Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: notesfiles Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!greipa!pesnta!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcms!bill From: bill@hpfcms.UUCP (bill) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <45200008@hpfcms.UUCP> Date: Thu, 16-May-85 20:04:00 EDT Article-I.D.: hpfcms.45200008 Posted: Thu May 16 20:04:00 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 27-May-85 00:11:10 EDT References: <-165500@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: Hewlett-Packard - Fort Collins, CO Lines: 104 Nf-ID: #R:decwrl:-165500:hpfcms:45200008:37777777600:5509 Nf-From: hpfcms!bill May 20 16:04:00 1985 >Being a Christian myself, I think I will add my comments, before >someone assumes Bill talks for all Christians. Sorry. I don't mean to speak for all Christians. > Now I disagree, science and Christianity(or at least the Bible) >address different sets of questions. The Bible is concerned with the >relationships of man to man and man to God. Science is concerned with >the causes of events *within* the structure of the Universe. Science >does not refute the existence of God, it merely says that since He is >outside the structure of the Universe, He is not a matter to be considered >by science. That is science simply has nothing to say on the issue. But don't you think the Bible has A LOT to say about the same things Science comments on? Have you ever studied what the Bible has to say about science? I have, and it's amazing! Because the Bible encompasses ALL of life, ALL of God's creation, it necessarily is a deciding factor of whether or not Science has correctly interpreted our world. No, I don't look to the Bible for Physics equations, or anything like that. But, if scientific theory collides with Biblical scripture, then something has to give. For me, Science must give. I'm an electrical engineer, and as such, I respect Science - heck, my job's BUILT on it! And you're right, much of what Science has to say doesn't touch on Scriptural truths. Perhaps, as I think about it, what we have is a confusion of terms. "Science" is a field of study, and as such, is no threat to Biblical truths. Various "scientists" I have talked to, however, have definitely opposed Biblical teachings in preference to theory, and have refuted the existence of God. THAT'S what I was addressing. > Even within Christianity there is this thing called free-will, >which I consider equivilant to being responsible(at least in part) for >my own fate. Remember also that science only deals with the Universe, >and within that framework we *do* determine our own fate. I agree. I didn't address free will at all, but I believe in it. We DO have free will to make choices and change things. However, I was speaking in opposition to humanism, which would deny that God has anything to do with it. God is ultimately over all, and therefore ultimately brings about His Will (I mean, we read about his ultimate will in Revelation, don't we?). >> Man evolved from other, lower life forms. >> vs. >> God created man, just as he created all other life forms. >> > Again, not a real conflict. The first statement is a statement >of a *process*, like the statement "Cars are made on assembly lines", >that is it is a scientific statement. The second statement is a >statement of a relationship, like "Ford Motors makes cars". Thus they >are talking about different things and can *both* be true, just like >both statements about cars are true. Well, here I disagree. I don't believe the Bible upholds the concept of "God created the basic building blocks, and then they all began evolving into what we have today, including man". Nope - can't buy that, 'cause the Bible explicitly states that God made each living thing after its own kind. Also, scientific study has shown that much of what was thought of as evolution turned out to be the result of passive genes that were stimulated by a different environment - hence, the adaptability was built into the genes to occur - the result is that the living being was still the same species, just showing its pre- programmed adaptability. >The Bible should be read as what it is, a book about the relationships >of man to his creator written in simple, colloquial language so that >all may understand. It is *not* a science text, if it attempted to be >scientifically accurate at all points it would be entirely >incomprehensible to everyone, but especially to the pre-scientific >cultures to which it was originally written. The Bible is the absolute Word of God. That's what I take it to be. As I said before, I don't consider it a science text. My specific references to scientific theory show the two points where the Bible and general scientific thought contradict each other. Those are the only two issues I'm addressing. (evolution, and humanism) >>One last point. This notestring has been discussing how all laws and >>other absolute truths are but good hypotheses. Thus, nothing is absolute - >>it just hasn't been contradicted yet. Well, in a Christian's life, there >>ARE absolute truths. Since basic beliefs state that the Bible is the >>Word of God, what's written there must be absolutely true, having been >>written by the only One who knows it all! >> > But He had to write it so we could understand it! Also He >didn't write it, He merely inspired the various authors to write it, >each in thier own idiom and style. > > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) I really don't see what you mean by your response to this last point. For me, the Bible is the Word of God, and is therefore absolute. The truths presented therein are absolute truths. God can't make mistakes. Yes, He inspired various authors to write the Bible, and He preserved their idioms and styles. If that last remark was meant to degrade the authority of the Bible, I take issue to it. There is too much effort in this world to gloss over the Bible. I'm determined to preserve it (in my own life, at least) for what it is. Finally, it was good (and surprising!) to hear from a believer on the net! You're the first one I've encountered. Bill Gates