Existence of Demons (and Angels)

The only claim that I am suggesting is that God is the source of knowledge. Surely He forbids us not to think! I am unconcerned with science except when science is used along with other human wisdom to define a belief. Since science cannot define God, God is never included in the definition. Just as some are concerned when religion is used to define science, I am concerned when man defines reality pertaining to origan.

So, if I understand what you are saying it is true that the Bible does contain some material which contradicts our scientific understanding. However, you assume these examples to be due to the intervention of God or some other supernatural entity that exists in your belief system.

Can you explain how this has any relevance to the post you replied to ? Or did you just click on the wrong button ?

I'm sorry, I just have a lot of trouble following your reasoning. It's a bit on the abstruse side.

quote:

---

The only claim that I am suggesting is that God is the source of knowledge. Surely He forbids us not to think!

---

How does this relate to miracles? What does it mean to say He FORBIDS us not to think? Who ever said we shouldn't think?

quote:

---

I am unconcerned with science except when science is used along with other human wisdom to define a belief. Since science cannot define God, God is never included in the definition. Just as some are concerned when religion is used to define science, I am concerned when man defines reality pertaining to origan.

---

I THINK you are saying that science can be a religion unto itself and is usually set up in opposition to God? Is this what "science is used...to define a belief" means? If so, I agree, but I'm not sure how it relates to the topic.

Oops...yeah you were talking with faith. My reply was "in general".

quote:

---

So, if I understand what you are saying it is true that the Bible does contain some material which contradicts our scientific understanding. However, you assume these examples to be due to the intervention of God or some other supernatural entity that exists in your belief system.

---

If it isn't clearly PRESENTED as science (that is, a practice based on natural law) it can't properly be considered a contradiction to science. I have to agree that the passage you chose is the closest to such a POSSIBLE contradiction, but since no explanation is given of why Jacob did what he did, whether it was the inadequate science of the time, an act of faith or what, there's just no conclusion to be drawn about why it worked.Yes there are certainly contradictions to natural law in the Bible, and most are clearly identified as God's interventions, intended to demonstrate that God really is God. You found one that isn't clearly identified one way or another.

I fail to see how we could expect any clearer presentation form a pre-scientific account like the story of Jacob. It is clearly stated that Jacob and his rods were the causal agents and God is left unmentioned.How can it be in nay way significant that the Bible lacks statements that we could not reasonably expect it to make even if the story, were simply a legend with the same factual basis as other legends ?

quote:

---

I fail to see how we could expect any clearer presentation form a pre-scientific account like the story of Jacob. It is clearly stated that Jacob and his rods were the causal agents and God is left unmentioned.

---

There is no clear conclusion that can be drawn from that fact. God is left unmentioned in the Book of Esther too, but Mordechai and Esther are nevertheless both understood to have been appealing to Him constantly and the entire story is understood to be the working out of His intervention on behalf of His people.

quote:

---

How can it be in nay way significant that the Bible lacks statements that we could not reasonably expect it to make even if the story, were simply a legend with the same factual basis as other legends ?

---

All the Bible is regarded by believers as factually true, so this story is too. This is what makes everything that is included in it and everything that is left out of it significant. You may need to rephrase your question in case I missed your point.

I don't see why you should feel the need to point out your belief in the truth of the story when I carefully phrased my question to respect that belief.The question seems to be quite simple. Since there is no real possibility of finding statements you would consider opposed to our scientific regardless of whose view of the story is correct what is the significance of claiming that there are no such statements ?

It is again unsurprising that you pick and choose among the sciences. You claim historical science to be invalid unless it supports your view, then it becomes magically valid. You are being inconsistent to the point of being hypocritical. You cannot use archaeology to support the Bible and then dismiss other historical sciences without some argument as to why archaeolgy deserves your or anyone's else's special dispensation.ABB

I have never ever ever discounted ANY kind of scientific evidence. What I have done is dispute that EVOLUTIONISM and the GEO TIMEFRAME are scientifically supported.

Oh come on Faith, you with no background or credentials in science whose never even looked at the evidence first hand, reject that evolution and geology are supported by scientific evidence! What an arrogant person you are! What, you think all geologists and biologists are stupid?

might be the antibiotics talking

quote:

---

(not Faith's "witness evidence" either)

---

I don't see why this wouldn't count. We're all friends here right?Evidence is human. You weigh evidence more than I do. We have different scales. I respect your point of you only because your tring to make the best out of our situation but I accept this situation.Everything happens for a reason.Okay here' evidence for u:The simple fact of how things look the way they do, how humans look like humans and leaves look like leaves is evidence for intelligent design.I admit I have been cranky I got sick bad and on on some antibiotics and cough medicine with codine in it.

quote:

---

For one, your idea that your subjective opinion is of any value

---

Every subjective opinion is worth value on the matters of God, you can't believe that because you can't look with out some evidence.In closing:Logic has no place in the discussion of God

You don't get it :/