Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where Science And The Bible Meet
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 181 of 208 (507658)
05-07-2009 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Rahvin
05-06-2009 12:16 PM


Re: Magical life-force
Rahvin writes:
There is no magic wishy-washy "life force," in the blood or otherwise. This is a decidedly primitive view of life taken from a culture with only the most basic understanding of life and the human body.
and yet they had far more advanced hygiene and disease control practices then we learnt after hundreds of years of scientific achievement

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Rahvin, posted 05-06-2009 12:16 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Peepul, posted 05-07-2009 7:44 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 182 of 208 (507660)
05-07-2009 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Peg
05-07-2009 6:51 AM


Re: Magical life-force
and yet they had far more advanced hygiene and disease control practices then we learnt after hundreds of years of scientific achievement
leprosy for example?
Edited by Peepul, : added quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Peg, posted 05-07-2009 6:51 AM Peg has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 183 of 208 (507665)
05-07-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Peg
05-07-2009 6:47 AM


Re: Re-Science and Bible
Peg writes:
Im sure not everyone died due to blood loss. People who where hung or stoned or drowned did not die due to blood loss.
You obviously have never seen someone ACTUALLY hung or stoned. It is always a bloody mess.
Peg writes:
So i dont think you could say thats why the bible writers wrote that 'life is in the blood'
there must have been more too it then that.
The only reason you think there "must be more to it than that" is because you want to attribute knowledge to a civilization that pre-dates (by millenia) the knowledge you are trying to attribute to it.
Peg writes:
The bible view is that blood is sacred to God. Can you prove otherwise?
Trying to change the subject again are we? Everyone agrees that the Bible claims blood to be sacred to god. The only problem is, that isn't the particular claim the Bible makes about blood that you cited.
You have clearly stated in multiple posts a position that endorses ICANT's claim of:
ICANT writes:
But what does that have to do with the Bible statement that the life of the flesh is in the blood.
This claim has been thoroughly refuted. Rather than owning up to the fact that you were indeed wrong, you have attempted several times to slither out of it through attempting to change the subject. You can't shake me Peg, I pay attention quite well.
Peg writes:
btw, you need to lighten up
I have executed objective discourse with you no differently than I would with a friend positing new ideas. I have created a reputation for my hardball tactics in discussion. I expect no more from you, than I expect of myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Peg, posted 05-07-2009 6:47 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Peg, posted 05-08-2009 12:18 AM Michamus has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 184 of 208 (507771)
05-08-2009 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Michamus
05-07-2009 8:50 AM


Re: Re-Science and Bible
Michamus writes:
I have created a reputation for my hardball tactics in discussion. I expect no more from you
im sorry, im not that hard ball
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Michamus, posted 05-07-2009 8:50 AM Michamus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Son, posted 05-08-2009 1:54 AM Peg has not replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 185 of 208 (507781)
05-08-2009 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Peg
05-08-2009 12:18 AM


Re: Re-Science and Bible
But wouldn't it be nice if you actually answered the post? No need to be hard ball for that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Peg, posted 05-08-2009 12:18 AM Peg has not replied

  
Asteragros
Member (Idle past 3399 days)
Posts: 40
From: Modena, Italy
Joined: 01-11-2002


Message 186 of 208 (507797)
05-08-2009 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by bluescat48
05-06-2009 6:10 PM


