Jesus never preached against science

@josephw said
I understand that if science contradicts the scriptures, then that science is false.

This is the kind of thing that my first post ~ the one you sidestepped and seemed to think it was "hyperbole" ~ was getting at. Far from being "hyperbole", it was entirely real, relevant, and even restrained.

@vivify said
The Bible is full of quotes where "faith" is valued over observation (the story of Doubting Thomas, "we walk by faith, not by sight", etc.). Observation forms the basis for science.

The first man was punished for eating fruit that gave him wisdom. Mankind was supposed to remain in ignorance but when his eyes were opened he was banished from the garden and punished with harsh toiling and painful childbirth.

The Bible anti-science.

You failed to put your finger on it. Seeing is believing, and seeing is observation. However, as the wise say, there are obstinate persons who will believe in nothing which they cannot hold in their hands, or at least put their finger in it. or on it.

Not everyone will be convinced by faith alone. I would say that the story on the one doubting disciple, Thomas, is a representative story within the story of witnessing the resurrection. An approximation of the ratio representing those who believe and those who don't, as we have it today. Faith, a blind Giant step into the great void, the unknown. We need a giant flashlight to see our way around the dark corners of Bible meaning. And a giant magnifying glass will also be a Big help.

@josephw said
Disavow?

I understand that if science contradicts the scriptures, then that science is false.

The scriptures teach that God created all that exists in 6 literal days. It appears you believe that it isn't possible for God to do that. It's your choice what club you want to join.

Did you know that?

This was RJHinds' riff.

Scripture that was written 3500 years ago? For men that had no idea what a bacterium was? Or a gene?

You would keep us in the Dark Ages.

God works in ways that supersede magic. Especially stage magic.

Do you believe God gave man free will?

@josephw said
Remind me not to debate with you over interpretation. 😏

Who is debating? I'm expressing my opinion. But if were to, God forbid, what makes you shy away from debating me on interpretations?

An hypothetical debate on interpretations. Anything needing interpretations is not clear enough. And debating interpretations is just a matter of interpretations. Interpretations are not based on knowledge, otherwise it would be known, and therefore not in need of a debate, just a lecture. What is not known is a matter for interpretation.

It seems that what you think you know, is a matter of interpretation. This serves as a reminder for you.

@pettytalk said
Anything needing interpretations is not clear enough.

A different take.

A Living Word (as some believers call it) uses interpretations to speak uniquely to the individual reading that Word.

Removing ambiguity and room for interpretation makes it a Dead Word.

Maybe if you could actually do what you think you've already done, you'd just kill off your own faith.

Wouldn't that be ironic.

@pettytalk said
You failed to put your finger on it. Seeing is believing, and seeing is observation. However, as the wise say, there are obstinate persons who will believe in nothing which they cannot hold in their hands, or at least put their finger in it. or on it.

Not everyone will be convinced by faith alone. I would say that the story on the one doubting disciple, Thomas, is a rep ...[text shortened]... way around the dark corners of Bible meaning. And a giant magnifying glass will also be a Big help.

This post seems like a "there it is", like a finger pointing to something, rather than a discussion of that something.

How about you? Tell us what you know to be true. Do you believe?

@pettytalk said
You failed to put your finger on it. Seeing is believing, and seeing is observation. However, as the wise say, there are obstinate persons who will believe in nothing which they cannot hold in their hands, or at least put their finger in it. or on it.

Not everyone will be convinced by faith alone. I would say that the story on the one doubting disciple, Thomas, is a rep ...[text shortened]... way around the dark corners of Bible meaning. And a giant magnifying glass will also be a Big help.

Stories like Doubting Thomas, "walk by faith not by sight", etc., all make the point that faith outranks observation. That's the exact opposite of science.

The story of the fruit in the Garden makes it clear that the Biblical God intended for man to stay ignorant, not informed. Man was severely punished for eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

@vivify said
Stories like Doubting Thomas, "walk by faith not by sight", etc., all make the point that faith outranks observation. That's the exact opposite of science.

