Debriefing > Off-Topic Lounge
God and the universe...
The Beatles pwn j00!:
"Since the KJV was translated in A.D. 1611, many Biblical manuscripts have been discovered that are older and more accurate than the manuscripts the KJV was based on. When Bible scholars researched through these manuscripts, they discovered some differences. It seems that over the course of 1500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible (either intentionally or accidentally). The verses mentioned above are simply not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in the margin because they do not truly belong in the Bible.
It is important to remember, however, that the verses in question are of minor significance. None of them change in any way the crucial themes of the Bible, nor do they have any impact on the Bible’s doctrines—Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection, Christ as the only the way of salvation, heaven and hell, sin and redemption, and the nature and character of God. These are preserved intact through the work of the Holy Spirit, who safeguards the Word of God for all generations."
WatchMyTrace:
OK this topic needs to be locked and sent to the seventh level of hell before it gets out of hand, because if i start heaing anything about "scientific creationism" i'm going to start loosing my shit.
Incorrect. You need to stop reading this thread while everyone else behaves themselves.
--VC.
Your right, i'm officialy outing myself from this conversation immediatly, but i'm telling you that ive seen similar topics started in other forums and it always leads to disaster.
Konrad Beerbaum:
--- Quote from: JessEH [The Beatles pwn j00!] on August 28, 2009, 06:19:45 pm ---
Nothing in Scripture directly contradicts scientific facts.
If you think otherwise, give some examples. Quote it from the Holy Bible directly. And don't just SKIM through it to find something you THINK is contradictory. You'll only end up taking it out of context, therefore misinterpreting it, and therefore misunderstanding it.
--- End quote ---
Um, miracles? The whole point of a miracle is that it violates natural laws. The resurrection being the most obvious example. Feel free to believe in it, but don't try to claim that it doesn't violate natural laws. The whole reason it was such a significant event was because it contradicts scientific fact.
The Beatles pwn j00!:
Well of course. But the point I was making was that it doesn't claim anything like "the earth is flat, DNA doesn't exist, and you can breathe on the moon".
Of course God has shown His wrath, glory, and love through supernatural means, for He is no way limited by His creation. All I was saying is that His Word does not contradict what we now know of the creation through science.
And if you think otherwise, give examples and explain how it contradicts.
And macro-evolution has not and can not truly be proven. There are indeed holes in it. I'm guessing that is main thing you are going to bring up? That and radiometric dating?
Even if those theories could be "proven", there is still the impassible problem of the birth of the universe itself. Our equations go so far, then break down into nonsense. But that isn't even the point.
Why don't we have nothing? What is this inexplicable thing, our being? It has no choice but to have a mindful and deliberate purpose.
jjmusicnotes:
--- Quote from: Viashino Cutthroat on August 28, 2009, 06:45:56 pm ---The Word cannot change because it is perfect and comes from God. (Unless you are King James.)
--- End quote ---
"The Word" referring to God's message, and by "message," I mean concepts of morality that we believe in and do our best to illustrate throughout our lives.
Just so that we all don't get confused.
--- Quote from: Viashino Cutthroat on August 28, 2009, 04:50:10 pm ---The holy trinity is a Mathematician, a Physicist, and an Engineer.
The Mathematician set the rules for the universe. The Physicist determined the materials that would be available. The Engineer figured out how to make that material turn itself into stars, beer, and paper airplanes.
It's really that simple. Anything else is anthropocentric idealism and crowd control measures.
--- End quote ---
That's cute.
I'm going to assume that you're agnostic / atheist, even though your response could be construed as religious.
In that frame of context:
I really don't see how anthropocentric idealism fits. The whole point of believing in something larger than yourself is that you are subservient. Let's not be putting our square pegs in round holes.
--- Quote from: kraid on August 28, 2009, 05:16:35 pm ---Religions got a huge problem with saying: sorry we were wrong. Science is willing to give up a theory if it proofs wrong.
--- End quote ---
I don't agree.
An example:
The Catholic church saying: Whoops, sorry about tricking hundreds of thousands of people into thinking that for giving us money, we would give them a piece of paper saying that they would get into heaven.
Science is supposed to give up a theory if it's been proven wrong, that's how science works. It's much more difficult for religion because the values that are placed on the inherent beliefs dictate the entire moral course of our lives.
I don't suppose Newton's laws of motion contribute to the moral foundation of anyone's lives?
--- Quote from: kraid on August 28, 2009, 05:16:35 pm ---
The problem is, the bible was written by ppl who didn't know anything about our solar system/universe or genetic.
--- End quote ---
In that time period, neither were the majority of the history, science, and literature books.
That's of course only taking into consideration the people that were privileged enough to read.
Imagine how archaic our present knowledge will be in 2000 more years? People will laugh.
After reading and thinking about the responses here, it seems as though the people here that are agnostic / atheist have an issue with religion, and not the concept of God, salvation, etc.
I think it's extremely important to make that distinction because religion was created by human beings, which I think everyone can agree, are inherently flawed.
That being said, a discussion about religion is never going to end, because of the myriad idiosyncratic anomalies that invariably lie within all religions.
I think that things would be more productive if the focus of the topic where shifted toward the concept of God, philosophy, and the relation to the human condition.
@ JessEH (The Beatles pwn j00!) -
I took an Astronomy class in college that said that we know what happened 10^-43 seconds after the universe began.
We don't know anything before that because we need a larger telescope.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version