(November 17, 2008 at 11:09 am)Daystar Wrote: I consider myself a skeptic still. In the sense that I don't want to believe if there is no scriptural support. I sometimes wonder at all of the militant atheists who wear scientific evidence as a sort of badge like Xians do morality. Here is the way that I look at science, and keep in mind I have nothing against science in general. The majority (about 98%) of it is not a conflict with the Bible, but rather religion. Science doesn't know everything or there would be no need of science, the Bible says that all religion and all governments will be destroyed because they are the threat to mankind and God's creation, not science, and science doesn't even attempt to investigate God so why do people of science feel compelled to discuss God? It is a political motivation, it vehicle for atheism.
If you sit around and listen to science minded people - and there is a difference between people who are scientists off doing science things and science minded people posting on message boards - they talk about a utopian future where everyone believes in 'science' and hardly no one believes in religion.
If you pay attention to them they are so much like religious people talking about heaven. Science is the hope for the future, some day we will fix all the worlds problems and live forever! Science explains to us how everything exists, the purpose of life. We must spread our knowledge of science and we must get rid of religion.
They don't see this as religious in nature, which scares the hell out of me because if you think about it science today is a far greater potential danger than religion ever was. Blind to its destructive potential and hungry for its day in the sun. Which, I believe it will and should have, but warn against its blind obedience.
(November 17, 2008 at 12:20 am)lukec Wrote: Back to you, though, I'm still wondering exactly what you do believe- your beliefs are bible based; do you believe in the story of Genesis? In Adam and Eve? The Noachian flood? Did Jesus exist, did really perform miracles, and was he the reincarnation of God on Earth? Basically, is the bible an actual account of historical events, or is it a metaphorical collection of stories. I'd like to know what you think.
It isn't a collection of metaphorical stories, though it does sometimes use parables to teach. Genesis, especially the creation account, is misrepresented and misunderstood by most. Adam and Eve, the flood of Noah's day and Jesus and his miracles were real, Jesus wasn't the reincarnation of God on earth, he was Michael, God's son. The name Michael means 'Who is like God?'
I don't know exactly what you mean about science being in a conflict with the bible, or religion. I assume you're meaning that some aspects of science disagree with some aspects in the Bible- but science itself as far as I know is not really able to conflict with religion. I don't feel that they cover the same areas. However, I definitely feel that there are some "science minded people" as you put it, who have a problem with religion. However, I myself do go against religion when it comes to creationism in school. If someone wants to believe whatever they want about how we came to be in their private lives, then go for it. However, this conflict comes out when creation stories are taught. So perhaps this is one area when it would be ok for "science minded people" to discuss God (although I think people doing scientific work never should). However, it is important to realize that it becomes a more philosophical discussion than a scientific one. I myself have not really noticed anyone discussing a Utopian science future, but I've not been around much.
Could you explain exactly how you think science in and of itself is a far greater danger than religion ever was? You speak of science here as an entity, whereas in reality the only danger from science I can think of is the misapplication of technology garnered from it. But who is going to kill in the name of science? I cannot think of a probably answer. However, many many people have killed in the name of religion. And it still happens! So I don't think your statement is correct.
(November 17, 2008 at 11:09 am)Daystar Wrote:(November 17, 2008 at 12:20 am)lukec Wrote: Back to you, though, I'm still wondering exactly what you do believe- your beliefs are bible based; do you believe in the story of Genesis? In Adam and Eve? The Noachian flood? Did Jesus exist, did really perform miracles, and was he the reincarnation of God on Earth? Basically, is the bible an actual account of historical events, or is it a metaphorical collection of stories. I'd like to know what you think.
It isn't a collection of metaphorical stories, though it does sometimes use parables to teach. Genesis, especially the creation account, is misrepresented and misunderstood by most. Adam and Eve, the flood of Noah's day and Jesus and his miracles were real, Jesus wasn't the reincarnation of God on earth, he was Michael, God's son. The name Michael means 'Who is like God?'
Alright, so you believe a literal interpretation of the Bible. Now, that is of course your right. But if you were trying to convince me, for example, a book of scripture written by multiple authors (though inspired by the Holy Spirit) would not be enough to convince me. You would need actual evidence. So- one question about genesis- were the Days 24 hour days or eons? Why do you think Adam and Eve existed, other than quotes from the Bible? Next, why is there no geological evidence for the global flood?
I know this is a lot of questions. But if you could refrain from quoting the bible to answer them, I'd appreciate it.
