Theology Discussion?

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Dang, you guys post so much... there's no way I can catch up on all of them.

But I'll throw something out re: the Bible. My perspective, as an ordained minister, is that the Bible is a collection of all kinds of writings. Some parts are poetry, some have historical merit... others are letters written from one person to another... but all of it is done in a context of faith. Did every single thing happen as it's written in the Bible? I certainly don't believe so. But it was all written with the perspective of faith - to say something about God or humankind or the relationship between us. There's also a bunch of stuff that reveals the human condition (like that Psalm where the author asks God to dash his enemies' babies on the rocks!) that should no way be emulated, but rather shows the "dark side" (star wars metaphor) of humanity... and our need for grace.

The Bible speaks volumes to me, because through it I can sense God's direction in my life... always challenging me to become more than I ever could on my own. But I'm also not going to give up eating shellfish (or wearing clothing with blended weaves) just because that was part of the Jewish codes thousands of years ago.

If you're looking at the Bible as an eye-witness historical document... like someone reporting on the 10 o'clock news, you'll find a lot of "holes" in it. That's not the way I view it.

Many scholars believe that a significant amount of the Bible probably wasn't written until much later (ie. the first Gospels probably came around 70 AD, some 40 years after Jesus' life on earth... also the first part of the OT probably didn't get written until the time of King David's reign, when the people actually had secure borders, and they could devote some people to putting down their history in writing. Up until then, it was a purely oral culture.).

[Ypsilanti Undead]

I'm glad you were able to join us, Jim, this discussion needs someone who's schooled in this stuff.

I agree with everything you've said, with one caveat: it seems some portions of scripture were written from a perspective of self-interest (or group interest). For instance, stories that seem intended to justify aggressive action against and occupation of neighboring lands. The last time I read Genesis, I was really struck by how much of it reads as a kind of propaganda justifying the Hebrews supplanting their neighbors (the story of Jacob and Esau comes to mind). None of which should detract from the wisdom and faith exhibited in Genesis, in Abraham's desiring a relationship with God. What do you think?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

Seems like I'm picking on you today, Dodgers.

I don't take it personal. I'm inviting any critisism you guys send my way by my entrance into the debate. Please don't take what I say personal either. I certainly know many people who are on your side of the debate, and respect their opinions, just as I respect yours.

Originally Posted by randilover

However, lots of what is being discussed here is to refute the "a mountain of scientific evidence to show me that much of what has been taught over the last 2000 years is historically innacurate." Not a bit of truth to it. Darwin is not supported by evidence, he's supported by a wanted end, namely God removed from the marketplace of scientific reason.

As far as I could find, the only group of people that agree with your claim here is a portion of American Protestantism. Darwin's theory has been perfected over time. What Darwin originally wrote of course was not 100% accurate, but as we learn over time, his concepts have been expanded on. Modern evolutionary synthesis, or simply "evolution" is accepted not only in the scientific community, but the religous community outside of American Fundamentalism.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

Ok, I checked out http://www.secularhumanism.org/. Again, they seem faulty in some of the assertions (which sound great, but I'll go back to my comfort quote on how sounding good vs. the truth are not necessarily compadable). I, like them, like that rejection of religion can come without the risk of persecution (great thing about htis post), but that's about it.


There is no starting ground, I guess is the problem. They have both feet firmly planted in mid-air, as (I believe it was) Chesteron said.

Well, like I said, I didn't think you'd agree with their beliefs, but I think you are just grasping at straws in the critique that they can't form a system of morality. They have no starting ground? It is simple. Ask any question of whether or not something is moral and ethical and you use reason and judgement to determine the answer. I'm not sure why a Book's who's origin is debatable is a more reliable starting point than that.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Ypsilanti Undead

I agree with everything you've said, with one caveat: it seems some portions of scripture were written from a perspective of self-interest (or group interest). For instance, stories that seem intended to justify aggressive action against and occupation of neighboring lands. The last time I read Genesis, I was really struck by how much of it reads as a kind of propaganda justifying the Hebrews supplanting their neighbors (the story of Jacob and Esau comes to mind). None of which should detract from the wisdom and faith exhibited in Genesis, in Abraham's desiring a relationship with God. What do you think?

That's the human frailty shining through. Consider if indeed Genesis was written hundreds (thousands?) of years into the history of Israel. Some guys got together to write about how their people got started, and how they came to be connected to God. Of course it's going to be biased towards them. They'll look back and see God's guiding hand to "smote" their neighbors & ransack their goods. Did God actually command that? Can't tell you. But if you look at the grand sweep of the Bible (ie. consistent themes throughout both Testaments), you'll see that "smoting," while fairly common in parts of the bible, doesn't seem to be high on God's "Thou Shalts" lists.

