|
Post by cheryl8787 on Oct 8, 2023 15:07:45 GMT -5
Do you realize that 50% of the world's Christians are Roman Catholics and that Roman Catholicism does not subscribe to 'young earth creation' or any other of the literal interpretations of the OT. Yes, I do. However, Are you aware that not all who self identify as Christians, also say Catholics are NOT Christians or that Mormons are NOT Christians?
Good grief! Roman Catholics are extremely Christian. Anglicans, Lutherans, and Orthodox are kissing-cousins of Roman Catholics. Together they are 75% of the world's Christians. They all recite a creed which is nearly identical.
Mormans are not orthodox Christians, they are a divergent sect.
You have some strange ideas, likely the result of your 2x2 background.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 8, 2023 15:31:21 GMT -5
Roman Catholics are extremely Christian. Anglicans, Lutherans, and Orthodox are kissing-cousins of Roman Catholics. The protestant movements during and after the Reformation held very strong anti-Catholic sentiments. They did not consider Catholics as representing true Christianity. This included: Lutheranism: Martin Luther, the founder of Lutheranism and a key figure in the Protestant Reformation, initially criticized the Roman Catholic Church for what he saw as theological errors and abuses of power.
Reformed/Calvinist Tradition: Reformed theologians, such as John Calvin and John Knox, were critical of the Roman Catholic Church's teachings and practices. Some branches of the Reformed tradition historically held strong anti-Catholic views.
Anglicanism: The Church of England, which emerged from the English Reformation, has had a complex relationship with Catholicism. While it retained some Catholic liturgical elements, it also adopted Protestant theology. Baptists: Some Baptist groups, particularly in the United States, have held anti-Catholic views, viewing the Roman Catholic Church as an institution that deviated from biblical teachings.
Mormans are not orthodox Christians, they are a divergent sect. I suspect the 16.6 million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not consider themselves as a divergent sect. Just so we are using the same definition from dictionary.com Orthodox Christians - The form of Christianity maintained by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Orthodox means “correct in teaching”; Orthodox Christians consider the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches to be incorrect in some teachings, including the relations between the persons of the Trinity.
You have some strange ideas, likely the result of your 2x2 background.
I understand how you could see my ideas as strange. It's not so much from my 2x2 background, but more from leaving magical thinking in general.
|
|
|
Post by cheryl8787 on Oct 8, 2023 16:04:14 GMT -5
xna, you are very good at red herrings and misrepresentation. You do not converse in good faith discussion. It's pointless to talk to such a person.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 8, 2023 16:57:10 GMT -5
xna , you are very good at red herrings and misrepresentation. You do not converse in good faith discussion. It's pointless to talk to such a person. First you said my claim that 30%-40% of the USA Christians believe in Young earth creationism was a Straw Man. You said the real figure is 5% worldwide. I then gave you two links showing worldwide, 28% say the believe in young earth creationism. You never came back with any evidence to support your misleading 5% figure, or said you were wrong and corrected yourself. Now you say I am pitching in a Red Herring, again all without anything to support that claim. If you find what I have posted is information that is misleading. Point it out, and I will re-examine what I wrote. I wouldn't say our exchange was totally pointless. We all are getting to know you better. But you are certainly free to block me. The common sense of these terms. Straw Man/Person - This fallacy occurs when, in attempting to refute another person's argument, you address only a weak or distorted version of it. Straw person is the misrepresentation of an opponent's position or a competitor's product to tout one's own argument or product as superior. Red Herring - This fallacy consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Oct 8, 2023 16:57:39 GMT -5
xna , you are very good at red herrings and misrepresentation. You do not converse in good faith discussion. It's pointless to talk to such a person. michelgodts.art/e/fertility-witch-doctorHere's a pic of one of the many gods that humans have imagined. There are countless more to choose from.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 8, 2023 16:59:52 GMT -5
xna , you are very good at red herrings and misrepresentation. You do not converse in good faith discussion. It's pointless to talk to such a person. michelgodts.art/e/fertility-witch-doctorHere's a pic of one of the many gods that humans have imagined. There are countless more to choose from. funny
|
|
|
Post by cheryl8787 on Oct 8, 2023 17:08:36 GMT -5
xna here is something you can do before posting links which you think support your conjectures - click on the link and read the article in full carefully.
