Intelligent Design can not be taught in Pa. schools

I had this very discussion (about Jesus' miracles) with a friend of mine, who is a theology history buff and graduate of seminary. He said that he takes the writings of Jesus' miracles literally, as Jesus performed such miracles to further prove to the people that He was the Lord and Savior.

 

you are talking as if science doesnt contradict the story of a omnipotent wizard creating a son to be killed by his other creations in order that the guys he created are forgiven for the sins that he is responsible for anyways, since he created them. and yunno science isnt realy psyched about people ascending into a magic world 3 days after their death either.

you talk as if you believe the sane parts of christianity, but those parts do not exist. nothing salty can say is one tiny bit crazier than what you believe.

pot/kettle. how could a christian say this? have you forgotten that you also believe this:

oh yes you are a stickler for rational thinking and fact examination.

 

and why dont you believe it too? how do you know what parts are true? do you believe the easier to believe parts?

 

I agree with you red. And I am smiling from ear to ear knowing that there is another fundamentalist there keeping an eye on you. That makes me happy.

My problem isn't so much with what science is stating. It's with the way men are using these theories. So many people are holding these things up and proclaiming them to be proof that the Bible is wrong and that there was or is no God. I have no real desire to use my religion to disprove science. I am not that concerned about it. It is just that I am forced to defend myself and my beliefs against people that would use science to attack me. I don't know if that makes sense or not. Do you see where I'm coming from?

Since we "fundamentalist" take God so literally, we believe that the path is very narrow and try not to get distracted by anything along the way. :thumb:

 

That's a good question and LSUDeek is asking the same thing. I tend to place more credibility in the literal accuracy of later writings as opposed to older (due to a number of factors, including limited language, the need for stories to be retold orally, etc.) The writings of the New Testament with Jesus also seem more of an account of events and messages, moreso than earlier Old Testament books.

This is an area I've always struggled with, but it's largely irrelevant. Was the Earth created in seven calendar days as we know them? I dunno, but I do believe the Lord created the Earth. Think about it. Seven days. Days are defined by rotations along the axis. Days as defined by HUMANS. I would think God's days could go on as long as He wants. Regardless, timing isn't that large of a concern for me, and basic rational thought goes a long way to aligning the findings of science with the faith of Christianity.
Same for some of the more outlandish stories (e.g. Jonah, Noah, etc.) They did they happen literally like the story is told? I don't know, but worrying about whether it's literal or figurative (or an embellishment, etc.) is not the point, IMO.

It all comes back to faith. Without it, the entire Bible isn't worth much.

 

He actually has sources for all of his stuff.

"Life being too short" = "I'm wrong and can't admit it?"

Again, if you can come up with answers for the following:

then I'll listen to your arguments.

 

why? how do you know whatever any opposing view held by anyone ever isnt true? how do you know it wasnt zeus?

i would argue that reasonless faith isnt worth much, and is actually the main trouble with the world today.

 

I didn't say that I did. I said I believe, and I do. I didn't say "know."