One interesting side note... many biblical scholars tend to agree that there were about 5 separate "sources" that put together the first 5 books of the Old Testament... each source had his/her own "slant" on what they were trying to convey. When the Jewish community put together these books, they included all of these sources, interwoven together. That's why you'll find TWO CREATION STORIES (Genesis 1 - where everything is very structured & "God saw it was good"... then Genesis 2 - the Adam/Eve/Serpent account). The early community seemed to think that they needed both stories to convey the relationship between God and humankind... the goodness of creation... and yet the presence of evil in the world, too.

[smsmith40]

But I'll throw something out re: the Bible. My perspective, as an ordained minister, is that the Bible is a collection of all kinds of writings. Some parts are poetry, some have historical merit... others are letters written from one person to another... but all of it is done in a context of faith. Did every single thing happen as it's written in the Bible? I certainly don't believe so. But it was all written with the perspective of faith - to say something about God or humankind or the relationship between us.

RHO

Thanks for your contribution.

I can easily sign up to accetping the Bible as you describe. It is a wonderful piece of work. I don't share your belief that its divinely inspired but I think its a shining example of the beauty that humans are capable of creating.

Its only when the Bible is held up to be a hitorically accurate document that I have problems with it.

[smsmith40]

I'll again make the point that man in his greatest humanistic time has produced the worst century of any before it.

I think thats a misconception. What has changed in this century is that the mechanics of killing large numbers of people has become more accessible. I don't think the morality of this centery is any worse than any previous one.

I refer you to the crusades, the inquisition, Genghis Khan, slavery, Imperialism, various programs against European Jews for hundreds of years and a thousand other examples.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

I can easily sign up to accetping the Bible as you describe. It is a wonderful piece of work. I don't share your belief that its divinely inspired but I think its a shining example of the beauty that humans are capable of creating.

Its only when the Bible is held up to be a hitorically accurate document that I have problems with it.

For me, "divinely inspired" doesn't mean that God "signed off" on everything that was written prior to it being written. To be honest, there's probably quite a bit in the Bible that God cringes at... because of the human component that went into putting it down on parchment. Having said that, I do believe that God inspired the writing... given people a glimpse into some divine insights & truth to be communicated.

As for historical accuracy... I once had a guy visit my church on the Big Island... & following a sermon on Jonah (the guy who ran away from God and got swallowed by a "great fish" for 3 days before being spewed up onto the dry ground)... tried to convince me that some fisherman off the coast of Alaska once caught a huge fish that had a man trapped inside... so the story in the Bible could actually be true. Well, my take is that it's a great parable about God's love for all people (ie. those hated Ninevites who end up repenting & turning to God, despite Jonah's pathetic effort as evangelist), and how once God calls someone, they can't never, no-way run away. It doesn't have to have literally happened in order to be spiritually true.

[smsmith40]

I certainly believe that the Bible, like most other holy texts, contains valuable human truths and values. We would even probably be better people if more people read it.


Its the whole God thing that gets in the way for me. I think I'm just too much of a rationalist. I don't feel God in my life or in the world around me. I think it being an engineer, I like to know how things work. My faith If you could call it that, is that even if I don't know how something workd, anothe engineer somewhere probably does.

Although, my new Saab is shaking that faith. THis is the first time I've driven a car for any length of time that I didn't personally know the people that designed it. Very scary.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Well, like I said, I didn't think you'd agree with their beliefs, but I think you are just grasping at straws in the critique that they can't form a system of morality. They have no starting ground? It is simple. Ask any question of whether or not something is moral and ethical and you use reason and judgement to determine the answer.

No, not straws. This is exactly my point! You state that it is simple to just ask the quesiton whether something is moral or ethical. I am asking what you use to determine what is moral or ethical. What if what a man determines for himself (or his society) is not "right."

Reason and judgement have been able to people and societies into a world of trouble for what they thought was "right." (Communism comes to mind as one of the greatest blunders of them all, and Marx got there by pure reason as he grabbed Darwin's points and took them to their logical conclusion. Same with Hitler. He grasped at what Neitchze had to say and followed it's logic out.)

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I'm not sure why a Book's who's origin is debatable is a more reliable starting point than that.

