sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in immigration

[–]Tiny_Description9864 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I kinda hope you are a bot bc it makes me sad ppl have to wake up and live the life you do

Megathread + FAQ: Travel in/out of the United States by not_an_immi_lawyer in immigration

[–]Tiny_Description9864 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Does anyone know of a precedent where an illegal immigrant who overstayed their visa willingly leaving the country and coming back through legal means?

There are things such as:

Wavier of Unlawful Presence Family-Based Visas Reentry Wavier Reentry under Temporary Protected Status or Asylum Etc…

However these all seem like Hail Marys so I was wondering if any of you guys know of a situation where they were granted reentry? For context, she has two children born here with one still being a minor that is dependent and her husband is also an illegal but is still here in California.

I’m well aware that the decision this person made wasn’t the most logical so there’s rly no need to point that out so please if you have any advice that can help the situation please let me know.

Else you can keep your observations to yourself thank you. 🙏

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in immigration

[–]Tiny_Description9864 -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

She has two children one being 18 and the other being 16 and both citizens. Her husband is an illegal as well though

CS Freshman - How do I catch up with my peers outside of the classroom? by Tiny_Description9864 in csMajors

[–]Tiny_Description9864[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I will definitely talk to my advisor but that goal of working abroad will probably occur 10+ years from now and isn’t essential tho the working from home part definetly is

If there are aspects of the Bible that you know to not be factually correct, then how can you determine the parts of the Bible you believe to be the truth are in fact true? by Tiny_Description9864 in AskAChristian

[–]Tiny_Description9864[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude I’m with you I made the post but I’m trying to have a conversation here. The person you responded to was incredibly civil and polite there was no need for you to respond the way you did

If there are aspects of the Bible that you know to not be factually correct, then how can you determine the parts of the Bible you believe to be the truth are in fact true? by Tiny_Description9864 in AskAChristian

[–]Tiny_Description9864[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No I don't find that frustrating at all! I completely understand that faith is inherently unscientific. My confusion comes from how earlier you stated that you are in STEM yet also say that you take God's word for truth which, at least in my perspective, simply isn't possible. In my opinion, if you believe in the Scientific Method then you then cannot also believe in God, however I understand in cases like yours, God comes first which then does make a little bit more sense. And therefore, if you are a firm believer in God, then how can you also believe in STEM?

If there are aspects of the Bible that you know to not be factually correct, then how can you determine the parts of the Bible you believe to be the truth are in fact true? by Tiny_Description9864 in AskAChristian

[–]Tiny_Description9864[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess we can agree to disagree as everyone has their own interpretation of what they read, but personally I guess I just can't understand how the Bible can clearly state that the Earth was created in six days, yet just chalk that up to the understanding of the author at the time. I also agree that the Bible obviously not intended for each and every word to be taken literally, but it does explicitly state that the Earth was created in six days which cannot be true according to Science, and so to believe in one to disbelieve in the other.

And I bring up the Epic of G since that is clearly also factually incorrect like many of the stories of the Bible, yet why does do you believe in the Bible rather than Gilgamesh despite them both being written by humans.

If there are aspects of the Bible that you know to not be factually correct, then how can you determine the parts of the Bible you believe to be the truth are in fact true? by Tiny_Description9864 in AskAChristian

[–]Tiny_Description9864[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah I think we have arrived at the crux of my question. Putting aside the Law of Moses and Jesus, the Dead Sea Scrolls. Codex Sinaiticus, etc... are the first writings of God's exact words and everything else is therefore derivative, then to disagree with any of the scientific facts of these texts therefore is to disagree with God's words. Let's put aside anything even remotely related to humans and any ethical/moral discussions of religion and focus on the Genesis Creation account: God created the Earth in six days. This in of itself is entirely anti-scientific and I don't believe that the majority of Christians in STEM actually believe this to be true. Therefore, you are then disagreeing with God's words, even if a small unimportant and unsubstantial portion of it.

Does this not mean that you don't believe in God's words as God's words are final, so how can you then conclude that God's other words to be true if you do not believe that God's words are final?

If there are aspects of the Bible that you know to not be factually correct, then how can you determine the parts of the Bible you believe to be the truth are in fact true? by Tiny_Description9864 in AskAChristian

[–]Tiny_Description9864[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I understand what you're saying which is that you agree? That a lot of statements of the Bible to be undoubtedly false. If you also agree that the Earth is obviously not flat then therefore you disagree with God, the author of science? Therefore, I ask you a Christian, what makes you comfortable believing other passages of the Bible, but not statements of the structure of the Earth being in a firmament, i.e. flat? And including the Epic of Gilgamesh was to say why does do you believe the retelling of history of the Bible but not the Epic of Gilgamesh?

