I agree with RT. In addition , I’d say that just because God interacts with the physical world has nothing to do with science. God doesn’t do impossible things like make square circles or integer square roots of two. Therefore, there would be no reason that He would interact with the world in a way that science could not explain. For all we know, He interacts at a quantum level, where weird shit happens all the time.
ETA:
What I’m saying is that His interaction doesn’t mean that science would detect Him as an agent, which makes sense since He is supernatural and science is for investigating nature only.
No. The definition of “bigot” does not necessarily include an inclination to persecution. Just a belief in one’s own superiority and an intolerance for other views. A belief that someone deserves to be tortured for disagreeing with you is pretty intolerant in my book.
And once again, I didn’t say “all evangelicals,” I was responding specifically to prior statements about “evangelicals who think Jews don’t go to Heaven.”
Bush has said that he thinks Jews can’t go to heaven, by the way.
Christ performed miracles, which would have been detectable if “science” existed during that time. But if God interacts with the physical world in such a way that it is not detectable by us, then there is no difference between that state and God not existing. Either hypothesis (God exists or God doesn’t exist) are equally valid. There can be no reason to choose one over the other. I don’t think that is compatible with Christianity.
Well it could be. There isn’t any reason that one couldn’t state “the world was created in seven days” as a scientific hypothesis, it just turns out its an incorrect hypothesis.
Again, I think it matters on how you think God intervenes. I suppose if you theorize that he intervenes in some unobservable way, then there isn’t a contradiction with science. But as a practical matter, I think most people that believe such things believe that Gods intervention is something that people can observe.
Do you have some example of how this would work? What type of interaction would be undetectable.
Not if they were done at the quantum level. Observation of subatomic goings-on is problematic, which science readily acknowledges (and even discovered). At any given time, a subatomic particle may disappear from in front of you and reappear in the Andromeda Galaxy, or in France, or behind you. All that is required for a man to walk through a wall is a sequence of fantastically unlikely (but not impossible) events. If Jesus had a supernatural command over the quantum world, science would have seen the results of His work, but might have been unable to follow exactly how it happened.
Which means they’re evil according to that particular theology. Unless you’re saying that they think God burns people who AREN’T evil and don’t deserve it.
I doubt you ever really thought about it. Did you ever really ponder, deep in your heart, whether you thought those people deserved what you thought they were going to get?
These kinds of Evangelicals don’t believe in infant baptism and they don’t believe that infants or children below the age of accountability go to Hell. They don’t think anyone “deserves” it until they are capable of informed belief (the exact age varies denominationally).
I don’t think you really have thought about it. I’m not wrong.
Liberal, I’m a physicist. With all due respect, you aren’t going to teach me anything about physics. You understand it better than most people who haven’t studied it, but I have studied it. If Jesus had “command over the quantum world” (which is a nonsensical statement, btw, even if I think know what you’re trying to say), it would still be detectable. Quantum mechanics is non-intuitive, but it isn’t as problematic as you imply. And it can’t be used to explain Jesus’ miracles.
Yes, and it wasn’t a matter of “deserve”. God’s will is not something Man can understand.
“These kinds”? Sounds like the “no true evangelical” fallacy to me. You’re making a blanket, bigoted statement. Plain and simple.
I went to Catholic schools in the 60s, back when Limbo was in play. In fact, I think it’s only recently that Catholics have admitted that Limbo is bunk, and that it’s possible to go to heaven without being baptized. According to DtC, all those Catholics were anti-Semitic bigots. Including me!
No, it’s a factual statement about denominational beliefs. Most evangelical denominations – especially the fundamentalists and Pentacostalists – (in other words, “these kinds” = the denominations which don’t believe Jews can go to Heaven) do not believe in infant baptsm and do not believe infants and children go to hell. That’s just a fact, dude, nothing bigoted about it.
I’ve never met a Catholic who believed in literal hellfire/burning of flesh. I can’t speak for John Mace, but I was never taught that hell was the kind of “torture” you are thinking of.
Most Americans detest tooth fillings, pap smears, and prostate examinations. I think that is germane.
And Darwin’s theory was developed on the cusp between ‘Natural Philosophy’ and science as we know it. In fact, his work was more Natural Philosophy, drawing logical inferences from observations, than science: developing hypotheses from observations, testing hypotheses, modifying hypotheses in responses to the results of testing, repeat, and finally presenting a theory.
