It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science and Religion are Not Compatible

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
1 John 1:7 "the blood" here means "the death", not the actual blood. as in, "the freedom was won by the blood of free men" but regardless, these are johns thoughts, not the gospel, which was my point. interpritation of the facts destroys the message.

Of course, you are right. I agree. Blood is regarded in the Bible as the essence of life, as in "the life is in the blood". He gave up His life for us, so we could have eternal life. Do you agree?


A jealous God:
jealous, as in not happy about you talking to other gods when you go to the bar to buy a drink. what is it now, if you can't evidence for it in the gospel you'll change the meaning of the word?

I looked up the meaning of the exact words used, referenced them for you from the exact language, and you criticize me for that? I changed nothing. You make me curious as to the reason for that accusation. Please refer to the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, and refer to the exact meanings for jealous, as in the Greek word being used. The exact word is also used, as I said before, for zealous. If you want to know the meaning of these verses, please pay attention to the facts and stop accusing me.


A deceitful God:

John 16:25 :a proverb is not a lie, it is clear that a proverb is a story to illustrate a point. a lie is a story that hides the facts. there is no deceit implied in a proverb.

As I show in the quote, Jesus Christ Himself said it was intended to not reveal the meaning. Here's Luke 8:10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that," 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'


Matt 6:13 :i assume the "lead" element is a reference to the good shepherd concept, and this entreaty is preceded by "give us our daily bread" and followed directly by "and deliver us from evil", clearly the requests are not intended to be taken literally but more in the sense that god lends a man the strength to do these things himself. do you believe they were meant as literal requests?
Here is an interpretation by you, not me. I take the verse at face value. God is in control of everything. Consider what was allowed concerning Job.


John 6:5 : that's johns opinion of what jesus' motivation was for asking a question. none of the other gospels mention this and two say the deciples asked the question. johns interpretation of the events is hardly proof of a deceitful god. his opinion is worth as much as mine or yours.


My opinion is not worth as much as the Apostle John. I was not an eyewitness and trained by Jesus Christ. Gospels frequently do not mention, repeat, another. You have different points of view of the same reportable situations. Personally, I think that develops the story much better than to have four copies.


A testing God:

Luke 8:13 this does not say that god will tempt you, it just says you will be tempted. jesus himself was tempted, a mention of temptation or testing does not imply god will be the one testing you.


When a question comes like this, it is good to refer to the rest of scripture. However, your point is that Jesus himself never said it. Well, Jesus did not restate the entire Bible when He taught, he expected you and I to use and learn from the scriptures: John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. So, the scriptures are needed to understand, and they are not for private interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. Therefore, you will have "scriptures taken out of context" in order to quote them. Please refer to their context to confirm that I am using them correctly.


here again, in every case, you seem to require quotes be taken out of context or the meanings of words need to be changed or certain interpretations of the facts need to be included to make the teachings fit your beliefs. This attitude is the main issue with both religion and science, if a view is formed to the point of dogmatic belief and the facts are then sought to prop up that belief then the truth of either is hidden.


You have not demonstrated any error on my part, only personal attacks. Good luck with your searching for the truth. I pray that you will have an open mind.


religion and science are compatible, to echo rich23's sentiment, if only religious people and scientists were.


I agree that Christianity (not all religion) is 100% compatible with science. In the Bible, the oppositions of science are said to be false, meaning that science agrees, but people make it sound like science does not agree. The oppositions of science are called that falsely.
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

God made everything aged.




posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jim Scott
He gave up His life for us, so we could have eternal life. Do you agree?
to be honest here jim, i'm not at all sure it's that simple. there are questions to be answered.


I looked up the meaning of the exact words used, referenced them for you from the exact language, and you criticize me for that?


not so long as you reference the meaning every time you use the word, because the word zealous and the word jealous have different meanings to the modern reader or listener. i've no problem if you call god devoted or zealous. to call it jealous is misleading, deliberately so for you to do it seeing as you know the word jealous doesn't mean jealous, apparently.


though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'

the important word here is "may". deceit requires that you deliberately hide the truth.


Here is an interpretation by you, not me. I take the verse at face value.


oh i never said interpretation wasn't needed, clearly it is, we need to interperate parables for instance. what i am saying is you need a lot of interpretation to shoehorn the passages into your beliefs. as in, you couldn't come to that conclusion unless you already had it in mind before you started reading.

this is a good example, you wouldn't assume that the prayer is meant to be taken literally unless you really wanted to believe it is meant to be taken literally.


My opinion is not worth as much as the Apostle John. I was not an eyewitness and trained by Jesus Christ.
paul's opinion was valued as equal to the apostles though he had never met or trained with jesus, although perhaps your belief that you are not the equal is whats giving you issues.


Gospels frequently do not mention, repeat, another. You have different points of view of the same reportable situations.


i'm aware, that is my point. the view that jesus was deceitful here is clearly johns own point of view and not something he knows for sure. taking the supporting evidence from the other witnesses we may safely assume he is in error.


