 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
