Why do most people accept Christ as their saviour?

[Deicide]

The Rapture? Are you guys for real?  The rapture isn't even in the Bible and is a rather late creation of Christian nutcases.

Why do people like you reject science when it comes to your magic book and fictional fertility god and embrace it when it comes to all the amenities of life that science has granted you?

[OTHstrong]

The Rapture? Are you guys for real?  The rapture isn't even the Bible and is a rather late creation of Christian nutcases.

Why do people like you reject science when it comes to your magic book and fictional fertility god and embrace it when it comes to all the amenities of life that science has granted you?

SILENCE

[Butterbean]

No, but doesn't this sound a lot like it?

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=209460.msg2898320#msg2898320

Very interesting loco!

Do you have any related links to this subject; sounds interesting.

So as not to hijack The Count's thread I will make a new thread on this.

[Count Grishnackh]

Count, have you ever thought about what your reaction/thoughts would be if the rapture occurred during your lifetime? 

Forsaken   

How would you feel if you were left behind with us STella? 

[MCWAY]

The Rapture? Are you guys for real?  The rapture isn't even in the Bible and is a rather late creation of Christian nutcases.

Why do people like you reject science when it comes to your magic book and fictional fertility god and embrace it when it comes to all the amenities of life that science has granted you?

For the same reason you keep consuming dairy products and eating chicken breasts, despite the fact that guy responsible for the vaccines and processes that make them safe to consume was a Christian man (who dismantled the fictional concept known as "spontaneous generation").

And, as Loco and I have reminded you (more times than the law allows), scientific discoveries (i.e. those in archaeology) have confirmed, on multiple occasions, the existence of people and places (which were, at one point, documented almost exclusively in the Bible) that non-believers like you swore up and down didn't exist.

[Butterbean]

Forsaken   

How would you feel if you were left behind with us STella? 

I'd be freaked out!

[Deicide]

For the same reason you keep consuming dairy products and eating chicken breasts, despite the fact that guy responsible for the vaccines and processes that make them safe to consume was a Christian man (who dismantled the fictional concept known as "spontaneous generation").

And, as Loco and I have reminded you (more times than the law allows), scientific discoveries (i.e. those in archaeology) have confirmed, on multiple occasions, the existence of people and places (which were, at one point, documented almost exclusively in the Bible) that non-believers like you swore up and down didn't exist.

Total non-sequitur and totally irrelevant what he believed; he was doing science irrespective of his religious beliefs.

No Abraham, No Moses, No Exodus, Not Davidic Empire....etc...not doing too well there.

[tonymctones]

science and religion are not at odds with each other.

[MCWAY]

science and religion are not at odds with each other.

Exactly!!!

Total non-sequitur and totally irrelevant what he believed; he was doing science irrespective of his religious beliefs.



No Abraham, No Moses, No Exodus, Not Davidic Empire....etc...not doing too well there.

Try that again!! It's that archaeology thing again, starting with the works of Josephus. And, though I don't have it off the top of my head, Loco has displayed, on multiple occasions, the historical/archaeological find confirming the existence of King David.

As for Pasteur, he was indeed doing science. And it was his scientific workings that proved that the evolutionary tenet of spontaneous generation was a bust, much to the chagrin of materialistic/naturalistic scientists.

The overall point, of course, is there is no rejecting of science, when it relates to the Bible, despite your loaded (and woefully ill-worded) question to the contrary. Science is simply the study of natural phenomena. Simply put, it's studying God's world, using His scientific rules and principles, and discovering things that He already knows.

Christians have been charged with healing the sick, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, etc. Scientific discoveries are simply another way to meet that end.

[calmus]

I'd be freaked out!

Don't worry, we'll all still be right here on getbig.

[Butterbean]

Don't worry, we'll all still be right here on getbig.

I think some might be missing.


I'll miss you.....and the grebra that is al

[calmus]

and the grebra that is al

He's going to the same place you are, wherever that is.  I plan on becoming stardust once again. 

[Deicide]

For the same reason you keep consuming dairy products and eating chicken breasts, despite the fact that guy responsible for the vaccines and processes that make them safe to consume was a Christian man (who dismantled the fictional concept known as "spontaneous generation").

And, as Loco and I have reminded you (more times than the law allows), scientific discoveries (i.e. those in archaeology) have confirmed, on multiple occasions, the existence of people and places (which were, at one point, documented almost exclusively in the Bible) that non-believers like you swore up and down didn't exist.

Are you even willing to admit that Christianity and your belief are based on faith? Or do you claim that Christianity and your faith are based on fact?

[MCWAY]

Are you even willing to admit that Christianity and your belief are based on faith? Or do you claim that Christianity and your faith are based on fact?

It's based on both, something I've mentioned multiple times before. This isn't (and never has been) an "either/or" scenario.

NEXT!!!

[Deicide]

It's based on both, something I've mentioned multiple times before. This isn't (and never has been) an "either/or" scenario.

NEXT!!!