Because wisdom is proved right by her children. I think if something works, if it is right, it will produce fruit that will be good. Otherwise, if that fruit is bad, you have to then realize the tree is bad as well. Does this make sense? If the cause or source of something is wrong, what comes out the end will be wrong. Correct? The Bible as a source and offering a first cause can be proved right by carrying out those principles to their logical conclusion.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

I think thats a misconception. What has changed in this century is that the mechanics of killing large numbers of people has become more accessible. I don't think the morality of this centery is any worse than any previous one.

I refer you to the crusades, the inquisition, Genghis Khan, slavery, Imperialism, various programs against European Jews for hundreds of years and a thousand other examples.

I do think this past one was worse, but even if not, would it not have stood that we would have gotten better, not worse. What those previous generations did was never drawn from the logical framework that this past century did. Although some of what you mention above was started under the guise of religion, the greatest perpetrators of violence this past century were done by mostly secular ideals. True, the mechanics were much more suited for mass killing, but there are societies that exist (namely, your and ours) that had just as much that were held back from those types of occurrances.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

No, not straws. This is exactly my point! You state that it is simple to just ask the quesiton whether something is moral or ethical. I am asking what you use to determine what is moral or ethical. What if what a man determines for himself (or his society) is not "right."

Reason and judgement have been able to people and societies into a world of trouble for what they thought was "right." (Communism comes to mind as one of the greatest blunders of them all, and Marx got there by pure reason as he grabbed Darwin's points and took them to their logical conclusion. Same with Hitler. He grasped at what Neitchze had to say and followed it's logic out.)

Because wisdom is proved right by her children. I think if something works, if it is right, it will produce fruit that will be good. Otherwise, if that fruit is bad, you have to then realize the tree is bad as well. Does this make sense? If the cause or source of something is wrong, what comes out the end will be wrong. Correct? The Bible as a source and offering a first cause can be proved right by carrying out those principles to their logical conclusion.

Ah, but the Bible is interpreted on a daily basis. The Bible is not written is such a way that its meaning is clear, nor universally translated or understood. One person can read the Bible and ascertain one meaning, another person can read the Bible and understand something different. What is it that leads two people to two different understandings?

Some time ago the Bible was interpretted in such a way that justified slavery. The Bible is now being interpretted in such a way, by some people (but not all) to justify discrimination against gays. You can't read and undestand the Bible without bringing logic and reason into the equation. It is impossible to read anything without using logic and reason. That's how the brain works.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

I do think this past one was worse, but even if not, would it not have stood that we would have gotten better, not worse. What those previous generations did was never drawn from the logical framework that this past century did. Although some of what you mention above was started under the guise of religion, the greatest perpetrators of violence this past century were done by mostly secular ideals. True, the mechanics were much more suited for mass killing, but there are societies that exist (namely, your and ours) that had just as much that were held back from those types of occurrances.

I don't think Hitlet, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc were great students of modern philosophy. They were nutbags who perverted a philisophical ideal to suit their personal abition, and trampled those who stood in their way. They are not representative of the advancements that have been made.

[smsmith40]

Originally Posted by randilover

I do think this past one was worse, but even if not, would it not have stood that we would have gotten better, not worse. What those previous generations did was never drawn from the logical framework that this past century did. Although some of what you mention above was started under the guise of religion, the greatest perpetrators of violence this past century were done by mostly secular ideals. True, the mechanics were much more suited for mass killing, but there are societies that exist (namely, your and ours) that had just as much that were held back from those types of occurrances.

The reason that our societies have held back from these kind of atrocities is that our systems of governement prevent too much power in the hands of one or two psychopathic individuals. Germany in the early 30s and Russia at the turn of the century were both deeply religious societies, as is Rwanda and Serbia to pick a few examples at random.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

For me, "divinely inspired" doesn't mean that God "signed off" on everything that was written prior to it being written. To be honest, there's probably quite a bit in the Bible that God cringes at... because of the human component that went into putting it down on parchment. Having said that, I do believe that God inspired the writing... given people a glimpse into some divine insights & truth to be communicated.

As for historical accuracy... I once had a guy visit my church on the Big Island... & following a sermon on Jonah (the guy who ran away from God and got swallowed by a "great fish" for 3 days before being spewed up onto the dry ground)... tried to convince me that some fisherman off the coast of Alaska once caught a huge fish that had a man trapped inside... so the story in the Bible could actually be true. Well, my take is that it's a great parable about God's love for all people (ie. those hated Ninevites who end up repenting & turning to God, despite Jonah's pathetic effort as evangelist), and how once God calls someone, they can't never, no-way run away. It doesn't have to have literally happened in order to be spiritually true.

