Say it's not so!
Hence what I mentioned:
You don't get it.
God doesn't need changing Lucas. Science is about the interpretation of evidence. That does need changing from time to time when new evidence crops up, but God who is spiritual and wrote about spiritual things needs no adjusting.
There are two things we have been discussing.
1. Science and Religion
2. Scientists and Religionists
Science and religion fit like a glove to a hand. God created and used science in his creation of the world.
There will always be friction between scientists and religionists on account of faith. Some believe that science has all the answers for life and others believe that religion has all the answers for life.
Albert Einstein says that both go together and they do not need to be exclusive of one another. Science has contributed greatly to mankind and so too has religion. Both have their flaws (due to interpretations) but both have their positives as well. One deals with the physical realm and one with the spiritual.
Science is not a book. Science never pretends to 'have all the answers.' It is a process or discipline highly useful in acquiring knowledge. Only religions claim that some things are indisputable and must be accepted on faith regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
If I'm not mistaken, Einstein held that belief in a god was not incompatible with science, but I'm not so sure that he believed organized religion and science 'go together' as you suggest, or that the Bible and science do so.
I don't think that Einstein believed in the God that Christians do either. Actually, not really any theological description of God. So you can't really compare Einstein's beliefs in a god, and science, and the Christian beliefs in God, and science, as they are different.
But his word does, right? If the Bible is the word of God, then why the claimed missing parts? If there are gospels and other parts that are apocryhpa - then yes, that is revising or adjusting. You cannot accept things selectively, right?
Ah, and now comes the argument between KFC and Lula about which books of the Bible were put there by who, etc. etc. etc.
Sheesh Alderic, are you bored today?
Bored and pissed off; So no one tick me off or I'll open a can of whup yer behind!
Okay?
Lol, but emotion doesn't make a good, logical, argument.
True, but then again...it's actually been known to help my thinking; it just depends on how you harness/use it. Either you use it, or uses you. Right?
Hadn't thought of it like that.
There's a theory (for want of the right term), I don't rememeber the name, that suggests that emotions can be used for your sake. Instead of being just wildly angry, you can use that anger. You could divert it to a positive use.
Example: I was angry at a friend, so...instead of lashing out I used it to get stuff done.
Understand the premise, have actually acted upon said premise. I didn't know there was an actual theory for it though... but then there is a theory for everything now.
Indeed, everyone has a theory.
right. The gospels and other books of the bible had to meet certain criteria. I can list the criteria if you'd like.
yes but that doesn't make it right. Whenever you have an original anything, there are always imitations out there.
missing parts?
Einstein was a Jew. He didn't believe in a personal God like many Christians do but he did believe in a deity or a creator. He knew there was something out there.
Obviously that can't be true as the RCC and Galilao bumped heads on a scientific matter that everyone likes to bring up. I never said anything about "organized religion" and science going together. When I said "religion" and science go hand in hand I was referring to the bible. Usually I try to separate the two (religion and bible) but in this instance I didn't.
I'm not a religionist. I don't promote organized religion. I promote the gospel. There's a big difference. Many know their religion backwards and frontwards but don't have a clue what the book says.
awwwwh pul-eeese don't tell Lula.
We've been over this way too many times.
Shhhhh
By all means. It could help explain why there are missing books/i.e. "none-canon" books.
There's books, for example (off the top of my head): Judith, Esther, etc. These are parts of the bible that, over time, publishers and others have left out. I mean, seriously, if you're going to tell the whole story...tell the whole story, right?
Why leave things out, even if they may or may not be redundant.
Limitations, or selectiveness? Either you present the word of God as is, or you don't - and its hypocritical when you claim that you have the word of god, while knowingly leaving out texts.
Right?
Haha.
Honestly, that's how I feel when I go to debate certain people. It's like, "Oh great, here we go again..."
No he didn't. He may have believed so, but he didn't know.
He may have been a Jew by heritage, but not really through his beliefs. (Does that make sense?) And yes, Einstein referenced God a good many times, so I agree that he believed in a diety of some kind.
Yes, that's about right. What's interesting is the Christians like to think he was a Christian and the atheists like to think he was an unbeliever but in fact, he was hovering in the middle. He denied that he was an atheist but he didn't believe in the personal God of the Christians either.
Judith. It's not about being redundant. It has to do with being cohesive and correct. Some of these books in question had either questionable authors, errors and didn't read at all like the inspired word of God. I'll give you the critera that had to be met later. Not enough time to put it here now.
right but there weren't any texts left out. What we have is correct. The texts that were "supposedly" left out were either full f errors, contradicted the known scriptures or had no connection to any of the known books. Christ never quoted from any of them and that was a biggie. He verified almost all of what we call today as the OT. The 66 books of the bible are like five fingers on a glove. They fit together perfectly and are meant to be together.
Ahhhh, so that's it. Because they contradicted what the falliable experts claimed was right. For the record, many of these books were referenced in other canonical books.
That's the problem though. Hence we are falliable and easily led into deception, then how can you say that the interpretation of what is correct and cohesive is accurate? I mean if you look at the bible and analyze the authors' voices, they all sound different. Who are you to say what is and isn't the word of god, being falliable?
So yeah, you pick and choose - but what if you've (general you) picked the wrong ones? No one can be sure, they can only go with what they have on faith - not fact.
Listen Lucas either you're going to listen or you're not. You seem to only want to be contrary for contrary's sake. I don't have time for this. I'm not making this up. It's all very historical. If you really wish to know you don't need me to tell you this. There are a gazillion sources out there who can explain this to you better than I.....that is, if you really want to know....which I don't think you do. You just seem to like to argue for argue sake. I've got better things to do.
Thanks, but I know what I'm doing. I'm asking questions on things I am skeptical on, if you don't wish to answer them, then so be it. I'm not, however, going to stop asking questions and looking into things.
As it be, I see there cases where books have been chosen based on alleged parameters, but that still doesn't begin to delve into the other aspects of it. In my opinion at least.
So, do whatever you want. *shrugs*
~Alderic
KFC POSTS:
The bible does not contradict science but there is some psudo-science out there that attempts to disprove God.
I agree KFC. Religion and science call for belief both by faith and study. Religion begins with Divine faith that will not, in fact can not deceive, whereas science begins with human faith that is fallible.
Me too! I'm thinking of Ps. 18:1, "The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declares the works of His hands." We could say that Science is knowing how God works in the natural order, and Faith is knowing how God works in the supernatural order. This is why there is no conflict between science and faith. Also that faith in true science and in true religion does not teach anything opposed to reason or to those sound principles to reason rightly.
ALDERICJOURDAIN POSTS:
AldericJourdain, consider this. It's impossible to study math, history, chemistry, astronomy, or any scientific subject, as well as religion (which is concerned with man's duties in homage to Almighty God) without accepting first principles upon faith, without faith in the teachers. Science, like religion, begins with mysteries, truths that are not and never will be fully understood. Take electricity for example. Science doesn't stop to inquire what electircity is in substance, it just goes ahead developing the uses of it.
So, it seems to me that we mus tproperly appreciate what faith really is and it's basic role in the case of Science and religion. Faith doesn't change...it's not emotional, blind submission to the unknowable. Rather faith is an intellectual assent of the mind to something not seen with the physical eye, the acceptance of a truth upon the authority of some one else. In religion, it's Divine Authority, "taking God at His word". In science, it is dependence upon human authority, that may or may not be right (and in this discussion...may or may not have personal ethics or integrity .)
And I expect you'll grin after reading ....When faith of science is accepted, and not the faith of religion, it is wise to recall the Divinely inspired declaration of 1 St.John. 5:9. "If we accept the testimony of man, the testimony of God is greater".
See that's where you're wrong, it isn't some system that you can put faith in - it's a method that which we can use to understand the world.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