Both...really? What are the facts? The single most important 'fact' is that the creator fo the universe bore himself a son in Iron Age Palestine (and not informing the rest of the world of this (China, Amazon Basin, Australia, North America, Scandinavia, etc.) and this son (who is also the creator of the universe) performed many miracles and rose bodily from the dead...if believing that is not faith, then I don't know what is....

[MCWAY]

Both...really? What are the facts? The single most important 'fact' is that the creator fo the universe bore himself a son in Iron Age Palestine (and not informing the rest of the world of this (China, Amazon Basin, Australia, North America, Scandinavia, etc.) and this son (who is also the creator of the universe) performed many miracles and rose bodily from the dead...if believing that is not faith, then I don't know what is....

What's your point, considering that you believe in a bunch of mess that you've never seen, that has never been documented, and that CANNOT be observed or replicated (i.e., that whole spontaneous generation thing, again).

It sounds quite similar to the same philosophical woes that one George Wald had.

[Deicide]

What's your point, considering that you believe in a bunch of mess that you've never seen, that has never been documented, and that CANNOT be observed or replicated (i.e., that whole spontaneous generation thing, again).

It sounds quite similar to the same philosophical woes that one George Wald had.

Evolution is extremely well documented.

[MCWAY]

Evolution is extremely well documented.

So, provide the documentation that shows the environment, that turned non-living matter (unguided and unmolested) into living matter, with sample living critters, ACTUALLY SEEN BY SCIENTISTS, THEMSELVES.

[Deicide]

So, provide the documentation that shows the environment, that turned non-living matter (unguided and unmolested) into living matter, with sample living critters, ACTUALLY SEEN BY SCIENTISTS, THEMSELVES.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. You consistently fail to understand that.

[tonymctones]

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. You consistently fail to understand that.

and science and religion arent at odds with each other something you consistenly fail to understand as well.

[Deicide]

and science and religion arent at odds with each other something you consistenly fail to understand as well.

No, they are at odds with each other.

Science requires dispassionate analysis, experimentation, massive peer review, observation and repeatability; you win points in science by proving yourself wrong.

Religion requires dogma, authority, doctrine and tradition; its claims cannot be analysed dispassionately; no experimentation is possible; there is no peer review of say, the doctrine of the Trinity; no one has observed anything even resembling a miracle (as they are described in the Bibical fairy tales) and those alleged miracles are not repeatable.

In summary, religion thrives on superstition, authoritarianism, tradition and dogma; science thrives on the opposite.

They are in total opposition to each other as a manner of thinking and understanding the world. (Though one could cast doubts on 'thinking and understanding' in the same sentence as religion as being oxymoronic).

[OTHstrong]

No, they are at odds with each other.

Science requires dispassionate analysis, experimentation, massive peer review, observation and repeatability; you win points in science by proving yourself wrong.

Religion requires dogma, authority, doctrine and tradition; its claims cannot be analysed dispassionately; no experimentation is possible; there is no peer review of say, the doctrine of the Trinity; no one has observed anything even resembling a miracle (as they are described in the Bibical fairy tales) and those alleged miracles are not repeatable.

In summary, religion thrives on superstition, authoritarianism, tradition and dogma; science thrives on the opposite.

They are in total opposition to each other as a manner of thinking and understanding the world. (Though one could cast doubts on 'thinking and understanding' in the same sentence as religion as being oxymoronic).

If science requires the above where exactly does evolution fit in, you can't possibly believe that evolution has been observed, experimented with or repeated for that matter

[Deicide]

If science requires the above where exactly does evolution fit in, you can't possibly believe that evolution has been observed, experimented with or repeated for that matter

We observe evolution within bacteria all the time. No, in real science there is no such thing as micro- and macroevolution. Other forms of observation included the fossil record, which supports many transitional forms, etc.

All you have is an ancient book, written by numerous different authors, espousing fairy tales...

[tonymctones]

No, they are at odds with each other.

Science requires dispassionate analysis, experimentation, massive peer review, observation and repeatability; you win points in science by proving yourself wrong.

Religion requires dogma, authority, doctrine and tradition; its claims cannot be analysed dispassionately; no experimentation is possible; there is no peer review of say, the doctrine of the Trinity; no one has observed anything even resembling a miracle (as they are described in the Bibical fairy tales) and those alleged miracles are not repeatable.

In summary, religion thrives on superstition, authoritarianism, tradition and dogma; science thrives on the opposite.

They are in total opposition to each other as a manner of thinking and understanding the world. (Though one could cast doubts on 'thinking and understanding' in the same sentence as religion as being oxymoronic).

LOL you pointed out that the basis of the two are different but not how they conflict with each other???
how does believing in evolution contradict believing in God

[Deicide]

LOL you pointed out that the basis of the two are different but not how they conflict with each other???
how does believing in evolution contradict believing in God

Well, first tell me what you mean by 'belief in god' and I will answer the the question. I pointed out how typical religion DOES conflict with science; if you are a deist, then I see no real conflict.