In this particular case with your creationist link, notice which countries are included in the 24 country poll - the world's largest muslim states. Does that sound like a relevant poll to use when determining what % of Christians are fundamentalists?
That's why i said you strawman and red herring. It's pointless to deal with people like this. snow a few days ago posted a link claiming that a Christian vandalized a museum in Israel due to his religious nuttiness, but as snow hadn't actually read the article before posting, she neglected to notice that the vandal was an american jew.
It's just embarrassing.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 8, 2023 17:12:01 GMT -5
The formation of this planet did not involve a god of any kind in any way shape or form. Has that been shown to be "demonstrably true"?
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 8, 2023 17:26:06 GMT -5
xna here is something you can do before posting links which you think support your conjectures - click on the link and read the article in full carefully.
In this particular case with your creationist link, notice which countries are included in the 24 country poll - the world's largest muslim states. Does that sound like a relevant poll to use when determining what % of Christians are fundamentalists?
That's why i said you strawman and red herring. It's pointless to deal with people like this. snow a few days ago posted a link claiming that a Christian vandalized a museum in Israel due to his religious nuttiness, but as snow hadn't actually read the article before posting, she neglected to notice that the vandal was an american jew.
It's just embarrassing.
cheryl8787 That was the largest multi-country study I found that covered that subject. Pew Research has a lot of information on this subject for the USA, but I didn't find any global poll on this subject. If you think this study is misleading then back it up with some facts, just don't expect me to believe your naked assertion here. Anyone can "make up a number". I could make up the number 69%, but that doesn't make it true. I'm still waiting to see your study that says young earth creation belief is 5% globally. Hitchens's razor: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"
|
|
|
Post by cheryl8787 on Oct 8, 2023 17:55:08 GMT -5
xna you don't need a 'study' to figure out what global % of Christians are fundamentalists, you can add up the numbers yourself from the wikepedia page on Christianity denominations - the populations size numbers are all there.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 8, 2023 18:16:41 GMT -5
xna you don't need a 'study' to figure out what global % of Christians are fundamentalists, you can add up the numbers yourself from the wikepedia page on Christianity denominations - the populations size numbers are all there. Still no study to support your claim. I find not all Christian fundamentalists are also Young Earth Creationists. Some Christian fundamentalists embrace theistic evolution, which posits that God used the process of evolution as a means to create life on Earth. They believe that God guided the evolutionary process to bring about the diversity of life we see today while still affirming their faith in God as the ultimate creator. Similar to theistic evolution, evolutionary creationism asserts that God is the creator of the universe, but it also acknowledges the compatibility of mainstream scientific theories of evolution with Christian beliefs. Advocates of this view often emphasize the idea that science and faith can coexist harmoniously. Progressive Creationism suggests that God created different species in a series of acts of creation over long periods of time, allowing for some degree of evolution within species. Progressive creationists believe in an old Earth but still maintain that God was directly involved in the process of creating life.
|
|
|
Post by cheryl8787 on Oct 8, 2023 18:25:28 GMT -5
xna these non-young earth fundies you are mentioning are a rounding error. Not worth talking about. Do the simple maths, mate. I don't need to do it for you. You are wasting everyone's time.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 8, 2023 19:09:29 GMT -5
xna these non-young earth fundies you are mentioning are a rounding error. Not worth talking about. Do the simple maths, mate. I don't need to do it for you. You are wasting everyone's time. They may be rounding errors, or they could be significant when you are talking a number as low as 5% in the world. Guessing isn't a good way of knowing.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Oct 8, 2023 20:27:29 GMT -5
xna these non-young earth fundies you are mentioning are a rounding error. Not worth talking about. Do the simple maths, mate. I don't need to do it for you. You are wasting everyone's time. They may be rounding errors, or they could be significant when you are talking a number as low as 5% in the world. Guessing isn't a good way of knowing. xna I have sent you a PM 🙂
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Oct 8, 2023 20:33:08 GMT -5
xna here is something you can do before posting links which you think support your conjectures - click on the link and read the article in full carefully. In this particular case with your creationist link, notice which countries are included in the 24 country poll - the world's largest muslim states. Does that sound like a relevant poll to use when determining what % of Christians are fundamentalists?
