Friday, January 18, 2019

Adult Sabbath School: Faith vs Facts.


The Faith vs Facts concept is a volatile topic and one in which "he convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." But it is a topic worth finding one's balance about. While I have come to my own conclusions about the compatibility between science and religion it is a personal topic in which one size can never fit all because of our needs for somethings to be so based in our own life concerns and fears. I would suggest a good read of the comments section. I am sure one will find those who reflect their own gut level reactions to the concept that Faith and Science are not compatible which is my own view.

I would add that perhaps the concept is better understood by noting that Faith as in Bible Literalism and taking stories never meant to be taken as literally true is part of the problem Westerners have introduced to a Middle Eastern and Bronze/Iron Age text. In the churches one often does not understand the concept of Biblical allegory and hyperbole taking everything far too literally such as the first 11 Chapters of Genesis

Hebrews 11:1  "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for. The evidence of things unseen."

In my own view and experience, even the author of Hebrews (Not Paul) is saying, "Now faith is what we hope is true, based on no evidence that it actually is true."

That can be a slippery slope when applied in mistaken and naïve ways in the lives of real people and practices. 



"To prove his theory, Coyne breaks down the central question—“Are science and religion compatible?”—into a series of progressive and easily digested sections. He begins with basic definitions: “What is science?” “What is religion?” “What is incompatible?” Next, he considers conflicts of method, outcome, and philosophy. He examines the varieties of accommodationism and explains why each of them fails. Finally, he demonstrates why the conflict between faith and facts matters, highlighting significant impacts of religiously sourced “knowledge”—from religiously motivated child abuse to the running controversy over human-caused climate change."
https://thehumanist.com/arts_entertainment/books/book-review-faith-vs-fact-why-science-and-religion-are-incompatible
"We are living today in a genuinely frightening scenario: religion and science are engaged in a kind of war: a war for understanding, a war about whether we should have good reasons for what we accept as true. The sheer fact that over half of Americans don't believe in evolution (to say nothing of the number of Congressmen who don't believe in climate change) and the resurgence of religious prejudices and strictures as factors in politics, education, medicine, and social policy make the need for this book urgent.

Religion and science compete in many ways to describe reality - they both make "existence claims" about what is real - but they use different tools to meet this goal. In his elegant, provocative, and direct argument, leading evolutionary biologist and bestselling author Jerry Coyne lays out in clear, patient, dispassionate details why the toolkit of science, based on reason and empirical study, is reliable, while that of religion - including faith, dogma and revelation - is unreliable and leads to incorrect, untestable, or conflicting conclusions. Indeed, by relying on faith, religion renders itself incapable of finding truth."          

                                                                                                              
“Faith may be a gift in religion, but in science it’s poison, for faith is no way to find truth.”


“I argue that the toolkit of science, based on reason and empirical study, is reliable, while that of religion—including faith, dogma, and revelation—is unreliable and leads to incorrect, untestable, or conflicting conclusions. Indeed, by relying on faith rather than evidence, religion renders itself incapable of finding truth.”
Jerry A. Coyne, Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible 

“My claim is this: science and religion are incompatible because they have different methods for getting knowledge about reality, have different ways of assessing the reliability of that knowledge, and, in the end, arrive at conflicting conclusions about the universe.”

“Harmonizing religion and science makes you seem like an open-minded and reasonable person, while asserting their incompatibility makes enemies and brands you as “militant.” The reason is clear: religion occupies a privileged place in our society. Attacking it is off-limits, although going after other supernatural or paranormal beliefs like ESP, homeopathy, or political worldviews is not. Accommodationism is not meant to defend science, which can stand on its own, but to show that in some way religion can still make credible claims about the world.”
Jerry A. Coyne, Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible

“We have already compared the benefits of theology and science. When the theologian governed the world, it was covered with huts and hovels for the many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the children of men, reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were clad in rags and skins—they devoured crusts, and gnawed bones. The day of Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies than the princes and kings of the theological times. But above and over all this, is the development of mind. There is more of value in the brain of an average man of to-day—of a master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain of the world four hundred years ago. These blessings did not fall from the skies. These benefits did not drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars—neither were they searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience—and for them all, man is indebted to man. —Robert Green Ingersoll”
Jerry A. Coyne, Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible


42 comments:

Tonto said...

