 | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) All right. Once again it is apparent that your notion of scientific validity has little reference to the reality of modern scientific thinking. (...) Am I reading you right? You're saying that its fine for you to start threads and then refuse (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | (...) Dave - don't get upset - I just thought that your posting was about joining the 2 lines of thought together. That has been considered already. My point is precisely that. I'm not attempting to debunk it here... Is that what you want? I just (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | I didn't really want to step into the evolutionary debate as it's so much plowed ground, but there's just something about speaking your mind that's just irrisistable once in a while :) (...) (I'm assuming that you mean "it" to be the scientific (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | | (...) Either, actually, depending on how you read it, I suppose. I'm not arguing the "evolution-isn't-scientific" point here... AND I'm not really debunking combining the 2 either really - although I _did_ do that to a certain degree. My point #1 - (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | | (...) That's stating an assumption- "what the Bible says doesn't mesh with science" I dispute that - and I will present evidence in the other threads that support that claim. -Jon (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) ? Lemme rephrase what I think Dave! was saying: 1. Given that evolution appears to have happened 2. Given that we cannot disprove creationism may have happened Can we say that both may be true, hence avoiding the need for further dispute? And (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | | | I see from the below that we have a difference on debate styles and definitions Ok. I believe that when I present scientific evidence I'm arguing scientifically. If I don't, then I'm not. That simple. Anything else is philosphical. (by my (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) Scientific argument isn't simply about presenting evidence; it also entails analyzing that evidence in accordance with the scientific method. This is a failure of that article you cited (in addition it its idiosyncratic spelling and grammar). (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Yes: (URL) revised again in: (URL) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) later this evening or tomorrow, because I have to consult a text at home. Dave! (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) Scientific argument isn't simply about presenting evidence; it also entails analyzing that evidence in accordance with the scientific method. This is a failure of that article you cited (in addition to its idiosyncratic spelling and grammar). (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Ok, so the reason: "it misses the scientific evidence for creation that is indeed consistant with the Biblical account - a literal 7-day creation." is a philosophical rebuttal because it doesn't specify WHAT evidence? I disagree because it's (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) In addition, your phrasing answers the very question you pose: "seems to say" explicitly points out the interpretability of the text. Who determines what the book "seems to say"? The natural world "seems to say" that evolution took place, but (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Yes, I admit I changed the wording of that sentence after re-reading it, and I must point out that this is important. If the Bible says "day", do we necessarily know the definition of the word "day"? After all, the Jewish day is measured from (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | (...) Fine - now we're on a philospohical discussion... The question of whether the Bible's version of creationism is compatible with evolutionary theory is fundamentally a question of interpretation. There are 2 fundamental, particularly relevant, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Cool! That's all I wanted, since that's what you said that's explicitly what you were after in this thread. (...) EXACTLY! And let me just say you did an excellent job of discussing the matter. It's all interpretive. The point of course being (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | | (...) If I interpret the Bible literally, evolution does not mesh with it. Correct. -Jon (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Do you in fact interpret the Bible literally? All of it? So we *are* mustard seeds in fact and not in metaphor? What about the contradictions; do you interpret those literally, too? Dave! (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | | | (...) If you want a debate on Biblical meanings and literal interpretations, perhaps another thread would be appropriate. Here I'm working from the question of Genesis, evolution and origins. Sorry, but I don't have more time than that. -Jon (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | | (...) Dave - you get waaaaay beyond yourself when you assume what I mean and then build upon that assumption repeatedly. It might be far easier to simply make an assumption show it's conclusion and wait for a response... (IMHO) As to the topic: No, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Actually, I find that more difficult, but that's just the way I think. I find it easier to think it out to greater extremes when I'm responding, or else I might forget what track I was on, etc. Dunno... that's just me. But anyway, I DO try and (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | | | (...) Philosphically - what would your logic say if it were shown that science does not contradict the Bible - not prove it necessarily, but supported a literal interpretation of it? What if science supported that the earth is young and not billions (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | (...) I'd hold creationism as plausible, as I do now anyway. I just don't happen to think it *likely*. As for the rest of the Bible, that goes beyond science, as it's been my philosophical preferences that have led me astray from it. (...) Then I'd (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | (...) Who created the creator? -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | iPlanet Support - (URL) A division of AOL Time Warner | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) Hey, no fair, I was gonna ask that one. Did already, actually. :-) (URL) towards the bottom... :-) ++Lar (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Tim Culberson