Re: Magical life-force
We’ve going on different tracks. You are right if the Bible would be a book like any other books. I’m convinced that if a person takes up a deep search he will find that the Bible is a book from a divine origin, although writed by men. Granted, the writers’ environments, cultures, life experiences, etc. could be reflected in their scripts, but the concepts contained in these cultural frames are fruits of God’s wisdom. Sure, I’m speaking from a believer standpoint. We would to confront the proofs that the Bible has an divine origin. And I am disposable to confront with anyone who wants to start this search. But, all the same, my points is that the manner we consider the Bible (if by human origin or by divine one) compels our dialogue tracks to change. You say: Throughout the civilized history of humans each succeeding era has thrown out archaic ideas or modified others. As long as this occurred civilization advances. This positivist concepts are not sustained by the today knowledge of the world. For example, the scientists until now don’t comprehend the building techniques for a lot of megalithic buildings date back to 4 or more millenniums ago. Or, how people belonging to pre-Columbian civilizations did could perform successful brain surgery operations without our present medical acquaintances. The real problem is another. Inside the believers ensemble there’s differences. Often, they are arrived to believe in God on different ways. For peoples that have a greater (or different, simply) level of spiritual sensitivity it is enough to feel the presence of God. Other men, like me in the past, have need to dig deep in the world phenomena to find the traces of God in our physical world. So, if a first-type person try to persuade (in a positive connotation of the term) a second-type person the attempt will be surely unsuccessful, and vice versa. Each one of this type-persons are to tackle dialogue inside our own track. Differently, they get nowhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by bluescat48, posted 05-06-2009 6:10 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Michamus, posted 05-08-2009 7:23 AM Asteragros has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 187 of 208 (507799)
05-08-2009 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Asteragros
05-08-2009 4:45 AM


Re: Magical life-force
Asteragros writes:
This positivist concepts are not sustained by the today knowledge of the world. For example, the scientists until now don’t comprehend the building techniques for a lot of megalithic buildings date back to 4 or more millenniums ago. Or, how people belonging to pre-Columbian civilizations did could perform successful brain surgery operations without our present medical acquaintances.
Why would this necessitate the Christian god... or even any god at all? Would an advanced alien civilization not be enough of a "what if" example?
Why do you feel the need to make the leap from "Wow, that is interesting, and I have no idea why that would be" to "therefor, MY god must have been the reason"
Asteragros writes:
I’m convinced that if a person takes up a deep search he will find that the Bible is a book from a divine origin, although writed by men.
So then, you think that god spoke to these people (prophets), and then they wrote down what they thought he said or meant?
This would be a reasonable explanation for the inaccuracies throughout the Bible on various topics from breeding to basic mathematics.
Asteragros writes:
Other men, like me in the past, have need to dig deep in the world phenomena to find the traces of God in our physical world.
Why the need to dig deep? Most of the time I hear (or read) an individual state that one needs to dig deep, it usually means that the person needs to disregard hard science in favor of "what ifs" and "mysteries to science". I rarely see these individuals actually posit any usable theory that can be utilized on a functional level.
Asteragros writes:
So, if a first-type person try to persuade (in a positive connotation of the term) a second-type person the attempt will be surely unsuccessful, and vice versa. Each one of this type-persons are to tackle dialogue inside our own track. Differently, they get nowhere.
I really have no idea what you are getting at with this. I have a feeling it is simply being lost in writing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Asteragros, posted 05-08-2009 4:45 AM Asteragros has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Theodoric, posted 05-08-2009 9:08 AM Michamus has replied
 Message 191 by Asteragros, posted 05-08-2009 4:05 PM Michamus has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 188 of 208 (507816)
05-08-2009 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Michamus
05-08-2009 7:23 AM


Re: Magical life-force
Asteragros writes:
So, if a first-type person try to persuade (in a positive connotation of the term) a second-type person the attempt will be surely unsuccessful, and vice versa. Each one of this type-persons are to tackle dialogue inside our own track. Differently, they get nowhere.
I really have no idea what you are getting at with this. I have a feeling it is simply being lost in writing.
No. It is just christianist mumbo-jumbo.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Michamus, posted 05-08-2009 7:23 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Michamus, posted 05-08-2009 2:02 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 189 of 208 (507844)
05-08-2009 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Peg
05-07-2009 6:47 AM


