about the Bible. So that's what you do if you truly encourage people to read the Bible and its history and they reach conclusions you don't like.

I don't need to read your mind. I read your posts, and I can see they're full of falsehoods.

You dismissed Carrier's work as "biased" just like I said.

What do you mean by "balanced"?

Hey--it was you who first "trolled" me. If you don't like what I post, then don't respond to it.

You keep dodging my questions.

How can it be inerrant? Only God is inerrant.

OK well, this is simple then, is Moses wrong or, is Moses right ?

 

[rossh]

well then, when where and how and by what did Yeshua contradict Moses, then ?

 

[rossh]

I tend to doubt that.
Do you have any stats that would reflect that?



King James had nothing to do with the actual translation.
For the time, it was a decent translation.



How so?
One could validly argue that his position made him unbiased in the translation.

I wonder if this is supposedly a World Wide observation ? or just in someone's Home/House ?

 

[rossh]

so deep down you are saying ( silently ) that God does in fact is apt to make mistakes ? OR are we reading this wrong..
Genesis 6:6 maybe ? Yes!

 

[rossh]

God Bless You and Good on you..

still waiting for the FACTS about Yeshua correcting Moses ?

 

[Baltic]

well then, when where and how and by what did Yeshua contradict Moses, then ?

Jesus talked about different type of consciousness as continuation of the Law of Moses.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Scientists can't even produce a small protein in a lab under supposed "evolutionary" conditions (the Miller-Urey experiment). And a protein is a million times less complex than an entire cell.

You're the one who keeps obsessing over "religion".
I don't bring it up.
My reasons are all scientific.

You are just as wrong in denying evolution as flat-earthers are in denying a round earth. The worst part is that you do it in the name of God misleading christians in the process. Hence turning religion against science. The OP.

Well said! People like Theo make God out to be a buffoon or a deceiver. It's blasphemy to attribute to God that which isn't true.

 

[rossh]

Jesus talked about different type of consciousness as continuation of the Law of Moses.

Umm?? you are doing all the talking so where is your proof ?
eg,, He was the Giver of the law of Moses and that the law was fulfilled in Him: "Behold, I say unto you that the law is fulfilled that was given unto Moses. He was NOT against the He gave to Moses ..

 

[Unknown Soldier]

well then, when where and how and by what did Yeshua contradict Moses, then ?

Here's what Jesus is quoted as saying: Matthew 15:11

...it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles.

And from Leviticus 11 we read:

4 But among those that chew the cud or have divided hoofs, you shall not eat the following: the camel, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. 5 The rock badger, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. 6 The hare, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. 7 The pig, for even though it has divided hoofs and is cleft-footed, it does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean for you.

So can we eat whatever we wish without defilement or not?

 

[Baltic]

Umm?? you are doing all the talking so where is your proof ?
eg,, He was the Giver of the law of Moses and that the law was fulfilled in Him: "Behold, I say unto you that the law is fulfilled that was given unto Moses. He was NOT against the He gave to Moses ..

Matt 5:20, and v21+ Jesus explains it.
"your righteousness " measured by level of your conscience and over all consciousness.
v21: the Book says do not murder but i say do not even get angry... a different level of consciousness , not from the Book but from the heart, your essense.
The Golden Rule stems from it.

 

[rossh]

what Jesus is quoted as saying: Matthew 15:11

And from Leviticus 11 we read:

So can we eat whatever we wish without defilement or not?

Please be more specific, " whatever we wish " is a very very broad menu ?
I will say, fruit, vegetables, fish, meat.

 

[rossh]

11 What makes a person unclean is not what goes into his mouth; rather, what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean!"
Above so what the above got to do with this ?

this is where we are today..

 

[rossh]

Here's what Jesus is quoted as saying: Matthew 15:11

And from Leviticus 11 we read:

So can we eat whatever we wish without defilement or not?

well, " whatever we wish " is not answerable, way too broad.

 

[rossh]

Jesus talked about different type of consciousness as continuation of the Law of Moses.

Can you please cite the actual passages at least ?

 

[Baltic]

Can you please cite the actual passages at least ?

"20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
21“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brotherc will be liable to judgment; whoever insultsd his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the helle of fire. 23So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,"
Matt 5
Moses is "those of old" but Jesus says "dont be even angry" in your heart...Matt 7
12“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

 

[El Cid]

I didnt say that Aristotle wasnt a scientist, but he was not a modern experimental scientist. And neither was Hawking, he was a theoretical physicist, not an experimental physicist.

That's right, so your trying to make the evidence fit your agenda doesn't work. You're trying to define science as what conforms to your religious beliefs.

No, I am defining what everyone agrees even scientists what modern science is.

The Christian God created the universe as a separate entity from Himself...

That's what Christian theologians and apologists tell us.

...therefore establishing it as an objective reality.

That doesn't help much considering how much people disagree as to what "reality" is.

If someone disagrees with what physical reality is, that is evidence that they may be mentally ill.

If you can name a non-Abrahamic religion that also teaches that, I am all ears.

Why would I want to do that? Religions teach whatever they want people to believe.

Uhh I had claimed that only Christianity teaches that and then you said that I failed to demonstrate that claim. So I am saying if you can find another religion that makes that claim then I would agree you refuted me, but so far you have failed to demonstrate your claim.

Are you scientist?

Uh-uh--me no scientist.

I am.

If so, you should have understood me quite easily.

Either that or we're experiencing some communication difficulties.

You do have a weird way of communicating sometimes.

No, there is scientific evidence against macroevolution, totally unrelated to Christian faith.

I don't think so. Many Christians fear that if evolution occurs, then there's no God for them. That's the real motivation for denying evolutionary theory. Here's the proof as we read in the Discovery Institute's "The Wedge Document."

GOALS​

Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

So there you go--the proof that any reasonable person would accept that contrary to what you say, the denial of macroevolution is based in Christian faith.

Just because one creationist organization says that doesnt mean all creationists feel that way or agree with that.

No, they just interpret the fossil evidence differently.

They sure do! We see above why they do so.

No, it could be because the same reason Stephen Jay Gould changed his view, because there are major gaps in the fossil record.

The fossil record plainly shows systematic gaps between genera and families of organisms.

We don't have all the fossils of all things that have lived on earth, of course. So how can you tell the difference between gaps that result from the lack of fossilization and gaps that result from an absence of transitional species?

Because the gaps are not just random as you would expect if there is just not enough fossils, they just happen to be at the family and genera levels where there are major changes in morphology.

Even evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould basically admitted it when he came up with punctuated equilibrium theory.

His theory makes sense to me. What's wrong with it?

It is a tacit admission of few if any transitional forms, which is evidence for creation.

Hardly, that is not my logic. If A (order), then B (an intelligent mind caused it). A has been confirmed by scientists to exist, therefore B (an intelligent creator mind exists).

You're omitting what you posted earlier about intelligent minds creating disorder rather than order.

No, you dont understand, the fact that there is any order at all is evidence for an intelligent mind.

Anyway, your whole position here is essentially exposed as religion rather than science with the proof of your wedge document that I have documented on this post. Creationism is not science but religion.

No, see above about the wedge document. You have not proven that creationism is not science. We use all the same tools science uses evidence, logical reasoning and experiments.