prophecy revelation for jpappl

[davewhite04]

You thump the bible dave.

If someone asks a question about the bible I try to answer it, this isn't witnessing it is debating.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I can see how you concluded what you did, but what I said isn't any less true is it?

So I base a large part of my life on scientific theories (or at least scientific theories being valid).
Okay.
And the problem with that is...?

If you knew me personally you would know that I don't lie intentionally, but since you probably think I do lie then no I can't prove it, but I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Ah no, you mistake me.
I don't believe you're lying, I was talking more about the ability to prove intent, especially on an internet forum. (Which why I used the word "demonstrate" in relation to my intent).

I suppose my questions mean less?

Not at all.
As far as I'm concerned if you don't ask you can't find out others' perspectives.
If you don't contest what you consider to be be incorrect then one or both parties end up with misconceptions and/ or misunderstandings.

This seems true.

Thank you.

 

[earth]

If someone asks a question about the bible I try to answer it, this isn't witnessing it is debating.

I'll be around just doing a job like you, I guess.

In the debating, I'll be checking science's explanation providing a different answer than yours. :deal:

 

[davewhite04]

So I base a large part of my life on scientific theories (or at least scientific theories being valid).
Okay.
And the problem with that is...?

Not a problem, but science doesn't explain everything, I imagine this is the reason some folk like yourself spend time in philosophy forums etc.

Not at all.
As far as I'm concerned if you don't ask you can't find out others' perspectives.
If you don't contest what you consider to be be incorrect then one or both parties end up with misconceptions and/ or misunderstandings.

Agreed.

 

[davewhite04]

I'll be around just doing a job like you, I guess.

In the debating, I'll be checking science's explanation providing a different answer than yours. :deal:

But science and religion are chalk and cheese. Unless we talk about evolution and ID.

For example every educated person knows that the bible or even the BG aren't science books.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Not a problem, but science doesn't explain everything, I imagine this is the reason some folk like yourself spend time in philosophy forums etc.

Granted.
And usually end up disappointed.

 

[earth]

But science and religion are chalk and cheese. Unless we talk about evolution and ID.

For example every educated person knows that the bible or even the BG aren't science books.

I talk the evidence while you talk your beliefs. Yours is chalk and cheese, I don't use believe.

 

[davewhite04]

I talk the evidence while you talk your beliefs. Yours is chalk and cheese, I don't use believe.

Well all beliefs are based on faith so you're in the wrong forum.

And you do believe in science.

 

[Dywyddyr]

For example every educated person knows that the bible or even the BG aren't science books.

Not true, you only think so because you live in the UK, and we're fairly relaxed when it comes to religion.
There are large numbers of (supposedly educated) people who believe absolutely that the bible is the one (and only) word on everything: creationists sincerely believe that the Earth was formed 6000 years ago for one thing.

 

[earth]

Well all beliefs are based on faith so you're in the wrong forum.

And you do believe in science.

Now you would like to throw me out of the religious debate.

I listen to the evidence science offers and then make my own conclusions.

You do a dance saying lets make believe, so sweetly.

 

[davewhite04]

Not true, you only think so because you live in the UK, and we're fairly relaxed when it comes to religion.
There are large numbers of (supposedly educated) people who believe absolutely that the bible is the one (and only) word on everything: creationists sincerely believe that the Earth was formed 6000 years ago for one thing.

I did mention this is where the biggest conflict between science and organized religion seems to be.

I don't think it's THAT important where we came from, it is much more important to see where we are heading.

 

[davewhite04]

Now you would like to throw me out of the religious debate.

Nope, I think you make some valid points.

 

[earth]

Believers are trapped in a fact. If any one of them has more than an opinion when it comes to religion, then they are effectively telling God what to do.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Well all beliefs are based on faith so you're in the wrong forum.

Not quite: "belief" in science is based on evidence - objective evidence, not faith.

I did mention this is where the biggest conflict between science and organized religion seems to be.
I don't think it's THAT important where we came from, it is much more important to see where we are heading.

And that spawns another conflict - the bible (and religion in general) claims to be able tell us where we're heading.
And offers no evidence for that claim while making demands in order to be "saved".

 

[davewhite04]

Believers are trapped in a fact.

I wish they were

If any one of them has more than an opinion when it comes to religion, then they are effectively telling God what to do.

You mean by their pastors etc...?

 

[davewhite04]

Not quite: "belief" in science is based on evidence - objective evidence, not faith.

It is still belief, and faith is not entirely absent, they have to have faith in each others ability.

And that spawns another conflict - the bible (and religion in general) claims to be able tell us where we're heading.
And offers no evidence for that claim while making demands in order to be "saved".

True.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It is still belief, and faith is not entirely absent, they have to have faith in each others ability.

No, only "faith" that the results are being reported as honestly as possible. I.e. trust in other humans.
In science any experiment and set of results is open to independent reproduction (funding allowing of course). and verification.

True.

And there's the problem.
We are supposed to behave in a certain way in order to be granted this "salvation" (or whatever) but no evidence is offered to show it's anything more than some long-lasting and widespread con-trick.

 

[davewhite04]

No, only "faith" that the results are being reported as honestly as possible. I.e. trust in other humans.

This is what I mean, but also there is a reliance on the ability of scientists hence the peer review procedure.

And there's the problem.
We are supposed to behave in a certain way in order to be granted this "salvation" (or whatever) but no evidence is offered to show it's anything more than some long-lasting and widespread con-trick.

Based on Jesus' example, would it be a bad way to act?

 

[earth]

I wish they were



You mean by their pastors etc...?

No. God or Gods are in charge of religion.

Your opinion develops by reading the bible or Qu'ran.
Some people could easily write a whole new addition to their holy book, because of their opinions increasing or adding to the written word. It all turns into speculation or gossip within religion. Because religion is antiquated. Kingdoms are going extinct I think.

 

[davewhite04]

No. God or Gods are in charge of religion.

So you think god or gods exist?

Your opinion develops by reading the bible or Qu'ran.
Some people could easily write a whole new addition to their holy book, because of their opinions increasing or adding to the written word. It all turns into speculation or gossip within religion. Because religion is antiquated. Kingdoms are going extinct I think.

You're right, hence commentaries etc... that are all different...