Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:07:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
326 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> 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. 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.
Here you've spelled out very nicely why science is not a religion, and
religion is not a science. Thank you.
> 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.
Is that Odin? Brahma? Zoroaster? Allah? Yahweh? Who? And why? This
question has been asked countless times, and no one here (or anywhere,
really) has answered it. Once again, as in previous threads, you're throwing
around the "blind" insult in an apparent attempt to browbeat the heathen
into acceptance.
> Not all knowledge is relatively, interpretively, progressively learned.
Interesting. You're describing satori, the condition of understanding
as-a-whole, without acquiring of awareness step by step. A very solid goal
of Zen Buddhism.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
