What is the age of the Universe?
-
Bollocks!Originally posted by gasband:No. although he is not gasband but I am santa.
He is santa as much as u are gasband, and he is santa as much as he is gasband and you are gasband as much as you are santa -
Ah Hah!! But you never knew there was not only santa original but also santa grape, santa ade, santa apple and santa orange. There is also gasband grape, gasband ade and gasband apple but not gasband orange. So guess who is santa gasband durian?Originally posted by laurence82:Bollocks!
He is santa as much as u are gasband, and he is santa as much as he is gasband and you are gasband as much as you are santa -
Because if you believe the bible to be the rock, the immovable foundation .. then it makes no sense to use the bible to engage science that is rather volatile in comparison.Originally posted by laurence82:Why cannot use Bible to engage science?
so if you use the bible as a lens to understand science, you are dead. At best your biblical-deduced science might agree with observations (eg. geocentric theory), but once science progress to a heliocentric model, you are dead. At worst, you might be promoting pseudo-science, ie. certain versions of creationism. -
i believe gasband comes in gasband 95, gasband 98, gasband 2000, gasband xp and gasband vista, while santa comes in santa tiger and santa leopardOriginally posted by gasband:Ah Hah!! But you never knew there was not only santa original but also santa grape, santa ade, santa apple and santa orange. There is also gasband grape, gasband ade and gasband apple but not gasband orange. So guess who is santa gasband durian?
it will take gasband seven years to even reach the level of santa tiger! -
u forgot gasband diesel which is like santa tiger 10 times over.
ok wait i come back then continue the crap again. -
Even the Bible is volatile, without going into its authenticity, depending on which church or denomination you talk toOriginally posted by Icemoon:Because if you believe the bible to be the rock, the immovable foundation .. then it makes no sense to use the bible to engage science that is rather volatile in comparison.
so if you use the bible as a lens to understand science, you are dead. At best your biblical-deduced science might agree with observations (eg. geocentric theory), but once science progress to a heliocentric model, you are dead. At worst, you might be promoting pseudo-science, ie. certain versions of creationism.
ur second point already meant the bible is irrelevant to prove certain things, which kind means in order to make up for its lack of authencity, science, or perhaps, selective aspects of science can be used to support the Bible -
puiiOriginally posted by gasband:u forgot gasband diesel which is like santa tiger 10 times over.
ok wait i come back then continue the crap again.
gasband diesel can qie santa premium 95 or 98 meh? -
I will respond with a famous Jewish account:Originally posted by laurence82:Even the Bible is volatile, without going into its authenticity, depending on which church or denomination you talk to
ur second point already meant the bible is irrelevant to prove certain things, which kind means in order to make up for its lack of authencity, science, or perhaps, selective aspects of science can be used to support the BibleRabbi Shammai was an engineer, known for the strictness of his views. The Talmud tells that a gentile came to Shammai saying that he would convert to Judaism if Shammai could teach him the whole Torah in the time that he could stand on one foot. Shammai drove him away with a builder's measuring stick! Hillel, on the other hand, converted the gentile by telling him, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it."
Is Scriptural volatile? Are there not eternal truths contained in it?
Notice how the great Jewish sage Hillel replied - he did not say the Torah is about law, commandments, and punishments! Unlike the Christians .. -
so which one to go for, NT or OT?
-
I suspect the truth is - go for your heart.Originally posted by laurence82:so which one to go for, NT or OT?
whatever scripture you are reading .. be it the Qu'ran, Bible or Baghavid Gita (sp?) .. any truth should resonate from your heart.
It is like the chinese saying - ce4 yin3 zhi1 xin1, ren2 jie1 you3 zhi1 .. meaning (roughly) everyone has compassion in the heart. -
At the very least, this isnt a Christian standOriginally posted by Icemoon:I suspect the truth is - go for your heart.
whatever scripture you are reading .. be it the Qu'ran, Bible or Baghavid Gita (sp?) .. any truth should resonate from your heart.