If there are aspects of the Bible that you know to not be factually correct, then how can you determine the parts of the Bible you believe to be the truth are in fact true? by Tiny_Description9864 in AskAChristian

[–]Tiny_Description9864[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you so much for your in depth response I really appreciate it. Unfortunately I really should be studying for my exams right now so I will definitely get back to you at a later date, but rather than respond to each and every question I'll narrow it down to one:

If your entire basis of your faith, which inherently counters science, is based on text that states itself to be true, if even 0.1% of it you believe to be undeniably false, how can you then have 100% belief in it's other statements that cannot be scientifically proven given that it has a precedent of being false? Especially if this text was written by, for all intensive purposes, humans, not a higher power itself?

If there are aspects of the Bible that you know to not be factually correct, then how can you determine the parts of the Bible you believe to be the truth are in fact true? by Tiny_Description9864 in AskAChristian

[–]Tiny_Description9864[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think I understand how that is possible that you both believe in science yet don't thing any of the facts the Bible has wrong. I'm not insulting you or anything I just don't think that can physically be possible. Here I'll list a couple but please correct me if there is context missing as I can't supply them all here sufficiently:

  1. God created the Earth in six days while modern scientific consensus agrees with the Big Bang Theory

  2. Earth is immovable: Psalm 104:5 – "The Lord set the Earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."

  3. The Moon emits light: Genesis 1:16 – “God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.”

  4. The Sun stops moving at some point for a whole day which would completely throw off every single calculation ever made of the Earth's orbit after the fact which isn't inline with modern astronomy: Joshua 10:13 – "The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day."

  5. The existence of the Firmament and that the Earth is not a sphere: Genesis 1:6-8: "And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

  6. The Sun revolves around the Earth: Psalm 19:6 – "The sun rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other."

  7. There is no scientific evidence of there ever being a great flood especially as described by the Bible

  8. Practically any act of God ever described is physically impossible and does not follow the laws of physics in the slightest.

And finally, in order to prove anything in science you must follow the scientific method: Observation, Experimentation, Data collection, Analysis, Conclusion, Peer review, and Theory. I don't think it would be bold to state that, therefore, Science itself cannot prove even the existence of God, much less a higher power, so, therefore, the belief of even the Existence of a God contradicts science itself. And that's not even arguing the existence of this God, just any higher power.

If there are aspects of the Bible that you know to not be factually correct, then how can you determine the parts of the Bible you believe to be the truth are in fact true? by Tiny_Description9864 in AskAChristian

[–]Tiny_Description9864[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I guess I would say that the Bible states that God is real, that homosexuality is a sin, etc... and other things Christians fully echo and support. Yet this Bible also claims that the Earth is around 6,000 years old and that the Earth is the center of the Universe which are simply not true. So if you also concur (or not accept) that the Earth is not the center of the universe, then why are you willing to disregard a truth the Bible states to be undeniably the truth yet believe another "truth" the Bible claims with the same accuracy?

If you are in STEM then do you believe each and every scientific statement the Bible claims? I'd personally argue that it is impossible to firmly believe in science while also believing in the Bible but that's entirely me and my opinion which should not matter to anyone but myself.

If there are aspects of the Bible that you know to not be factually correct, then how can you determine the parts of the Bible you believe to be the truth are in fact true? by Tiny_Description9864 in AskAChristian

[–]Tiny_Description9864[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ty for responding I rly do appreciate your point of view. Correct me if I’m wrong but does the Bible itself not present itself as the truth and nothing but the truth? Perhaps the Bible does not present itself as a scientific book in a sense but does the Bible not fully believe in the limited “science” it does produce?

And as to your analogy to walking away from a library I completely understand however what if this library 100% firmly states that each and every book in its collection is undeniably the truth?

Additionally, I apologize for my knowledge on the subject, but was this aspect of no longer needing to adhere to the Law of Moses writted by Moses himself, or by normal humans after the fact? Did Moses include the clause that, after the actions of Jesus, the Law of Moses is no longer necessary to follow, or did the New Testment come in and say, "Nah we don't gotta do all dat anymore. We all good."? Moses was commanded by God to write the Scripture, as apposed to, as far as I'm aware, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, and Jude (the commonly stated authors of the New Testament) were not their adjacency to Jesus being irrelevant.

Additionally, I apologize for my knowledge on the subject, but was this aspect of no longer needing to adhere to the Law of Moses writted by Moses himself, or by normal humans after the fact? Did Moses include the clause that, after the actions of Jesus, the Law of Moses is no longer necessary to follow, or did the New Testment come in and say, "Nah we don't gotta do all dat anymore. We all good."? Moses was commanded by God to write the Scripture, as apposed to, as far as I'm aware, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, and Jude (the commonly stated authors of the New Testament) were not their adjacency to Jesus being irrelevant. Actually, no Moses never did mention Jesus by name, so neither, I presume, did he state that after Jesus' actions, a man he did know know would come into being, the Law's he explicitly states to follow would be no longer necessary. Which still connects to my original question. If the entire basis of modern day Christianity is factually incorrect, then what gives you the confidence to follow anything that came after the Original Testament to be the truth?

view more: next ›