Boy, this might be an "in-house debate." I actually would contend the Jonah story as true, but more based on what Jesus said about Jonah being 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of a great fish, and Jonah being a sign to the Ninevites (he probably was bleached white and bald), etc. But I do agree it is telling story of God's love.

I also think one of the greatest evidences of the truth of the Bible is how honest it is. Any writer that had any other goal in mind other than honesty would never have put into writing what is found in the Bible. Adultery, murder, prostitution, stealing. And those were the good guys (and some found in Jesus' geneology).

Same with the gospels. There is a lot we take for granted that never would have been put to print in the first century, attesting to the honesty given to teh writings. Things like Jesus interacting with women, interacting with gentiles, etc.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

You can't read and undestand the Bible without bringing logic and reason into the equation. It is impossible to read anything without using logic and reason. That's how the brain works.

In the United Methodist Church (of which I'm a pastor), we have what is called our "quadrilateral" for discernment. We incorporate these 4 tenants in interpreting & decision-making: Scripture (first & foremost), Tradition (what the church has believed over the years), Experience (personal interactions with issues, etc.), and Reason (our God-given intellect). Each one helps frame the other. Of course, there are traditions in the church that we'd just as soon want to forget... which is why it's important to have experience & reason in the mix, too! But we believe that we need the help of all 4 in order to come to an informed decision.

Homosexuality is still an issue the church is debating, internally (and unfortunately, we've got a long ways to go!). Slavery, while there are definitely certain scriptures that advocate it in the Bible, has come to be seen by the church as NOT what God intended for humankind... and thus, many of us have moved beyond that understanding (thank goodness!).

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

In the United Methodist Church (of which I'm a pastor), we have what is called our "quadrilateral" for discernment. We incorporate these 4 tenants in interpreting & decision-making: Scripture (first & foremost), Tradition (what the church has believed over the years), Experience (personal interactions with issues, etc.), and Reason (our God-given intellect). Each one helps frame the other. Of course, there are traditions in the church that we'd just as soon want to forget... which is why it's important to have experience & reason in the mix, too! But we believe that we need the help of all 4 in order to come to an informed decision.

Homosexuality is still an issue the church is debating, internally (and unfortunately, we've got a long ways to go!). Slavery, while there are definitely certain scriptures that advocate it in the Bible, has come to be seen by the church as NOT what God intended for humankind... and thus, many of us have moved beyond that understanding (thank goodness!).

Well said, Jim.

As far as slavery, my main point was there is no universal interpreation of the Bible, even on major issues. A significant portion (not willing to say majority, but it could have been) of American Protestantism at the time interpretted the Bible as justifying slavery. Obviously, virtually no one interprets the Bible that way anymore. Homosexuality is far from being interpretted universally. Personally, I feel this will follow slavery, and once society as a whole accepts homosexuality, the people that interpret the Bible as condemning it with not see it so staunchly.

Mainly, my point is since the Bible's interpretation changes with the times, it's inclusion in determing morality is no different than not including it, in terms of having a solid foundation to work from.

[Ypsilanti Undead]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Mainly, my point is since the Bible's interpretation changes with the times, it's inclusion in determing morality is no different than not including it, in terms of having a solid foundation to work from.

You make a good point here. Maybe the problem is when the Bible is treated as the source of morality, rather than a means of conveying it.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Ypsilanti Undead

You make a good point here. Maybe the problem is when the Bible is treated as the source of morality, rather than a means of conveying it.

But as our only way of getting a message from the actually source, how else it is to be used?

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Ah, but the Bible is interpreted on a daily basis. The Bible is not written is such a way that its meaning is clear, nor universally translated or understood. One person can read the Bible and ascertain one meaning, another person can read the Bible and understand something different. What is it that leads two people to two different understandings?

Some time ago the Bible was interpretted in such a way that justified slavery. The Bible is now being interpretted in such a way, by some people (but not all) to justify discrimination against gays. You can't read and undestand the Bible without bringing logic and reason into the equation. It is impossible to read anything without using logic and reason. That's how the brain works.

we are all flawed. Jim stated this as well. interpretation of the Bible a lot of times is based off people wanting to progress their OWN agendas - which is not necessarily God's agenda. Per the gay population, it's no different than any other sin. Do not hate the sinner (though many people seem to forget that part), hate the sin. no different than hating the sin of lying, stealing, adultry, etc. It's just the gay population has a strong agenda to force their beliefs on everyone else (as you would probably say the Christians are). They want to have 'marriage' while it is a Biblical creation. I have friends who are gay. I don't hate them. I pray for them. not in a pity way, but the same way I pray for my friend who has a pornography addiction and my other friend who has integrity/honesty issues. No different in my prayers.
The Bible is actually pretty clear, but people taint things to serve their owns agendas...

