yahya515 Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (KJV) if God loves the world he will give everlasting life for whom he wants, without his son, they say :well ,God has a nature not to forgive without a reason or sacrifice , so how God gave his only begotten son to men without a return ! ! if he did that without a return , why he just forgive people and give them everlasting life without sacrifice or return ? !! note: the verb is God gave and not Jesus came by his own! if we supposed Jesus came by his own , then according to Christianity Jesus is divine he has God's nature why he gives salvation to men without another kind of sacrifice or return?! -4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 ! Moderator Note Responses hidden, since it's just sniping. regardless of any history, please discuss the topic itself (which, it seems to me, is self-answering. The question in the last sentence is answered by the first one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eise Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 yahya515, I am wondering why you try to discuss Christian theological ideas on a forum that is dedicated to science. Why don't you discuss this on some forum where you can expect many theologians being around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yahya515 Posted December 7, 2014 Author Share Posted December 7, 2014 yahya515, I am wondering why you try to discuss Christian theological ideas on a forum that is dedicated to science. Why don't you discuss this on some forum where you can expect many theologians being around? well ,you are right but I thought this was a religious subforum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzwood Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Which is hosted on a science forum having lots of members with a scientific background. You don't see us (i sincerily hope) spamming religious fora with the evolution theory either, do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yahya515 Posted December 7, 2014 Author Share Posted December 7, 2014 Which is hosted on a science forum having lots of members with a scientific background. You don't see us (i sincerily hope) spamming religious fora with the evolution theory either, do we? how religion is treated as scientific matrial? what religion should be treated as science , Judaism , Christianity or Islam? and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 (edited) how religion is treated as scientific matrial? what religion should be treated as science , Judaism , Christianity or Islam? and why? Religion is a valid topic for science- specifically, the study of religion is largely a part of psychology. No religion should be treated as science because the way religion deals with facts is different from the way science deals with facts. In short, if science discovers a new fact which disagrees with what it had believed, it changes what it believes. If religion discovers a new fact which disagrees with what it had believed, it denies it, or persecutes those who point out the problem and eventually (perhaps a few hundred years later) it accepts it and tries to pretend that nothing happened. Science does not distinguish between religions much. There may be some scientific study of why religions come and go over the years so science may distinguish, for example, between very old religions like Paganism and very new ones like the church of the Latter Day Saints. Just a quick reminder. Science is based on evidence. If you can't provide any for some subject then stop posting about it. Edited December 7, 2014 by John Cuthber 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yahya515 Posted December 7, 2014 Author Share Posted December 7, 2014 the Bible is full of mistakes and everybody here agrees with that. Jesus was not the son of God only the Christ and everyone agrees with that the Christ was not sent to die on the cross and to save men and nobody has argued with me about that. so I suggest no subforum on religion because it will talk about nonsense and that will damage the picture of this science forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eise Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 yahya515, There are many ways to have scientific looks at religion. But theology does not belong to any of these: Study the function of religion in the life of individuals: that belongs to psychology Study the function of religion in society: that belongs to sociology Study the history of religion: that is history Study on what truth claims in religion are based: that is part of the philosophy of religion Evaluate the truth content of scientific claims in religion: they are mostly falsified by science (this includes physics, astronomy, biology, geology, history etc) Evaluate the ethics of religion: ethics is now mainly a study of the the basis of our ethical thinking, i.e. a part of philosophy. But none of these will lead to some conclusion which religion is right. More the contrary: it shows that most factual claims of religion are false, and that their ethics is based on superstition. So it is perfectly OK to have a religion section on a science forum. But you cannot specially expect a meaningful discussion about theology ('Who has right, Jesus or Mohamed?') in a science forum. If some people here are informed or trained in theology, then that will be accidentally, because it is somebody's hobby or something like that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 ! Moderator Note Can't stay on topic, and then preaching. OK, then. Closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts