Anti-Semitism In France!

[anonemouse 1]

Dr. Neumaier also says this:

St. Augustine, the greatest European thinker of his time, knows how much the foolish illusion of immature Christians - who suppose they know the truth after having read a few books by some `authority' - does damage to the Christian truth. He writes:

``If they [the infidel] find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?''

This is Christian tradition; if some Christians don't take that advice it is not the fault of the bible, but of these Christians' shallowness. And that Christian leaders don't dare to fight this shallowness as Jesus, Moses, Paul and Augustine did is a sign of weakness, caused by fear of science and a complete lack of awareness of the damage they do to their own cause.

Emphasis mine.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Admittedly, I am not a trained scientiest so I am not equiped to argue evolution at that level, but as I mentioned, I believe and accept the work of others scientiests that have the knowledge and come to a different conclusion that you do.

As far as the Christian scientiests that accept creation and evolution, from what I have read and understand, they accept evolution as far as acknowledging the species changes according to enviroment and need. What they do not accept is that one species evolves into another entirely different species, such as an ape becoming a human.

You get upset that I challenge you in your area of expertise, and yet you challange me in mine - the Bible! So how is that different?? Mayby looking at it from that viewpoint you can understand why I also get upset!!

[Ron Cusano 0]

First, I am not an immature Christian by any stretch of the imagination. Christianity fully accepts science in many areas, but when it comes to conclusions that are in direct opposition to scriptural truth, we reject them unless the findings are indisputable. That is not the case with evolution or the "big band theory"! As I mantioned earlier, and which you cannot dispute, what science says is absolute truth today, can be something entirely different tommorow!

Dr. Neumaier also says this:Emphasis mine.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Christianity fully accepts science in many areas, but when it comes to conclusions that are in direct opposition to scriptural truth, we reject them unless the findings are indisputable.

George W. BuSh seems to believe in science when it comes to developing new weapons, but not much else.

For centuries, the worlds best scientists insisted the world was flat. That was a scientific truth! Opps, now it isn't. FYI - the Bible let us knbow the world was round rather that flat, centuries before the concept was even conceived by scientists. Your source of "truth" is science that changes constantly. Mine is the Word of God that never changes!

Didn't Christians kill or exile people for saying the world was not flat many years ago?

[anonemouse 1]

You get upset that I challenge you in your area of expertise, and yet you challange me in mine - the Bible! So how is that different?? Mayby looking at it from that viewpoint you can understand why I also get upset!!

The difference is that the Bible is, in some ways, subjective. There are different ways to interpret what it says, I think you know that. Otherwise, why are there so many Christian sects that believe differently, when they all study the Bible? I don't fight you on scripture. You know the scripture. I've simply stated that your inference of the messages in the Bible may not be the only one.

Science is competely different. To say that we shouldn't follow science just because it changes is a cop-out used by those who find certain scientific theories that they don't agree with. Do you beleive in gravity? Do you believe in the law of motion? If you don't, you better not get into that car of yours that was built by science.

You don't believe in evolution because you don't like what it means about your faith if scientists are right. Not because there is a lack of evidence. No one chooses to believe in creationism over evolution because of a preponderance of scientific evidence. They choose to believe in creationism, because they choose to.

[anonemouse 1]

Admittedly, I am not a trained scientiest so I am not equiped to argue evolution at that level, but as I mentioned, I believe and accept the work of others scientiests that have the knowledge and come to a different conclusion that you do.

Ron, I wouldn't go around admitting that you know not of what you speak. Passively accepting scientists is what gets people into trouble, on both sides. That is the difference between you and me. I have done my homework. I've researched both sides of the argument. I know what evidence both sides cite, and the explanations they use to back up their theories. You, on the other hand, have just found a couple of scientists that spout the theory you like and left it at that. You haven't bothered to examine the other side of the equation. I'm sorry if it makes you mad, but your uneducated opinion is less than bunk to me. Before you start yelling (again), I don't call it uneducated because you are not a scientist. I call it uneducated because you are willfully ignorant of the other side of the argument. You don't have to have a degree in something to be able to discuss it intelligently. If you want evidence of that, scrounge up the evolution thread where I discussed the theory with Gadgetlady. Gadgetlady isn't a scientist, but she's had the forethought to research and actually know the argument and evidence of the other side before she came to her conclusion. Her opinion, I respect, simply because she has researched it.

[anonemouse 1]

First, I am not an immature Christian by any stretch of the imagination.

So, wait. You like what he says (I assume, since you were the one that posted the link) when you think he is agreeing with you, but he's wrong all of a sudden when he says something you don't like? Methinks you should do your research, Ron, and stop posting links to material that you haven't read (as evidenced by this link and the two racist links).

Yes, Google is your friend, but you have a responsibility to actually look at the source before you post it (or at least, you should).

[Ron Cusano 0]

He believes it it for many other reasons as well, so what is your point??

George W. BuSh seems to believe in science when it comes to developing new weapons, but not much else.

