The Intersection of Theoogy and Science

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Magenta said:
BM believes Mohammed was really Jesus Christ... so it could mean anything.
Click to expand...

Fact is, the Koranic 'Muhammad' is merely an epithet for the Biblical Jesus Christ, in the four locations that it is used.

However....your knowledge of Koranic Arabic has already been amply demonstrated as non-existent in another thread...so, all you have is merit-less denial now...from what you can google from the web...
 
posthuman said:
the whole basis of doing science -- the idea that doing science is possible -- comes from the notion that the universe is orderly, and follows patterns and laws that are constant and verifiable. this idea is a direct result of theism; because men believed in a God of order, who created the universe, they believed the universe itself is orderly.
it is based on faith - faith that experimental results found here on earth or in the nearby solar system will have the same results wherever they are repeated: this is not a verifiable exercise, because no experiment can be repeated infinitely in infinite locations.
so the notion that science can be done is an expression of belief in a Creator who is not chaotic, and the exercise of applied science depends on faith in the uniformity of His creation.

whenever i do science as a believer, i am looking at the fingerprints of God left on His creation, and i expect those fingerprints to be consistent everywhere i look.
Click to expand...

first off, I love exploring the natural world through observation, experimentation, and reason, which is what I beleive you're saying, too.

at the same time, I also believe that scripture may contain riddles, and that God sometimes conceals things or blinds people in some situations.
 
Bowman said:
God's General Revelation (Nature) and God's Special Revelation (Scripture) must agree.

Any difference between the two is due to mis-interpretation of one, or both, Revelation.

To that end, the only plausible explanation is that we live on a Billions of years old Earth, and in an even older Universe.

The OEC worldview is the only stance that does not have to attack either science, or scripture, in order to harmonize the two...
Click to expand...

I believe that oec is the only reasonable stance for a person who uses your interpretations of nature and scripture.
 
Kisses1990 said:
No "belief" is preached without an abundance of demonstrably sound evidence. This isn't blind faith in evolution...
Click to expand...

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. What a load of crock! Seems to me that you have far too much faith in educated humanity and far too little faith in the one true God.
 
Bowman said:
The OEC stance is the only position that does not have to deny modern science.
Click to expand...

I disagree. the notion that the universe was made "already in motion" also doesn't deny modern mainstream science.
 
Dan_473 said:
I disagree. the notion that the universe was made "already in motion" also doesn't deny modern mainstream science.
Click to expand...

That would be an eternal Universe, if which, most certainly is false, not only only according to science, but scripture as well.
 
Bowman said:
That would be an eternal Universe, if which, most certainly is false, not only only according to science, but scripture as well.
Click to expand...

so a universe created in motion is an eternal universe?

Trying to prove things to yourself or what?
 
Bowman said:
Anything already in motion presupposes that the motion existed before it was created.
Click to expand...

You know what you do when you assume do you not?

if God can create all things, He can create them anyway he wants, Including in motion..



 
Kisses1990 said:
No "belief" is preached without an abundance of demonstrably sound evidence. This isn't blind faith in evolution...
Click to expand...
I earned my Communications degree decades ago. Back when they believed McLuhan was right. Ends up, they were wrong. I figured out where they were wrong way back then, but I answered questions and wrote essays according to what they taught to get the grades. All along though, I understood the difference between what was taught and reality, thanks to a 10th grade history teacher.

I hope when you get the degree with the proper grades, you too feel free to think for yourself vs. keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

The medium isn't really the message. lol (Don't worry. Only old communications nerds will get that inside joke.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back