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I don't think Hitlet, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc were great students of modern philosophy. They were nutbags who perverted a philisophical ideal to suit their personal abition, and trampled those who stood in their way. They are not representative of the advancements that have been made.

oops, should have read your next post before I wrote my last. You spelled it out exactly with the Bible. what you just said above relates to the Bible as well. People pervert it to suit their desires. Just because some people do that does not make everyone who believes in the Bible bad...otherwise your own logic shows that you are wrong...but I don't want to assume that.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by The Immortal Ramirez

oops, should have read your next post before I wrote my last. You spelled it out exactly with the Bible. what you just said above relates to the Bible as well. People pervert it to suit their desires. Just because some people do that does not make everyone who believes in the Bible bad...otherwise your own logic shows that you are wrong...but I don't want to assume that.

First, so we're clear, I certainly don't think the vast majority of Christians that use Christianity or scripture to support their point of view negatively. Of course there are always exceptions, but I definitely respect their point of view. So I'm definitely not anti-Christian morals. Just wanted to be clear on that.

Now, as far as your comments on homosexuality, you say the Bible is pretty clear on that. Isn't that pretty much what your run of the mill Southern Baptist would have said about slavery in the 1840s? There was really no question in their mind that the Bible justified slavery, just as there is no question in many's mind that the Bible is anti gay. If we put the passages in question next to each other (anyone have them handy?) would the passages regarding slavery be less clear than those regarding homosexuality? I honestly don't know. I've never compared them but would like to see what it says on each.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

When I was in seminary, the topic of homosexuality was a "hot one" (so to speak). There's actually relatively few passages in the bible that speak about homosexuality (I think it's like 7 max). Many of the passages actually refer to a specific act (sodomy).

One point of view is that it's definitely a sin, since it's stated that way in the Bible. Others, however, would argue that there's much more in scripture about loving one another and the quality of relationships (honesty, fidelity, tenderness, compassion, etc.)...

By the way, there's something like over 150 passages in scripture about the use (or misuse) of money... but we don't seem quite as "worked up" about that issue, as we do about homosexuality.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

When I was in seminary, the topic of homosexuality was a "hot one" (so to speak). There's actually relatively few passages in the bible that speak about homosexuality (I think it's like 7 max). Many of the passages actually refer to a specific act (sodomy).

One point of view is that it's definitely a sin, since it's stated that way in the Bible. Others, however, would argue that there's much more in scripture about loving one another and the quality of relationships (honesty, fidelity, tenderness, compassion, etc.)...

By the way, there's something like over 150 passages in scripture about the use (or misuse) of money... but we don't seem quite as "worked up" about that issue, as we do about homosexuality.

That's a great point. It seems like sexual sins have always been a big deal in society, including biblical times when adulterers (women at least) were stoned to death. But why should they be considered "bigger" than any other kind of sin? The short comings of humans.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Not sure what you mean by when evolution becomes a law. Evolution is a scientific theory. There are very few laws in science, and laws only explain simple action or set of actions. Scientific laws can often be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. A scientific theory is an explanation of multiple actions based on a proven hypotheses, and verified by multiple scientists.

The theory of evolution will never become a law, but scientific theory and scientific law carry the same weight in the scientific community.

hadn't read everything, so I didn't contest this. People who like proof would laugh at your statement. Theory means it cannot be proven, thusly a theory. There might be some evidence that has lead people to form the theory and that evidence might be convincing, but it is not a law. Law is that is can be repeated and proven as fact. THEORY of evolution has some support and some (even non-Christian) scientists who debunk it. Thusly, why it's only a theory and not a law. I believe Randilover has a whole new thread on this topic (I haven't gotten over there yet to read it).
So, please, if you want me to give credit to what you say, please do not insult me by stating theory is equal to law in the scientific community. Because they, themselves, would disagree with you.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

Rami

Well, I think it is a pretty good analogy. Myself, and my wife knew something was missing from our lives, we knew it wasn't god, it was children. When we had Ellie we experienced great joy that we had created this life. We knew what we were missing but it wasn't quite enough. It took Cameron to complete our family. Now that we have both, that feeling has dissappeared (although Ellie would like a dog).