That's why i said you strawman and red herring. It's pointless to deal with people like this. snow a few days ago posted a link claiming that a Christian vandalized a museum in Israel due to his religious nuttiness, but as snow hadn't actually read the article before posting, she neglected to notice that the vandal was an american jew. It's just embarrassing.
Goodness me cheryl8787 are you serious? I didn't realise we all had to get your authority to post here !
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Oct 8, 2023 22:14:01 GMT -5
Yes, I do. However, Are you aware that not all who self identify as Christians, also say Catholics are NOT Christians or that Mormons are NOT Christians? Good grief! Roman Catholics are extremely Christian. Anglicans, Lutherans, and Orthodox are kissing-cousins of Roman Catholics. Together they are 75% of the world's Christians. They all recite a creed which is nearly identical.
Mormans are not orthodox Christians, they are a divergent sect.
You have some strange ideas, likely the result of your 2x2 background.
Thank goodness for the Geneva Bible which corrected some of the corruption of Latin Vulgate Bible. Seems like that had come mostly from Catholicism.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Oct 8, 2023 22:30:20 GMT -5
I'm in this 2nd group but see a difference, but perhaps it's not much of a distinction for some. I once thought, and still do, that 2x2ism is representative of Christianity. However with more life experience I have come to better appreciate and understand there is a lot of variation in denominations that represent themselves as Christians. From past threads here I learned that there is no one thing that all Christians can agree on. Even within a denomination there is disagreement, and even within any one church there will be disagreement. Religious "Truth" has not been shown to be "demonstrably true". You are always required to take a leap of faith. In science a truth claim is provisional, a thing is believed to be true for as long as it can not be shown to be false. I find science is the best way of knowing vs. religion. The default position in science and logic is always disbelief. Science does not require a belief for a thing to be true. A thing can be true regardless of what you believe. The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim. Relying on this approach has brought humanity from the stone age to the modern age. Today when someone identifies as a Christian, I no longer assume I know what they believe. However by asking a few questions I can get in their neighborhood. By definition each denomination is a unique variation of Christianity. The 2x2 proposition of Christianity has as much credibility as many other denominations. Even the problems with CSA and SA are not unique to the 2x2. Lying about the origins is also not unique to the 2x2. I can't think of any one 2x2 theological element that can not also be found in another denomination. They just have their own special mix that is what they repeatedly assert as the one and only true recipe, like everyone else. Religious truth has not been shown to be demonstrably true, and there is disagreement between denomination about what is true; as the wise saying goes; they all can't be right, but they all could be wrong. There are other denominations which if I had got involved with instead of the 2x2, I probably would have remained and not started to question and study religion. However the 2x2 caused me to become skeptical about the "truth" claims of all religions. What I discovered was they all were just the ideas of men, and not of any divine intervention. So for me the argument goes more like; 2x2 has not been shown to be demonstrably true other Christian religions have not been shown to be demonstrably true other non Christian religions have not been shown to be demonstrably true It's possible religions may be true, but so far, none have been shown to be demonstrably true.
“Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true, but many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence.” ― Thomas Sowell
"The bible's claim for the age of the universe is not supported by evidence, so that claim fails the "demonstrably true" test." As maryhig pointed out, the bible makes no such claim. "In the beginning" has no time or date reference .
