Bible vs. Science

Once again, that has nothing to do with the topic. Just as is your paranoid conceit that you are "attacked" when people object to you attempting to make the thread about you instead of the topic.

0 Replies

Hmm....I seem to be saying this a lot recently.

Religionists WILL see themselves being attacked if their belief base is attacked. This is because "self identity" and "faith" are mutually supportive within an idiosyncratic rationality.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Once again, that has nothing to do with the topic. Just as is your paranoid conceit that you are "attacked" when people object to you attempting to make the thread about you instead of the topic.

Set if you want o make this topic more science related it is up to you to introduce the "topic".

I am honestly not trying to pigeon hold this discussion.
I was responding to Franks postings last night of the OT scriptures which reflect on the NT God I call true.

As long as Frank insults my NT God with OT reckonings I will post that there are TWO Gods in the Bible and let him "figure that one out" as long as he is acting Biblical scholar.

None but Neo seems to want to address that which just shows me you are all believing in error of the Bible.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Hmm....I seem to be saying this a lot recently.

Religionists WILL see themselves being attacked if their belief base is attacked. This is because "self identity" and "faith" are mutually supportive within an idiosyncratic rationality.

So non religionists attack the person rather than the ideology?

Hmmm, maybe because they have no spirituality.

0 Replies

No, what you are trying to do is to make this a discussion of the "truth" as you claim it appears in scripture.

The topic is "Bible v. Science." Science has nothing to do with your idiosyncratic belief that there are two gods in the bible.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

fresco wrote:
Hmm....I seem to be saying this a lot recently.

Religionists WILL see themselves being attacked if their belief base is attacked. This is because "self identity" and "faith" are mutually supportive within an idiosyncratic rationality.

So non religionists attack the person rather than the ideology?

Hmmm, maybe because they have no spirituality.

This is the most blatant example of exactly the cognitive dissonance to which Fresco refers. He clearly states that when the ideology is attacked, the religionist assumes that it is a personal attack.

QED, you just proved his point.

0 Replies

So now we can add "comprension' to "credibility" as being less than Mr Reds strong suits.

0 Replies

No rational response to rambling, delusional rants is possible. Such easily may be refuted through simple logic, reason, and sound forensic practice, however, due to the inherent irrational nature of rambling delusional rants rebuttal is futile, as the target of any such excersize is incapable of recognizing point of the excerize.

0 Replies

Well personally, I think Mr Red and Roxxxanne are the same person.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

No, what you are trying to do is to make this a discussion of the "truth" as you claim it appears in scripture.

The topic is "Bible v. Science." Science has nothing to do with your idiosyncratic belief that there are two gods in the bible.

I am saying if you are going to tell someone who reads the Bible as I do what it means you better be right. You better have MANY scriptures to back up your point of view.

I am not telling you what your science says I am telling you what the Bible says and means. Because when many of you open your mouths about it I can see most of you clearly do not understand even the general meaning of the book.

I know what it says because I have studied it. Plain and simple. I have read it constantly I have looked deeply within it to ascertain if what I believe is what is actually written.

And that I am NOT just another follower of a follower.

You are a follower when you resort to insult you are a leader when you can scripturally back up your position.

Science I think in principle would work the exact same way.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Well personally, I think Mr Red and Roxxxanne are the same person.

Still collecting flies?

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

You are a follower when you resort to insult you are a leader when you can scripturally back up your position.

Bullshit. Scripture is proof of nothing beyond that it comprises a body of literature considered to be scripture. Quoting scripture in support of the proposition that scripture be anything other than folklore is ignorance carried to the point of absurdity.

Quote:

Science I think in principle would work the exact same way.

First, by the evidence provided through the style and substance of your posts, in your case the personal pronoun "I" relationally attached to any form of the verb "to think" presents a conundrum. Now on to more relevant business; "Science" deals in evidenced, reproducible, confirmable fact - that is the very first principle of Science. The very first principle of the Bible is that a magical despot created and rules the universe.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Setanta wrote:
You're right, Rex, i did not study your post . . .

I have no interest in "studying" the hilariously confused drivel you post here. You are to only person to whom you make sense. Don't blame the rest of us for an unwillingness to dive into the cess pools of incoherence with which you typically regale us.

Your loss Set, not mine.

Prove me wrong?

You haven't got the intellectual power to read and understand my post it is over your pea brained head. Let alone the smarts to debate me.

I WILL CHALLENGE YOU ANY DAY TO A DEBATE ON THE BIBLE. We will see who is the teacher!

Oh boy, a challenge!

If the challenge is to see who can whip up the wildest interpretation then my money is on Rex.

If it's to see who can make the most sense of it historically and rationally, then I'm with Set.

After that debate is done, can we have a debate on Little Red Ridinghood? What aspect of that shall we debate? It's cultural significance, or how accurately we can use it as an analogy of certain cultural or historic events?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Hmm....I seem to be saying this a lot recently.

Religionists WILL see themselves being attacked if their belief base is attacked. This is because "self identity" and "faith" are mutually supportive within an idiosyncratic rationality.

That's interesting. I'll have to think about that.

What does it mean, "within an idiosyncratic rationality"?

0 Replies

rosborne,

Taking a Wittgensteinian line, all rationalities are to a large extent idiosyncratic because different socialization involves different semantic networks. (Wittgenstein "...the limits of my language are the limits of my world") If we take the word "I", our concept of our "range" as an "actor" will undoubtably be delimited by our particular social environment such that groups which for example habitually use phrases like "himshala/God willing",will envisage the "self" differently from those who do not. Similarly, those who "thank God" or "pray to God" have a perception of a "non-autonomous self". Note that the concept of "free will" is ironically often an appendage to this lack of independence in the sense of "performing correctly/incorrectly in the eyes of God"

0 Replies

Oh, I thought you said idiotic rationality. There is much of it to be found.

0 Replies

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

rosborne,

Taking a Wittgensteinian line, all rationalities are to a large extent idiosyncratic because different socialization involves different semantic networks. (Wittgenstein "...the limits of my language are the limits of my world") If we take the word "I", our concept of our "range" as an "actor" will undoubtably be delimited by our particular social environment such that groups which for example habitually use phrases like "himshala/God willing",will envisage the "self" differently from those who do not. Similarly, those who "thank God" or "pray to God" have a perception of a "non-autonomous self". Note that the concept of "free will" is ironically often an appendage to this lack of independence in the sense of "performing correctly/incorrectly in the eyes of God"

Fresco you have hit on something...

The words themselves of the Bible mean a different thing to me than they do to most here in this thread.

That is why I capitalize some words, add lots of quotes and make thing bold and sometimes colorful.

That is why when I write something and people respond back I can tell they did not even grasp the meaning.

Our language and culture has degraded holy words.

Like the words spirit or grace.

These words have very intricate meanings to me BIBLICALLY and not so much socially. But to most people they only know the social meanings and not the Biblical.

What can I say, we are a living breed.

0 Replies

LIKE THE WORD ZERO

0 Replies

So how do you learn the WORDS of the Bible?

By reading them, comparing them and understanding how they are used in different sentences and contexts from WITHIN the confines of the Bible itself. Only once a word is Biblically defined do you seek to define it outside of the Bible.

This is a Biblical principle of how the Bible interprets ITSELF.

0 Replies

Bible vs. Science

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know