Re: Re-Science and Bible
quote:
Im sure not everyone died due to blood loss.
Honey, they didn't go to the store for steaks. They killed their meat.
How do you think they figured out the quickest way to kill for sacrifices? Stop being dense.
For rituals though blood has a better Wow factor. We can splatter, drink, boil, collect and bath in blood. Blood is readily available when a contract needs to be signed. In case you don't understand that, it means they cut themselves to provide the blood.
Remember blood can also be considered unclean. A woman's monthly flow, or blood from unclean animals.
Drowning and strangulation, not as dramatic. Can't do much with oxygen in a ritual.
We don't disagree that the ancients understood that loss of blood could kill, but we don't agree that the ancients understood what we understand about blood today. That doesn't negate what they did know. We build our knowledge on the knowledge of the past. First we know that blood loss can lead to death and later we understand why it can lead to death and how to stop it in some cases.
I suggest you put this blood issue to bed and come up with a new example of where science and the bible meet.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Peg, posted 05-07-2009 6:47 AM Peg has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 190 of 208 (507857)
05-08-2009 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Theodoric
05-08-2009 9:08 AM


Re: Magical life-force
Theodoric writes:
No. It is just christianist mumbo-jumbo.
More than likely you are correct. I at least wanted to give the guy an opportunity to rephrase what he was saying. I agree that it more than likely would be no more successful than his prior attempt, judging by his inability to utilize the English language in a professional, or technical manner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Theodoric, posted 05-08-2009 9:08 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Asteragros
Member (Idle past 3399 days)
Posts: 40
From: Modena, Italy
Joined: 01-11-2002


Message 191 of 208 (507887)
05-08-2009 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Michamus
05-08-2009 7:23 AM


First of all, I apologize for my wobbly English, like Michamus has rightly pick out. Nevertheless, I hope that the concepts I express arrive at destination, at least. It is always more difficult explain our complex ideas to others inside the forumses, when the thoughts tend themselves to crowd.
a) My message (#186) to BlueScat48 was an objection to the idea that the ancient peoples were, by definition, more regressed (using his own terminology) respect to us. In other world, by analogy, we would be, as regards the knowledge of the universe phenomena, compared to the ancient peoples, like graduates compared to those attending the primary school.
Now, it is impossible that some graduates would be unable to explain a fact, a concept, or solve a problem that a primary-school student are able to perform, since the graduates’ knowledge cover also the primary-school student knowledge, necessarily. Now, if the history of man has unwind itself in an evolution-like manner (from simple to complex, from ignorance to expertise, etc.) we should understand all the concepts, techniques, and are able to solve every problem the ancients have yet successful faced, with their technology and know-how.
Unfortunately, we cannot always do this. Also if we, in the future, will be able to do this, we have to be grateful in any case to ancient epochs’ scholars. We have build on their knowledges and ideas.
Isaac Newton once said that he feels himself like a dwarf on the shoulder of giants. If Newton feels himself a dwarf, scholarly speaking, we, in comparison, are welcomed in Lilliput. (I’m joking, obviously).
The point is that humility and the awareness of the our ignorance is the base to the true science. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know (1 Corinthians 8:2, KJV). I’ve not introduce the idea that since we cannot explain those things in past, then God exists; or He can explained this to us. My objective was only this: pinpoint that humankind didn’t get an regular and progressive increase of knowledge. Then, it is better to assume a more humble attitude as regards the ancients peoples, included the persons who received the Bible.
b) As regards innaccuracies of the Bible I’ve had other people tell me that, but no one has ever been able to show me what is actually an inaccuracy (or, a contradiction). Then, I’ve no need to use the argument prophets’-language-style <> God’s-concepts to sustain it.
c) Hard science? What is it? What you believe is hard science whereas the believing people are using feeble science? I would tell you the same thing, but so we go nowhere. Like Theodoric says: Facts are just facts.
I hope what I’ve wrote hasn’t lost in writing.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Michamus, posted 05-08-2009 7:23 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Michamus, posted 05-08-2009 4:19 PM Asteragros has replied
 Message 193 by AdminNosy, posted 05-08-2009 4:38 PM Asteragros has not replied
 Message 194 by bluescat48, posted 05-08-2009 5:32 PM Asteragros has replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 192 of 208 (507890)
05-08-2009 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Asteragros
05-08-2009 4:05 PM