|
| | | | | | (...) Here we come to what is seemingly an impossible thing to answer: HOWEVER: If you are already in a position where you say you believe the Bible the answer is simple - the Bible clearly states that God always was, is, and always will be (sorry, (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) OK. So in the system you accept as a true, revealed system, your god exists forever and created the universe, but himself doesn't need a creator. In the one I accept as likely based on the evidence and observations so far (note the difference, (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Tim Culberson
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Thank you for eventually saying this. The topic at hand could be argued in a number of ways but it reaches a very philosophical(sp?) level. (...) Okay Larry....I must say I'm starting to see Jon's frustration. PLEASE tell us even ONE (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Low
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) What Larry meant was because Creationism explains everything, it really explains nothing. "Tigers look like lions" -- God's plan; "Dinosaurs don't graze on grassy plains all over the world any more" -- God's plan; "Plant chlorophyll has DNA (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Tim Culberson
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Before you assume that I am going to answer a question by simply stating "God's Plan" (which I agree is a cop-out if used as a response to every question), why don't you ask one. I will say, however, that you may insert "God's Plan" in front (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Low
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I can't. That's the whole point. Because the Genesis creation story can be twisted to explain everything in the world, and because it is irrefutable as God's word, it can't be subjected to the same analysis as a scientific theory. (...) Here's (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Tim Culberson
|
| | | | | | | | | | This reply is brought about by Dave's direct request: (...) (URL) (sorry to keep using and defending this source because you all hate it so much - but it is the best online one that I know...if you're immediately plannng on saying "that source isn't (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) I don't have a lot of time right now, so I'm not going to waste it refuting every point on this site (and there are MANY that are ludicrous), but the following is just too rich to pass up... "Aquatic air-breathing mammals such as whales and (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Tim Culberson
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) No doubt in my mind. (...) People are a nice meal for lions, and tigers, and bears, and pirannahs, and sharks, and all sorts of carnivores/omnivores, but we seem to be surviving just fine. Perhaps your idea of a Trex isn't what you imagine (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Then I'm done wasting my time with you. You're hopeless, there's no doubt about it. I refuse to beat my head against a wall to try to talk some real common sense into you. You're just lost, and it's obvious you WANT to be lost. -- Tom Stangl (...) (24 years ago, 11-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Was T-Rex a herbivourous animal?(was: Re: Why not Both?) —Arnold Staniczek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Just because a certain species of primates shows a significant enlargement of brain doesn't mean it always uses it: (...) As long as they can match in speed with their victims it's no problem - or do you want to tell me that the giant (...) (24 years ago, 11-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Was T-Rex a herbivourous animal?(was: Re: Why not Both?) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) It's not the grey matter, it's how the grey matter is wired. The last study I've seen (admittedly only in the mainstream) suggests that it's the brain's ability to cool and warm itself--e.g., the blood flow--that determines a species's (boy, (...) (24 years ago, 11-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Questions Literal Creationists Can't Answer? —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Oh, see, they're still around today, they're just HIDING: (URL) And of course it's all a communistic government plot: (URL) It's interesting that each of the supposed questionnaires (each worded quite carefully) take advantage of the compart- (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Literal Creationism--a non sequitur! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) to himself or others. Perhaps an intervention is in order. However, at the bottom of the page Dr. D does make an interesting and absolute refutation of literal readings of the Bible when he indicates: GODISNOWHERE There are two obvious (...) (24 years ago, 12-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Low