I understand your point about the differences in denominations, but most all Christians do agree on the basic tenets of Christianity; 1. Christ is the Son of God. 2. He came for the remission of sin. 3. He is the only way to salvation. 4. His sacrifice and resurrection. 5. He's coming back in judgement.. Believing these fundamentals makes you a Christian. Sure, scripture lawyers disagree on details, but the basic faith is not convoluted.
If a scientific claim (hypothesis/theory) is provisional and should be accepted as a truth until proven false, why not apply that same standard to Christ? No one has proven him false!
My point is that the Truth is not a religion, there's one path to salvation and its not a church.
And I'd assert that despite Thomas Sowell opinion, there is as much subjective evidence to support biblical truth as there is for many scientific theories. Belief is required no matter what direction one decides to go.
I agree with this, although the way I see your points are a bit differently to you I think, as I see some of it spiritually and not all literally. But yes I agree.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Oct 8, 2023 22:32:57 GMT -5
What age does the Bible say the age of the universe is? And where is it in the Bible? Thank you Young Earth Creationists typically use a literal interpretation of the Bible, particularly the genealogies and creation accounts in the book of Genesis, to establish their belief in a young Earth. They calculate the age of the Earth by tracing the genealogies listed in the Bible, which they believe provide a chronological timeline from the creation of Adam and Eve to the present day. Based on this interpretation, they commonly assert that the Earth is around 6,000 to 10,000 years old. One of the most well-known Young Earth Creationists who attempted to calculate the age of the Earth based on a literal interpretation of the Bible was James Ussher, an Irish archbishop and scholar. In the 17th century, Ussher famously calculated the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years old. His work, "Annals of the World," published in the early 17th century, is often cited as a significant influence on the belief in a young Earth among some religious groups. However, it's important to emphasize that Ussher's calculations are not scientifically accepted today. Whereas mainstream science, which relies on extensive evidence from various fields such as geology, astronomy, and radiometric dating to estimate the Earth's age as approximately 4.5 billion years. I have never seen anywhere in the Bible that the earth is 6000 years old. The geneologies don't mean that. I believe that the earth is millions of years old and I still believe that God created it.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Oct 8, 2023 22:37:26 GMT -5
"The bible's claim for the age of the universe is not supported by evidence, so that claim fails the "demonstrably true" test." As maryhig pointed out, the bible makes no such claim. "In the beginning" has no time or date reference . Not all Christian believe in a young earth creation, but about 1/3 do. I understand your point about the differences in denominations, but most all Christians do agree on the basic tenets of Christianity; "most" is not all. Can you name one tenet "all" Christians agree on? If a scientific claim (hypothesis/theory) is provisional and should be accepted as a truth until proven false, why not apply that same standard to Christ? No one has proven him false! The Christ as described in the bible has not been proven to be demonstrably true. What we have is a story. Some said the Shroud of Turin was evidence but that turned out to be a fake. My point is that the Truth is not a religion, there's one path to salvation and its not a church. That is a belief. And I'd assert that despite Thomas Sowell opinion, there is as much subjective evidence to support biblical truth as there is for many scientific theories. Belief is required no matter what direction one decides to go.
