I prefer science is independent of 'Faith in God.'Other, science doesn't prove, it evaluates evidence
But i will take the evidence of science over the faith of god.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I prefer science is independent of 'Faith in God.'Other, science doesn't prove, it evaluates evidence
But i will take the evidence of science over the faith of god.
Science speaks to factual claims based on the available evidence.I'd prefer both could agree on NOMA for their own improvement. When religion speak about science or when scientists speak about religion, it usually ends in embarrassment.
I see no reason for putting limits and I see no way to enforce them.
If that means that some groups can't overcome their greed and/or hubris at least those who "signed" the contract, can point their fingers.
but as long as they limit themselves to reality, why should they limit themselves?, but as long as they're speaking only to what's supported by the evidence, why should they limit themselves?
I see the contradiction inherent in NOMA, if that's what you mean.but as long as they limit themselves to reality, why should they limit themselves?
Do you also see the contradiction?
I chose "Other".NOTE: My reason for posting this in a debate forum is not to debate about it, myself. It’s to allow as much freedom as possible for people to say what they think.
Sometimes people think that something Is true because they think it has been proven scientifically. Sometimes people think that something is true because they think it’s what their scriptures say. Do you see problems with one way of thinking that you don’t see with the other? If so, please say what they are. If you see problems with each one, that you don’t see with the other, you can check both of those answers.
I disagree.The biggest problem I have with "God says ..." is that it is static, fixed, it will never change.
I disagree.Claiming God says from ancient religious perspectives are indeed static ...
I agree that it changes quite a bit. I disagree with saying that it is not in a way that’s systematic or error-correcting. I’m thinking that sometimes it is.I've found that "God says" changes quite a bit, just not in a way that's systematic or error-correcting.
I’m thinking that it’s humans clinging to ancient agendas, and modern ones.In my view there is Harmony between Science and God's Creation. It is humans clinging to ancient agendas that see conflicts between science and religion.
I’m thinking that it’s humans clinging to ancient agendas, and modern ones.
I’m not doing it to be divisive.... intentionally divisive at worst.
How has a religion changed, in any significant way? I accept new religions have appeared that may better reflect the times.I disagree.
Have you actually thought about it, to see if you could think of any changes in “what God says” in Christian churches, in the last few centuries, and even the last few decades?How has a religion changed, in any significant way? I accept new religions have appeared that may better reflect the times.
Yes, of course I've thought about it. Do you think I'm stupid?Have you actually thought about it, to see if you could think of any changes in “what God says” in Christian churches, in the last few centuries, and even the last few decades?
Slavery. Homosexuality. Women in the priesthood. Women’s issues in general.Yes, of course I've thought about it. Do you think I'm stupid?
I asked you for an example, please?
OK, some churches have moved in order to survive. But the 'scriptures' remain the same. Just adapted the way they are interpreted.Slavery. Homosexuality. Women in the priesthood. Women’s issues in general.