Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:26:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
446 times
|
| |
|
|
jon Kozan wrote:
>
> 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.
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 and his ideas, and are proud
that he was a member of our branch of Christianity). To be honest, as
far as I'm concerned, unless you were one of Jesus's desciples (and
somehow, I don't think any of them are alive today), I reject any claim
you might have to the "truth" of Christianity. I might grant you a small
claim to "truth" if you are Catholic since there was a time when
Catholics were essentially the only game in the Christian town, but even
there I dispute since there is no unbroken chain of Christian
understanding. There was no (sucessefull) attempt to come up with single
answers to some basic questions until the Council of Nicea in 350 CE
(and my cynical self would point out that the answers which came out of
that council were VOTED on by a bunch of humans, of course I guess the
counter argument would be that only those who voted for the right
answers [the ones which won] really had opened themselves fully to
understanding [as well as a human can] god, and the rest were lost
souls, but this gets back to David's question - how do you decide that
the majority was in fact right? Is there any credible evidence of God's
guidance? How do you know your view of the bible is right and mine is
flawed in some way?).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
