|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 126 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-08-10 | | whatthefat: <OCF:
<<This being the case, I really fail to see how you can then accuse scientists of being dishonest in not using the word of the Bible as <<scientific>> evidence. >I have never said they should. Repeat 1000 times. You keep adding the word "scientific" to the equation. Please stop.> <<But I do have a problem with your expectations that science should respect the accounts of the Bible.>I think they should consider them. They don't do that.> Total contradiction. Scientists should ignore the Bible, but they should consider it. |
|
| Apr-08-10 | | cormier: good going <<OCF>>.....and tks |
|
| Apr-08-10 | | YouRang: Well, regarding your last posts, I see that you've completely blurred the distinction between the field of science (which rejects religious accounts and miracles by necessity), and the personal views of scientists (which are open to religion and miracles). Also, you continue to make statements like <Rejecting truth ipso facto implies dishonesty>, thereby pretending that the "truth" is easy -- it's hanging there like ripe figs, recognizable and accessible to all. Hence, you take offense that science seeks to determine truth by independent means and arrive at ideas that disagree with your easy truth. You frequently say that science should consider historical evidence. And yet, you don't seem to consider the history of science, which argues that science is possibly the most successful venture of mankind. You also brush aside the fact that in all historical battles with religion, science has always emerged as having the correct scientific view, as well as a better reputation for honesty and tolerance. The reasons then are the same today. Besides that, I see that several of your replies to my points have been reduced to bald assertions. At other times you don't reply at all, which I am supposed to understand as "you're wrong" (another bald assertion). ~~~~
However, I think that I've made the points that I came here to make. You and I remain far apart -- nothing accomplished there -- but perhaps others have found our discussions informative, or at least a little entertaining. ;-) Thanks again for hosting this discussion, and maintaining a good environment for thoughts to be conveyed. I'll offer a handshake and move on. There are no hard feelings at my end, hopefully none at yours either. |
|
| Apr-08-10 | | cormier: <<whatthefat>> hi have a good day... the 4 scriptures have different goals like Luke Marc is the first ,Mathew second and Luke was the thirth and they were more precise because they had Mark to base-on the Memories of Jesus. And then these were base on part of pro-wrote like it took time, it wasn't done in one day but years and years specially with John. Proto-Luke contain sections of Marc (4 31 - 6 19: 8 4 - 9 50: 18 15 -21 38) and many things can be seen forming a Unity(Spirit).....tks |
|
| Apr-08-10 | | whatthefat: <cormier>
Sure, I understand. However, <OhioChessFan> considers literally every word of the Bible to be true - even those that contradict each other I guess. |
|
| Apr-08-10 | | cormier: Marc tell's of the <<Son of man>> 2 10,etc.; cf. Mt 8 20+, Called the <<messianic secret>> Mc 1 34+; but if it's trueMarcmake itthe essential thesa of his scripture, it is not true thatthat he had invent afterward : it's the deep realityof thepainfull carriere of Jesus which he understand and tell's us with the light of faith definitivelly consolidated by the Easter's victory.....tks |
|
| Apr-08-10 | | cormier: <<whatthefat>> hi, one has to know the <main message is the same for all(Easter's victory)> but also we all understand that we all are different in living our life and that the <Scripture are Holy> and directly(uniquelly, individually) guiding(inspiring) depending on how(what) God want's us for(love of course is the general way to live), so i thrust God 100% for <<OCF>> and for all human at that but <i also am aware it is not me who decide and when i woke-up i offer my day and expect the innexpectable(surprise, marvel, wonder...etc everything which is good) then i act,think, talk according to convenient circumstances and eat rest work good, and right now(these days) i try to silence my thoughts and listen to my heart, i must say i try to pray ... the best i can if needed and usually sleep>.....nite nite, tks |
|
Apr-08-10
 | | OhioChessFan: <whatthefat: John makes it very clear that the last supper and crucifixion occurred the day before passover. <John 19:14> - And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour. None of the other gospels agree with John on this. > John wrote his gospel in Ephesus, a decidedly Roman city, and used the Roman method of defining days, midnight to midnight. As for the record and timekeeping, an observation. Jesus' mortal enemies, the Jews, never raised this matter. They knew how time was kept in the first century. What kind of standing do you or anyone else today have to suggest that discrepancy somehow escaped the notice of all of Judaism? |
|
Apr-08-10
| | OhioChessFan: <What "position"? Scientists freely admit that they don't know what happened. You seem to be advocating that they should declare "We give up on trying to figure out what happened, must have been one of them miracles". If so, then you still don't understand what science actually *is*, and indeed, you are the only one declaring a position of certainty.> You must run with a different circle of scientists than I am familiar with. Yes or no. Is any scientist who says "Darwinian evolution is a fact" wrong to do so? |
|
Apr-08-10
| | OhioChessFan: <whatthefat: Can you show me where that was said clearly and unambiguously, and what evidence there is to suggest that:
(a) Cyrus himself was not aware of this prophecy.
(b) That book of the Bible was actually written prior to the life of Cyrus. > I'll get to work on that. It's my experience most people have little input into their given name, but if you wish to raise that objection, I'll work on disproving he named himself by telling his parents at his birth that he wished to be named "Cyrus". |
|
Apr-08-10
| | OhioChessFan: <<whatthefat: This being the case, I really fail to see how you can then accuse scientists of being dishonest in not using the word of the Bible as <<scientific>> evidence. > <OCF: I have never said they should. Repeat 1000 times. You keep adding the word "scientific" to the equation. Please stop.> <<whatthefat: But I do have a problem with your expectations that science should respect the accounts of the Bible.>OCF: I think they should consider them. They don't do that.> <whatthefat: Total contradiction. Scientists should ignore the Bible, but they should consider it.> Perfect reconciliation. They should consider evidence that is not scientific evidence. They don't do that. |
|
Apr-08-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: Well, regarding your last posts, I see that you've completely blurred the distinction between the field of science (which rejects religious accounts and miracles by necessity), and the personal views of scientists (which are open to religion and miracles). > "Rejects" by necessity? We're back to your CSI team rejecting the 100 witnesses. Except that those 100 witnesses might be reliable but no religious accounts can be written by reliable people. Or something. My head is spinning trying to follow your point. <Also, you continue to make statements like <Rejecting truth ipso facto implies dishonesty>, thereby pretending that the "truth" is easy -- it's hanging there like ripe figs, recognizable and accessible to all. Hence, you take offense that science seeks to determine truth by independent means and arrive at ideas that disagree with your easy truth.> It's fairly easy. I take offense that science a priori rejects the Bible and in fact runs as far from the Bible as they can. I have been 100% consistent in that. I'll leave the psychological analysis on your side. <You frequently say that science should consider historical evidence. > Should they reject it out of hand?
<And yet, you don't seem to consider the history of science, which argues that science is possibly the most successful venture of mankind.> I could concede that point for the sake of argument and still think it is an odd nonsequitir in your post. <You also brush aside the fact that in all historical battles with religion, science has always emerged as having the correct scientific view, as well as a better reputation for honesty and tolerance. The reasons then are the same today.> This is ridiculous. Honesty in Piltdown Man, Archaeoraptor, Lucy, yada yada yada? <Besides that, I see that several of your replies to my points have been reduced to bald assertions. At other times you don't reply at all, which I am supposed to understand as "you're wrong" (another bald assertion). > I guess we could keep telling each other "I don't think that's inconsistent." In fact, I am quite comfortable not responding to that charge for the sake of anyone who might be reading this. I think you are so off base in that I don't need to worry about someone else agreeing. I am not comfortable not responding to the charges I am addressing now. I do concern myself about my witness and have no problem vigorously defending myself. Per the not responding, I have noticed when the rubber meets the road you have ignored my points. Here's the last one, which you have conveniently ignored as you sign off on the discussion. <As for the evolutionists, why should they believe in it? They admittedly can't provide witnesses. They admittedly can't produce life from non-life or show the first suggestion it ever happened. They admittedly didn't see it themselves. They admit it's unconfirmed by science. And for all that, these bastions of Scientific integrity insist this is the prevailing king of theories, and only the uneducated/deluded believe otherwise. You don't see any innate dishonesty in that? I do.> |
|
Apr-08-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: However, I think that I've made the points that I came here to make. You and I remain far apart -- nothing accomplished there -- but perhaps others have found our discussions informative, or at least a little entertaining. ;-) > There are some nonchessgames.com followers of this discussion. <Thanks again for hosting this discussion, and maintaining a good environment for thoughts to be conveyed. > My pleasure.
<I'll offer a handshake and move on. There are no hard feelings at my end, hopefully none at yours either.> Certainly there are none on my end. |
|
Apr-08-10
| | OhioChessFan: I am not sure your point about the different day in John, but here is Mark 15:42, later in the day Jesus was crucified: <And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, > |
|
| Apr-09-10 | | cormier: good mornimg guys.....tks |
|
Apr-09-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: Your accusations against scientists are particularly indefensible since you have essentially issued a 'no comment' reply for two of the foundational issues on which you base your case: (1) The undue confidence you place on your *interpretation* of Genesis (here: OhioChessFan chessforum) (2) The inconsistency in your position (here: OhioChessFan chessforum)> For the sake of closure, I'll go ahead and respond to those. Regarding your position in #1: <YouRang: (3) Failure to realized that some degree of doubt is always in order in science. Most creation scientists will admit that all men are corrupt, and that their interpretations of scripture can at times be imperfect. And yet, they refuse to consider that *their* simplistic literal interpretation of Genesis might not be perfect. This is particularly remarkable since Genesis is such a brief summary of an event that is inconceivably complex. This is not the way science works. > I am at a loss how to respond. I see absolutely no way to understand the Creation Account in Genesis other than a literal description of 6 days of Creation. I can try to keep an open mind about things, but the matter is 100% settled in my mind. And I raised the matter repeatedly in this discussion, and was ignored repeatedly by you in this discussion, of the insistence by the world of Science that the Darwinian theory is fact, that it's the best explanation for the creation of the world and only the unenlightened think otherwise. You have an amazing propensity to accuse me of elitism or something when I hold to what I feel is established truth, but then praise the world of Science for doing the very same thing! And what happened to <some degree of doubt is always in order in science.> ? They sure don't live up to that claim on your part. Per #2:
<YouRang: Regarding miracles, you are okay with this: <Science seeks only *natural* explanation, and thus rejects miraculous explanations.>Regarding written accounts, you find fault: <I think they [scientists] are wrong for rejecting the written accounts>. But please notice the inconsistency of your position: (1) The written account that you think science is wrong for rejecting is the Biblical account of creation. (2) The Biblical account of creation IS a miraculous explanation, and certainly not a natural explanation. Therefore, you on one hand fault science for dismissing the Biblical account, but on the other hand, you agree that science has the right to reject the Biblical account because it is miraculous.> The falseness of your analogy is in your description of #2. I don't appeal to the miracles. I appeal to the written record of various witnesses. I think you are unwittingly playing an a priori game of denial here, much like <whatthefat> Do you insist we have a written record from Adam himself to document the Creation? In fact, that sort of wouldn't qualify since Adam himself was not there in the beginning. The floor is yours to explain how we could have a witness statement on that matter. But taken as a whole, those witnesses we do have to the entire history of mankind and God's dealing with them is ample evidence to realize that those who teach of the creation are trustworthy witnesses and have some knowledge far beyond the capacity of any human. That is, they show they have in fact been given some knowledge by a supernatural being. And finally, even if there was some way for an eyewitness to the Creation to record the event, it would still be..........a miraculous event! One more occasion you a priori out the possibility it could happen. And the thrust of my argument continues to be not only the rejection of the Biblical record, but the fact Science as a whole runs as far from that record as possible. That is, if they ONLY ignored it, they wouldn't show so much bias as they do in purposely running from it. |
|
| Apr-09-10 | | cormier: When it was already dawn, Jesus was standing on the shore;
but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.
Jesus said to them, “Children, have you caught anything to eat?”
They answered him, “No.”
So he said to them, “Cast the net over the right side of the boat
and you will find something.”
So they cast it, and were not able to pull it in
because of the number of fish.
So the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord.” |
|
| Apr-09-10 | | whatthefat: <OCF: John wrote his gospel in Ephesus, a decidedly Roman city, and used the Roman method of defining days, midnight to midnight.> Irrelevant - he was supposedly at the last supper. He should therefore know whether it was a passover feast or not. He even states that they are buying food for the feast the <next> day in 13:29, "Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor." It's pretty amusing to see the amount of variance in responses given to this question by die-hard Christians. It also occurred to me that if you do take every word of the Bible to be a literal truth, then I suspect you're going to Hell. Have you ever worked on a Sunday, or failed to kill someone you know has worked on a Sunday? Have you ever gone near a woman who was having her period, or let her into a Church? Have you ever worn clothes of mixed fibers? Have you ever eaten pork, shrimp, lobster, or any shellfish? etc. etc. etc. It's not all bad though, Jesus must have gone to Hell too. <Matthew 5:21-22> Jesus: "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." <Matthew 23:16-17> Jesus: "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?" <You must run with a different circle of scientists than I am familiar with. Yes or no. Is any scientist who says "Darwinian evolution is a fact" wrong to do so?> No, they are not wrong. Darwinian evolution has been observed in real time in the laboratory and in the field, so it is a <fact>. Whether it accounts for every lifeform found on Earth is a <theory>. <I'll get to work on that. It's my experience most people have little input into their given name, but if you wish to raise that objection, I'll work on disproving he named himself by telling his parents at his birth that he wished to be named "Cyrus".> Then you've missed my point. It is:
(a) Possible that Cyrus was aware of the prophecy, and once in power chose to "fulfill" it. (I doubt Cyrus was that uncommon a name.) (b) Possible that both books were written <after> the life of Cyrus. And even if both of these are false, it's not a falsifiable prediction - just like the book of Revelation, one can just say "Oh, it hasn't happened yet, it's <going> to happen". Hence, postdiction. <Perfect reconciliation. They should consider evidence that is not scientific evidence. They don't do that.> On the one hand, you seem to want to believe that the Bible *is* admissible as scientific evidence, when you say things like: <They should consider evidence that is not scientific evidence.> What "consider" means in a scientific context exactly I don't know, but presumably you expect it to be used alongside physical measurements. On the other hand you seem to realize the absurdity of this - because if we did that then we would need to admit all creation mythologies as evidence, none of which are falsifiable, so we are forced to accept them all equally. So you instead claim that scientists are rabidly anti-Christian, keeping the Bible in the back of their mind at all times, and rejecting any theories that happen to be in accord with it <I think they reject the Biblical view and run their observations through an Anti-Bible Filter. Of course not all, but I might go so far as to say most.> In summary, your position is inconsistent. It's also extremely insulting towards scientists, and clearly indicates that you have never worked in any scientific field - most scientists would laugh out loud at what you've written. |
|
| Apr-09-10 | | whatthefat: <OCF: Do you insist we have a written record from Adam himself to document the Creation? In fact, that sort of wouldn't qualify since Adam himself was not there in the beginning.> You seem to be on the verge of an epiphany here. The answer of course is that *nobody* was in a position to write an account of how the world began. |
|
| Apr-09-10 | | cormier: <Jesus: "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing>.... the temple is Himself, the blind are not looking with the eyes of Love(the Heart) we are also house, chapel, etc.....tks |
|
| Apr-09-10 | | operative: <You seem to be on the verge of an epiphany here. The answer of course is that *nobody* was in a position to write an account of how the world began.> Again, if you truly believe the Bible is the word of God, then there's no problem in the fact that God dictated the account of the Creation to Moses, as he did. |
|
| Apr-09-10 | | operative: <YouRang>
Right. Thanks for pointing that out.
