Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John A. Broussard · 11-27-2005, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I am not aware that Christ passed on His healing powers to any other than the apostles (and Paul and perhaps a few others) but they are dead now, so it would not hurt to study germs.

You, of course, did not answer the question.

Would using Christ's technique of "laying on of hands" be a surer preventative of smallpox than vaccination?

Want to try again?

Thank you.

John A. Broussard · 11-27-2005, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

However, the profession of medicine would be more effective if both Doctors and patients appealed to God for help in times of distress.

Here's a test case. A return Iraqi veteran is a quadruple amputee. Do you feel that god could grow him some new arms and legs if he and the doctor appealed to god?

I look forward to your answer.

rhutchin · 11-28-2005, 04:01 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
However, the profession of medicine would be more effective if both Doctors and patients appealed to God for help in times of distress.

John A. Broussard
Here's a test case. A return Iraqi veteran is a quadruple amputee. Do you feel that god could grow him some new arms and legs if he and the doctor appealed to god?

I look forward to your answer.

No. I don’t see anything in the Bible to suggest that outcome.

Any person serving in Iraq and in danger (i.e, everyone) should constantly be seeking God’s protection. Waiting until after something bad happens and then asking God to fix everything so that it is just like it was before doesn’t work. Either the person depends on God or he doesn’t.

We are told--

Quote:

2 Chronicles 16
9 ...the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him.

Given this, it behooves a person to ensure that his heart is perfect toward God if he wants God to protect him.

rhutchin · 11-28-2005, 04:17 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
I am not aware that Christ passed on His healing powers to any other than the apostles (and Paul and perhaps a few others) but they are dead now, so it would not hurt to study germs.

John A. Broussard
You, of course, did not answer the question.

Would using Christ's technique of "laying on of hands" be a surer preventative of smallpox than vaccination?

Want to try again?

Thank you.

Again, I am not aware that Christ passed on His healing powers to any other than the apostles (and Paul and perhaps a few others). Consequently, copying Christ in this manner would not seen to be effective. Have you read something in the Bible that makes you think it would?

rhutchin · 11-28-2005, 04:24 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
The difference between the 4 billion year age of the universe (or whatever that age is estimated to be) and the 4,000 BC date or the 11,000 BC date all rest on the basic assumptions that support those ages. All these estimates begin with the same statement, “If we assume that…�?

John A. Broussard
I missed the current estimate of the universe's age by about 10 billion years, though that seems to have little effect on your argument.

The difference between your bible dates and scientific dates is that the bible dates are worthless predictors. The scientific dates predict, with considerable accuracy, everything from the chemical composition of the sun to the existence of galactic clusters.

Bible estimates began with "If we assume the bible is correct,"

Scientific estimates began with, "If our estimates can predict so and so, then we can accept those estimates with a certain degree of probability."

Haven't you already said that we can't know what the bible is saying?

Thank you.

As I understand it, science predicts until scientists learn something new and predict something else.

Scientific estimates began with, "If we assume that what we know is correct, then our estimates can predict so and so, and then we can accept those estimates with a certain degree of probability. Of course, when we learn new stuff, we can always go back and revise our estimates"

Earlier, I said (or meant if not expressed well) that we can know what the Bible says, but we may not understand everything about what we read.

rhutchin · 11-28-2005, 04:27 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Anyone can be mistaken. The Bible contains mostly historical texts, and while it’s purpose is not to provide astronomical and geological knowledge, it does speak accurately when it provides information touching on these areas. For example, it refers to a great earthquake in the reign of Uzziah, so we know that, geologically speaking, there was an earthquake. There is abundant room for human scientists to research the earthquake and discover that which they can. Same for any scientific endeavor. A good scientist could consult the Bible to provide direction for his research.

John A. Broussard
Any suggestions on how the bible can provide direction for the discovery of new quasars, or to explain quarks, or provide an antidote for the coming bird flu epedemic, or ...

I'm sure you get the idea.

Please explain how the bible can do anything but impede science, as it has for thousands of years.

I look forward to your explanation.

Men have impeded science, not the Bible.

A suggestion for scientists from the Bible--

Quote:

James 1
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

JPD · 11-28-2005, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

As I understand it, science predicts until scientists learn something new and predict something else.

Scientific estimates began with, "If we assume that what we know is correct, then our estimates can predict so and so, and then we can accept those estimates with a certain degree of probability. Of course, when we learn new stuff, we can always go back and revise our estimates"

Earlier, I said (or meant if not expressed well) that we can know what the Bible says, but we may not understand everything about what we read.

By "know" what precisely do you mean? To perceive, to grasp directly and with clarity?

rhutchin · 11-28-2005, 04:32 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Proverbs 25:2 tells us that, “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.�? Sometimes, people like Bishop Ussher fail to search out all the possible explanations for that which the Bible says or fail to reconcile their interpretation which other evidence in the Bible. Was Ussher misled by Satan? Yes, in the sense that we all tend to be lazy in our study of the Bible and Satan encourages that laziness.

John A. Broussard
So the good bishop and anyone else (including you) studying the bible may be misled by Satan.

How then can we ever know that what you or anyone else claims is a true bible interpretation is in fact true?

I look forward to your answer.

Studying the Bible is no different than any other discipline. To know that you have correctly understood that which the Bible says, you compare what you believe one verse says with that said in all other verses and if what you believe is consistent with all verses, then you know that your interpretation is correct.

JPD · 11-28-2005, 04:37 AM

Do we "know" what it is that we should understand when we look at these two verses:

* Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."

* James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."

In the first verse we are told that God tempted Abraham.
In the second verse we are told that God does not tempt any man.

Was he just "getting it out of his system" the first time around, or do you have some extra special interpretation to get your God, who can't decide whether he should be peaceful and doesn't seem to know whether any man has seen his face or not (please see Bible for details), off the hook?

popeye1 · 11-28-2005, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Men have impeded science, not the Bible.

A suggestion for scientists from the Bible--

rhutchin
You seemed to be falling down stumbling unable to answer some the pertinent questions I suggest that you read James 1-5

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-28-2005, 04:37 AM	#189
JPD Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 5,322	Do we "know" what it is that we should understand when we look at these two verses: * Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." * James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." In the first verse we are told that God tempted Abraham. In the second verse we are told that God does not tempt any man. Was he just "getting it out of his system" the first time around, or do you have some extra special interpretation to get your God, who can't decide whether he should be peaceful and doesn't seem to know whether any man has seen his face or not (please see Bible for details), off the hook?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.