Asteragros writes:
First of all, I apologize for my wobbly English
No apology is needed. Not many people are able to speak/read/write in more than one language. Heck, even here in the United States, there is a good percentage of people who don't know how to speak/read/write in one language.
Asteragros writes:
Now, if the history of man has unwind itself in an evolution-like manner (from simple to complex, from ignorance to expertise, etc.) we should understand all the concepts, techniques, and are able to solve every problem the ancients have yet successful faced, with their technology and know-how.
This is assuming we have reached the final destination of scientific inquiry. We have not. This however does not invalidate the knowledge we have gained.
Some people regard the ancients as primitives, which may rightly be put, but they are the forerunners to our own knowledge. What knowledge we have gained has been directly a result of the precession of knowledge through generations. This is why I completely agree with your statement:
quote:
Also if we, in the future, will be able to do this, we have to be grateful in any case to ancient epochs’ scholars. We have build on their knowledges and ideas. Isaac Newton once said that he feels himself like a dwarf on the shoulder of giants.
Asteragros writes:
As regards innaccuracies of the Bible I’ve had other people tell me that, but no one has ever been able to show me what is actually an inaccuracy (or, a contradiction).
Well there are numerous inaccuracies that are now known to be patently false.
For instance Genesis makes mention of non-streaked goats looking at streaked rods, which makes them give birth to streaked offspring.
There is also the statement with the molten sea that Pi = 3, when modern mathematics show it to be 3.14(do I really need to go further ).
There are other inconsistencies as well, such as who slayed Goliath, how large the Army of Israel was on a given date, etc.
****
Asteragros writes:
I hope what I’ve wrote hasn’t lost in writing.
Don't worry. It takes a little getting used to, but I think I am getting used to how you write.
Edited by Michamus, : changed from qs to quote for clarity
Edited by Michamus, : Additional quote and response (Below ****)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Asteragros, posted 05-08-2009 4:05 PM Asteragros has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Asteragros, posted 05-09-2009 4:15 AM Michamus has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 193 of 208 (507897)
05-08-2009 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Asteragros
05-08-2009 4:05 PM


Making reading easier
As previously noted. It is, to many of us, darned impressive to be able to speak a second language, even if imperfectly. You do a good job of it.
However, your post would be much more readable if you took a bit of time with the formatting.
If you just add a few extra "Enter"s to mark off paragraphs it would be easier.
I've taken the liberty of editing your post and adding some (but not all) of these that would help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Asteragros, posted 05-08-2009 4:05 PM Asteragros has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 194 of 208 (507899)
05-08-2009 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Asteragros
05-08-2009 4:05 PM


Asteragros writes:
a) My message (#186) to BlueScat48 was an objection to the idea that the ancient peoples were, by definition, more regressed (using his own terminology) respect to us. In other world, by analogy, we would be, as regards the knowledge of the universe phenomena, compared to the ancient peoples, like graduates compared to those attending the primary school.
I think you missed my point.
Me writes:
I would certainly hope that the future humans will consider us as archaic. If not then humans will have regressed
My point is that man must continue to strive for answers and not blindly accept older concepts. I'm not saying that primitive people were any less intelligent than we are today. What I am bringing up is that certain knowledge could not be gained until certain other things were found out. If we stop trying to improve on own own knowledge we will regress.
Edited by bluescat48, : what else spelin

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Asteragros, posted 05-08-2009 4:05 PM Asteragros has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Asteragros, posted 05-09-2009 2:57 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Asteragros
Member (Idle past 3399 days)
Posts: 40
From: Modena, Italy
Joined: 01-11-2002


Message 195 of 208 (507927)
05-09-2009 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by bluescat48
05-08-2009 5:32 PM


I agree with your clarified thought "My point is that man must continue to strive for answers and not blindly accept older concepts."
For completeness, I take the liberty to add only a slight variant of it (I think you agree): Man must continue to strive for answers and not accept older or new concepts unless they are passed through a critical analysis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by bluescat48, posted 05-08-2009 5:32 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024