No rush--I just think it would be interesting. I agree about the discussion issues. It does make it easier.

January 26th 2009

You are most welcome for the review. I've discovered I can discuss things with people who don't come out swinging and don't have ulterior motives (knowingly anyway). On the back-and-forth idea, I have a major writing assignment due by the end of the month; so let me get back to you. God bless you.

January 26th 2009

That was an awfully nice review you just posted. Thank you. Would you be interested in a joint, back-and-forth type post on the blog?

January 25th 2009

I think that anyone who presumes to think that he understands the Bible completely is pretty arrogant. One has to understand a lot in the context of the entirety (Old&New Test.) Certain things are clearly meant to be literal&historical; certain are clearly parables&analogies; a few are maybe both.

January 25th 2009

You're leaning toward what is mundanely considered the literal while not ruling out the figurative. A day is as a thousand years, and each of those thousand years contains days each as a thousand years. Eternity is forever in both directions. It won't remain a mystery forever though. Peace and love.

January 25th 2009

...but 300 characters ran out :) Anyway, I am in the "watch and wait" mode for that mystery to be explained. The contradiction does not particularly disturb me. I don't deny it or try to explain it away. It is what it is and scientists see what they/we see. I still believe God.

January 25th 2009

I am not sure. Although it says that, with God, a day is the same as 1,000, and vice versa, the way the Bible is written (i.e., in the context of other books of the Bible), it would seem that the meaning is 6 days, rather than 6 "ages." I know that archeologic discoveries strongly suggest otherwise.

January 25th 2009

I see. Well, concerning the 6 days of Creation then, do hold with literal 24-hour periods or with each day equaling an age or with something else?

January 25th 2009

I belong to a contemporary Baptist/independent church and I do believe in the infallibility of Bible and that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I was fully trained in the theory of evolution. However, although clearly nature dictates survival of the fittest, I do not believe in evolution

January 24th 2009

Does your whole congregation hold with you on where science starts and leaves off? The Statement of Faith isn't foreign to so-called Fundamentalism/literalism; however, your views suggest to me so far that you hold with Old Earth and evolution. God bless you for earnestly seeking truth.

January 24th 2009

Makes good sense to me. I suspect that our views are more alike than either one of us thinks. :)

January 24th 2009

It is completed: http://soulandsubstance.blogspot.com/2009/01/are-christianity-and-science-mutually.html

January 19th 2009

I am part-way through the post. I look forward to your interesting insights.

January 19th 2009

Just so you understand, my point was not about negating the mundane laws of physics. My point concerned transcending them wherever, whenever, and how God chooses to reveal what testing will not reveal. I'll stop the shouts on this subject now. I'll watch for your post. God bless.

January 19th 2009

Actually, I do not agree that they are mutually exclusive. Faith consists of believing in what cannot be seen or proved. It does not negate the laws of physics. God may choose if/when He changes those laws, but He set up the laws to begin with. Since space is limited, I will expound on the S&S blog

January 19th 2009

Discussing Christianity and science is a matter of semantics. They are mutually exclusive in terms of where one puts what faith. The scientific method starts from doubt. God limits what it yields. Scientific testing cannot bring forth all that faith can. It can though measure results. Do you agree?

January 19th 2009

I will soon be posting some more personal comments on the Soul and Substance blog. I hope you will stop by, periodically.

January 18th 2009

It is my understanding of science, in conjunction of my strong faith in biblical Christianity, that inspires me to communicate to others that the two are not mutually exclusive--hence the name Soul and Substance.

January 18th 2009

After having read your Statement of Faith, I see where we diverge concerning certain of what most people would term theological matters. Just to be clear, it is the subject of mundane science that led me to comment on your initial shout. I leave it to you to decide whether and where to respond. Love

January 18th 2009

The only place I have a personal "Statement of Faith" is in my Servingers blog. (from Charles Stanley's web site). I read your statement of faith and then saw a qualified interpretation of the Bible based on a long document. I am making an attempt to read it & will respond more fully afterwards.

January 17th 2009

Hello, I would be interested to hear what it is with which you don't agree. I read your homepage. I didn't find a point at which we diverge. Perhaps you could point me to a particular post of yours that would show me. By the way, how much of the RLCC site have you read? Bless you, sister.

January 17th 2009

Although I don't necessarily agree with everything you say on your blogs, I am glad to be a friend and sister in Christ.

January 16th 2009