You contradict yourself.
The fact that "creationist science seems
to support" literal intepretation, even though my current position is that there is no relationship, is expressing my reservations about the current position I hold. So, it is no suprise I'm asking questions and wanting to learn, is it!?
That is itself a very unclear propagandistic statement. Clearly anyone familiar enough to track down so many verses should know better than to say such a thing. Not saying that you tracked them down yourself; I have no evidence consistent with that premise.
Well, that is the second time you've accused me of "propaganda", which is clearly meant as an insult. I'm not making any arguments for the position I currently hold. I'm not even confident the position I currently hold is tenable, yet you accuse me of systematic spreading of ideology. I'm going to have to report you, because you're making such accusations without any good reason.Ad hominem attacks -- discussions about someone's credentials or character are disallowed unless the exchange necessitates a clear need to point out a problem with a source of the information. Such exceptions shall be few and brief.
And what bearing would these questions have on a non-existent relationship?
So you don't think there is a relationship between the Bible and science, or are you merely trying to put words in my mouth, even though in my last post I explained my views on why I have questions about such a relationship?
How hard would it have been to simply ask "is there a relationship"? Beyond your capacity? I hope not.
Sorry, about it. I didn't know we needed to take baby steps. Given Genesis seems to be supported by Creation Science, I am assuming there must be a relationship (even though I do not yet understand it), so it seemed appropriate to move on to the next question, how does this relationship work?
One cannot answer nonsense questions. One is not wise to answer loaded or otherwise defective questions. I have provided more than one answer, for those who care. Those who really care can review and see, and classify your statement according to what they find. I have.
I thought my question was pretty straight forward, "How should I interpret the following quotes; 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Joshua 10:12-14?"
What is "loaded" about that? Just out of curiousity, do you jump at shadows? (now, that's a loaded question!)
It was you who brought up those matters. Your assertions don't constitute much of an argument, and they are clearly propagandistic in nature.
What assertions? I haven't made any assertion or any argument!
All I did is state what I'm interested in, and have since elaborated on why I'm interested due to a series of false allegations from you, because for some reason you're having difficulty with the fact I'm interested in biblical intepretation and science.
"the Bible isn't something to be proven or disproven." If this were true, it would prove the Bible false because the Bible itself tell us to prove all things. Beyond that, it has no value; it isn't something one can actually believe if one knows the first thing about the Bible.
Man, you're a piece work!
I don't know if it is true or not, that is simply my current view. It's background on why I'm asking, because straight off the bat you questioned my integrity by accusing me of propaganda and other nonsense. So I explained why I was asking. I do not even know why I have to justify myself in asking a fairly simply question. This is a bizarre discussion.
Do you always hold an Inquisition when someone asks you a question?
Now you claim to be tired of arguments of the sort that seek to prove or disprove the Bible. Can you be tired of something you've never encountered? Can you encounter so many as to tax you, and not learn anything at all about the Bible? Something here's got to give.
I have encountered arguments, didn't you read that I had a Catholic background? I'm familar with arguments in Catholicism, and frankly I'm sick of them, but I want to learn how other denominations think about the issue. I just didn't realise it was going to be so difficult to get answers from anyone.
And why are you trying to break me?
You propagandized further with your ridiculous claims about Buddhism, and then, realizing you were caught, you attempted to construct a straw man of my position. I never claimed "Christian Scholarship" predated Buddhism. Scrutiny of scripture was the subject of my claim. You're also the one who raised the date issue. No, you're not here to propagandize
My claims about Buddhism come from my knowledge on the subject, which if I am wrong about, in most civil society, people usually correct one another. They don't engage in personal attacks or belittle a person for being ignorant.
But the competition to claim who has the longest scholarship; buddhism or christianity is a non-issue in regard to the topic of this thread and my questions. I can only assume you are bringing it up to avoid actually addressing the topic of the thrread. Which makes me wonder why you even bother posting, are you taunting me?
Looks like another relationship where none are supposed to exist. This is the first mention of denominations, as I recall, and denominational treatment is a separate issue from does a relationship exist? Again, most persons competent with the English language would be able to posit a simple separate question.
This is just petty. The Catholics treat the relationship between biblical intepretation and science as NOMA; non-overlapping magisteria. That is, the Bible doesn't cross into the domain of science and science doesn't cross into the domain of the Bible, but they share a border. I don't really like that view.
And of course denominations are a seperate issue, but I have been accused of being disingenous by you and Adam, so I thought I would provide Adam some background to why I'm interested in Biblical intepretation, since he was making threats.