To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 8981
8980  |  8982
Subject: 
Re: Why not Both?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:16:31 GMT
Viewed: 
1621 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.

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 leave that for a later debate or someone else.

Not that I couldn't - I just don't have the time.
-Jon



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Why not Both?
 
(...) 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 (...) (26 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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR