Is it because theologians believe that if we redefine "proof", we can change the meaning to "because the Bible said so", and then they won't need evidence?
2007-12-29 08:34:15 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can convince themselves of anything."-Robert A. Heinlein
The above quotation should be self-explanatory.
2007-12-29 08:46:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
They aren't redefining it merely expanding their perspective - i.e; building on the current understanding.
Plus your statement is rather leading - you assume all theologians will expand on the theory of proof for the purpose of proving the writings that lie within the bible.
It says so right there in your question.
My point is that yes, perhaps there are things written in the bible that may not be true, but that it is also a possibility that there are things that were written in the bible which are untrue out of circumstance, rather than being flat-out wrong.
for example; maybe Jesus was just some dude with mad powers and couldn't explain why he had them and then went mental because of it.
We humans can merely perceive what we can see, correct?
2007-12-29 08:39:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, the evidence that a Christian has available to them can not be transferred to someone else through books, or even words. I have experienced hundreds of things that are full evidence of the existance of and the love of God, yet I can not show you any of them. It is for that reason that all the man created evidence of science can not shake my faith. I have experienced God personally and do not have to depend on someone else for validation. Proof from a scientific standpoint is simply a "belief" that this means that etc. Science has been wrong before and it will be wrong again because it's facts are determined by the minds of men. I can not prove to you that there is a God...or that he loves you...but I KNOW that he is there....and I KNOW that he loves me. The Bible has absolutely nothing to do with it. I would know it even if I had never read a word of the Bible. Can you say the same about your science? Do you KNOW?
2007-12-29 08:43:56 · answer #3 · answered by Poohcat1 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
this would take a protracted answer, so right here is going: first of all, we ask for evidence because of the fact we are speaking approximately some thing way larger than grandparents falling in love. we are speaking on the topic of the introduction of the international, and of ourselves, and the dynamic of the universe and all that all of us understand. this is alot. And to make any theory, we desire evidence. And mutually as we did no longer see the huge bang, we are in a position to be sure evolution, and there is evidence that the huge bang surpassed off. we are in a position to't determine of path, yet for this reason we call it a theory. If I die and discover out god is genuine, i visit walk as much as him, head held severe, and say "sir, I made a good mistake." finally, the reason the dollar invoice says In God we have confidence is with the help of the fact our founding fathers did no longer have technological expertise, and that they had to rationalize the interest, and so as they had faith. The pledge of allegiance has "one us of a under god" because of the fact Eisenhower, a christian, extra it.
2016-12-18 11:27:00 · answer #4 · answered by selders 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's not my experience.
Ask a scientist for proof and if he is an athiest he will quote the latest scientific theory that his fellow scientists require him to confess as proof. He will ignore all facts that are in opposed to that theory that he is required to confess and he will allow no discussion of alternative theories.
Ask a theologin and he will show you how the facts are are harmony with the Bible.
2007-12-29 08:44:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Science is different than religion. Music is different from painting. Can a human embrace all, yes. You can't say that music is better or worse than painting, just different. Can science prove or disprove God, no. Can religion give us a cure for cancer, no. They shouldn't be compared.
2007-12-29 08:40:44 · answer #6 · answered by PROBLEM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A low standard for proof and evidence is always helpful to the bible supporters.
2007-12-29 08:37:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋
science still has no definitive evidence of the theory of evolution...so your question is irrelevant...besides how can you prove that love is real when you can't prove that it is real...you only see action of a person but can not see love with your eye...does that mean love is not real because it can't be proven as real...
2007-12-29 08:43:52 · answer #8 · answered by turntable 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