Dennis--

If there is no free will, and no God, as you propose, then all of this is naturalistic, and the result of "cause and effect" since the Big Bang. This also including the fact that there are people that want to have some kind of faith.

Since this is all preordained and deterministic , again since the Big Bang, why don't you just roll with it. In your world view, it should just be accepted as destiny.

However, your regular rants against faith, demonstrates that you believe that there is a "free will" and that it can be changed by external factors that you are generating. If there is indeed "free will", science has yet to demonstrate that such an external , extra dimensional factor exists.

If you are truly an atheist, I find that your incessant need to be an "evangelist" for such is so vital to you. You still find the need to preach some type of "enlightenment", in the past it was WCG, and now atheism. If it is all "nihilistic" , who cares?

As Paul said, eat , drink and be merry for tomorrow we shall die!

Near_Earth_Object said...

This is a book that advocates an aged and passé viewpoint. It represents a condition that existed probably four decades ago. It is a "security blanket" for threatened atheists and permits them to live in the more comfortable past. The high cost of the security blanket is to deny the progress that has been made in the reconciliation of science and faith over the last four decades. This anti-progressive attitude not only afflicts atheists but also professing Christians - for instance, Young Earth Creationists. Denial cuts both directions.


Since Dennis is pushing an author - I will do the same. Come into the present by including in your reading not only Dennis' book but books by Frances Collins, John Lennox, Peter Enns and Dennis Venema. Or simply have a look at the Biologos website. This would provide any rational mind with a foundation for reflection.

Anonymous said...

Religion does not necessarily demand faith. It depends on the religion. Further, a lot of what is passed off as science demands faith in the establishment--fallible dishonest people who sometimes cheat the "scientific process".

Anonymous said...

Another science versus religion debate. Here we go again. We will be told that:

1. Science keeps an open mind.
2. Science corrects itself.
3. Science is not dogmatic.
4. Everything is "very much in play", and some know-it-all will say even he disagrees even with Dennis sometimes.
5. Nevertheless, the science is settled (they know because they saw it on the idiot box), and only an idiot will read a book that questions the establishment.
6. Science is done by trained experts in their specialty. Like Al Gore.
7. Darwin was smart.

Did you like how I came up with the biblical number of seven points?

Now for religion:

1. Religion never corrects itself because religion never changes.
2. Herbie changed the makeup doctrine 85 times.
3. Religious people are idiots because they keep changing.
4. Changes?
5. What changes?
6. God is smart.
7. We are still thinking about it.

Once again, seven points. The number of perfection. My analysis is perfect.

DennisCDiehl said...

Anon said: "

Further, a lot of what is passed off as science demands faith in the establishment--fallible dishonest people who sometimes cheat the "scientific process".

Not really but that's a typical apologetic that says "Science is its own religion" which is terribly inaccurate a view but comfy I know. Add to this that dishonest science sooner or later gets found out and thrown out, perhaps along with the deceiver. That's how it works. The hoaxes and tricks of even scientists were exposed not by religionists but by science itself. The church has always had to back off and "apologize" for it's bad science and myths thought to be real. Science has never had to apologize to the Church for being wrong. Science eventually is self correcting with better science. Religion is not self correcting, can't afford to be or they will lose the faith-full.

You can indeed cheat the scientific method or process. But not for long. Religious cheating goes on and on and on....

"Near_Earth_Object said...
This is a book that advocates an aged and passé viewpoint."

I am tempted to inquire about what you think a 2000 year old New Testament and a 3000 year old , Old Testament does? I can't believe you said that! lol. Reminds me of a person who accused me of using "Human reasoning." When I asked him what kind of reasoning he thought he used I could tell he wanted to say that he reasoned like God, Christ and the Holy Spirit but backed out of the conversation.

