God is Real

[Mr.Obvious]

Thats exactly what I mean, the two are different, but not necessarily in opposition to each other

Not necessarily, true.
Yet it's the truth that they are in opposition in a lot of cases. In which case compartimentalization is the only option if you want to cling to both, but that does not make it right, true or 'not in opposition'. It's just that you cancel out the opposition in your brain. Ignoring the problem is not proof of the two notions going hand in hand.

[Contemporary Protestant]

Well how are they in opposition? From my point of view (MY POINT OF VIEW, i understand no one here agrees) is that if I read scripture and it is contrary to a proven fact, then I should do research, and re read it until it makes sense. In my personal views, scripture can't be wrong, but it can be read wrong very easily

[Mermaid]

I work with a few scientists who agree with you, CP. They are tops in their field and also devout Christians. I could never quite reconcile that, but figure they can, and that is all that matters.

[Mr.Obvious]

Well how are they in opposition? From my point of view (MY POINT OF VIEW, i understand no one here agrees) is that if I read scripture and it is contrary to a proven fact, then I should do research, and re read it until it makes sense. In my personal views, scripture can't be wrong, but it can be read wrong very easily

You would still be starting with the assumption that you had the conclusion. You start with the 'knowledge' (as in knowing something to be true without it actually having to be true) that scripture is infallible and always correct. And then you try your best to make the facts stick together, find links and vague references and through biased will forge them together so that your previous conclusion stays the same: the scripture is infallible. But you wouldn't be following the scientific method of letting the facts speak for themselves and research them without bias.

And that's the core problem. I could give you a few things that defy scripture. But from your answer I gather you've already found some of those and took  the non-scientific path. So you can't say you also went in accordance with science, you seperated them, compartimentalized them. You ignore the opposition in your brain and favour scripture. So, if you've already had examples, me giving you more won't change anything. You need to realize that when you're following the biased path you're shoving away the core principles of the scientific method.

[Contemporary Protestant]

Well what are you familiar with?

things I've found are

1. most of Genesis, this is a poem, which is why I don't think its literal

2. Job, i have yet to understand this

3. violence in OT, I have yet to understand this, however Im beginning to arrive at the conclusion that it was "eye for an eye" kind of thing, violent things happened to violent people

[Poison Tree]

Well how are they in opposition? From my point of view (MY POINT OF VIEW, i understand no one here agrees) is that if I read scripture and it is contrary to a proven fact, then I should do research, and re read it until it makes sense. In my personal views, scripture can't be wrong, but it can be read wrong very easily

Sounds to me like your bullshitting yourself. Scripture can't be wrong, just the words written in it? Of course you can twist the words around and ignore what they actually say until they agree with any thing. You could do that with any book if you had the desire to. All that proves is you are willing to deceive yourself.

Why would god communicate to men through a book that "can be read wrong very easily", that can be mistranslated easily, that the majority of people who've read it have misunderstood?

[Contemporary Protestant]

Well when I say "reading it incorrectly" I am not saying the words in it are wrong, I'm saying that the reader doesn't understand the context. For example in NT, verses about time use the greek word "Kairos" which means something entirely different from "Cronos", if a reader didn't know the difference, the text would be much more difficult to read

[Mr.Obvious]

Well what are you familiar with?

things I've found are

1. most of Genesis, this is a poem, which is why I don't think its literal

2. Job, i have yet to understand this

3. violence in OT, I have yet to understand this, however Im beginning to arrive at the conclusion that it was "eye for an eye" kind of thing, violent things happened to violent people

You do realize this post is exactly proving my point, don't you?

[josephpalazzo]

Well how are they in opposition? From my point of view (MY POINT OF VIEW, i understand no one here agrees) is that if I read scripture and it is contrary to a proven fact, then I should do research, and re read it until it makes sense. In my personal views, scripture can't be wrong, but it can be read wrong very easily

[Contemporary Protestant]

Y'all disagree with me and Im fine with that, but I think there isn't anything more to say about this

I think the Bible is infallible

You don't

I can't change you, and you can't change me

[Hakurei Reimu]

False equivalency, I'm afraid. See, there is actually a way to change our stance, and that is for empirical evidence to turn up that draws our conclusion away from our current stance that "the bible is not infallible" to the contrary view, but you seem not to have that position. Your belief in the infallibility of the Bible is unshakable. That, in itself, makes it an inferior position, because you are making statements about the world that the evidence does not support.

The difference between us is that, for important questions, we have learned to live with doubt instead of being so completely terrified of it that we would fill in with any answer that appeal to us, as you have. Furthermore, you are so steadfast in your conviction that the Bible is infallible that it boarders on arrogance â€" the arrogance that you have been taught the one true belief amongst all the philosophies available, instead of listening to the world itself and let it tell you how it works and how it came to be.

[Contemporary Protestant]

I think its rude for you to say I'm arrogant, I didn't become a Christian until I was a teenager, and I have listened to other philosophies. The other philosophies do not fulfill my spiritual needs


on the topic of logical fallacy, yes I'm guilty of them but so are you, a false flag

[Shol'va]

What logical fallacy is Hakurei guilty of?

[Contemporary Protestant]

False flag, that may not be the proper name, I've heard it described as attacking as false

assuming someone is wrong before asking any questions, Im not claiming to be logical, I'm just saying don't be illogical if you value being logical

[Shol'va]

You're not the first Christian, nor theist that myself, Hakurei, and the rest of this forum have interacted with. In fact, many, if not most of us here, were Christian at one point, so I think you're goint to have a hard time making a case that Hakurei is making assumptions.