Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
You guys have been decidedly nasty recently. Actually, Solich was fired over a year ago, and coincidentally, I saw him driving down Capitol Parkway yesterday. Because he was fired during a five year roll-over contract, we pay him a lot of money for the next four years for doing nothing. Nice work, if you can get it.
Good.
We've agreed that a resurrected guy would be unususal. The fact that you think it's a hoax explains why he isn't a deity to you.
But, the fact that many think it's a true story explains why many consider him a deity.
No wonder you have a hang up with ID as science! Be that as it may, is science by definition incapable of studying matters pertaining to "personhood?" What evidence is there that such a thing as "personhood" exists? Must something have a physical form to be worthy of scientific study?
Fester seems to have appointed huimself arbiter of who should be a professional scientist or teacher, although, earlier in the thread, he made a big show of not knowing even the most basic science. Sort of like having a blind man select your wardrobe.
Well, if your objective was to persuade me why many consider Jesus Christ to be a deity, you've succeeded. Congratulations!
Whatever it is that you're thinking, the reason I have a 'hang up' with ID as science is because there's no evidence for its validity.
Be that as it may, is science by definition incapable of studying matters pertaining to "personhood?"
No. Don't be silly.
What evidence is there that such a thing as "personhood" exists?
Find a mirror.
Must something have a physical form to be worthy of scientific study?
No. Don't be silly.
That's a start.
I'm not trying to persuade you. My understanding of God is that He makes people receptive at certain points in their lives. You don't seem to be there right now.
Do you have a definition of deity that I can work with, so that I can sort correctly when I think on the subject?
Elaborate on what?
Feel free to post a quotation or summary of what you want me to elaborate on, particularly after hundreds of posts have gone by.
I did look back, and I honestly don't know what part of my post you are questioning.
Most of the commentaries give the dimensions as being "about 4.5.meters (diameter) and about 13.5 meters circuference".
The passage in IKings never uses the word "circle" but describes a massive bronze casting "round all about" (KJ) "circular in shape" (NIV, and "circular in form" (NSRV). I have yet to see the passage translated as "Huram cast a large bronze sea that was a perfect Euclidean Circle". So, if IKings 7:23 read "and the sea measured 9.7 cubits from rim to rim...and needed a line 30.45 cubits to measure around it", you would be a sold out, on fire, spirit filled Jesus Freak, right?
That may sound sarcastic, but I am trying to illustrate a point.
There is a big difference between "literal" and "innerrant". Whether Huram cast Soloman's Sea with perfect geometric proporations, or the chronicler in IKings rounded his numbers does not reveal anything about God's nature, and how to receive his grace.
The thing that cracks me up on these threads, is that many of the hard "naturalism only" that regularly post on Crevo threads would make the Pharisees of old proud. As would many of those that are diametrically opposed.
Interesting to see a moral quality attached to simple lack of knowledge. How can an entity that DRIVES SCIENCE be a bad thing?
An entity of supernatural or supranatural powers. The very easiest definition possible. You evidently made it more difficult on yourself by instead attempting to persuade me specifically of the existence of a god such as described by Christians (an omnipotent, ubiquitous, absolute trinity). I didn't ask you to do anything quite that difficult. Any deity would've sufficed.
Three high school pals who went to different colleges are making a reunion cross-country trek during summer vacation, and come upon a flock of sheep in a pasture adjacent to the highway one day. The following dialogue takes place among them:
1st student (From Boston University): "Boy, I wish those sheep were coeds from BU; we'd be having a great time!"
2nd student (from Harvard): "Well, I wish those sheep were coeds from Wellsley; we'd be on our backs inside of 10 minutes.
3rd student (from Utah): "I wish it were dark out......"
Ignorance doesn't drive science. People having the desire to remove ignorance drive science.
I don't know why you find it interesting. For example, the Buddha preached that ignorance is the ultimate evil. Though I admit Christianity has sometimes been equivocal about whether ignorance is a bad thing.
How can an entity that DRIVES SCIENCE be a bad thing?
Disease drives medical research. Hunger drives food production.
Fair enough.
Maybe I'll have something to offer as we cross paths in the future.
Been nice talking to you. I've gotta go get some work done and then to a regional track meet this afternoon.
Auf wiedersehen.
Ouch.
"Roar of the Greasepaint; Smell of the Crowd"?
;-)
Do you believe science by definition is incapable of comprehending evidence for intelligent design? If so, why? If not, what kind of evidence would be acceptable?
2. Never eat at a place called Mom's.
3. Never sleep with a woman whose troubles are worse than your own.
4. (from a Kliban cartoon) "Never try to eat anything larger than your head."
sayonara!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.