Again, what we believed 500 years ago has no relevance to what we know now. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/relativity-and-the-cosmos.html
Let me get my philosophy on "Homosexuality" or "Adultery" or "Disobedience" or any other sin for that matter. Your body has two components 1.) The Holy Spirit: Your spirit and 2.) Flesh: The need for sin. They are in constant battle with each other because one is striving to be one with God, while the other is trying hard to be away from God. It's a scale that can't be equal. The farther you are from God, the closer you are to sin. The closer you are to God, the farther you are from sin. All of this has nothing to do with getting into Heaven. This is just about you and your relationship with God. Only salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ gets you into Heaven. <--- My philosophy There can be a homosexual Christian and there can be a Lying bastard Christian that both get into Heaven as long as they are saved. But, I will tell you that when I get more "on fire" with God; the more guilty I have of my sin. Does it mean I don't sin? Absolutely not! I sin everyday, and maybe more than most in here. So if I wasn't clear before, hopefully that clears things up now.
And more than likely 500 years from now what we believe now will have no relevance at all then. Just replaced with more unprovable theories. - Robert Jastrow's closing line in his book God and the Astronomers
And what we know 500 years in the future maybe completely different. The rate of knowledge and growth is growing much faster than those times. Case in point: When I said that scientists were hunted down as warlocks or witches back 1,000 years ago. Now those warlocks and witches have paved new great roads of knowledge. The laughing and mockery going on right now about Christian belief may turn out to be mocked 500 years later.
Okay, let's start with this one. (If you like, I'll do the rest, but we'll focus on Leviticus for now.) For one thing, it's a bit confusing. Exactly how is one to lie with mankind as with womankind? Men don't have vaginas (or at least most people who self-identify as men). Let's suppose that "lie with" means "engage in some kind of sex act with" then. Presumably the fact that Leviticus brands that kind of sex act (which, of course, heterosexual men could engage in) as "an abomination" is supposed to make you, a 21st century American think that it's immoral. But, as a good Bible-reader, no doubt you're aware of the other things that Leviticus calls "abominations": So: eating shellfish is an "abomination". ("Pinch the tail, suck the head - BURN IN HELL!") Have you ever done it? I can only assume that you haven't, because you really take the Bible seriously and don't just rely on selective quotes that happen to agree with what you or your teachers think. That means also that you think that bats are fowls: Also, that menstruating women are horrifically unclean and the following rules should be obeyed about them: I hope you ask every woman that you meet to tell you if she is menstruating, because otherwise you will be making yourself unclean in violation of God's law. I understand that you have children. I hope that they never curse you, because it would no doubt painful for you to watch them be put to death: Boy, I'm glad I don't feel required to follow the moral guidelines in the Bible. That thing is strict. I don't know how you do it.
I can't give you the criticism before you give me the argument. There are several versions of the teleological argument - which one are you thinking of?
LMAO! I guess you didn't read my philosophy before I posted it. And you are failing to realize what I realized 20 years ago. It is impossible to keep God's commandments. Which is why I believe that you need to be washed in the blood of Jesus.
proven scientific facts didn't exist at all 500 years ago. scientific consensus is a recent phenomenon. where those things were believed it was as a matter of simple convention or religious philosophy. whenever people who were thinking scientifically investigated the shape of the earth (starting with the ancient greeks) they concluded it was a sphere. you sound real confident there.
You are fixated on "scientific proof," which literally is a nonsensical term. Science makes no assertion that it's latest theories are final and conclusive. However, science does tell me that if put a gallon of gas in my car, it will run out before I go 100 miles. I have zero expectations that if I don't put any gas in my car, I will make it past 100 miles. No matter how much I believe in God, he's not magically making my car run on nothing.
Maybe start with the fact that the universe is so finely tuned that if we changed the gravitational pull by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% (37 zeros, no exaggeration) we would not exist. If the percentage of the elements were even altered at all, we would not exist. There are plenty of arguments for a designer with the teleological argument, these are just two.
Woah! Does that mean we don't have to try? Any of them? Shit, next time somebody cuts me up in traffic, it's a cap in HIS ass! Is that some kind of expensive brand of shower gel of which I'm unaware?
The Bible also stated it was a sphere too in 700 BC. And science has been around for millenia, not sure what you're talking about. The flat earth was as close to a scientific fact as you could get. Yet wrong. I know beyond a reasonable doubt the truth, I was making a point.
It is a nonsensical term because it's essentially an oxymoron. Science changes so much that by the time you call something a fact another theory has replaced it. I'm not saying science is bad, but when it tries to explain things we have no business explaining then it fails.
LMAO! Once again, you haven't read my philosophy. Are you wanting to do some mocking game or something? Cause it really doesn't look like you are truly reading what I just posted. If that's what you want to call it.
I don't know about that. I actually think the more we try to explain, the closer we get to God. In fact, I truly believe that true knowledge is Godly. It may seem like scientists have some sort of conspiracy theory because they want to disprove God. I actually think they are curious and if science proved God; it would be written in every science journal on the planet. I say "Knock yourself out! I welcome the challenge!"
That's all good and well. By I stand by my final point. When science tries to explain things like why we're here and what the meaning of life is, it fails. There will never be a point in history where we will know that conclusively unless we dust off our Bibles.
Ah, the "fine tuning" argument. That's one of the more recent ones, true enough. Of course, as you already said, it assumes that there's only one universe which is why the multiverse idea is a threat to it. It's also a good sign that theists have given up on the ones that they used to use against evolution, as this one is about physics, not biology, and sort of relies on the idea that the universe is millions and millions of years old and not just 4,000 odd. (So it's hard to be a Bible literalist and believe in that one.) So, the basic idea is that (1) it's fantastically unlikely that things should have been this way by chance, and (2) therefore it wasn't by chance, and (3) the only other way it could have been is if there was a designer God, who by coincidence is exactly the same one mentioned in a set of ancient Hebrew texts and not that guy Oden or Allah or any of those other fakers oh no. Exactly how are we to know (1), though? If I know there is one red marble and 10 billion blue marbles in a bag, I know that it's fantastically unlikely that I will get the red marble. But what do we know about the possibilities of other universes? We're not in a position to know the probabilities. Also: if we think of time sort of Newtonian-ly, then there could've been an infinity of other universes before this one. And the possibility of getting even the most unlikely of universes in an infinite time is 100%. That's infinity for you! Now, 3 assumes that if the universe didn't arise by chance then it must've arisen by the hand of [insert name of preferred deity here]. But if we're allowing evolution in a biological context (as most proponents of the fine tuning argument have conceded) then why not a variant of it in cosmology? Couldn't some kind of evolutionary procedure have produced our universe? I don't see that it's any less [edit: I mean MORE, of course] incredible than your Giant Ghost Man hypothesis. Finally, as Hume pointed out, any "designer" hypothesis works like this: a certain thing is said to exhibit amazing complexity and thus to require explanation other than chance. Thus, a designer complex enough to have come up with an idea of the complex entity in its head, and thus far more complex than the thing it purports to explain is invoked. But clearly there is now an even greater puzzle to be solved: where did the designer come from? If the proponent of the design argument thinks that that complexity doesn't need explaining, then why did the first kind?
I agree that true science and God can coexist harmlessly. But science today can't have that, so I'm mostly skeptical considering they will throw theories on top of things like pancakes in order to do away with God.
