Imagine you had a poet and a scientist both studying the sun, making notes about it. Afterwards, when the scientist and the poet compared notes, I think it's fair to say that they would have little common ground to compare on, since the things each put emphasis on are so different.
And yet there is no doubt that both the poet and the scientist are both speaking of something that is real.
It's all about believing what the Bible reveals.. I get that... it's a perfectly reasonable way to live a life for those with a faith that can withstand doubt wouldn't you say? Don't feel you need to reply (you can of course) my final few words are rhetorical.
I have never had a direct revelation from Jehovah so that I would know his name. If I had, I would know how it should be pronounced.
I think that you may have misspelled immorality.
I'm a heart person using the head to refute the head so as to experience the heart fully... so to speak.
1. The universe could not have existed infinitely.
2. The universe could not have had a creation moment.
3. The universe exists.
No, I meant that the church of the past, who was the moral authority as well as the religious authority, used their moral authority to strenghten their religious authority, which they used to try and stop the advance of science.
Religion has nothing to offer us when it comes to facts about the universe. And science has nothing to offer when someone we love dies, and we find ourselves facing some hard existential questions. Some might argue that we have philosophy for that, but what is philosophy but atheistic religion?
Some might argue that we have philosophy for that, but what is philosophy but atheistic religion?
I claim to know very little most of the time