SolusCado,
Just don't give them any money
A sure sign they are NOT from God.
Why don't you need to interpret those of the spiritual world as well. If the words don't work with our modern lanquage.
They must still be interpreted, but I don't think they are subject to constant reinterpretation, as the other things we learn in life don't affect them as significantly. The question of free will is an excellent example. Religious leaders debated seemingly contradictory scriptures for centuries because they were operating under an invalid assumption regarding the nature of the universe. Discovering the nature of spacetime fundamentally changed that argument, and the verses no longer contradicted themselves - but that kind of insight doesn't occur every twenty years.
It's really a who, what and when etc etc who cares. It's an explanation or a claim of how it all went down. The who, what, where and when. I am not claiming they are trying to explain any scientific detail.
I agree; it really is a who and what - but as for when and how, nothing is really declared (other than "In the beginning", but since it doesn't even say the beginning of what, it really doesn't say much regarding when).
How can be used to bring all of them together. Example. How did it happen ?
True. And since the Bible is silent on such subjects, there is no need to pit it against Science in trying to figure such things out.
No you have this backward. You are fitting what we have learned scientifically into your religious texts by interpreting the words to match what we have learned scientifically.
You just said the same thing I did. I agree with you on this. And I think such reinterpretations on the things regarding the physical world are an ongoing need.
Essentially you have to make things up for it to work.
To say I am making things up is ... well, I'm not sure what it is, but it's not right. Archeaologists are constantly refining their theories regarding the things they find from ancient cultures, in an attempt to better understand what that culture was like. Why should Biblical interpretation be any different? Again, it's as though you want to hold everyone who DOESN'T believe the Bible to one standard, and everyone else to another.
But what you are finding is that you have to put the texts through a roller coaster ride to get them to fit with our modern understandings.
I would hardly call it a roller coaster ride. It may be new to you, but it isn't that radical.
I want them to question the bible. I want all theists to question their religious texts.
Something I too have been saying. (See above regarding ongoing interpretation.)
I think it is funny that theists claim atheists are arrogant, when all we are saying is that we don't know. Christians are claiming to know the way, a specific way or path. And I ask how can you know that.
Not true. Christians are claiming to believe (which be definition means you don't know). Agnostics are claiming they don't know. Atheists are claiming to not believe - but most do so from a perspective that Christians are idiots to believe, and that's where the arrogance comes in.
Then you say it is only faith. But it is still a claim that this is the only way.
IOW a claim of knowledge hidden in faith.
You're really trying hard to get me to say something that I don't agree with, aren't you? I BELIEVE it is the only way. It is a matter of conviction, not knowledge.
Then why are you creating interpretations of the texts to fit modern science or the other way around. Either way it doesn't make sense. It's not a science book.
Agreed, but it is my belief (as we've gone over already) that the Bible (or at least the OT) is inspired by God - which means the message must be true in some sense. So, as science helps us understand more about the physical world, I must continually refine how I interpret the Bible in the sections where it describes the physical world.
The faulty data is the re-interpretation of the texts, to match what modern science says, in this way you are merely backing the belief with faulty data, that being the re-interpretation of the texts.
Again, you are applying a double standard. Why is it okay for every other area of human discovery to adjust, refine, hell - "reinterpret", their findings, equations, etc. - but it isn't okay for Biblical understanding? I would argue that the "faulty data" is the mainstream interpretations, which clearly don't mesh up with scientific findings. That's how it works in all other areas.
Why ? It is omnipotent/supernatural, it can live within or without, doesn't matter. It can do whatever it wants. Period.
Ok; I suppose that is as valid a view of God as any other, but it doesn't make as much sense to me as my view - though why you would try to get me to see God that way when you don't even believe in God I don't understand. Is it because seeing God that way would open up some other line of argument for you?
Nothing has shown that our choices and actions do not impact our future. In fact it has been shown that our choices and actions do affect our future.
They always have and always will.
Not true at all. Read up on special relativity, time cones, Einstein-Minkowski spacetime, and GPS satellites. (GPS satellites only work because of the incorporation of special relativity, which validates Einstein-Minkowski spacetime and time cones, which in turn describe a universe where multiple points in time (i.e., the past, present, and future) must exist simultaneously.
Our future cannot be changed or we can not change the future ?
See above; the future cannot be changed.
One last question on this I hope.
Good, 'cause I haven't gotten ANY work done lately.
Can or does god make mistakes ?
If "God" can or does, then He/She/It isn't the God described in Judeo-Christian religions.
