What The Bible Really Teaches About Hell

[lukec]

Yeah... if you cannot (will not) accept the difference between believing the bible and believing something because there is evidence that you can look at and perform experiments to test, then there is no way to have a reasonable discussion that gets anywhere.

Have ther not been many great scientists who believe in the Bible? Isaac Newton for example? Are there not Xian scientist now who believe in the Bible and know a great deal more about science than you do?

---

Of course there have/are. But the scientific method and the evidence garnered from it is so far removed from faith that I have absolutely no problem with the idea of a "believing" scientist. This is because they don't mix the two, they know the don't mesh. They use science for their "science-related questions," and use their beliefs to answer their philosophical questions. They know the difference, which is real but you refuse to accept for some reason.

[Daystar]

Yeah... if you cannot (will not) accept the difference between believing the bible and believing something because there is evidence that you can look at and perform experiments to test, then there is no way to have a reasonable discussion that gets anywhere.

Have ther not been many great scientists who believe in the Bible? Isaac Newton for example? Are there not Xian scientist now who believe in the Bible and know a great deal more about science than you do?

---

Of course there have/are. But the scientific method and the evidence garnered from it is so far removed from faith that I have absolutely no problem with the idea of a "believing" scientist. This is because they don't mix the two, they know the don't mesh. They use science for their "science-related questions," and use their beliefs to answer their philosophical questions. They know the difference, which is real but you refuse to accept for some reason.

But I am the one here who says that science has very little, if anything to do with belief or non-belief in God.

[LukeMC]

Rightly so.

[lukec]

But I am the one here who says that science has very little, if anything to do with belief or non-belief in God.

Sorry, I don't remember disagreeing with you, but to clarify, I don't. It is perfectly possible to believe in god and also work with science. Clearly this is so, and luckily too for religious people, or they'd for example be getting some old vaccines, which are based on biological evolution ideas that the disease vaccinated against are changing. But it is important to note that you cannot have the same attitude towards God as you do towards science- god cannot be disproved, things in science can.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes. But if you accept the burden of proof you have to realize that logically no God is really any more likely than any other. You might as well be believing in Zeus. You might as well be a Russell's teapotist.
If you don't accept the burden of proof you fully admit to being illogical and irrational. So then once again, you still might as well believe in Zeus or a celestial teapot.

[Dotard]

I shot at a christain once and missed him. Means I'm a sinner.

If I hit him I would not be?

[Daystar]

I shot at a christain once and missed him. Means I'm a sinner.

If I hit him I would not be?

Interestingly I was shot at by a Christian with a .22 rifle. True story. A preacher's son, actually.

To answer your question you would still be a sinner, but to miss your target was a more 'literal' sin. Being a sinner implies the Judean / Christian notion of the sin inherited by all through Adam rather than individual and a sort of a more 'literal' application.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I shot at a christain once and missed him. Means I'm a sinner.

Nope ... although it may have been wrong, it wasn't a sin because you're an atheist

Kyu

[Daystar]

I shot at a christain once and missed him. Means I'm a sinner.

Nope ... although it may have been wrong, it wasn't a sin because you're an atheist

Kyu

Wrong.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Wrong.

Nope, I'm right

Kyu