It is like the chinese saying - ce4 yin3 zhi1 xin1, ren2 jie1 you3 zhi1 .. meaning (roughly) everyone has compassion in the heart. -
This is the implicit Protestant stand.Originally posted by laurence82:At the very least, this isnt a Christian stand
They say the Holy Spirit is in you and He is supposed to guide you to the Truth. -
Look at it this way.
Non believers who know little about Chrisitianity always ask the same question - "What makes you think your Scripture is correct and others are wrong?"
Whereas insiders like The Catholics always ask the same question - "What makes you think your interpretation is correct?"
The Protestant always give the bullet-proof reply - "Because we have the Holy Spirit in us".
Do you see it? There is a pattern one. Scripture - Mind - Heart.
At the end of the day, throw away all the deep theological labels like Holy Spirit, you are left with "follow your heart" or like charismatics like to say, "go with the flow".
-
Strangely, this prolly wont be the fundamentallists' standOriginally posted by Icemoon:Look at it this way.
Non believers who know little about Chrisitianity always ask the same question - "What makes you think your Scripture is correct and others are wrong?"
Whereas insiders like The Catholics always ask the same question - "What makes you think your interpretation is correct?"
The Protestant always give the bullet-proof reply - "Because we have the Holy Spirit in us".
Do you see it? There is a pattern one. Scripture - Mind - Heart.
At the end of the day, throw away all the deep theological labels like Holy Spirit, you are left with "follow your heart" or like charismatics like to say, "go with the flow".
besides, to be more correct, non believers are asking, why makes you think yoru scripture so correct enough to preach against other scriptures? do you think anyone can hold the scripture-heart-mind stand and at the same time, preaches against other faiths and hold the Bible to be the total truth?
pardon me, but this smacks of hypocrisy -
Before I go off for the outing, lets just say, while to every issue there can be qualifications and exceptions, I had never accepted the use of qualifications from Christians
Mainly because I observe most who use it are caught in entanglement they brought onto themselves or in a moral hypocrisy, the only way out of it is to use verses to get out of these situations. -
But honestly, you're doing a very bad job. At least lawrence is showing genuine attempt at discussion. But's it's pretty funny to see your mindless bashing just that I think it's hard for anyone to take you seriously.Originally posted by NUS_Superst@r:haha... i am here to discredit the bible. Glad someone can see it. But is the answer from the bible far from the truth? I think so.
Just like how even the Christians find it hard to take davidche seriously. I understand why somebody has said the two of you are alike. I can't say I agree, but I understand why they might think of it that way. -
Kudos to Lawrence and Icemoon for a real discussion.
-
The silly scripture-mind-heart stand is just an observation of mine. This is actually "biblical":Originally posted by laurence82:Strangely, this prolly wont be the fundamentallists' stand
besides, to be more correct, non believers are asking, why makes you think yoru scripture so correct enough to preach against other scriptures? do you think anyone can hold the scripture-heart-mind stand and at the same time, preaches against other faiths and hold the Bible to be the total truth?
pardon me, but this smacks of hypocrisy
1. The Jews in the OT were at the scripture stage. They bochup scripture at times, and even fell into idolatory. This was why the Jewish Kingdom (north and south) fell.
2. Fast forward to the turn of the millenium. We have many Jewish sects emerging. These people were at the mind stage. They understood scripture and had wisdom and knowledge, BUT
3. Jesus Christ was already at the heart stage. He had a heart, the Pharisees didn't.
If you are arrogrant, you will think people still belong to the lower stages. Need I say more? Protestants accuse Catholics of idol worship, and accuse virtually all other religions to be "demonic", "satanic", "idol-worshipping" etc. I dunno what stage is that, maybe prehistoric.
And the best part is .. they think Judaism is still about law, commandments and punishments. What a joke if you contrast with what Rabbi Hillel said about the torah on one foot.
Too bad the NT presents the Pharisees as a bunch of silly old men who hugged their Torah but not know the ways of God. A big stereotype if you ask me.