But recommend any an all books you or anyone else wishes. It was a simple recommendation to my years ago to read John Spong's "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" that woke me up to look into what else I had not been taught or told in my youthful religious naivete.

There is a butt for every seat and every book. Ultimately it is the individual who has to draw their own conclusions based on what they perceive as having "proven all things and hold on to what is good" or more true.

It is Krauss, Dennett, Tyson, Sagan , Darwin, Prothero, Aron, Dawkins, Raymond Brown (theologian), Lillian Freudman (Theologian) , Karen Armstrong (Theologian), John Spong (Theologian), Ellaine Pagels (Theologian), Bart Ehrman (Theologian), Israel Finkelstein (Archeologist and Israeli historian) and many others I will find up to date knowledge in which one can actually grow in over Abraham, Moses,(Who also may never have actually existed), the somewhat symptomatic prophets of the OT, the anonymous Gospel writers, Paul whose Christ was in the heavens only and hallucinatory, various NT forgers and perhaps even Jesus who, outside the Bible enjoys little or virtually no fame or recognition or even existence and might just be a literary construct based on Old Testament scriptures. Not sure but could be.....

DennisCDiehl said...

PS...and the author of Revelation, whoever, as he gazed upon the night sky and came up with his Nightflix prophecy had good drugs no doubt. :)

Anonymous said...

Dennis, you will never get it. First of all, the typical layman really has no way of knowing how much junk science is out there. Even the experts have a hard time with that. Further, it could take a lot longer than a lifetime to fix a problem, so you'll be long dead before you "find out" how wrong you have been. Further, the "church" is just one establishment. Religious establishments are about politics not faith. Same problem with scientific ones. The book you cited was written because the author had a political agenda: to save society from religious folks. You simply have FAITH that what we have is science and that science will always catch the bad guys. That is wishful thinking. Just because some killers are caught does not mean nobody can never get away with murder. And you seem to think that anyone exposing the dogmatism of science is pushing some religious agenda. You are stuck in the false dichotomy fallacy. You have been told and told and told. I think you're just trolling.

DennisCDiehl said...

The intelligent, fearless, critically thinking and not beholding to rigid beliefs or the control of priests and clergy human beings, who pooled their observations, came to much better perspectives and more accurate understandings than those who pooled their fears and compliance with the church. It is no coincidence that the Dark Ages corresponded with the rise of the Church.

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
Denis Diderot

Maybe Denis Diderot reincarnated as Dennis Diehl? lol

Gerald Bronkar said...

Dennis, another thought-provoking post. I am not an atheist, as I cannot explain the existence of life, matter or consciousness and neither has science...so far.

However, science is searching and offering possible explanations. The Bible does not come close, and the religion offered in the Bible is pathetic confusion. Could be why we have thousands of differing belief systems within Christianity.

If God is out there, I wonder why He doesn't communicate to us that we should tune into channel 29 tonight at 7:30 PST for a full and simple explanation as to the purpose of life and how we should live it. Does He enjoy watching His creation suffer? Is God out there somewhere, but distracted by activity on some other planet in some other Universe? Maybe just a long coffee break or vacation for a few thousand years.

Or could it be He is waiting for us to get busy solving our own problems. Doesn't look like His Kingdom is coming any time soon.

Anonymous said...

A crafty article. It fails to differentiate between biblical morality eg 'prove all thing,' 'you shall know them by their fruits' (which is the scientific method) etc, and Pharisaic Christianity. It's Pharisaic morality that demands belief with out proof and blind obedience to its priests. It has to, since it clashes with reality. But Dennis lumps the two together, then asks his readers to reject his package. This is apostate trickery.
I use to get this from the pulpit. For instance, a minister would twist the meaning of rights, then easily denounce its evilness, followed by switching back to the proper definition. Rights denounced, QED.

Anonymous said...

“We should have good reasons for what we accept as true. The sheer fact that over half of Americans don't believe in evolution this book urgent.”

