Posted on 06/04/2004 10:02:06 AM PDT by FairWitness
In my experience the opposite is correct.
Then who wears those strng ties?
I've personally known about polyploidy for years now. That your reaction to learning of it is "Heh! Heh!" is proof only that your ignorance is invincible.
The bad railroad tycoon buying up all the ranches.
That, specifically, is not what I was talking about.
It's ok though.
Do you buy Ben & Jerry's ice cream?
Do you drive a Volvo?
BMW. Really old, beat-up BMW that my father gave me when he upgraded to a Cadillac. Gets decent mileage, though, and it still has a great engine. Too bad the air conditioning doesn't work.
You're borderline.
Careful, "old" means something quite specific to Beemer aficianados; anything in the 3, 5, 6, or 7 series cars of the 70's and 80's is "new" to us.
And I have a '73 tii to prove it.....
Well, then, it's "new" as in 1986. I just don't like to call too much attention to the BMW label (somewhat worn off of the hood), because I don't want to come off sounding snobbish -- especially since the car's current condition makes it anything but snob-worthy.
Sure. Conspicuously curse your computer periodically.
Actually, I appreciated protest1's post, it was well-argued. Rejecting Biblical inerrancy is not an easy or comfortable position to take for precisely the reasons that protest1 highlights -- it is directly tied to our understanding as Christians as to who Jesus is. We believe that Jesus was both God and man. As a human, what were the limitations of Jesus's knowledge? Would he have believed in things that were not true, like the people around him, because no one knew better in those days? Or was Jesus totally omniscient in the way we believe God to be? I would argue that no, Jesus was not omniscient in this way. This would make Jesus only God wearing a human suit. (This is the heresy of docetism.) Indeed, Jesus himself indicated limits to his knowledge (Jesus said only the Father knew when he would return).
While I do not believe in Biblical inerrancy, I do believe in the authority of the scriptures. They do contain everything we need to know about salvation and about God. Four hundred years ago, Galileo disputed with the authorities about revealed truth and astronomy. His quote was memorable: "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
So, for example, while I believe that there are inconsistencies between the four Gospels, this does not threaten my faith in the least. It actually strengthens my belief in the resurrection because it means we have four independent sources concerning Jesus, all of which are in substantive agreement on his life and resurrection. (And we have the independent testimony of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, written 25 years after the crucifixion.)
That's not an "old" Beemer, that's a "baby-boomer" Beemer!
The way you can tell if a Beemer owner has a truly "old" Beemer is ask them about the "ventilation system" -- if they respond by saying: "ventilation; what's that?" -- they own a REALLY old Beemer. We own such cars because they are fun to drive, not because they were a status symbol.
;-)
I don't want to get into a debate about scripture, because: (a) I'm not qualified; and (b) that sort of thing belongs in the religion forum. Nevertheless, too many people come into the science threads and attempt to refute well-established scientific theories based on their interpretation of scripture. When that happens, it can end up hijacking a science thread over a non-scientific issue.
But I think your comment deserves a response. Personally, I don't think science is a threat to religion. Jesus used parables, and I don't see why we can't accept that parables (or metaphors) exist in other areas of scripture too. The challenge is in knowing how to recognize when scripture should not be given a literal meaning. Sometimes it's easy, as when the passage is about dreams, or when it's obviously poetry. But other times it's not that easy.
You mentioned Galileo, and that subject a very instructive source of guidance. Following his absurd heresy conviction over the issue of the solar system (The Crime of Galileo: Indictment and Abjuration of 1633), many people, including the Pope ( Message from the Pope, 1996 re evolution), have understood that when science indicates a literal meaning of some scriptural passage is impossible, we should regard it as metaphor, and not read scripture in a way that will contradict information that science provides about the physical world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.