Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:47:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
389 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> I'll second that question-- why pick the Bible? Why pick Jesus? Why pick
> your (Jon's) particular sect of Christianity? I'm going to argue that you
> (Jon) pride yourself on your ability to judge correctly in the matter, and
> unless you're willing to admit that you MAY be wrong, I won't let you get
> away very easily.
No claims on perfection here.
Although the 'sect' comment was a bit divisive.
-Jon
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) 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, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
