an attempt to undermine the teaching of science in public schools "They teach distorted science," said Eugenie Scott
What he means is that they teach observation and conclusion skills that disagree with the presupposed answers he has determined are absolute truth. Their scientific method is perfectly valid even tho their conclusions differ from the mainstream scientist's opinions.
"It just seems odd to license an organization to offer a degree in science when they're not teaching science," Mr. Quinn said.
Another guy who clearly has forgotten what the definition of science actually is. And these are the smart guys? :-P
It's a choice between believing a scientist who relys on a book claimed to be provided by a designer (and I agree), and on the other hand a guy claiming he is the product of millions of years of mutations and death and struggling, which he accepts by simply beliving that his opinion about present day fossils determins the reality of the past.
Both are based on faith, but one claims to have a reliable source. The other just claims his opinion is right.
"I'm a person that doesn't believe in myths," says Hana, 11. "I'd rather stick to the evidence."
To which she means, "I'd rather believe what these fallible humans who weren't there and don't know everything have to say about history, and not believe what you who claim to have a book written by someone who was there and does know everything has to say about what He did."
Yep. That's a great way to teach your children logical thought.
Without an infinitely moral source stating what is and is not right or wrong the only way we can determine morality is by the loudest opinion of some men drowning out the opinions of others. Everything is relative if there is no absolute authority.
A true atheist can't say that the brutal torture and murder of his family is evil because to them there is no such thing. It's just one person's opinion against another's.
Either man determines reality, or God does. I've picked which source I have more confidence believing.
I'd put repetitive bass beats and drum beats in the same box as chanting. They are popular because the sound patterns and oscillations disengage the brain from higher thinking. Basically making the person enjoy the music beats, but ignore any lyrics or thoughts involved.
That said, I find hymns that are slowed right down to long droaning sounds have exactly the same effect. So we have to pay attention to what we are actually doing and not just enjoy the ride.
One issue leads into another... but all the same my point on apostolic office requirements not being met by todays claimants is validated by both of your replies.
1Co9 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)
I'll let God be true and every man a liar. And as far as I'm concerned, all of scripture is God's truth.
One of the Biblical requirements of an Apostle was to have physically met Jesus face to face. That is why Paul qualified because it says he was taught one on one by Jesus.
After that time, scripture says that the next time Jesus is seen will be returning in the clouds. And that if anyone says he's here, or there, that we are to ignore them as deceivers. When people see him, we'll all see him.
That's just one of the requirements but it's a sticking point.
Lance: I meant the church rulers. It keeps with the fact the pope was an earthly ruler over several kingdoms back in the day - but I wasn't deliberately referencing that. It was the church authorities that denied the public the wine for the reasons stated. Google can provide Vatican references.
Personally, when the Pope can say I'm 'accursed' because I believe in salvation by faith alone 'without' works, I care very little of what else he has to offer to me. My understanding of scripture clearly differs from his and I see no reason his contradiction of Ephesians should outweigh my literal reading if it where it states 'by faith alone... not by works least any man should boast'
That's not a matter of faith. It's a matter of logic. God never said to blindly accept things. He says to 'reckon ye' in fact.
The wine was deprived from the peasants because the rulers were scared the peasants would spill God's blood down their beards. How they get over the process of acid digesting the bread I don't know but that's beside the point.
What do I find blasphemous? The fact that Jesus Christ died once for all, and that the Romans claim a continued resacrifice is required. Basically saying that Jesus did not do enough to save sinners the first time.
I also take offence at the priest, in whatever language it now is, making the statement 'This is your God' after he has blessed the wine and wafer. Remember Aaron saying the same of the golden calf?
I could go on, but frankly GG, you don't want to listen anyway. Or at the very least you don't want to consider that anything the Roman system does on this matter might in fact be wrong.
I was wondering about those Gil Rugh quotes hehe...
There used to be a series by Rod Bell Sr on here with one titled "The Mass - A blessing or blasphemy?" but the series went missing months ago. Probably didn't pay the bills ;-) Shame cause it was good. Glad I got my copy.
It's spent on learning martial arts pressure points and hypnosis of course. My black belt brother can knock ppl out exactly the same as these guys do - hand on shoulder or forehead. And he's not even saved (yet).
Evolutionists: Welcome to the world where your opinion isn't any better than the next guy's. After all, opinion is at stake here because unless you have an infallible record to compare with, science is simply opinionated interpretation of observations.
As much as they like to promote their ideas as proven facts, there is no such thing. Which is why their opinions and teachings keep changing.
At the end of the day, if a person accepts the Bible as God's infallible Word, then this issue comes down to one simple question. Should we believe an infallible creator who wrote about what he did, or do we believe fallible man's opinions about what happened to man? It's not a hard decision.