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) is incidental to the question, the answer seems to boil down to "The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all." For my money this is a good explanation, IF you accept that (a) there is a One True God who made it (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Why? So you could avoid this point? "If you fault my system for not explaining the origin of the universe, why then, I fault yours for not explaining the origin of your god. No better no worse, explanation wise. A draw." I'd rather see you (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) (just picking a nit) I disagree... in my experience most christians only hold that God is fundamentally unexplainable. Creation and everything are currently unexplained, and may well be unexplainable, but that's not going to stop us from (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Point taken but to continue splitting this particular hair, I agree with "everything" but not "creation" except inasmuch as the explanation is "god created (the starting point of) the universe", which is fine, since it's no better or worse an (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jennifer Clark
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I've been thinking along those lines too due to this thread, and recalled a "Raft" by Stephen Baxter in which gravity is much stronger than in our universe. If I remember correctly it was quite a good read, although I'm not a good enough (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jennifer Clark
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Something else I find interesting is that literal creationism also seems to be almost solely the preserve of inhabitants of the US, at least from where I'm standing. The only person I've ever come across in person in the UK who professed a (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) The Creationist movement is primarily U.S. Protestant driven. Not exclusively, of course. Perhaps it's part of the insular nature of the U.S., especially the interior of the country. Europe has been through this all before. Bruce (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) I'm rather not of that mind. And actually, to be perfectly frank, in my mind there is no such thing as a beginning and an end-- those concepts are more just human interpretations based on our experience of causality. (...) I completely agree (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | | (...) I suppose we stop the debate, since I will say - that is what I'm saying - sorta. The literal interpretation says that God is the creator. Does the computer understand why it is programmed the way it is? Even if the software writer told it, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | Taking points one at a time? Indeed another difference between us mayap :) (...) Because I trust my judgement, and I don't trust the Bible's. The two don't mesh. For me. And as a result, I'm forced to choose. And I'll choose my judgement. Go check (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | | | (...) Biblically - no human has any rights. Just like the laptop that doesn't work (sin), God's righteousness (no sin) demands that we pay for our sin. The only sufficient payment is death. Where that "leaves us" - is destined for eternal separation (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) And really, here's where we get to the problem as I personally regard it. Why? Because for me, in order for me to have faith in a universalist religious system, things like morality (sins, etc) must be dealt with fairly. For me. I think I went (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Tim Culberson
|
| | | | | | (...) In effect what you are doing here is inventing you're own God. Because the God of the Bible DOESN'T fit what you'd like him to be, you decide that you cannot believe in that God. From whence did you get any rights you may have? I believe in (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) And that's EXACTLY my point. Let's take your argument to the next level. What if I say I worship Quazmon. Quazmon's my version of God. He delights in the suffering of his creation and abhors selflessness. He created the world to be very (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Tim Culberson
|
| | | | | | (...) I argue first and foremost that the Creation we see all around us is evidence of God's existence (as is mentioned in the Bible). I also argue that scientific evidence supports the Creation theory. Of course there's no proof, then there would (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | (...) So, in other words, you refuse to admit that you might be wrong. James (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Tim Culberson
|
| | | | | | | | (...) No, I certainly might be wrong. I refuse to admit that the Bible might be wrong. (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Which Bible, exactly? You're aware, I expect, the so-called original texts have been translated and copied and edited and excerpted and altered and reinterpreted and re-translated and re-copied over and over and over again?What makes you think (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Thanks for falling into the logic trap. Given: You are not infallable Statement: You state the bible is not wrong. Conclusion: The Bible might be wrong. Pretty basic logic algorithm. James (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Wow. You really ARE missing the point. One last chance, and that's all. You claim that the Bible is right. You admit that you may be wrong. Therefore, the Bible may be wrong. And quite frankly, I don't care if you think the Bible is right. I (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) A-ha! Your judgement tells you that such evidence supports the existence of God, yes? Mine doesn't. (...) I shall correct you by saying that scientific evidence does not contradict creationism, just as it does not contradict evolution. Neither (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | (...) I don't reject science. Actually I find that science supports the Bible. Many would reject science when it does that, but that's their own problem. (...) No. Actually, it's not so much due to error as it is to a lack of understanding. Science (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) Exactly. And maybe I erred semantically-- your assumption (I think) is that when what science tells us disagrees from what the Bible tells us, obviously science's conclusion has erred somehow-- either due to lack of data, incorrect data, or (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | | | | (...) Probably. That's not to say that, being humans, we can't mis-interpret the Bible. But philosophically, the literal interpretation says that the Bible is relatively easy to understand - at face value. Not everything, certainly, but most (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | | | (...) 