O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in school

[TX-Beau]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

Don't talk about other people when responding to my posts, please.

You can have any definition of faith you want, but that one isn't mine, and it isn't the Bible's.

"I believe it because I have faith" is a very foolish statement; it's equivalent to saying "I'm sweating because there's moisture coming out my pores".



Of course science doesn't -- it has nothing to say about religion. But most of the "pro-science" people in this thread don't really believe that.



This is supposed to surprise me or something???




Well, when they start using electronic and sonic monitoring devices to try to pin down Santa's appearances, I'll think about conceding that you have a parallel.



Now you're imposing science on religion again.



And yet again....

We're in whatever territory here. Though I have to ask, can you point me to the "scientists" trying to find a soul?

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

Yes exactly, that's what I find antiquated about the bible.

That's what I thought.

Riiight. Of course how many books of the bible (New and Old Testament) were banned and not allowed in the "official canon"?

None.

So are you saying that men of 40 to 100 AD had "caught up to the ethics of the Old Testament" so that a New Testament could be given to them? If not, why would you make such a ridiculous statement?

I didn't say anything about them.

Do you bother reading your own words when someone responds to them? I was refuting your point!

 

[FirmaFan]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

I got to thinking about Dr. Miller's statement that there's lots of evidence for a Designer.

There is not lots of evidence for a designer. There are lots of things that can be observed that human logic will equate with being designed, but there is no actual empirical evidence for a designer. Ken Miller is an incredibly smart person, but does have religious convictions that he attempts to reconcile with his scientific knowledge by saying that god (the "designer") created the universe as it is observed today, with evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang, etc, all being part of the designed universe. He has no actual evidence for a designer, and his "designer", being a roman catholic, I would assume, is the judeo-christian god, but the same arguments can be made for the muslim god or the hindu god being the designer as well, which amounts to nothing but an arbitrary argument for a designer based entirely on religious convictions, which, more often than not, are simply the product of the popular religion within the region of birth and the religion of their parents. Any evidence for a designer is purely a result of (false) deductive logic, and says nothing about what the designer is or if one even exists.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

Wanna try again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_from_the_Bible

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Amazon.com: The Other Bible: Willis Barnstone: Books

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/01/banned-from-bible.html

Need I go on?

Very nice reading.

All irrelevant -- go read your own post.

Spin all you want bro, but you claimed that man had not lived up to the other "laws" yet of the bible, so therefore didn't need yet another "New New Testament". My point was to call out that mankind back in 40 to 100 AD hadn't lived up to the Old Testament either, but that didn't stop the "Christians" from coming out with yet another set of laws, therefore why would that all of a sudden be of import now?

You were basically maintaining that the Bible was outdated. I was pointing out that not only isn't it outdated, but people in general have yet to reach the level of the first section.

BTW, "Christians" didn't "come out with yet another set of laws". The New Testament isn't about laws, at all.
I thought you said you'd read it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

I got to thinking about Dr. Miller's statement that there's lots of evidence for a Designer.

I'd like to see his list.

Most such material tends to boil down to Milo's declaration in Bloom County, to the effect that the universe is just a little too orderly to be an accident. The first people I met who were into Intelligent Design came that route, from different disciplines. But as FirmaFan notes, that doesn't lead to any particular claimant to the title of Creator of all.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: O'Reilly shows us we can't have religion in sc

When did 1st century mankind "reach the maturity of the first section"? Yet that didn't stop them from creating a 2nd section now did it? Why would that preclude 21st century man from creating a 3rd section? Oh... it doesn't does it?

Really, so Jesus didn't say he gave two laws to follow? Are you denying that? Or are you claiming that the 2nd section either added to, deleted, or invalidated various laws or portions of the 1st (Old Testament) section? It's hilarious to watch you spin trying to use semantics to escape your always inevitable conundrum given your Jesus preaching bro.

You're repeating yourself, and showing your ignorance -- and inability to pay attention to the material in these posts. I'm not going to repeat myself for you, except for this:

the entire point of the Old Testament -- the "first section" -- was to prepare for the New. The only function of the Law and prophets were to guide and shape the people of Israel, and the only function of that people was to bring forth the Messiah, Son of God, God the Son.

After the Son, there's nothing else that can be added, so there can be no new section.

And there's no conundrum -- I've explained that, yet you refuse to see.