Evolution offers no explanation for the origin of “life”. The basic building blocks used, are amino acids. Most don’t know that only left-handed amino acids are selected to produce a protein, which are extremely small (smaller than a wave of light) molecular machines, folded in precise way to interconnect with other proteins, generally involved in producing newly “ordered” proteins or their transportation or modification. Statistical mathematics can scientifically prove that it’s impossible to have a hundred different amino acids randomly arrange themselves together to “create” a protein, especially when considering entropy. So, Science itself proves the theory of evolution is a manmade fairy tale.
DNA, which contains a library of very complex coding is also mathematically impossible to have randomly come together without a Designer (Coder) needed for the interconnected functions of a cells organelles, waste disposal, energy production (mitochondria) transportation highways and structural support, communication and defense systems, all needed to be in place for cell to exist.
Nature, in a word, is not natural. While most humans’ feeble efforts to understand their Creator are laughable and bring on more confusion and conflict, but science has created its own dogmas that are demanded on any who don’t want to be ostracized in their career.

Anonymous said...

"... I could tell he wanted to say that ...."

So, now you are a mind reader? Divine power! God exists!

Anonymous said...

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

If it is OK to suggest that we murder religious people, is it okay to suggest we murder all the atheists? Or all the Christians? Or all the Jews?

Near_Earth_Object said...

"I am tempted to inquire about what you think a 2000 year old New Testament and a 3000 year old Old Testament does?"

These are the source documents about which the viewpoints are formed. I am not referring to the source documents but the antiquated viewpoint you have that science disproves religion.

Citing as many opponents of Christianity does not somehow make your light weight argument heavier. Readers should just understand that the view you are pushing has been superseded. Arguing against it is shadow boxing.

Anonymous said...

Not really but that's a typical apologetic that says "Science is its own religion"

Here you put your own interpretation on what other people said. They did not say science is a religion. And it's not an apologetic. It's a warning about junk science and blind belief. It's not a stab at real science. You are just so wrong again and again.

Anonymous said...

7 is the number of completion, not perfection...

TLA said...

Dennis - as our resident former WCG minister can you make sense of the following statement that has been repeated many times by WCG and offshoots (most recently by GW in Jan-Feb Tomorrow's World pg 27):
"the central message of the New Testament is all about Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God. The problem is that the message that He proclaimed has been abandoned. It has been replaced with a message about the person of Christ."
How is a minister meant to preach about Jesus without mentioning the person?

HWA's autobiography was all about the person of HWA - would have seemed to stupid to leave his person out of the book about him.
Why then do the COGs think it is wrong to preach about the person of Christ in the books written about Him?
Can you provide the WCG reasoning for this?

Anonymous said...

"Religiously motivated child abuse".

Just bashing religion. How many children are killed by atheist abortion supporters? No child abuse there? The primary opponents to abortion are churches.

Miller Jones said...

So science sprang forth in a day, and all was bliss thereafter?
It seems to me that everything related to life is evolutionary in nature - that would include thought.
Moreover, every step in that process appears to be essential to what follows - though we may dismiss them and call them irrelevant to the present thing and say that we are the culmination of that process - how arrogant!
It seems to me that a majority of folks on both sides believe science and religion are incompatible - does that make it so?
Both seem to rest comfortably in this soul!
It seems to me that we could say just as easily that humans are not compatible with space, flight, radiation and a million other things.

Anonymous said...

When I read through some of the posts here it appears that many of the posts are to create conflict regarding the beliefs people may have about life. There is very little thought about the damage that can be done if someone is struggling with life itself. My life has been strongly influence by the basics of Christianity and these basics are what I believe every human being would recognize as selfless if they are properly presented. I believe a proper goal in Christianity is a contented life and destroying persons Christian Faith in these basics will not create contentment. Some may believe that a life without God is better, but I do not see that as a reality. The people in my life who are connected with God through Jesus Christ have a joy and contentment in life and a peace of mind when faced with death. ASB

Byker Bob said...

Science and religion actually are incompatible if you attempt to use one to discredit the other. Many people do.

BB

Anonymous said...

Why then do the COGs think it is wrong to preach about the person of Christ ...