<<It's a clear contradiction. You're not actually intending to defend the position that there are no contradictions in the Bible are you?> Yes.>
I agree. There are no contradictions in the Bible. It all depends on your perspective. For me, I would be of the opinion (I Cor. 1:18) that if someone chooses to not want to believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, no amount of persuading and arguing will change their mind. PS-this was supposed to be posted b4 my last one |
|
| Apr-09-10 | | whatthefat: <operative: Again, if you truly believe the Bible is the word of God, then there's no problem in the fact that God dictated the account of the Creation to Moses, as he did.> Yeah, but God told me Moses was lying. |
|
| Apr-09-10 | | whatthefat: <operative: There are no contradictions in the Bible. It all depends on your perspective> No it doesn't. There are many clear unambiguous contradictions. John says the last supper was not a passover feast, the other gospels say quite explicitly that it was. There are no two ways about it. |
|
| Apr-09-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan><For the sake of closure, I'll go ahead and respond to those.> When I left the discussion yesterday, my intention was to let you have the last word and not return. However, I see that you are finally reponding to the points I raised. Why you waited until after I left the room is interesting. :-) In any case, I think this gives me just cause to pop back in for a moment... ~~~~
Regarding your 100% confidence in your interpretation of Genesis: <I am at a loss how to respond. I see absolutely no way to understand the Creation Account in Genesis other than a literal description of 6 days of Creation. I can try to keep an open mind about things, but the matter is 100% settled in my mind. > Okay, that's fine, but the fact that YOU don't see another way to understand it doesn't mean that another way doesn't exist. Other plausible interpretations have been proposed, but I doubt that you would really "try to keep an open mind", since keeping an open mind implies that you don't start by giving all 100% of your confidence to one option. The mere fact that Genesis uses about 30 simple sentences to describe something as vast and incomprehensible as the creation of the universe and all the life within it ought to inspire *some* doubt regarding our ability to understand it with 100% confidence. <And I raised the matter repeatedly in this discussion, and was ignored repeatedly by you in this discussion, of the insistence by the world of Science that the Darwinian theory is fact, that it's the best explanation for the creation of the world and only the unenlightened think otherwise. You have an amazing propensity to accuse me of elitism or something when I hold to what I feel is established truth, but then praise the world of Science for doing the very same thing!> I have responded to this, but you merely disagree with it. You think I am inconsistent for allowing science to have 100% confidence in evolution while criticising you for having 100% confidence in your interpretation of Genesis. Yet I have never claimed that science gives 100% confidence to evolution -- YOU are the only one making that claim. I have repeatedly explained that no theory -- including evolution theory -- is ever 100% final. <And what happened to <some degree of doubt is always in order in science.> ? They sure don't live up to that claim on your part.> Please present documentation from a science journal that describes <the insistence by the world of Science that the Darwinian theory is fact>. Of course, that sentence alone reveals a lack of understanding about science. Theory and fact are two different concepts, and no scientist would ever say that a theory is fact. You intend to say (I think) that the world of science insists that the theory of evolution is 100% true. But even this is a practically a meaningless statement since there is no unified "world of science". Individual scientists attach different degress of confidence in it. But I think it's safe to say the (practically) 100% of scientists accept evolution to be the best natural explanation (however incomplete) that we have so far. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 126 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
rreusser/...