This is EXACTLY my reasoning! :m:
This is EXACTLY my reasoning! :m:
Are you confusing cartography with geography?
And archeology for history?
OK; in an attempt to elevate the conversation beyond an infantile "I know you are but what am I?", would you care to list one of my "excuses"?
OK; how about I just provide a couple simple definitions for you (both from dictionary.com:
Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation
Theology: the field of study and analysis that treats of god and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity
Since the majority of definitions for g/God are that of something supernatural, i.e. not part of the physical or material world, and science is the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world, I see absolutely zero overlap. And I am annoyed that I had to waste the time to point this out to you.
Well, since Christians recognize the OT law as something replaced with the coming of Christ, your statement is completely irrelevant. That Christians aren't jews is like pointing out that Christians don't follow the teachings of Wicca either.
You just ignore everything that doesn't fit into your argument, don't you? Or am I to believe that words and phrases in parentheses are somehow invisible to you?
(Verse 17) 'Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfil.
(Verse 18) For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or title will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
(Verse 19) Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:17-19 - NKJV).
Hoisted by your own scripture. Jesus himself stated that he didn't replace anything. Law is law. I guess this means that like so many hypocritical Christians, you selectively adhere to the parts you like the sound of, and ignore the inconveniences.
Jesus said he didn't come to replace existing religious law.
Are you trying to separate and compartmentalise large fields of study for your own convenience?
So, the Universe cited in the second definition isn't part of the material world under study in the first?
How do you prove the existence of the supernatural? You can't. So again all you have is excuses.
I'm saying i believe in God, and my belief is not based or dependant on the assumption that God is the creator of the universe.
jan.
I'd like to point out that it was Paul who claimed the law had been done away with. Not Jesus. (Just saying.
)PS - And if you ask me, Paul uses a lot of double speak and it's very confusing as to what he is actually trying to say.
But the discussion was about proof of God's existence.
But if you don't believe in a creator God, well, who/what is the entity?
There are a couple main points relevant to your quotes above:
1. First and foremost, Christ's crucifixion is part of the fulfillment of the law. Notice how breaking the law doesn't exclude one from the Kingdom of Heaven, but rather establishes one's place in it.
2. The earlier commandments you listed were issues of cleanliness, not sin. The OT uses two separate words to distinguish between the two, and most of the laws people like to quote nowadays were regarding cleanliness. And frankly, those items are clearly still true. (Have you seen the conditions of swine and shrimp? Tell me they aren't "unclean". Nearly every cocktail shrimp you eat has a long line of turd in it, and pigs roll around in their own filth all day long.)
See above.
Not at all; in fact your focus on my examples is detracting from the actual conversation. I was just trying to help you understand that different fields of study are just that - different. Sometimes there are areas that overlap, and sometimes there aren't.
Note, theology is the study of God's attributes and their relation to the universe, not the universe itself. You aren't really going to try to argue that science and theology are the study of the same thing, are you?
Of course you can't. Anyone who tries is a fool - trying to overlap science and theology where they don't. I don't understand how that becomes an excuse though. You are tossing around that word with misplaced authority. Can you make an actual statement that Item x is an excuse for issue y?
I'd like to point out that it was Paul who claimed the law had been done away with. Not Jesus. (Just saying.
PS - And if you ask me, Paul uses a lot of double speak and it's very confusing as to what he is actually trying to say.
That is an excellent point, and part of the theology of Christianity (along with the gnostic writings and plenty other differing perspectives from differing groups). THESE are the subjects relevant to theology, and they are not scientific in their nature.
So can you. This stuff isn't really worthy of logical debate, it's a tall tale, a relic of a time before logic and reason.
Yes. It's consistent with all natural laws. And only building blocks popped up, the rest evolved over time.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
The Greeks were the greatest exponents of reason and logical debate in the ancient world...and yet they became Christians.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
There is no evidence that biological building blocks can assemble into a self-replicating organism by any random process.
It cant even be done by a modern lab under the most controlled conditions.
We don't have to know everything to know something. As long there are gaps in our knowledge, you will put your God there.