It is not wrong to preach about the person of Jesus. What is wrong is to forget about the message he brought, or change that message. The problem is that to forget the message the focus has to be shifted to something else. It was shifted to the person of Jesus.

DennisCDiehl said...

Anonymous said...
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
Someone worried:
If it is OK to suggest that we murder religious people, is it okay to suggest we murder all the atheists? Or all the Christians? Or all the Jews? dd"

The quote is hyperbole. An exaggeration that actually means that the abuses of the King against the people as well as the abuses of the clergy against the people needs to stop and that both dictatorial government and religious control of the mind needs to be put in its place by thinking people if one is ever to be free to be truly free.

It is not to be taken any more literally in the intent than "if you eye offends you , pluck it out"

Anonymous said...

4.58 PM
The NT focuses on the person of Christ because He is the embodiment of perfection. Herb changed this to Christ's supposed message of 'government is everything,' a code word for church tyranny. Dominating others is the sin of the Nicolaitans which Christ twice states He hates in the book of Revelation.
Since HWA and most of his ministers hate Christ's virtues, they emasculated Him by ignoring His person and mis representing Him as a dominator. Blasphemy of course.
Dennis also rejects Christs virtues, which is why his constant rants against the existence of God and his inspired bible.
I feel so good and warm inside thinking about the lake of fire. One day these people will be gone, and there will be unbelievable peace. I'II smoke a peace pipe with Tonto.

Anonymous said...

Let me put it this way Dennis. It is not a foregone conclusion that the truth will always prevail in science. We hope that it will. But whether it really does or not depends on a number of factors. The integrity of the typical scientists is one factor. In my view, integrity is on the down-slide. Political factors also have their influence, more than most people seem to realize, especially if they have not actually worked with scientists. So they tend to idealize science and scientists. Scientists are human. Career politics and national and international politics all play a role. The media plays a role. The media is largely politicized fake news (a term which preceded Trump, love him or hate him). Then there is the "zeitgeist"--the spirit, myths, and assumptions of the age. Every society is drenched in them. So are scientists. They just don't have the time or see the need to seriously question their own beliefs.

Perhaps I have been too harsh at times. Diplomacy is not my forte. But you are strong and you can take it. And, ideologically, I need to hold your feet to the fire.

Anonymous said...

9.56 PM
Dennis, so advocating murder is hyperbole. History tells us otherwise. One example, there were many calls in the press for Abraham Lincolns assassination before he was assassinated by John Booth.

Another point not brought up yet is that the divine right of kings and clergy has been replaced by the 'divine right' of governments. Both claim unlimited power and the right to be above the law. Mankind has simply changed its masters from the religious to the secular. The social system remains the same.

DennisCDiehl said...

Anon
"Dennis also rejects Christs virtues, which is why his constant rants against the existence of God and his inspired bible.
I feel so good and warm inside thinking about the lake of fire."

Why is raising questions about God or the Bible always a rant? If you explain to us why you feel the questions about God are inappropriate or silly or the problems with the Bible any educated theologian would raise and understand, are not problems at all, is that you ranting? Usually anything that challenges belief is considered a rant to the one who is being asked to think about those beliefs for a minute. After all, it is our beliefs in the past that got us all here to begin with.

Ranting is to Scoffing as Explaining is to Noticing. Asking "Where is the promise of his coming" etc when it obvious that the soon and shortly promised in the NT by the Apostles including Paul have long since passed, is not really scoffing. It is noticing that the Apostles were badly mistaken. It is also notable that none of them apologized for their mistaken views. Paul merely patted himself on the back and assured others he'd get his "crown" no matter. Those who inflict wrong theology on others who go along with it for a time and suffer the consequences of false belief and misplaced faith never apologize. They simply move the goal posts praising God for "giving us more time."

Kevin McMillen said...

"If you are truly an atheist, I find that your incessant need to be an "evangelist" for such is so vital to you. You still find the need to preach some type of "enlightenment", in the past it was WCG, and now atheism. If it is all "nihilistic" , who cares?

As Paul said, eat , drink and be merry for tomorrow we shall die! "

Tonto, that is something that I said several months ago but these pious fools just accused me of revealing my own true inner character.

