NationStates

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 9:30 am**

Mexico and its People wrote:No no no, I'm trying to make the point that that science and religion compliment, not contrast. I was just trying to show the evolution is our preception of creation. Creation is God's POV. Evolution is mankinds POV. The not connecting the dots part was describing how science would make a theory, and use it to "disprove" religion, when, in fact, it compliments religion. I follow the Bible as literal truth.

The Bible says.

1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."

Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

And however, the Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun, right? So I think either the Bible is wrong and science proved this (Galileo, Copernicus, Johannes Kepler), or else, if you accept the facts I've said, you're not following it as a literal truth.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 9:49 am**

Samuraikoku wrote:
Mexico and its People wrote:No no no, I'm trying to make the point that that science and religion compliment, not contrast. I was just trying to show the evolution is our preception of creation. Creation is God's POV. Evolution is mankinds POV. The not connecting the dots part was describing how science would make a theory, and use it to "disprove" religion, when, in fact, it compliments religion. I follow the Bible as literal truth.

The Bible says.

1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."

Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

And however, the Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun, right? So I think either the Bible is wrong and science proved this (Galileo, Copernicus, Johannes Kepler), or else, if you accept the facts I've said, you're not following it as a literal truth.

Or that just maybe.

We are talking about land, or Earth as the alternative definition which is closer to the original Hebrew. The Earth and ground is fixed through gravity no?

Though I'm not much of a literalist.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 9:50 am**

I'm a very unorthodox Christian. I even remember one time that I went to church in short shorts, flip flops, and a white T-shirt. Mom was mad, but it was a lot better than wearing a suit.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 9:50 am**

The Merchant Republics wrote:
Samuraikoku wrote:
The Bible says.

And however, the Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun, right? So I think either the Bible is wrong and science proved this (Galileo, Copernicus, Johannes Kepler), or else, if you accept the facts I've said, you're not following it as a literal truth.

Or that just maybe.

We are talking about land, or Earth as the alternative definition which is closer to the original Hebrew. The Earth and ground is fixed through gravity no?

Though I'm not much of a literalist.

Earthquakes disprove that point.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:14 am**

Samuraikoku wrote:
The Merchant Republics wrote:Or that just maybe.

We are talking about land, or Earth as the alternative definition which is closer to the original Hebrew. The Earth and ground is fixed through gravity no?

Though I'm not much of a literalist.

Earthquakes disprove that point.

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/q7.htm

Read this...it clears things up.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:18 am**

The Merchant Republics wrote:
Samuraikoku wrote:
The Bible says.

And however, the Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun, right? So I think either the Bible is wrong and science proved this (Galileo, Copernicus, Johannes Kepler), or else, if you accept the facts I've said, you're not following it as a literal truth.

Or that just maybe.

We are talking about land, or Earth as the alternative definition which is closer to the original Hebrew. The Earth and ground is fixed through gravity no?

Though I'm not much of a literalist.

Plate tectonics would like to see you now.

And I don't know why if the Bible was not meant to be interpreted completely literally, for what reason would it be written at all? Unless it was because it's a story, like perhaps a sadistic father wanted to document all the gruesome bedtime stories he told.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:20 am**

The Left-Libertarian Hippies wrote:
Samuraikoku wrote:
Earthquakes disprove that point.

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/q7.htm

Read this...it clears things up.

That's not a literal interpretation.

From your own article:

Having said that, one should at least consider the possibility that the verses cited above are actually using a figure of speech, to express the permanence of God's will and the permanence of his creation.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:21 am**

It isnt meant to be literal...

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:24 am**

The Left-Libertarian Hippies wrote:It isnt meant to be literal...

But my point is that either the Bible is wrong, or else it isn't meant to be followed as a literal truth. In any case, I win.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:25 am**

Samuraikoku wrote:
The Left-Libertarian Hippies wrote:It isnt meant to be literal...

But my point is that either the Bible is wrong, or that isn't meant to be followed as a literal truth. In any case, I win.

Something can be both true...and non-literal. You are making it a black and white issue which it isnt...(something atheists constantly due when they try to make silly arguments).

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:26 am**

The Left-Libertarian Hippies wrote:
Samuraikoku wrote:
But my point is that either the Bible is wrong, or that isn't meant to be followed as a literal truth. In any case, I win.

Something can be both true...and non-literal. You are making it a black and white issue which it isnt...(something atheists constantly due when they try to make silly arguments).

Explain to me why Copernicus and Galileo were condemned by the Church if the Bible is to be non-literal.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:28 am**

Samuraikoku wrote:
The Left-Libertarian Hippies wrote:
Something can be both true...and non-literal. You are making it a black and white issue which it isnt...(something atheists constantly due when they try to make silly arguments).

Explain to me why Copernicus and Galileo were condemned by the Church if the Bible is to be non-literal.

Mainly because the Catholic Church had a Pharisee-like tendency of literal interpretation...much of the Bible is written in parables, sayings, etc. Plus, the Church isnt and has never been ordained by Christ...it is (obviously) not Christian.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:31 am**

The Left-Libertarian Hippies wrote:Mainly because the Catholic Church had a Pharisee-like tendency of literal interpretation...much of the Bible is written in parables, sayings, etc. Plus, the Church isnt and has never been ordained by Christ...it is (obviously) not Christian.

Sorry, but that is unrelated to my point. You cannot tell me that the Bible is literally right because it has scientifically been demonstrated to be wrong. If the Bible is right, it's because it's non-literal, and thus ambiguous and vague.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:34 am**

Samuraikoku wrote:
The Left-Libertarian Hippies wrote:Mainly because the Catholic Church had a Pharisee-like tendency of literal interpretation...much of the Bible is written in parables, sayings, etc. Plus, the Church isnt and has never been ordained by Christ...it is (obviously) not Christian.

Sorry, but that is unrelated to my point. You cannot tell me that the Bible is literally right because it has scientifically been demonstrated to be wrong. If the Bible is right, it's because it's non-literal, and thus ambiguous and vague.

It isn't "scientifcally demonstrated" to be wrong...how? And, if you consider it ambigious you could say neither way.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:36 am**

I'm reformed Baptist.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:37 am**

The Left-Libertarian Hippies wrote:It isn't "scientifcally demonstrated" to be wrong...how?

Here's an idea.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:38 am**

Born into a Christian family, the beliefs started to deteriorate around my mother, as she has a very open idea of God. Only one person in our family makes time for church. I was never pushed in any direction, and made my own choices.
Agnostic.

Because I believe that you can prove nothing.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:40 am**

Samuraikoku wrote:
The Left-Libertarian Hippies wrote:It isn't "scientifcally demonstrated" to be wrong...how?

Here's an idea.

Psalm 93:1 says, "The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."

Psalm 96:10 says, "Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."

1 Chronicles 16:30 says, "Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."

Psalm 104:5 says, "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."

Just look at these verses...I dont think they refer to the Earth like we do in Modern English...I'll get more links...

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:43 am**

The Left-Libertarian Hippies wrote:
Samuraikoku wrote:
Here's an idea.

Psalm 93:1 says, "The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."

Psalm 96:10 says, "Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."

1 Chronicles 16:30 says, "Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."

Psalm 104:5 says, "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."

Just look at these verses...I dont think they refer to the Earth like we do in Modern English...I'll get more links...

You see? That's a proof of ambiguity and vagueness, compared to the verses I quoted before. It's the only way you can find the Bible to be "right", via non-literal interpretation.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:51 am**

Mexico and its People wrote:Ok. So it all starts with the big bang. The ball of enery that then exploded yada yada yada. It had to be triggered by something. My answer: God.

No, you are wrong. A creator, as we know it, is not necessary.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:52 am**

The Left-Libertarian Hippies wrote:It isnt meant to be literal...

My point exactly. This was why I left Christianity. To attempt to differentiate which parts were meant to be literal and which parts were not meant to be literal would be to attempt to read the mind of God.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:57 am**

Samuraikoku wrote:
The Left-Libertarian Hippies wrote:Psalm 93:1 says, "The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."

Psalm 96:10 says, "Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."

1 Chronicles 16:30 says, "Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."

Psalm 104:5 says, "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."

Just look at these verses...I dont think they refer to the Earth like we do in Modern English...I'll get more links...

You see? That's a proof of ambiguity and vagueness, compared to the verses I quoted before. It's the only way you can find the Bible to be "right", via non-literal interpretation.

"Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, or fix their rule over the earth?" (Job 38:33)

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:00 am**

Samuraikoku wrote:
The Left-Libertarian Hippies wrote:
Something can be both true...and non-literal. You are making it a black and white issue which it isnt...(something atheists constantly due when they try to make silly arguments).

Explain to me why Copernicus and Galileo were condemned by the Church if the Bible is to be non-literal.

Copernicus was a Catholic cleric, who dedicated his work On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres to Pope Paul III.

Galileo, whose works were later condemned by Pope Urban VIII, was actually asked by him earlier on to "to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in [his] book" and to include the Pope's own views. The two shared a personal friendship as well. The only reason why Urban acted as he did was NOT because of literal interpretation but pressure (especially from the Spanish cardinal) that he was becoming "weak." Not to mention Galileo's character in the preface of one of his books, Simplicius (translated into Italian "Simplicio" meaning simpleton) was viewed by many in and outside of the Papal court as an attack on Urban directly, which only increased the strain and hardened his stance. Though most think Galileo didn't do this out of malice intentionally.

He who makes comments as simple as yours, knows little of the actual events that took place at the time, as well as the history, and probably read the 7th or 8th grade story in your history book, where Galileo recanted his works, but as he stood up whispered that "they were true."

To clarify I am not condoning or supporting the Church's actions at the time. It was about 90% political and as a result it created problems (like the comment above) that would later haunt them. But the issue was more political than religious.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:02 am**

Herador wrote:
Terra Agora wrote:Ironically the Catholic Church promotes Satanism more then any other organisation.
Well in the sense that it is the opposite.

I don't quite understand sorry, can you explain that a bit more please? I'm pretty curious what you mean.

As Ceannairceach said "Fear is a great advertising agency."

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:03 am**

Terra Agora wrote:
Herador wrote:I don't quite understand sorry, can you explain that a bit more please? I'm pretty curious what you mean.

As Ceannairceach said "Fear is a great advertising agency."

The Ninth Satanic Statement declares, "Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years."

NationStates

What are your religious beliefs?