You are expressing your personal subjective belief. Subjective belief refers to information or data that is based on personal opinions, interpretations, beliefs, feelings, or experiences, rather than being rooted in objective and verifiable facts. This type of evidence is inherently influenced by an individual's perspective, emotions, and biases, and it may not be consistent or reliable when assessed by others. Belief, in the sense of personal faith or conviction, is not required to prove a scientific theory. This is the general process for developing and testing a scientific theory. Hypothesis Formation: Scientists formulate hypotheses based on observations, previous research, and existing knowledge. These hypotheses are educated guesses about how certain phenomena in the natural world work. Experimentation and Observation: Experiments and observations are conducted to collect empirical data. These experiments are designed to test the predictions made by the hypothesis. The data collected should be objective and replicable. Data Analysis: The collected data is analyzed using statistical and analytical techniques to identify patterns, relationships, and trends. Peer Review: Scientists submit their research and findings to peer-reviewed journals. Experts in the field review the work for its methodology, data analysis, and conclusions. This step ensures that the research is subjected to critical scrutiny by the scientific community. Reproducibility: Scientific results should be reproducible. Other researchers should be able to conduct similar experiments and obtain similar results, independently verifying the findings. Consensus Building: Over time, as more evidence accumulates and more researchers independently confirm the results, a scientific theory may emerge. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is based on a body of evidence. Revision and Refinement: Scientific theories are subject to revision and refinement as new evidence emerges or as the understanding of a phenomenon deepens. They are not set in stone but adapt to the best available evidence. In the scientific process, personal beliefs and convictions are generally considered irrelevant. Scientists strive for objectivity and rely on empirical evidence and critical thinking to support or refute hypotheses and theories. The strength of scientific theories lies in their ability to make accurate predictions and explain natural phenomena based on empirical evidence, rather than personal beliefs or faith. I can prove that the shroud of Turin is fake right now, from the Bible! The turin shroud comes in one piece, but it says in the Bible that the head of Jesus was covered separately to his body. John 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, 20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Oct 8, 2023 22:40:31 GMT -5
I don't think one's perspective and worldview comes into play in determining if a thing is "demonstrably true". I understand "demonstrably true," to mean that there is substantial and verifiable evidence or proof available to support the assertion, making it beyond a reasonable doubt. When a claim is "demonstrably true" the assertion is not a matter of opinion or belief, but is firmly grounded in factual, observable, or provable information. For example; The bible's claim for the age of the universe is not supported by evidence, so that claim fails the "demonstrably true" test. Some that hold a a literal belief in the bible and believe the bible story is true, but this literal belief in the bible story is not sufficient to pass the test of "demonstrably true". I use "demonstrably true" in contrast to "believed to be true". I find people can believe something is true that can not be shown to be "demonstrably true". A thing can be believed by someone to be true from; good reasons, bad reasons, no reasons. Many people hold beliefs that just make them happy. Others want to believe things which are in agreement with observed reality. That's how it's become for me too over the years. Demonstrably true is important for me to decide what I can trust. Beliefs can be comforting only if you can believe them to be true. Once I saw how unlikely it was that what I grown up being taught to be true was, there was no going back. It could no longer bring me comfort because it was no longer 'demonstrably true' for me. I just can't understand how people can't see that nature itself shows us that God is true? It's so complex that there has to be a greater mind behind it all. Taking away all religion, nature itself shows me God is there. I see him everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Oct 8, 2023 22:44:58 GMT -5
That's how it's become for me too over the years. Demonstrably true is important for me to decide what I can trust. Beliefs can be comforting only if you can believe them to be true. Once I saw how unlikely it was that what I grown up being taught to be true was, there was no going back. It could no longer bring me comfort because it was no longer 'demonstrably true' for me. We all hold false beliefs. But I see the main differences as: - Religion is founded on an unchanging dogma. Truth is never changing. The bible says it, I believe it, case closed. - The scientific way still holds gravity "as a theory". The theory of Gravity is subject to revision based on any new evidence. Science is self correcting. Several Christian denominations right now are splitting up because they can't agree based on their subjective beliefs. "More than 6,000 United Methodist congregations — a fifth of the U.S. total — have now received permission to leave the denomination amid a schism over theology and the role of LGBTQ people in the nation’s second-largest Protestant denomination."Nature is never changing though is it? The seed of a tree brings forth a tree, a lion brings forth a lion. And a man and woman beings forth a child and there's no other way to bring forth that child naturally, because that's how God created it to be.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Oct 8, 2023 22:46:38 GMT -5
Not all Christian believe in a young earth creation, but about 1/3 do. Have you actually ever investigated mainstream Christian denominations? Do you realize that 50% of the world's Christians are Roman Catholics and that Roman Catholicism does not subscribe to 'young earth creation' or any other of the literal interpretations of the OT. Add in the Orthodox and other liturgical denominations (Anglican, Lutheran, etc) and that is 75% of the world's Christians, and they all do not believe in this fantasy you are strawmaning them with. Add to that all the non-liturgical non-fundamentalist denominations (Congregationalist, Methodist, etc) and that is more than 95% of the world's Christians, who also do not believe in your strawman conjecture.