They foolishly think that their own selfish inner character is somehow above the survival of the fittest that they believe in

Again, if there is no god, who cares? Other than the feeble attempt to prove how much better atheists are morally.

They lie to themselves, as we all do, but they are so high minded that they think they're above it.

Yeah, yeah, I'm back for my quarterly dose of entertainment of reading this forum of the intelligentsia. LOL

KM

Near_Earth_Object said...

Atheists, like religious folk, seek to build their faith. This is called cognitive dissonance reduction. Science is the realm of unanswered questions. The Bible is the realm of unanswered questions. The unreconciled proponents on both sides must shift around looking for a position that is self-confirming. Someone who believes that science trounces religion, or the reverse, does not understand the nature of either science or religion.

Science and the Bible have different scopes but are not incompatible. I can point to a place in the first chapter of Genesis that aligns with ancient Semitic cosmology rather than modern scientific understanding. This condescension to ancient common parlance (a type of literary incarnation) does not diminish the idea that God created the heavens and the earth. This principle is the point and places Judaism in sharp and profound contrast against the backdrop of contemporaneous pagan religions.

Genesis 1-2 is allegorical in part or in whole. It conveys principle effectively and does not need to be a 21st century physics text to do so. To place a literalist constraint on Genesis is missing the meaning and sliding into form rather than substance just as the Pharisees did. Majoring in the minors - a long time Armstrongist tradition.




Kevin McMillen said...

"If God is out there, I wonder why He doesn't communicate to us that we should tune into channel 29 tonight at 7:30 PST for a full and simple explanation as to the purpose of life and how we should live it."

Oh, he will, one day.

This statement reminds me of Bart Ehrman, a great N.T. scholar, once a fundamentalist christian but now an agnostic because he just doesn't understand why an all loving God allows suffering.

The answer to his question also answers the question of "Why all the religious confusion?"

Because man has rejected God, God is giving us a chance to learn what life without him is like.

Occasionally he reaches in, as with Enoch, Noah, Moses, Abraham, etc. because he is calling firstfruits for the time that he does show everyone which channel to tune in to.

That day is coming, and there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Not because those gnashing their teeth are being thrown into hell fire, but because they will realize that the bible that they rejected was right, that they had their chance at being in the first resurrection, the better resurrection, and they rejected it.

They will see that, while they will still be saved if they choose, they will never be a part of the Bride of Christ and they could have been, they were once among them but allowed their ego to cause them to stumble.

A day one could say "see I told you so" but hopefully God will give us the strength to refrain!

Kevin McMillen

Anonymous said...

Dennis asks "why is asking questions about God or the bible always a rant?"

Because you keep bringing up over and over the exact same points while ignoring all the reasonable replies given. You come here in minister mode, relying on the 'magic' of repetition to overwhelm the readers defences and buy into your view.
This isn't 'asking questions.' This is attempting to bypass the readers right to evaluate and choose their own beliefs.
Once a Herb minister, always a Herb minister.

Gerald Bronkar said...

So Kevin, are you a minister in one of the CoG splinters? If so, which one? Or are you simply a self-appointed moral authority? Seems like you look forward to seeing the wicked fry. You would have this view of the future in common with the Muslim faith.

When I look at the universe and life I have many questions; science answers some of them. When I look at the Bible for answers, I see some wisdom in places, but great confusion and contradiction elsewhere. Yes, I am guilty of being a Bart Ehrman fan. The Bible has disappointed many of us who were once "in the faith", but further reading from its pages is evidence of its many failings.

For many it is hard to say "I don't know, but I will try to find out." It is a challenge to live with uncertainty, but it is exciting to discover what is real and true. A forever process!

DennisCDiehl said...

Nothing I share has anything to do with my past as a WCG Pastor. It has everything to do with how I have always thought, observed and a natural skepticism that must be a part of my personality. Like it or not, if everyone was just a "believer" they everyone is set up for a fall. If everyone asks no questions, gives no quarter to being mistaken or believes that "trust and obey for there is no other way to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey" as the old hymn goes, is the way to live your life, we'd still be in the stone age offering prisoners up to the Sun God.

