740
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 40:
Line 40: + Line 57:
Line 58: + +
→Are humans animals?: Was Solomon right?
The assumption that religious or supernatural ideas cannot or should not be studied, is not inherently scientific (see [[methodological naturalism]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:36, 16 January 2010 (EST)
The assumption that religious or supernatural ideas cannot or should not be studied, is not inherently scientific (see [[methodological naturalism]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:36, 16 January 2010 (EST)
===(extra section break inserted to help things out)===
:I was a bit arrogant to "close" discussion on this point. Sorry! Let's keep talking - and not just because I have something new to say, although I admit that helped me to realize my mistake. :-)
:I was a bit arrogant to "close" discussion on this point. Sorry! Let's keep talking - and not just because I have something new to say, although I admit that helped me to realize my mistake. :-)
:::As a theological issue I think this matters to my work on the CBP, specifically [[Ecclesiastes_(Translated)#Chapter_3]] 18-22 please go take a look. --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 15:12, 20 January 2010 (EST)
:::As a theological issue I think this matters to my work on the CBP, specifically [[Ecclesiastes_(Translated)#Chapter_3]] 18-22 please go take a look. --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 15:12, 20 January 2010 (EST)
::::Myself, I don't think the actual answer matters to Ecclesiastes, because (according to my analysis) Solomon wrote this book while he was an idolater - so he got a lot of things wrong. (Perhaps this page isn't [[Talk:Ecclesiastes|the best place to discuss this sub-topic further]]...) --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 15:18, 20 January 2010 (EST)