Hey Sweets!!!! Another spelling crime. Arrest that man!
If you don't know what's wrong it can't be fixed
by N.drew 220 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
NewChapter
How does it appear they do not?
-
N.drew
How does it appear they do not?
I think you mean are not
Well the Earth is sick. I do not see that the animals are sick. The Earth has to be "angry" if it could get angry, I don't know. The animals for the most part aren't angry.
But really I was just offering my view on it. I actually have no idea. No good idea I mean.
To tell you the honest to goodness truth I don't even know if the question was for that!
-
N.drew
It seems to me that the animals if they are part of Earth's spirit they would be more similar to each other in their disposition (not kind) and they would be in defence mode, wouldn't they?
-
sabastious
Does this same 'rule' go for all holy writings? I'm just trying to define the boundaries. And might I also suggest that since science has no business explaining the contents of the bible, then religion has no business meddling with science. Don't try to use science to prove any point in the bible (cuz that's just plain silly) and don't use the bible or religion or spirituality to try and disprove ANY point in science.
What if one wishes to try to bridge the gap? I believe science and spiritailty can move closer to each other using scientific methodology. Spirituality by defintion is not empirical, but science is not void of philosophy. For the most part secularists use their tools in an attempt to disprove spirituality for a variety of personal reasons. My point is that you don't need to go past Genesis 1 to realize that the Bible is a book for philosophy more so than it is for science. I do agree, though, science should never be leaned on to prove spirituality. If God required the scientific method to prove himself then we should just call the scientific method the end all be all and stick a fork in any book that purports to teach spirituality.
Now, I'm not saying the Bible is completel off limits to science, I am saying that if you go into it with the idea that there is no spirit realm or God, then you shouldn't be able to get past Genesis 1:1.
For example if I start reading a book on physics and I disagree with the first sentence that sets up the rest of the book then there is no reason to continue reading the book, much less try to refute it. I need to either clear up my misconception or just move onto something I feel is more substantial and worthwhile.
-Sab
-
sabastious
I have not considered if animals are a part of Earth's spirit. It appears they are not. They do of course have a body thus a spirit.
The big difference between a tree and an earth worm is a brain and a heart. So it could be said that if you have those you have an intelligent soul?
-Sab
-
SweetBabyCheezits
Hey, Sab, all's well. Hope life's treating you right.
Scientific method adheres to a specific standard for understanding the universe and unlocking its secrets. Religion/spirituality does not, but is based on feelings. That's fine. There are existing realm(s)/event horizons which lie outside the grasp of the current tools/methods of science. There's so much we don't know and can't know right now. And I'm good with that.
But those who turn their noses up at science as 'foolishness of the world', such as NDrew and the WTBTS have done...
Ndrew: The "world" that Jesus warned us to be no part of is what determins what "factual" is. You know by now that I don't care what the world determines.
...if being consistent in that judgment, should refuse to use a modern Bible or any information/tools produced with the assistance of science that supports Bible accounts, translation, etc. Some folks climb the boughs of science to 'determine what is factual' corroborate or learn things about the Bible, but then shout down science as foolishness.
In discrediting science, we should ensure that no methods of science were intertwined in the production of any Bible we use. Of course, without corroboration, why would anyone take the Bible over Aesop's fables as more or less factual? Or the the Quran?
So get busy, Nance. Might as well trash that Bible you're reading and go out looking for original manuscripts. Just be sure not to use the scientific method in your search for those manuscripts, because that's how the "world determines" "what factual is" and you don't care about that.
"If you want to build a pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." - Sagan
-
sabastious
Religion/spirituality does not, but is based on feelings.
This is very incorrect SBC. Religion and spirituality are based upon human experience. All systems of religion and spirituality, that stuck in culture, are based off of revelation, not feelings. We are talking about the 5 senses here which are fundemental to the scientific method. When researching Celtic Mythology I came accross an interesting statement: 'One does not have to be educated in order to see fairies'. There are the people who see the fairies and the people who follow the people who saw them.
-Sab
-
N.drew
should refuse to use a modern Bible
I refuse to use a modern Bible. I will still read them. But I don't draw any conclusions from them.
or any information/tools produced by science that supports Bible accounts, translation, etc
Why? Is this a contest between a horse and a train?
-
SweetBabyCheezits
For the most part secularists use their tools in an attempt to disprove spirituality for a variety of personal reasons.
What I see, when boiled down, is that most secularists I know are interested in TRUTH as much as any religionist. In fact, many scientists are worried that misinformation is being passed on as TRUTH. So they are attempting to keep religionists from asserting AS TRUTH that which cannot be proven using a consistent standard of judgment.
If the unexplained is somehow "explained" 300 different ways, based on different cultures, anecdotes, upbringings, customs, etc.... is it really explained? Have your way with spirituality - that's fine. But you can't all be right and none of you are offering a method that is consistent and unbiased like the scientific method so, until then, everything else is "feelings."