Uzytkownik "Snowbird" <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk>
napisal w wiadomosci news:zCQ%b.12890$h44.1322891@stones.force9.net...
> Jerzy Jakubowski wrote:
> > Snowbird <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:<yWr%b.11935$h44.1248971@stones.force9.net>...
> >
> >>Jerzy Jakubowski wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>dgenglish@hotmail.com (dave e) wrote in message
news:<10ffa4e4.0402251455.6a6303dd@posting.google.com>...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Snowbird <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:<HJN_b.11469$Y%6.1079250@wards.force9.net>...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Uncle Davey wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>So, umm, what's your scientific theory of the resurrection, then?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I never claimed to have one. Nor did I claim that one was necessary.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>-
> >>>>>Wayne
> >>>>
> >>>>Three errors common to medical pseudoscience today, can equally well
> >>>>be applied to the Biblical accounts of the resurection.
> >>>>
> >>>>1. Patient's initial condition is not carefully diagnosed (Was Jesus
> >>>>actually dead, prior to the reported resurection?)
> >>>>
> >>>>2. Patient's final condition is not properly evaluated (Did Jesus
> >>>>actually come back to life, after he reportedly died?)
> >>>>
> >>>>3. The case study is entirely bogus. The patient never existed, as
> >>>>claimed.
> >>>>
> >>>>Dave
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That's not quite what I had in mind in my question for Snowbird.
> >>>
> >>>Wayne, why is a scientific theory of the new creation not necessary
> >>>when a scientific theory of the first one was?
> >>
> >>The theory of evolution is not a theory of creation of the universe.
> >>Resurrection is not a 'new creation' of the universe and is a faith
issue.
> >>
> >>-
> >>Wayne
> >
> >
> >
> > But the New Testament talks about the universe dissolving with fervent
> > heat and a new heaven and earth appearing, so how is that not a 'new
> > creation' of the Universe?
>
> That wasn't the issue. The issue was that the resurrection of Jesus isn't
> a new creation and doesn't need a scientific theory. Heck nothing *needs*
> a scientific theory, *we* just use them to try and find things out about
> this universe.
>
> > Which bits of the Bible do you believe and which bits don't you
> > believe?
>
> I think you are drifting from the original question.
>
> -
> Wayne
That may be so, but is that a good reason not to answer the question?
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
|