Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:56:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
351 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> > And the REAL follow up to that is, what if the two disagree? I assume you'll
> > say that science is necessarily wrong due to human error, though :)
>
> No. Actually, it's not so much due to error as it is to a lack of
> understanding. Science admidts to progressively understand things, and when
> new evidence is presented it changes it's theory on that matter. Supposed
> disagreements are only due to a lack of data on science's part.
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 mis-interpreted data. Hence, not a rejection of science
per se, but with how the scientific method had been executed. Yes?
> The Bible,
> however, does not claim to re-interpret itself. It's the "God is infinite"
> point again - He doesn't need to since He was accurate in the first place.
And therein lies a problem for me, but only because the Bible doesn't answer
all my questions to my satisfaction. And my personal judgement does. And
since I find my personal judgement in conflict with the Bible, well, sorry,
one of 'em's gotta go.
> Unfortuantely, our nihilistic, relative society has convinced itself that
> there is nothing sure, that all is relative. That bias has blinded many to
> the fact that there is a God who is sure and absolute, and whom we can trust
> absolutely.
While you may find that a failing, I find that a reassurance. Don't ask me
why, it's just more comforting to me to know that there are no absolutes.
But of course my question to you then is (obviously) Why are you so sure in
the Bible? What gives you the confidence in it apart from some other
'sacred' book, save personal preferance? And if only personal preference,
then out of what? Pride? Fear? Or bad experience? Something else? I'll put
my money on 'pride' (though for both you and I, I don't think I'd name it as
'pride' per se, but it's subject to interpretation :)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
