I cannot find a way to make all four gospels agree with the resurrection account. They say very different things, and the rebuttals I have found do not address the problem, they only dodge it. I would love to hear or read an account where all four gospels agree.
What really bothers me is that most who are against abortion also want to reduce benefits for those less fortunate. So if someone wishes to have an abortion due to their current financial situation, but cannot because of law, are left depending on government support. Some will opt to put the child up for adoption, and if a home is not found they end up in foster care, which could be an absolute horror for the child. They could end up being raised by a bitter parent who did not want them. It seems to me that life matters more to some than the quality of life. If you are anti abortion, it should be your duty to help support those who need it. This is often not the case. Instead, they want to eliminate or greatly reduce social benefits.
The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and the Theory of Evolution are different. If you can prove the other two had to be supernatural, it would not change the facts about Evolution. There are many religious groups, including Christianity, that recognize the evidence for Evolution. The only people who argue against it are either uneducated in this field of study or their personal beliefs conflict with the evidence, so they choose to ignore it. Scientists from every continent, of every religious persuasion, in every single field of scientific studies, all agree that this Theory is evidentially true. The question should be asked, are any of these sources mentioned by pro not influenced by their religious convictions or unbiased in nature?
I will attempt to clarify my position. A meteorologist is an expert in weather patterns and makes predictions about the upcoming forecast. This is what comes to mind when I think of scientists opinions. Not someone’s opinion outside their own particular field of study. I don’t have time to stare at radars all day to make reasonable predictions. Climate change is the same. I don’t have access to the same instruments and tools scientists have to study the effects of climate change. I depend on their expert opinions about the facts. We can all see the facts, but sometimes we need opinions from people who study these facts. I wouldn’t got to a dentist for advice on a brain tumor. They study very different things, hence why we have specialists. My main point is that it is impossible for us to study everything reasonably enough to have an expert opinion on the matter. I never made the argument that we should believe everything they say, only that it’s reasonable to believe them because they have hands on experience. The other option is to just believe what you want if it makes you feel good, but who would do this when it really matters, like being diagnosed with cancer. We do rely on experts when our health depends on it. Scientists are experts in their field of study, and should be treated with the same respect. Doctors are wrong from time to time, as I am sure scientists are, but they have a much greater chance of interpreting the facts correctly because they study them for a living.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but fact and opinions get blurred sometimes. For instance, the Big Bang Theory is based on facts, but as a whole can be viewed as opinion. It to me seems responsible to believe this, if by belief you mean probably true or possibly true, not definitely true. Scientists also give their expert opinions based on evidence they have collected and reviewed on subjects like climate change. I do appreciate the criticism though.
I cannot find a way to make all four gospels agree with the resurrection account. They say very different things, and the rebuttals I have found do not address the problem, they only dodge it. I would love to hear or read an account where all four gospels agree.
What really bothers me is that most who are against abortion also want to reduce benefits for those less fortunate. So if someone wishes to have an abortion due to their current financial situation, but cannot because of law, are left depending on government support. Some will opt to put the child up for adoption, and if a home is not found they end up in foster care, which could be an absolute horror for the child. They could end up being raised by a bitter parent who did not want them. It seems to me that life matters more to some than the quality of life. If you are anti abortion, it should be your duty to help support those who need it. This is often not the case. Instead, they want to eliminate or greatly reduce social benefits.
The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and the Theory of Evolution are different. If you can prove the other two had to be supernatural, it would not change the facts about Evolution. There are many religious groups, including Christianity, that recognize the evidence for Evolution. The only people who argue against it are either uneducated in this field of study or their personal beliefs conflict with the evidence, so they choose to ignore it. Scientists from every continent, of every religious persuasion, in every single field of scientific studies, all agree that this Theory is evidentially true. The question should be asked, are any of these sources mentioned by pro not influenced by their religious convictions or unbiased in nature?
I will attempt to clarify my position. A meteorologist is an expert in weather patterns and makes predictions about the upcoming forecast. This is what comes to mind when I think of scientists opinions. Not someone’s opinion outside their own particular field of study. I don’t have time to stare at radars all day to make reasonable predictions. Climate change is the same. I don’t have access to the same instruments and tools scientists have to study the effects of climate change. I depend on their expert opinions about the facts. We can all see the facts, but sometimes we need opinions from people who study these facts. I wouldn’t got to a dentist for advice on a brain tumor. They study very different things, hence why we have specialists. My main point is that it is impossible for us to study everything reasonably enough to have an expert opinion on the matter. I never made the argument that we should believe everything they say, only that it’s reasonable to believe them because they have hands on experience. The other option is to just believe what you want if it makes you feel good, but who would do this when it really matters, like being diagnosed with cancer. We do rely on experts when our health depends on it. Scientists are experts in their field of study, and should be treated with the same respect. Doctors are wrong from time to time, as I am sure scientists are, but they have a much greater chance of interpreting the facts correctly because they study them for a living.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but fact and opinions get blurred sometimes. For instance, the Big Bang Theory is based on facts, but as a whole can be viewed as opinion. It to me seems responsible to believe this, if by belief you mean probably true or possibly true, not definitely true. Scientists also give their expert opinions based on evidence they have collected and reviewed on subjects like climate change. I do appreciate the criticism though.
Thanks for voting!
I appreciate you taking the time to explain why you voted the way you did, I am definitely going to take some pointers from it.