The story of the fruit in the Garden makes it clear that the Biblical God intended for man to stay ignorant, not informed. Man was severely punished for eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

And when mankind started to show signs of advancement (the whole Tower of Babel thing) God scattered them across the world and confused them with different languages.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
And when mankind started to show signs of advancement (the whole Tower of Babel thing) God scattered them across the world and confused them with different languages.

Exactly.

This is how you know the Bible is man-made: stories made to encourage belief over facts; "faith" rather than what you can see with your own eyes. It's all about controlling the populace.

The Church in the Middle Ages forbade followers from reading the Bible and actually banned translating the Bible into the local language. This ensured that the Church was the ultimate authority, not the Bible.

The Catholic Church still teaches to this day that the Bible should be read in light of Catholic doctrine and not the other way around.

@suzianne said
This was RJHinds' riff.

Scripture that was written 3500 years ago? For men that had no idea what a bacterium was? Or a gene?

You would keep us in the Dark Ages.

God works in ways that supersede magic. Especially stage magic.

Do you believe God gave man free will?

I am having to thumb up a few of your posts in this thread Suzianne.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
And when mankind started to show signs of advancement (the whole Tower of Babel thing) God scattered them across the world and confused them with different languages.

I did a "dissertation," a very brief and sloppy essay, really, on the Tower of Babel a few comments ago.

Again, the story of the Tower of Babel forcefully represents and alludes to the future.

The story of the Tower of Babel represents the manifestation of a single language, which later evolved into mathematics and music, universal forms of communication.
Humanity attracted to each other for a common goal, knowledge and entertainment for the soul. And like the force of gravity, a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers, in time. The centers of civilization over time.

The human masses, collectively and united into one, have finally reached out to God's Kingdom, to heaven, to the stars. Despite the existence of many languages, there is a universal form of communication: mathematics.

The Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft are currently traveling through interstellar space and carry information intended for any potential extraterrestrial civilizations. This information includes representations of music and mathematics, including Einstein's E=MC2 equation, reflecting the breadth of human knowledge and creativity. Collectively, one people one common language, one common goal; seek out other life to ask them who created us, as well as them.

@pettytalk said
Who is debating? I'm expressing my opinion. But if were to, God forbid, what makes you shy away from debating me on interpretations?

An hypothetical debate on interpretations. Anything needing interpretations is not clear enough. And debating interpretations is just a matter of interpretations. Interpretations are not based on knowledge, otherwise it would be known, and ...[text shortened]... eems that what you think you know, is a matter of interpretation. This serves as a reminder for you.

What the heck are you on about?

@fmf said
Are't there 100s of millions of devout Christians who reject much of what science has learned about the natural world? If so, the question is whether doing so is extra-Biblical.

As a religionist first and then a scientist, I'd strongly advise not basing observational studies more than their given assumptive capability. Factual accounts don't dogmatically theorize what popular opinion holds, so why don't you give Scripture believers a break when being confident over careful.
Trusting an ecological mind then, I'd planted 40 trees, and in the now, it's actually rerouting resources away from preservation. Yeah, applied science has its problems too.

@of-ants-and-imps said
As a religionist first and then a scientist, I'd strongly advise not basing observational studies more than their given assumptive capability. Factual accounts don't dogmatically theorize what popular opinion holds, so why don't you give Scripture believers a break when being confident over careful.

Why don't you give Scripture believers a break

What does "giving them a break" mean? If there is a creator entity of some kind, I think science is exploring its nature while striving to be objective. Theology, meanwhile, doesn't say anything objective about the universe. Theology is a product of the human condition and is best explained by both anthropology and psychology. Should I have "given you a break" and not expressed this point of view?

@fmf said
Why don't you give Scripture believers a break

What does "giving them a break" mean? If there is a creator entity of some kind, I think science is exploring its nature while striving to be objective. Theology, meanwhile, doesn't say anything objective about the universe. Theology is a product of the human condition and is best explained by both anthropology and psychology. Should I have "given you a break" and not expressed this point of view?

Maybe he thinks you should just agree with him instead of questioning everything with the brain I gave you.