Replies

...what is the "true" way to join two boards together at right angles?

Interesting point!

The "true way" is that which results in the final position of the boards being at exactly 90 degrees (at right angles) to each other. The "truth" is in the observable result ("at right angles -- as specified"). Nothing need be said about the method -- or "process" -- to make the statement "true".

Indeed, in Genesis, the Creator said next to nothing about the processes He used; all He mentioned was the truth of the results. ("And God said, "Let there be light.")

As a scientist and a Christian, I am greatly offended by simpleminded and dogmatic "Creationists" (yes, I am talking about you!) who insist that they can dictate the process (and timescale) of creation based on a scriptural "outline" that does not describe process. Even mor offensive is their penchant for "dissing" the works of anyone who uses their Creator-given intellect to try to "fill in the blanks" with understanding of how the Universe has reached its present state.

OTOH, I am similarly offended by "scientific observers" who ignore the truth of Scripture, ("God created the heavens and the earth".) and who insist that their speculations (theories) as to how the Universe developed alone constitute "truth".

Neither have a corner on "truth" -- especially those who stake their "faith" on medieval-minded misinterpretation of a 1611 multi-mis-translation and who sneer at others who rejoice in the revealed truths of actual observation.

...listening for the "hit dogs" to whine... ;-}

Thank you for your engaging reply!

Even mor offensive is their penchant for "dissing" the works of anyone who uses their Creator-given intellect to try to "fill in the blanks" with understanding of how the Universe has reached its present state.
OTOH, I am similarly offended by "scientific observers" who ignore the truth of Scripture, ("God created the heavens and the earth".) and who insist that their speculations (theories) as to how the Universe developed alone constitute "truth".
Neither have a corner on "truth" ...

I would go one step further and envision the situation like the ten blind men trying to describe an elephant. One thought it was a tree, another a fan, another a rope and so on.

Their only hope is to realize they are in fact blind - and what they observe is strictly a matter of their approach (leg, ear, trunk). Then perhaps they can quit the pointless recriminations and actually make some progress...

But you steal a base, here. You use "truth of Scripture" like its an objectively proved fact. It isn't. In fact, given the historic propensity for humans to create religions, sects, cults, etc., and given that the content of no religion's scriptures can even begin to be demonstrably true, the phrase, "truth of Scripture" can objectively be termed an oxymoron.

There is no "truth" in any scripture, but simply the subjective emotions of its adherents.

I am similarly offended by "scientific observers" who ignore the truth of Scripture, ("God created the heavens and the earth".) and who insist that their speculations (theories) as to how the Universe developed alone constitute "truth".

Well and truly said, TXnMA! A theory is always second-hand, at a second remove from the "real thing." It may or may not be fully consonant with reality. It makes for a useful tool, but Reality never reduces to the tool. For one thing, reality is not "static"; it is dynamic, constantly changing its current configuration, while remaining faithful to God's laws for it. We forget this at our own peril.

Or so it seems to me, FWIW.

Thanks so much for the ping, TXnMA!