2 things in particular come to mind. 1) personal relationship with God - difficult to explain. Outwardly could appear to be similar to your beliefs. Although there's more historical basis for mine... I also have the evidence of my life and (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) You'll have to clarify here: your personal relationship has a historical basis, and is based on the evidence of your life and others'? Actually, I'll correct myself by saying I think you're adressing two topics-- both the personal connection, (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Here you've spelled out very nicely why science is not a religion, and religion is not a science. Thank you. (...) Is that Odin? Brahma? Zoroaster? Allah? Yahweh? Who? And why? This question has been asked countless times, and no one here (or (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | | (...) If you want to create a Christianity vs other religions discussion we could do that. Not sufficient time for me. Here too - I'm merely stating the literal biblical interpretation. I'm not comparing / contrasting it with other religions, I'll (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Ok, just to be persnickity, I'll jump in quickly and say religion MAY be science, but has not shown itself to be in the past. (...) I'll second that question-- why pick the Bible? Why pick Jesus? Why pick your (Jon's) particular sect of (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | | (...) No claims on perfection here. Although the 'sect' comment was a bit divisive. -Jon (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) Is that any kind of answer to the question at hand? Namely, why pick Christianity over any other faith? Dave! (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I was only answering the "willingness to admit that I MAY be wrong." Not the other - although I can provide one to that too. -Jon (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Okay, let's hear it (or is this another one of those I-can-answer-but-won't situations?) Dave! (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | | | | | (...) You're being silly (or - more likely - provocative) I've posted my answer. -Jon (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Since Jon is manifestly unable to answer a question when asked of him, can someone else (preferably a critical thinker) among us point to the post in which Jon allegedly provided the answer? Or any answer, really? Dave! (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | (...) The "sect" comment may be a bit divisive, but it's a reasonable question. I happen to be a member of a religion which is a "sect" of Christianity, but I doubt you would accept our interpretation of the bible (especially since we honor Darwin (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | | | | | (...) How do I know your interpretation of the Bible is flawed? I'd really like to answer that... What is your interpretation? Or are you just using hyperbole to imply that you and Darwin are both evolutionists? Please elaborate. -Jon (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Excellent! No further qualms then :) (at least at this level) (...) Oh? How so? I don't see it any less divisive than any other choices I might have offered... Unless you think it my purpose to pick apart Christianity thanks to its diversity, (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | | | (...) Good - an easy one! "Sect" I usally take to mean a small, off-the-beaten-path branch of something greater. Although that may not have been your intention, I _did_ only say 'a bit.' My branch of Christianity is actually pretty mainstream - I (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) I still don't really see it as any more divisive than had I said "branch" or something... I was simply going down the narrower path. The Bible is common to Judaism (at least the Old Testament), Christianity, and I think also Islam, even though (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) Clarification on Islam (and this is just my understanding, please correct me if any of the following is wrong): Islam acknowledges that the bible is a "good book" and does contain revelation from God (Allah), but holds that it is not the full (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | (...) I believe, given my time limits, it's far easier to adopt Tim's methodology - cite a concise preexisting answer. Why is Christianity supreme? - Why is it different? (URL) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) rhetoric (ie: propaganda), this page states in essence that Christianity (the religion that worships Christ) is the greatest religion because it worships Christ. Dave! (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Thanks for summarizing, Dave!. I find Jon and Tim's references hard slogging for the most part, since they're obviously written for uncritical thinkers. They tend to be a tough read for anyone else. Of course, I personally have to disagree (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, there you have it, straight from the great Lar's keyboard. And remember, Lar never makes misteaks... Frank (24 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) copyright, but I'll try to summarize as best possible. Statement: Christianity is unique Rebuttal: No quarrel yet. It is unique. But so is Buddhism. Uniqueness does not imply correctness. S: Its claim of necessity is grounded on strong (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