So now that we are happy and fulfilled. To tell you the truth I am not looking for God to jump through hoops. I'm not looking for God at all.

Is it only people who are missing something in their life that get to feel the grace of God?


I hope we can agree that both myself and Mike's heart are both open and honest.

I am glad your family is happy (sorry about not having the dog - that was funny!).

As per your last statement, I would like to agree, but you stated yourself that you are not looking for God at all. And by saying such, it means you are not open about God. Mind you, that's IMO. I'm not open to some things either, so I know what you mean.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by The Immortal Ramirez

So, please, if you want me to give credit to what you say, please do not insult me by stating theory is equal to law in the scientific community. Because they, themselves, would disagree with you.

I'm sorry, but if you don't understand how the scientific community defines a law and a theory, and if you don't understand that those definitions are different than how they are used in layman's terms, I really don't care if you give any credit to what I say or not. Sorry to be blunt, but it's Monday morning, so I'm crabby.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Originally Posted by Preds

Umm, I guess I'm a skeptic, but where's the miracle? And how, in any way do you feel there is proof of a miracle in this case?

As for why not kill the last one, maybe the tragedies of his actions started to hit home as the adreniline rush coolled off. I see no evidence of divine intervention here at all.

The man has killed several people. If he had only killed the people at the courthouse, I would yield to the possibility of him having the adrenaline rush wearing off, but he didn't. He killed a completely innocent bystander as well who wasn't near the court hosue. So, he breaks into her apartment and started to clean up. Why wouldn't he kill her as well? No reason. In fact, logically, he should have. Heck, he was being tried for rape, so he could have raped her, then killed her. He knows he's in deep (you know what) anyway because of the last killings, so one more obviously wouldn't make much more difference. Besides that, if he wanted to escape - kill her as well. Now, there is no one to tell where you've been or where you're going. No logical reason to leave her alive. NONE. However, for some reason he doesn't kill her (miracle anyone). And instead, let's her start talking to him. She reveals maybe God allowed him to be brought to her to have him be broken (no real other options infront of him), so that God may forgive him when he's at his worst (miracle anyone). He actually surrenders himself without further incident (mirable anyone). No, God did not strike him down with a lightning bolt as divine intervention. However, God may have opened his eyes and ears to think about what he's doing. To listen to her. Do you mean to tell me that God is not strong enough to put the thought in his head that he ought to consider what he's doing?
As I previously stated would happen, you would write it off as coincidence, etc. I did not expect you to go "OH WOW!! Steve is right! God does love us and shows us miracles all the time. I'm going to repent and change my life" Um, no. That' would be silly to think that would happen.
You asked me to give an example of something that I believe is a miracle. I gave you one that came to my mind. I told everyone on the thread that it would be disbelieved. But, no, I'm not insecure to tell you what is a miracle. I truly believe that woman is alive because of a miracle.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I'm sorry, but if you don't understand how the scientific community defines a law and a theory, and if you don't understand that those definitions are different than how they are used in layman's terms, I really don't care if you give any credit to what I say or not. Sorry to be blunt, but it's Monday morning, so I'm crabby.

I'm smiling at that one....I know that feeling about Monday morning. I'll go dig in my old books (possibly be lazy and look it up on the internet), but I recall there is a big difference between the two.
I'll try not to be to ornary until about Weds! I'll use small words

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by The Immortal Ramirez

I'm smiling at that one....I know that feeling about Monday morning. I'll go dig in my old books (possibly be lazy and look it up on the internet), but I recall there is a big difference between the two.
I'll try not to be to ornary until about Weds! I'll use small words

Thanks for smiling.

What I posted above about them is a pretty good distinction between the two. A 'law' only refers to a single process. Complex processes are 'theories.' Sure, there are some crazy scientific theories, but strictly speaking, these are not Scientific Theories, but scientific theories (follow that?). For example, String Theory, is a scientific theory. Plate Techtonics is a Scientific Theory. Even though it is called a Theory, you would be hard pressed to find a geologist who doesn't acknowledge Plate Techtonics. Quantum Mechanics is also a Scientific Theory, but as far as I understand (granted, physics is not my specialty), just about all advanced physics work is done based off of quantum mechanics. Quantum Mechanics, Plate Techtonics, and Modern Evolutionary Synthesis will never become Scientific Law's, by definition.