Suspicion Against Scientists?

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

And we differ wildly about Genesis 1-3.

Simply claiming we differ does not make it so. The fact is that we agree on MUCH more than we disagree on.

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

Everything is essential because every part of the Bible is relevant to the Christian even if it isn't applicable.

Everything in the Bible is instructional (2 Timothy 3:16-17), but how can something be essential if it isn't applicable?

[masonlandry]

What is interesting to me in the realm of distrusting scientists, is that you would only ever know if a scientist manipulated the data to force a biased outcome by exposing that manipulation through the scientific method. So the distrust of some science is predicated on the trust of the larger majority of science. Which, as has been said several times in this thread, is why peer review is so important. I think there are a myriad of problems within the scientific community and will continue to be as long as humans are the ones who make up the scientific community. Not only do you have to watch out for someone forging and manipulating data for personal gain, but the community constantly has to be wary of becoming too conservative or dogmatic that it refuses good evidence that implies a currently accepted understanding may be wrong. Ideally, and in principle, the goal of a scientist is always to learn what they are missing, not just to strengthen or justify a currently help viewpoint. But they are still humans, and humans don't like to be wrong, especially if they think their career rests on it. But accepting new evidence even when it turns a current hypothesis on its head is exactly how we come to a better understanding of the world we live in. 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

Genesis 3 does not say that it was Satan.

Yes it does.   It doesn't call the serpent "Satan" by name, but we know it was clearly a serpent animated by Satan

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Gen 3:15)

We have in that one verse, the first Messianic prophecy referring both to Jesus' first and second Advents and his eventual destruction of Satan.   Jesus is the seed or offspring of the woman (virgin birth) and the word for bruising Satan's head literally means to crush, to destroy underfoot.   That verse, on its own, tells us who the serpent ultimately was.
 

[Guest shiloh357]

7 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Everything in the Bible is instructional (2 Timothy 3:16-17), but how can something be essential if it isn't applicable?

Simple.  The sacrifices are relevant and essential to understanding and teaching about the sacrifice of Jesus and the sacrificial life of the Christian, but we don't have to commit animal sacrifices for that to be true.   It is essential and relevant, but not applicable.

[masonlandry]

2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Yes it does.   It doesn't call the serpent "Satan" by name, but we know it was clearly a serpent animated by Satan

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Gen 3:15)

We have in that one verse, the first Messianic prophecy referring both to Jesus' first and second Advents and his eventual destruction of Satan.   Jesus is the seed or offspring of the woman (virgin birth) and the word for bruising Satan's head literally means to crush, to destroy underfoot.   That verse, on its own, tells us who the serpent ultimately was.
 

Just wanted to point out, since I've been watching this side convo. This whole exchange is interesting because it stems from a disagreement about how literally to take the Bible and what is or isn't important. But a lot of the people who have a contention with one.opinion's allegorical reading of the creation account use allegorical understanding themselves in so much of the rest of the Bible, like to determine that Satan was animating the serpent or that the Sabbath is allegorical to Jesus as our rest from sin. It really seems like the only differences the two of you have are where to use an allegorical understanding and how to apply it. 

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Yes it does.   It doesn't call the serpent "Satan" by name, but we know it was clearly a serpent animated by Satan

I agree with this conclusion, but we must read the passage at something other than face-value to make that determination.

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, Butero said:

I know global warming is a scam, because they have changed their mind about it three times since the 70s.  When I was in school, we were experiencing "a cooling planet" and heading into an ice age.

Computers, and computer modeling, have improved a bit in the last 40 years. There are some credentialed scientists that dispute the anthropogenic root of global warming, but no one with working knowledge of the facts denies that global warming (or global climate change) is occurring.

[one.opinion]

10 minutes ago, masonlandry said:

It really seems like the only differences the two of you have are where to use an allegorical understanding and how to apply it. 

Thanks, Mason, but just be forewarned - you are painting a target on yourself if you even seem to be acknowledging that I have reasonable arguments. :-P

[Uber Genius]

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

How should we interpret your words?   Should we simply take you at your word that you mean what you say, or are we free to apply whatever meaning we wish and decide for ourselves what you mean?

As with ALL WRITING, Interpret in relation to context, genre, figures of speech, internal consistency. Hermeneutical and exegetical guidelines have been available since the Reformation and beyond!

Read authors of Biblical texts the way you would any text. 

 

 

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

We are not in need of any education from you.   As for core essential truths of Christianity...    That implies that there are non-essential truths and that would be a fallacy.

Thou art giving us an exempli gratia of the very maturity challenges of which I spoke! Thank you.

 

Does one lose their salvation because they beleive in a post-trib rapture if pretrib is correct?

Does one lose salvation because they have a Wesleyian view of eternal security rather than say Calvinist?

Does one lose one's salvation because they hold to a Augustinian-dispensation all view of sanctification rather than say a Kesickian or Weslian view?

 

If your answer to any of those three questions above is, "No," then they are classified in both ecclesiastical and systematic theological terms as "Non-essential!"

 

Please refrain from making stuff up when a thirty-second search on Google could have provided you with an answer and saved me the effort of educating someone who so clearly despises education. 

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by Uber Genius