The only fools who believe in young earth creation are FUNDAMENTALISTS, and they are mostly found in the USA.
2x2s are a sub-group of Fundamentalists, hence the Original Post.
Good grief, you folks just want to puke out any brain fart you have without actually reading the purpose of the thread.
It doesn't matter how many of the worlds "Christians" are Catholic, it's still a false religion with a false head governing it, and it has a false foundation!
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Oct 8, 2023 22:55:03 GMT -5
Have you actually ever investigated mainstream Christian denominations? Yes. I was the first and last outsider to profess in my family. Prior to that I was a member of a mainstream Christian denomination. The same is true for my wife. Do you realize that 50% of the world's Christians are Roman Catholics and that Roman Catholicism does not subscribe to 'young earth creation' or any other of the literal interpretations of the OT. .. more than 95% of the world's Christians, who also do not believe in your strawman conjecture. The only fools who believe in young earth creation are FUNDAMENTALISTS, and they are mostly found in the USA. At little harsh aren't you... -0) Can you provide data showing 5% of the worlds Christians are young earth creationist? I find different numbers. The figure I used was 30%-40% in America believe in Creationism, and worldwide it's 28%. see data source below. news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspxncse.ngo/polling-creationism-and-evolution-around-world#:~:text=A%20new%20poll%20conducted%20by,Ipsos%20on%20April%2025%2C%202011. I'm not Christian, not the way they believe anyway! Jesus wasn't Christian he was a Jew! And a true Jew is one inwardly not outwardly! I follow Christ, but I'm not a Christian in the sense that they believe that Jesus is God and that he was a human sacrifice to God, which would mean he was a sacrifice to himself!!! And human sacrifice is an abomination before the living God! That's the whole foundation that their beliefs are set on, and they aren't my beliefs!
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Oct 8, 2023 23:04:06 GMT -5
xna , you are very good at red herrings and misrepresentation. You do not converse in good faith discussion. It's pointless to talk to such a person. michelgodts.art/e/fertility-witch-doctorHere's a pic of one of the many gods that humans have imagined. There are countless more to choose from. Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: The way you see God is through his true followers and through creation. God is Spirit not a man but his Spirit is in and through man, men and women that live by his will.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Oct 8, 2023 23:08:00 GMT -5
xna you don't need a 'study' to figure out what global % of Christians are fundamentalists, you can add up the numbers yourself from the wikepedia page on Christianity denominations - the populations size numbers are all there. Still no study to support your claim. I find not all Christian fundamentalists are also Young Earth Creationists. Some Christian fundamentalists embrace theistic evolution, which posits that God used the process of evolution as a means to create life on Earth. They believe that God guided the evolutionary process to bring about the diversity of life we see today while still affirming their faith in God as the ultimate creator. Similar to theistic evolution, evolutionary creationism asserts that God is the creator of the universe, but it also acknowledges the compatibility of mainstream scientific theories of evolution with Christian beliefs. Advocates of this view often emphasize the idea that science and faith can coexist harmoniously. Progressive Creationism suggests that God created different species in a series of acts of creation over long periods of time, allowing for some degree of evolution within species. Progressive creationists believe in an old Earth but still maintain that God was directly involved in the process of creating life. Put it this way, if there was a big bang then God created it. It can't come from nothing. Either way, naturally and spiritually, when God said let there be light, there was light! Big bang or not.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Oct 8, 2023 23:08:47 GMT -5
xna these non-young earth fundies you are mentioning are a rounding error. Not worth talking about. Do the simple maths, mate. I don't need to do it for you. You are wasting everyone's time. Are you for real? Show me in the Bible where it says the world is 6000 years old? By the way, your attitude towards people is awful! You're enough to turn people away from God not bring them to him! It seems almost everyone is not worth talking to to you? Unless we are Catholic maybe?