"If we are not able to ask skeptical questions to interrogate those who tell us that something is true... To be skeptical to those in authority, then we are up for grabs to the next charlatan, political or religious (idea) that comes ambling along."

"Competing doctrines are after what feels good and not about what is true."

"What is faith...it is belief in the absence of evidence. The idea is to withhold belief until there is evidence for it."

Carl Sagan

Byker Bob said...

“I have a wish. It is a fear as well - that in my end will be my beginning.”

-Che Guevara

BB

Yes and No to HWA said...

A book that may be of interest:

“Science, Creation and the Bible: Reconciling Rival Theories of Origins”.

From the publisher:

Many Christians are torn between their belief in the Bible and the conclusions of science. This is especially the case concerning the creation narratives of Scripture and the rather different stories that science tells.

Physicist Richard Carlson and biblical scholar Tremper Longman address the longstanding problem of how to relate scientific description of the beginnings of the universe with the biblical creation passages found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Experts in their respective fields, these two authors provide a way to resolve the seeming conflicting descriptions by showing the meaning of the biblical texts as well as the meaning of scientific description.

In the process they will uncover

how theology and science differ, and what they both contribute
what the key biblical passages actually say
how the ancient Hebrews themselves understood the meaning of Genesis 1-2
how the rest of Scripture helps us understand these passages
what we can gain from science and what its limits are

Properly interpreting the biblical texts and clearly identifying the nature of scientific claims are key. With those in hand we can see how Christian revelation and scientific findings about the origin of the universe are not in opposition but rather work in partnership with each other.

Kevin Allen McMillen said...

"Gerald Bronkar said...
So Kevin, are you a minister in one of the CoG splinters? If so, which one? Or are you simply a self-appointed moral authority? Seems like you look forward to seeing the wicked fry. You would have this view of the future in common with the Muslim faith."


Gerald, why the accusation? Where in my post did I say anything about the wicked frying?

In fact here's what I said:

"""""They will see that, while they will still be saved if they choose, they will never be a part of the Bride of Christ and they could have been, they were once among them but allowed their ego to cause them to stumble."""""

What part of "while they will still be saved if they choose" equates me with the Muslim faith?

As far as being a hireling in one of the acogs, nope, haven't been a member of one of the acogs for over 25 years. In fact I'm anti-denominational.

Kevin

Kevin Allen McMillen said...

Gerald, I also like Bart Ehrman. I love to watch his debates because he has made fools of the evangelicals like Licona and others. Why does God allow suffering? Because that's the only way that hard headed people like us learn. He has given us what our parents wanted from the beginning, to be our own boss, to make our own rules.

He's showing us the consequences of life without him, just following after our own will.

He steps in only occasionally because he has a plan to bring us all more into his image and likeness and to do that we must learn to hate sin.

This tough world that we live in is the only way we'll learn the results of living the old mantra "I did it my way"!

I personally believe that a small fraction of all who've ever lived will choose death. Even 1 million of a potential 150 billion is a lot less than 1%.

Also, I don't think anyone will be cast in alive to fry, other than the beast and false prophet (if that's correctly translated at least).

One of my favorite sayings is that I hope Adolf Hitler makes it, then I have a chance.

You all really don't know me.

Kevin McMillen

Kevin Allen McMillen said...

"Once a Herb minister, always a Herb minister."


Once an anonymous jerk always an anonymous jerk!!!!!

Kevin Allen McMillen
Morgantown, WV

ps I'm not afraid!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

“You all really don’t know me.”

Wow. You say that as if we should anticipate that your presence here will be a real treat!

Anonymous said...

"What is faith...it is belief in the absence of evidence."

That is the atheist definition. They just don't understand faith.

Kevin McMillen said...

I see the moderator here is either being selective again or my comment to 1:26pm is lost in cyberspace.

Kevin

Byker Bob said...

@2:03 ~ What would you do with someone who showed up occasionally to teach, taunt, and display an overcompensating level of ego?

BB