Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

Are Christianity and the bible compatible?

Of course.

All sects aand readings are compatible?

I don't understand the question. Please rephrase it.

"Christianity" takes in a lot of territory. Do you think all the sects etc are compatible with each other? All readings of the bible are compatible with the bible and with eac hother?

It depends on how strict you want to be with the definition of compatible. If you're simply asking if all Christian denominations can exist together, then the obvious answer is yes. If you're asking if all Christian denominations can exist together without any conflict, then I'd say no.

And the same answer goes for your second question.

But, if you are saying that YEC and science aren't compatible, then that's a different question than the topic. YEC is not Christianity. It's a creation belief of some people who may be Christian.

Is that where you're going with this?

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:Science and the bible are compatible for the same reason they are incompatible; the bible says whatever you choose to read it as saying.

The question in the thread is about Science and Christianity being compatible. The bible is not Christianity.

Are Christianity and the bible compatible?

Of course.

All sects aand readings are compatible?

No more than scientific sects being compatible.
Take the heresy of YECism, YEC expositions end of 19th century and such,
not compatible with science or the bible.

Maybe you are just looking thro' the wrong end of a telescope.

Maybe you are just looking thro' the wrong end of a telescope.

And some people seem to have their telescopes stuck up their... uh, oh well. Me thinks Uranus has been studied far too much!

Philip wrote:

Maybe you are just looking thro' the wrong end of a telescope.

And some people seem to have their telescopes stuck up their... uh, oh well. Me thinks Uranus has been studied far too much!

Your careful self-examination may yet lead to insights.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: The question in the thread is about Science and Christianity being compatible. The bible is not Christianity.

Are Christianity and the bible compatible?

Of course.

All sects aand readings are compatible?

No more than scientific sects being compatible.
Take the heresy of YECism, YEC expositions end of 19th century and such,
not compatible with science or the bible.

"Sects"? Seriously? And what does yec or gappity have to do with science?

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: Of course.

All sects aand readings are compatible?

I don't understand the question. Please rephrase it.

"Christianity" takes in a lot of territory. Do you think all the sects etc are compatible with each other? All readings of the bible are compatible with the bible and with eac hother?

It depends on how strict you want to be with the definition of compatible. If you're simply asking if all Christian denominations can exist together, then the obvious answer is yes. If you're asking if all Christian denominations can exist together without any conflict, then I'd say no.

And the same answer goes for your second question.

But, if you are saying that YEC and science aren't compatible, then that's a different question than the topic. YEC is not Christianity. It's a creation belief of some people who may be Christian.

Is that where you're going with this?

Wasnt going anywhere in particular, just gettin' some data. Hence the questions.

Hortator wrote:

Audie wrote: "Christianity" takes in a lot of territory. Do you think all the sects etc are compatible with each other? All readings of the bible are compatible with the bible and with eac hother?

Yes.

The differences between churches with different names are like the difference between the colors beige and tan: microscopic.

Little differences in colour, yes, the kind of thing for which full many a Christian would have made
it a criminal offense for me to have married a white man, or even entered the country in the first place.

Those may seem small things, to you.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

Are Christianity and the bible compatible?

Of course.

All sects aand readings are compatible?

No more than scientific sects being compatible.
Take the heresy of YECism, YEC expositions end of 19th century and such,
not compatible with science or the bible.

"Sects"? Seriously? And what does yec or gappity have to do with science?

Sexts aside.
Interpretations is something that you mention here and there, so it must be a real issue for you.
So then, more seriously, do you get what hermeneutics are Audie?

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: Of course.

All sects aand readings are compatible?

No more than scientific sects being compatible.
Take the heresy of YECism, YEC expositions end of 19th century and such,
not compatible with science or the bible.

"Sects"? Seriously? And what does yec or gappity have to do with science?

Sexts aside.
Interpretations is something that you mention here and there, so it must be a real issue for you.
So then, more seriously, do you get what hermeneutics are Audie?

See, a lot of people actually think that science involves dogma and sects,
perhaps because they cannot think past their own limitations.
Why did you bring it up?

As for them hermaphroditics, those are what people say they used to prove that their readin' is god's word.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Of course.

All sects aand readings are compatible?

No more than scientific sects being compatible.
Take the heresy of YECism, YEC expositions end of 19th century and such,
not compatible with science or the bible.

"Sects"? Seriously? And what does yec or gappity have to do with science?

Sexts aside.
Interpretations is something that you mention here and there, so it must be a real issue for you.
So then, more seriously, do you get what hermeneutics are Audie?

K,

What's a sext?

Is it a text with sexual connotations?

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:
All sects aand readings are compatible?

No more than scientific sects being compatible.
Take the heresy of YECism, YEC expositions end of 19th century and such,
not compatible with science or the bible.

"Sects"? Seriously? And what does yec or gappity have to do with science?

Sexts aside.
Interpretations is something that you mention here and there, so it must be a real issue for you.
So then, more seriously, do you get what hermeneutics are Audie?

See, a lot of people actually think that science involves dogma and sects,
perhaps because they cannot think past their own limitations.
Why did you bring it up?

Firstly, to draw out misunderstandings with its use (any sects of Christianity, well... would have a "different Christianity"). E.g., Christianity arose as a sect of Judaism. Sects of Christianity might be your Mormons or JWs.

Secondly, that each field of knowledge has its own subjective issues, but that doesn't mean one can't get at some objectivity truths.

Audie wrote:As for them hermaphroditics, those are what people say they used to prove that their readin' is god's word.

Methods of interpretation provide more objective methods, such that it IS NOT just anyone's interpretation that will do.

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Sexts aside.
Interpretations is something that you mention here and there, so it must be a real issue for you.
So then, more seriously, do you get what hermeneutics are Audie?

K,

What's a sext?

Is it a text with sexual connotations?

"Sext" just looked better than "Sect"

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: No more than scientific sects being compatible.
Take the heresy of YECism, YEC expositions end of 19th century and such,
not compatible with science or the bible.

"Sects"? Seriously? And what does yec or gappity have to do with science?

Sexts aside.
Interpretations is something that you mention here and there, so it must be a real issue for you.
So then, more seriously, do you get what hermeneutics are Audie?

See, a lot of people actually think that science involves dogma and sects,
perhaps because they cannot think past their own limitations.
Why did you bring it up?

Firstly, to draw out misunderstandings with its use (any sects of Christianity, well... would have a "different Christianity"). E.g., Christianity arose as a sect of Judaism. Sects of Christianity might be your Mormons or JWs.

Secondly, that each field of knowledge has its own subjective issues, but that doesn't mean one can't get at some objectivity truths.

Audie wrote:As for them hermaphroditics, those are what people say they used to prove that their readin' is god's word.

Methods of interpretation provide more objective methods, such that it IS NOT just anyone's interpretation that will do.

I wish you would just quit writing things that dont give me anything to disagree with.

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Sexts aside.
Interpretations is something that you mention here and there, so it must be a real issue for you.
So then, more seriously, do you get what hermeneutics are Audie?

K,

What's a sext?

Is it a text with sexual connotations?

"Sext" just looked better than "Sect"

It is British for "sexed".