Originally posted by BroInChrist:OK, my bad. You are not anti-Christian, but anti-Christianity and anti-Bible. Better?
OK, so you don't have a problem with people dying, so it's all good as far as you are concerned ya? People die, so be it. Good riddance, onward with evolution!
So tell me, why are you so bothered with the Christian explanation that we live in a cursed and fallen world because of sin, and that is why people die from natural disasters? The Bible teach that death and suffering came about because of a moral failure, when Adam and Eve sinned. As such death is the enemy of life (which is why people grieve when their loved ones die), and something to be destroyed at the end. But the atheist cannot even explain WHY there is life in the first place, or why there is death.
Re Plate tectonics, you seem to think that I am against that. Again you are just so wrong. See http://creation.com/catastrophic-plate-tectonics-the-geophysical-context-of-the-genesis-flood
An answer can be both theological and scientific, so I wonder why you must insist that they be mutually exclusive. God can used natural processes, can He not? The global flood clearly followed the laws of nature, with fountains of the deep bursting open and rains falling. But it also had a theological cause, for God sent the Flood to punish mankind. Scientists can describe how natural disasters take place, but can never tell us why natural disasters happen at all. At each stage they are merely describing what is, but not why. People die from cancer. Science can tell us at each stage what cancer does to the patient. But can science tell us why there is such a thing as cancer? The origins of cancer? They can't even explain the origin of life for crying out loud! My point: Don't look down on theological answers and beware of scientism. It's not that you reject Christianity, you simply replaced it with another religion, scientism.
BIC,
1. I am bothered because
a) God is allknowing and he knew adam and eve would cause the world to "fall" but yet he tested adam and eve. If I know that my kids would take a knife and stab each other, I wouldnt even place a knife beside them.
b) And when the human race "fell", this God claims that he still loves us. Yet he is in control in all this natural phenomenon but wouldnt stop earthquakes and typhoons from happening. Allloving? I dont see how he is?
c) Allpowerful? He is allpowerful but cannot prevent disasters from happening? You would say he chooses not to? For what weird reason would an allpowerful and allloving god not want to prevent his beloved people from suffering? Suffering to test us? Sure. Tell me that suffering is to test us when you see bloated baby corspes during the asian tsunami. Or when your loved ones die in an earthquake. There is nothing "beautiful" about allowing disasters to "test us". Will you put your child/gf/bf/mother into a lion's den to test him?
But if we take the allknowing, allloving, allpowerful Deity out of the equation, it makes sense. People die naturally. Disasters happen naturally and people die from natural disasters because we are ill-prepared or simply we cannot escape. We dont attribute it to anyone. And life and death is part of the cycle.
Thats all. It makes much more sense.
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC,
1. I am bothered because
a) God is allknowing and he knew adam and eve would cause the world to "fall" but yet he tested adam and eve. If I know that my kids would take a knife and stab each other, I wouldnt even place a knife beside them.
b) And when the human race "fell", this God claims that he still loves us. Yet he is in control in all this natural phenomenon but wouldnt stop earthquakes and typhoons from happening. Allloving? I dont see how he is?
c) Allpowerful? He is allpowerful but cannot prevent disasters from happening? You would say he chooses not to? For what weird reason would an allpowerful and allloving god not want to prevent his beloved people from suffering? Suffering to test us? Sure. Tell me that suffering is to test us when you see bloated baby corspes during the asian tsunami. Or when your loved ones die in an earthquake. There is nothing "beautiful" about allowing disasters to "test us". Will you put your child/gf/bf/mother into a lion's den to test him?
But if we take the allknowing, allloving, allpowerful Deity out of the equation, it makes sense. People die naturally. Disasters happen naturally and people die from natural disasters because we are ill-prepared or simply we cannot escape. We dont attribute it to anyone. And life and death is part of the cycle.
Thats all. It makes much more sense.
Tcmc,
If all these is just natural, then the issue of moral responsibility or consequences does not arise at all. Think about it.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Tcmc,
If all these is just natural, then the issue of moral responsibility or consequences does not arise at all. Think about it.
I dont get you.
and you didnt address my concerns.
Originally posted by Tcmc:I dont get you.
and you didnt address my concerns.
Tcmc,
If you want to hear Christian answers, then at the least you must step into the Christian worldview, and see if the answers make sense. It is absurd to use your naturalistic worldview to judge the Christian worldview, and then declare Christianity is wrong. Have you in the first place proved that your naturalistic worldview is the right worldview by which to judge all other worldviews? You have to defend the implications of your own worldview just as I have to defend the implications of mine.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Tcmc,
If you want to hear Christian answers, then at the least you must step into the Christian worldview, and see if the answers make sense. It is absurd to use your naturalistic worldview to judge the Christian worldview, and then declare Christianity is wrong. Have you in the first place proved that your naturalistic worldview is the right worldview by which to judge all other worldviews? You have to defend the implications of your own worldview just as I have to defend the implications of mine.
"It is absurd to use your naturalistic worldview to judge the Christian worldview, and then declare Christianity is wrong. "
That is why I say science and religion is exclusive.
That is why I always urge you to say "faith" and not push the contents in ur religious book as facts.
You yourself state that these 2 worldviews are exclusive, that I need to step into the christian worldview.
