Are there any assumptions made, in the determination of the age of the universe? I’m pretty sure there are. If so, then it has not yet been proven and its a theory.

No, what I meant was, that two religions can be contradictory based on just one belief. Depends on the belief though.

We know the age of the universe? Please, that’s ridiculous. We don’t know, we have done math, and made guesses. If we have an age for it, it’s just a theory.

Wether Jesus was referring to the gate or not kind of doesn’t matter, since it was followed with the comment “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.” Basically meant a rich man could never do it on his own.

Yeah, I think both religion and science have taken a back seat to just plain ol’ greed and power.

Great wealth corrupts people. Jesus did say that even rich people can be saved though. But only with the power of God.

Perfect example.

1. The rich man loved his wealth more.
2. “And Jesus, looking at him, loved him…” He didn’t whip him and tell him to leave, he loved him.

“But religions aren’t like that” Yeah, some religions are like that.

Well, religion is based on faith and history (but at a certain point falls back on faith since you aren’t there in the past), and science should be based on empirical evidence. So both realms can’t operate exactly the same, although they can cross over.

Many people do research on many faiths, and their research convinces them that a particular one is correct. They can live the rest of their life believing that particular faith is correct, and stick with it, even if they are open to being proven wrong.

And with science, if you actually prove something true, you do not have to act as though you have not. Now, if you only have a theory, then yes, you should be questioning it until it can be proven. I think modern science has disregarded the scientific method as not required anymore to make claims about what we “know”.

*“Achieving actual, “true”, positive knowledge of the world… is not something modern science event attempts at.” * -Well, that there is the problem. And if that’s the case, and modern scientists believe this, then why are they always talking about something as if they know it for a fact?

“Karl Popper famously stated that science cannot prove that anything is true, only that something is false.” -Well, he is wrong, of course you can prove things to be true.

If you’re science is replaced, then you never proved anything, and should not speak as if you know for sure what you are talking about. But modern scientists talk this way all the time.

If two faiths flat out contradict each other, they can’t both be right.

Faith A says that God doesn’t care what you do or believe. Faith B says that God does care what you do and what you believe.

Both can not be correct. Can they both be paths to God? That’s the thing, because of their statement, they’d have to believe in different Gods. So they would not be on two different paths to the same God. If they were, then God would not be stable, and in the case of faith B, God would be a liar.

I like nature, history, discovery shows and documentaries. But they are always giving different ages of the earth, (ages of various plants, animals, events, etc.) Like, vastly different. So no, there is no overwhelming agreement, other than they may all say a long time ago.

Correct. You can have minor disagreements about some things that aren’t clear. But if the bible and the pope disagree on whether all faiths are valid, then biblical Christianity and catholic Christianity are not the same faith. If the pope says biblical Christianity is valid and true, and the bible says that what the pope is teaching is false, then he just invalidated himself. See why saying all faiths are valid can’t work?

Jesus didn’t talk about wealth inequality in that way, as far as wealth being bad. His point was that the wealthy tend to think they have it all and are in need of nothing. Mostly that the richer you are, the more you love money than God.

He wasn’t just flipping tables and whipping wealthy people. They were at the temple making money off of selling animals to sacrifice for sins. They had made a business of selling indulgences basically, that was the issue.

Yeah, there are also Christian scientists who do lots of research and studies and come to the conclusion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Because they challenge modern science with valid questions that get ignored, they are considered quacks. Like why you can listen to 20 different scientists who are all respected in the field, and get 20 vastly different answers on how old the earth is. You don’t come up with 20 different answers (as though they are truth) by using the scientific method. Which would have to mean at least 19 of them are only guessing.

lol, actually, good science would be on the left side of the image, at least after giving an answer to a question. Good science will actually prove something, then give the answer, then have no reason to continue to find another answer for it (whatever the issue is.) If you are giving a different answer year after year (like say for the age of the earth), then aren’t you admitting that so far you haven’t known the answer?

Only thing I’d say about the christian scientists who say the earth is billions of years old, is that they’d have to deny the scriptures of their faith in order to believe that. Seems like an odd thing to do. Either they really believe it and not what their faith (religion) teaches, or they just want acceptance from non Christians.

I guess in the end, if you are on the right side of the image, (in the religious or science realm), maybe you should consider the other sides arguments. Maybe its just that they actually figured out the answer and have no need to continue searching. Maybe they don’t have the answer, maybe they do.

Well honestly, (since you mention Christians), if they are true, they’d have to say it is the only way. Not because they are bigoted, but because all the various religions disagree. But, that view (that Christianity is the only way) may have been achieved by doing lots of research. I think its kinda foolish to say all the religions are different paths to God if they disagree with each other. Any religious person who says all faiths are valid paths to God, are either fools, or liars. Some of the popes have said that, and that would make them not Christian.

Same here. It wasn’t required.

This isn’t true at all. It all depends on the person. People could fit into:

Religion - I know everything. Religion - I don’t know enough. Science - I know everything. Science - I don’t know enough.

You know, some people even love both religion and science!

Well, non-citizens aren’t protected under the first amendment. I agree though, he should be able to express his opinions without getting in trouble for it. But from the articles I read, it sounded like physical things happened at the protests. Maybe not from him specifically (I don’t know), but because he is not a citizen, he does not have all the same rights as a citizen. As it has been since before the current administration, if a non-citizen is suspected as a possible threat to the country based on speech alone, then the government deals with them, first by investigating the situation. The few articles I read were all general and not specific so I don’t know the full reason, or what he actually said at the protests. So I try not to make opinions on these things without plenty of info.

To start, he is not a US citizen. Yes, he is here legally. But when you are not a citizen, you have to be more careful what you say, this is how it’s been since way before Trump became president. You do not have all the same rights as a citizen, when you are not a citizen. I read a couple articles about him, but I am not aware of what all happened with the previous protests, sounds like others got in trouble as well.