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Oct 8, 2023 23:11:40 GMT -5
Good grief! Roman Catholics are extremely Christian. Anglicans, Lutherans, and Orthodox are kissing-cousins of Roman Catholics. Together they are 75% of the world's Christians. They all recite a creed which is nearly identical.
Mormans are not orthodox Christians, they are a divergent sect.
You have some strange ideas, likely the result of your 2x2 background.
Thank goodness for the Geneva Bible which corrected some of the corruption of Latin Vulgate Bible. Seems like that had come mostly from Catholicism. I've never heard of that Bible, I have the KJV and an English version of the Aramaic but I've never heard of that. Is it very different?
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Oct 8, 2023 23:31:52 GMT -5
"The bible's claim for the age of the universe is not supported by evidence, so that claim fails the "demonstrably true" test." As maryhig pointed out, the bible makes no such claim. "In the beginning" has no time or date reference . Not all Christian believe in a young earth creation, but about 1/3 do. True, I believe that stems from misinterpreting Genesis 1
I understand your point about the differences in denominations, but most all Christians do agree on the basic tenets of Christianity; "most" is not all. Can you name one tenet "all" Christians agree on? I believe I did; "Most all Christians do agree on the basic tenets of Christianity; 1. Christ is the Son of God. 2. He came for the remission of sin. 3. He is the only way to salvation. 4. His sacrifice and resurrection. 5. He's coming back in judgement.
If a scientific claim (hypothesis/theory) is provisional and should be accepted as a truth until proven false, why not apply that same standard to Christ? No one has proven him false! The Christ as described in the bible has not been proven to be demonstrably true. What we have is a story. Some said the Shroud of Turin was evidence but that turned out to be a fake. True, you can't literally demonstrate that an ancient figure in history truly existed, but the life of Christ was witnessed and recorded.
My point is that the Truth is not a religion, there's one path to salvation and its not a church. That is a belief. Also true, the entire bible is taken by belief. And I'd assert that despite Thomas Sowell opinion, there is as much subjective evidence to support biblical truth as there is for many scientific theories. Belief is required no matter what direction one decides to go.
You are expressing your personal subjective belief. TrueSubjective belief refers to information or data that is based on personal opinions, interpretations, beliefs, feelings, or experiences, rather than being rooted in objective and verifiable facts. This type of evidence is inherently influenced by an individual's perspective, emotions, and biases, and it may not be consistent or reliable when assessed by other. Belief, in the sense of personal faith or conviction, is not required to prove a scientific theory. This is the general process for developing and testing a scientific theory. There is evidence of certain truths recorded in the bible. There is historical evidence that many of the characters existed, including Caiaphas & Pilate. Archaeological excavations have proven that most of the cities and sights also existed. Most convincingly to me is the prophetic evidence. So while its accepted by faith, its not blind faith.
In the scientific process, personal beliefs and convictions are generally considered irrelevant. Scientists strive for objectivity and rely on empirical evidence and critical thinking to support or refute hypotheses and theories. The strength of scientific theories lies in their ability to make accurate predictions and explain natural phenomena based on empirical evidence, rather than personal beliefs or faith. Science can only observe what's physical, if one is content that nothing else exist, that might suffice. The bible addresses the spiritual aspect, science is blind to that. My point is that no testimony, witness, or evidence will persuade a person who has chosen not to believe. Christians hold the bible to be self-evident, so we perceive it to be the truth. I'd agree that there is no such thing as objective evidence, but just as a juror is persuaded by the testimony of witnesses in a trial, Christians are likewise convinced by the record of biblical witnesses. Truthful testimony is subjective evidence, no matter how you frame it.
|
|