Of course i can step into the christian worldview and agree with everything you say. i can, according to the christian religion.
But then you are the one who wants to mix the two up - mix science into religion and say religion is more accurate than science. That is when i cannot see from your mixed up view.
Originally posted by Tcmc:"It is absurd to use your naturalistic worldview to judge the Christian worldview, and then declare Christianity is wrong. "
That is why I say science and religion is exclusive.
That is why I always urge you to say "faith" and not push the contents in ur religious book as facts.
You yourself state that these 2 worldviews are exclusive, that I need to step into the christian worldview.
Of course i can step into the christian worldview and agree with everything you say. i can, according to the christian religion.
But then you are the one who wants to mix the two up - mix science into religion and say religion is more accurate than science. That is when i cannot see from your mixed up view.
Tcmc, You are confused as ever. Yes, Christianity and naturalism do not mixed. Both worldviews are mutually exclusive. But Christianity and science mixed very well. In fact it was the Christian worldview that gave us modern science, a fact of history that you refused to acknowledge or be bothered to check it out for yourself. And there's nothing in science that says it is based on naturalism, though its methodology can only be limited to observing that which happens in the natural world. That is the constraints or limitations of science, and should not be taken to mean that only that which science can measure or test is real.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc, You are confused as ever. Yes, Christianity and naturalism do not mixed. Both worldviews are mutually exclusive. But Christianity and science mixed very well. In fact it was the Christian worldview that gave us modern science, a fact of history that you refused to acknowledge or be bothered to check it out for yourself. And there's nothing in science that says it is based on naturalism, though its methodology can only be limited to observing that which happens in the natural world. That is the constraints or limitations of science, and should not be taken to mean that only that which science can measure or test is real.
When i say naturalism, I am referring to scientific naturalism, methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism.
So i still say, science and religion cannot be mixed. They kind of contradict.
Need me to post the instances in your Book that prove that it contradicts science?
Originally posted by Tcmc:When i say naturalism, I am referring to scientific naturalism, methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism.
So i still say, science and religion cannot be mixed. They kind of contradict.
Need me to post the instances in your Book that prove that it contradicts science?
Explain to me why if science and the Bible contradict (assuming you even know what a contradiction is), that the founders of modern science were believers and that even secular writers can credit the Biblical worldview with being the impetus for modern science? EXPLAIN this please.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Explain to me why if science and the Bible contradict (assuming you even know what a contradiction is), that the founders of modern science were believers and that even secular writers can credit the Biblical worldview with being the impetus for modern science? EXPLAIN this please.
1. I have shown you the unscientific stuff in the book before. Cant you recall? I can privately msg you the info again. :)
2. Yes many scientists were christians, that I dont deny. But that has nothing to do with the contents in the bible.
3. Cite that secular writers can credit biblical worldview withbeing the impetus for modern science, Thanks.
Originally posted by Tcmc:1. I have shown you the unscientific stuff in the book before. Cant you recall? I can privately msg you the info again. :)
2. Yes many scientists were christians, that I dont deny. But that has nothing to do with the contents in the bible.
3. Cite that secular writers can credit biblical worldview withbeing the impetus for modern science, Thanks.
Tcmc,
1. Feel free to post what you want here. I am confident that your claims will be tested and found wanting, and then you will lash out at me being anti-science and what not.
2. You missed the point. It's not that many scientists are Christians, but that modern science stands upon the Biblical basis that an intelligent Being (God) created the universe and that this universe is orderly because God is a God of order and upholds this order because God is not capricious but that His nature is immutable. This refutes the claim that the Bible and science are at loggerheads.
3. I already cited Loren Eisley and mentioned him twice. You can also check out Rodney Stark's books.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Tcmc,
1. Feel free to post what you want here. I am confident that your claims will be tested and found wanting, and then you will lash out at me being anti-science and what not.
2. You missed the point. It's not that many scientists are Christians, but that modern science stands upon the Biblical basis that an intelligent Being (God) created the universe and that this universe is orderly because God is a God of order and upholds this order because God is not capricious but that His nature is immutable. This refutes the claim that the Bible and science are at loggerheads.
3. I already cited Loren Eisley and mentioned him twice. You can also check out Rodney Stark's books.
BIC
1. Nah I wont. You are looking for a fight. Why dont you google "unscientific stuff in the bible"? It's that easy. I wont post it here. You christians might get offended. :)
2. Baseless statements. Muslims also say modern science is coherent with Islam ,ALLAH and muhammed. Again, prove yours to be more true. You havent, up to now.
3. Ok accepted.
What is the meaning of life ? I'm sure many people will have many different views of life....therefore people have different religions....
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
1. Nah I wont. You are looking for a fight. Why dont you google "unscientific stuff in the bible"? It's that easy. I wont post it here. You christians might get offended. :)
2. Baseless statements. Muslims also say modern science is coherent with Islam ,ALLAH and muhammed. Again, prove yours to be more true. You havent, up to now.
3. Ok accepted.
Tcmc,
1. Why are you running away from the challenge? Talk big only issit? I don't know about other Christians here, but I'm gonna give you a run for your money.
2. On what basis you said I make baseless statements? Always hiding behind other religions huh?
3. Accepted means what? Agree that you are wrong?