|!||This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.|
Edit comment: 'removed stupid uncited ref "the Bible to be inaccurate" '
What was stupid about it? As for it being unreferenced, the reference at the end of that sentence has the bloke saying, "Fr Funes ... said ... that the Bible should not be held to account for its lack of scientific accuracy." If he says that it has a lack of scientific accuracy, he is saying that it is inaccurate (in areas that science says differently). That bit should be reinstated. Philip J. Rayment 17:22, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
- Sorry I took offense. He was not saying that he believed the bible was inaccurate, just in regards to science. You can reword the phrase. The bible is inaccurate to explain science. It just sounded like the Rev doesn't believe in the bible, which he does. Bloke? Are you from down under? My apologies. -- jp 17:35, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, I'm from down under. "He was not saying that he believed the bible was inaccurate, just in regards to science.". That's a contradiction. If he's saying that it's inaccurate "in regards to science", then he's saying that it's inaccurate! Saying that someone believes that the Bible is inaccurate doesn't mean that they think it gets every single thing wrong, or that he doesn't believe any of it; it just means that they believe it contains inaccuracies, so they don't believe those bits. If he believes that it contains inaccuracies in the area of science, then it is perfectly correct to say that he believes it to be inaccurate. And therefore he doesn't believe some of what the Bible says. Philip J. Rayment 19:11, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
- According to Catholicism, you believe every last word or you are a heretic. If you believe science is not in the bible is not a 'contradiction' on believing in the bible. He is not stating he believes the bible to contain inaccuracies. And therefore he does believe all of what the Bible says. Maybe I'll write him, then we'll get to the bottom of it.-- jp 20:31, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
- Let me add, I take away my apology.-- jp 20:38, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
- Okay, so by Catholicism's definition, he is a heretic. I'd go along with that. He didn't say that he believes "science is not in the Bible" (whatever that means), but that it contains scientific inaccuracies. That is, he believes that the Bible is inaccurate on some points. Which means that he doesn't believe those points. Apart from denying that he said what he's reported to have said, nothing you've said refutes that. And by the way (referring to your last edit comment), you are not in a position to be giving me orders. Philip J. Rayment 21:42, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
- Don't you get it? You are offending me and my religion. MY Pope doesn't surround himself with people that feel the Bible is inaccurate or believe in some of what the Bible says. You are misinterpreting what the Rev. says. There is not an exact line where he says the Bible is inaccurate. How can you say that if he believe there is no science in the Bible a contradiction? You are looking from the outside-in and you think you have the correct answer. Maybe it is the other way around basing his views on the Bible rather than on secular science. He is saying God can do anything, this includes make ET's. He is putting God above science, not making any exceptions. -- jp 22:50, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
- How am I offending you and your religion? I'm not having a go at you, nor at your religion. My only criticism is of Funes. As for whether the Pope doesn't surround himself with such people, it seems that he does (although of course I'm generalising from a few examples). How am I misinterpreting? The "exact line" in the report was "...the Bible should not be held to account for its lack of scientific accuracy". That is, he is clearly saying that the Bible has a lack of scientific accuracy. That is, he is clearly saying that the Bible has scientific inaccuracies. That is, he is clearly saying that the Bible has inaccuracies (qualifying them as a scientific inaccuracies doesn't mean that they are no longer inaccuracies). So where the Bible says one thing and "science" says something different, he considers the Bible to be the one that's inaccurate, and therefore the one that he doesn't believe.
- "How can you say that if he believe there is no science in the Bible a contradiction?": Sorry, but that's not even a proper sentence, so it's hard for me to be sure what you are asking. But to answer what you might be asking, he said that there was a lack of accuracy in the Bible's science; he didn't say that there was no science in the Bible.
- When he says that the Bible has scientific inaccuracies, and he believes the science rather than the Bible, then he is clearly not basing his views on the Bible rather than science. And by the way, the question is not whether God can do anything. The question is what God did, and what He said He did. That is, God could have made ETs. But this is contrary to what God said he did.
- Philip J. Rayment 02:32, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
- You go ahead and defend atheist dork PZ Meyers, I will go ahead and defend my Catholic Pope and Fumes. Just remove the last word in his statement "...the Bible should not be held to account for its lack of science." There is nothing 'clearly' about your accusations. Rather your bias contradicts yourself. Lack of scientific accuracy and the Bible is inaccurate are separate from another. "How am I offending you and your religion?" It is NO big deal for you to call the Popes inner circle 'HERETICS'-- jp 05:12, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
- I did not defend Myers, at least not with any intention to do so. I was defending the truth. I simply pointed out that that Myers did do something that Andy said he would not do. If you will note, I also said that he was "offensive, illogical, and close-minded". That's hardly an indication that I like the bloke (who, by the way, once called me a troll, despite this being in reference to a conversation in which one of my adversaries actually complimented me a few times).
- If you have to actually remove a word from a sentence to make your point, then you have clearly lost your argument.
- "...your bias contradicts yourself": Yet you demonstrate no bias nor contradiction.
- "Lack of scientific accuracy and the Bible is inaccurate are separate from another.": Yet you totally fail to demonstrate this. How are they separate?
- ""How am I offending you and your religion?" It is NO big deal for you to call the Popes inner circle 'HERETICS'": I merely pointed out that Fume fitted the definition that you provided. If the cap fits...
- Philip J. Rayment 09:40, 12 September 2008 (EDT)