Not that I have ever heard of! On what authority did you get thet information? It it happens to be true, which I doubt, it certainly was wrong.

Didn't Christians kill or exile people for saying the world was not flat many years ago?

[Ron Cusano 0]

I have looked at research on then other side, and admittedily find arguments, of a detailed scientific nature, from either side, hard to comprehend. Therefore I gravitate toward the scientists that have opinions and findings consistant with the Word of God. We are not talking about mearly a few crackpots, as you like to make them out to be, but quite a few respected authorities, and more constantly jumping aboard the bandwagon.

I also don't know all the scientific details about medical science, and I have never went to medical school. There are a lot of different opinions and methods of treatment out there, that is why I do to a doctor who I trust. Chiropractors swear by their scientific understanding of disease and treatment, which differs from that of MD's. The same can be said of homeopaths, herbalists, , etc. There is a lot of conflicting science and schools of thought, especially with evolution. Everyone thinks they are right.

At least I am honest enough to admit when I don't know something. You attempt to challange things of a scriptural nature when you are completely clueless. Now, that is really "bunk" to me!

Ron, I wouldn't go around admitting that you know not of what you speak. Passively accepting scientists is what gets people into trouble, on both sides. That is the difference between you and me. I have done my homework. I've researched both sides of the argument. I know what evidence both sides cite, and the explanations they use to back up their theories. You, on the other hand, have just found a couple of scientists that spout the theory you like and left it at that. You haven't bothered to examine the other side of the equation. I'm sorry if it makes you mad, but your uneducated opinion is less than bunk to me. Before you start yelling (again), I don't call it uneducated because you are not a scientist. I call it uneducated because you are willfully ignorant of the other side of the argument. You don't have to have a degree in something to be able to discuss it intelligently. If you want evidence of that, scrounge up the evolution thread where I discussed the theory with Gadgetlady. Gadgetlady isn't a scientist, but she's had the forethought to research and actually know the argument and evidence of the other side before she came to her conclusion. Her opinion, I respect, simply because she has researched it.

[anonemouse 1]

At least I am honest enough to admit when I don't know something. You attempt to challange things of a scriptural nature when you are completely clueless. Now, that is really "bunk" to me!

No, I don't challenge your knowledge of scripture. How many times can I say it? Do I have to spell it out for you yet again? I DO NOT CHALLENGE YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF SCRIPTURE! I have said it again and again. I do, however, challenge your interpretation of the message they contain. I am not the only person here that does that. Many of the Christians that have posted to this thread also challenged your interpretation. When you get so many people challenging your interpretation, I would consider the possibility that you are wrong!

[Ron Cusano 0]

There is only two people that I can recall who claim to be Christians that have a problem with how I understand scripture. One who is apparently from a very liberal demonination that does not accept the Bible literally, and the other who professes to be a Conservative Christian but does not have the conviction to stand behind his supposed views, but flip-flops back and forth because he doesn't want to "argue". I know you find that admirable, but I find it a major cop-out and wimpish!

There are one or two others who had a problem with what the preceived as my "attitude" and while I may disagree with them, it had nothing to do with interpretation .

By beliefs are not based upon MY interpretation, since I believe the Bible interprets itself. In face the scriptures say that the Bible "is not open to any private interpretation"! If you accept that the Bible is to be taken literally, then the subject changes fron one of interpretation to one of "What does the Bible say", and "what is the context in which it is being said". If you want to challange my understanding of what the Bible means, then you need to support it with the BIBLE, not ideas, feelings and opinions.

No, I don't challenge your knowledge of scripture. How many times can I say it? Do I have to spell it out for you yet again? I DO NOT CHALLENGE YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF SCRIPTURE! I have said it again and again. I do, however, challenge your interpretation of the message they contain. I am not the only person here that does that. Many of the Christians that have posted to this thread also challenged your interpretation. When you get so many people challenging your interpretation, I would consider the possibility that you are wrong!

[anonemouse 1]

If you want to challange my understanding of what the Bible means, then you need to support it with the BIBLE, not ideas, feelings and opinions.

And if you want to challenge evolution, you need to support it with scientific evidence, not the Bible, not ideas, not feelings or opinions.

So can we come to an agreement? I will not question your interpretation of the Bible, as long as you don't try to question evolutionary theory without having supporting scientific evidence. Otherwise, we are at an impasse.

[Ron Cusano 0]

That works for me! And it goes without saying, that I don't believe your take on evolution, and you don't believe my take of the Bible!

And if you want to challenge evolution, you need to support it with scientific evidence, not the Bible, not ideas, not feelings or opinions.

So can we come to an agreement? I will not question your interpretation of the Bible, as long as you don't try to question evolutionary theory without having supporting scientific evidence. Otherwise, we are at an impasse.

[anonemouse 1]

That works for me! And it goes without saying, that I don't believe your take on evolution, and you don't believe my take of the Bible!

Yep! We agree!

[Ron Cusano 0]

PS - If you think about it, this leads right back to when we started this thread, when I asked you how you came to the belief that there was no God and what you had based that belief on.