However, your point is that Jesus himself never said it.
no, my point is that we know that being tested does not require that god does the testing. we are clearly told that the devil tests jesus in the desert.


You have not demonstrated any error on my part, only personal attacks.


i don't mean to attack you personally, outside of your beliefs, and i wouldn't have a problem with them except that you're trying to spread them. i'm sorry if i have come across as attacking you personally, that wasn't my intent. i believe you are in error but i have to believe that you are spreading that error with good intentions. i have no personal problem with you.


I agree that Christianity (not all religion) is 100% compatible with science. *snip* God made everything aged.


doesn't that mean science is "compatible" with religion on your terms? for you to be correct, then science would need to conclude contrary to evidence with reference to god, this is not science as science stands.


[edit on 3/7/09 by pieman]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Jim Scott
He gave up His life for us, so we could have eternal life. Do you agree?
to be honest here jim, i'm not at all sure it's that simple. there are questions to be answered.


It may be that it is that simple:

2 Cor 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.



I looked up the meaning of the exact words used, referenced them for you from the exact language, and you criticize me for that?


not so long as you reference the meaning every time you use the word, because the word zealous and the word jealous have different meanings to the modern reader or listener. i've no problem if you call god devoted or zealous. to call it jealous is misleading, deliberately so for you to do it seeing as you know the word jealous doesn't mean jealous, apparently.


Perhaps this will also help. The word used in the NT, where the writer is comparing his feelings with a godly jealousy, means: to have warmth of feeling for or against: --- affect, covet (earnestly), (have) desire, (move with) envy, be jealous over, (be) zealous, (-ly affect). See Strongs Greek 2206. 2 Cor 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

You may be thinking of jealousy as a lover's jealousy. While I understand, you may not find any sin related to jealousy, per se. This type of jealousy seems to be more related to caring a lot about someone. So, if God cares a lot about how we worship only Him, I don't have a problem with that. Makes more sense to me than a God who doesn't care who we worship, right?



though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'

the important word here is "may". deceit requires that you deliberately hide the truth.


Perhaps this will better illustrate the deception, as reported by Mark:

Mark 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.



Here is an interpretation by you, not me. I take the verse at face value.


oh i never said interpretation wasn't needed, clearly it is, we need to interpret parables for instance. what i am saying is you need a lot of interpretation to shoehorn the passages into your beliefs. as in, you couldn't come to that conclusion unless you already had it in mind before you started reading.

this is a good example, you wouldn't assume that the prayer is meant to be taken literally unless you really wanted to believe it is meant to be taken literally.



My opinion is not worth as much as the Apostle John. I was not an eyewitness and trained by Jesus Christ.
paul's opinion was valued as equal to the apostles though he had never met or trained with jesus, although perhaps your belief that you are not the equal is whats giving you issues.

Paul was an eyewitness of Jesus on the road, but not in life and discipleship. He was, however, with the original apostles and they would have corrected him if he was in error in his writings. They met on occasion to establish the rules and direction for growing the church. I am not feeling equal with the apostles in any way.


i don't mean to attack you personally, outside of your beliefs, and i wouldn't have a problem with them except that you're trying to spread them.

You are saying that I should not spread this word because you believe it is untrue?



I agree that Christianity (not all religion) is 100% compatible with science. *snip* God made everything aged.


doesn't that mean science is "compatible" with religion on your terms? for you to be correct, then science would need to conclude contrary to evidence with reference to god, this is not science as science stands.


Science says the world is 4.5 billion years old based on scientific testing. I agree, and Christianity agrees. No Christian should have a problem with that. Science says there was evolution, and a huge fossil record to prove it. No Christian should have a problem with that, either. It is perfectly easy for God to make the world aged, and place a fossil record, etc. so you have a choice. There is another thread here on the size of the universe. This earth, and you and I, are not even a speck on a speck on a speck. I find it hard to imagine that anyone could think God is compelled to obey any laws of physics, or that he would not put a delusion in place so that you have a choice. Scientifically, we are living in an illusion, anyway, right? According to quantum physics, nothing is real... like we live in a hologram... so why is there a problem? You have a choice. Believe what you want. It is a choice provided so you will either love God or love the delusion, whatever it may be.

See Deut 13:1-3: 1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

So, a scientifically sound and repeatable study proves ____ (let's call it a sign or a wonder)____. It "comes to pass" because it is repeatedly proven. Now, having that basis in fact, those "scientists" say "let us go after other gods" meaning "there is no creator, just evolution" or some other philosophy. Well, the credibility goes to the scientists, because they are using proven methods to prove a fact. That's fine. The wonder came to pass for the prophet, too. That did not mean the prophet (scientist) was correct when he made the next leap of faith saying there was no god, just evolution. The interesting point here is that this is only a test from God. Believe what you want.


[edit on 3-7-2009 by Jim Scott]



new topics
 
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join