On 7/17/2025 at 8:35 PM, exchemist said:

Children can be the image of their parents.

There has been some attention to religion from you recently. But it looks like you want to sit on two chairs, a strange desire to combine religion and science. Why don't you discuss new scientific discoveries, if any? It is disappointment, when you wish for truth and knowledge, but instead you hit the wall of consensus, isn't it? You need to put up with some things. But it's only my opinion, never mind.

1 hour ago, m_m said:

There has been some attention to religion from you recently. But it looks like you want to sit on two chairs, a strange desire to combine religion and science. Why don't you discuss new scientific discoveries, if any? It is disappointment, when you wish for truth and knowledge, but instead you hit the wall of consensus, isn't it? You need to put up with some things. But it's only my opinion, never mind.

It's not a matter of taking sides. Science does not conflict with sensible versions of religion. One is entitled to take an interest in both, you know.

If you think I am not discussing science, why don't you take a look at the posts I have made in the last couple of weeks?

Edited July 20Jul 20 by exchemist

On 7/16/2025 at 7:55 AM, dimreepr said:

Did he tell you that?

Well, yes.

Because "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” is totally what you say if you don’t believe.

7 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

AFAIK Jesus obviously did believe in God but his beliefs differed from those of modern day Christians

They would almost have to, wouldn’t they? He couldn’t believe in things that hadn’t happened yet.

9 hours ago, exchemist said:

It's not a matter of taking sides.

Is that so? There are different religions, people took their sides in their view on Invisible Power. Even Christianity took two sides. And according to the Bible you are the image and likeness of God, according to scientists you are an hairless mutated ape. As you can see, the origin of man is a matter of choice.

1 hour ago, m_m said:

Is that so? There are different religions, people took their sides in their view on Invisible Power. Even Christianity took two sides. And according to the Bible you are the image and likeness of God, according to scientists you are an hairless mutated ape. As you can see, the origin of man is a matter of choice.

That is superficial and wrong. Christianity has generally been supportive of science and indeed many early scientists were clerics or people with religious training. There have been a handful of incidents e.g. Galileo's house arrest for espousing Copernicus's heliocentrism (although Copernicus was a cleric), and the c.19th kerfuffle - among some Protestants - over the age of the Earth* and Darwin's ideas. But that's about all. For much of its history, modern science has been broadly seen as revealing the handiwork of the Creator, not opposing religion. The "Conflict Thesis" was dreamt up by two academics (Andrew Dixon White and William Draper) at the end of the c.19th - shortly after the (temporary) Darwin controversy - and is now discredited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

Regarding Man being in the image of God, this has been explained already on this thread, not least by me, yet you seem unable to grasp the point. There is no conflict between Man being, as he undoubtedly is, a hairless ape and him being in the words of Genesis, made in the image of God. Go back and read the thread again. It's about Man possessing an immortal soul and being (or becoming) morally aware. Nothing to do with what physical shape his body is, or how he evolved.

*Cardinal Wiseman gave a series of lectures in Rome in the 1840s about science and religion, in the course of which he showed the new discoveries of the age of the Earth were not in conflict with scripture. (In light of the Galileo affair, the Catholic church made sure it did not again make the mistake of opposing scientific discovery.) https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4BMPAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Edited July 21Jul 21 by exchemist

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Well, yes.

Because "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” is totally what you say if you don’t believe.

Context would be key to a difinative translation, the old foxhole argument does muddy the waters sumwhat...

22 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

Yes, no serious scholar thinks Jesus was an atheist.

But some do think, IIRC, that he accidentally killed someone in a drunken fight; how many alcoholics, other than some priest's, think about god at all?

23 hours ago, exchemist said:

Both St Matthew and St Luke's gospels have Jesus making a joke about this, saying John the Baptist came, not eating nor drinking and you say "He is possessed!". And now I come, eating and drinking, and you say "Look, a glutton and a drunkard!". In other words, there's just no pleasing some people.

That about sums it up... +1

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

It's about Man possessing an immortal soul and being (or becoming) morally aware. Nothing to do with what physical shape his body is, or how he evolved.

My only caveat is, there is no difference between immortal and mortality...

Edited July 21Jul 21 by dimreepr

6 hours ago, exchemist said:

That is superficial and wrong. Christianity has generally been supportive of science and indeed many early scientists were clerics or people with religious training. There have been a handful of incidents e.g. Galileo's house arrest for espousing Copernicus's heliocentrism (although Copernicus was a cleric), and the c.19th kerfuffle - among some Protestants - over the age of the Earth* and Darwin's ideas. But that's about all. For much of its history, modern science has been broadly seen as revealing the handiwork of the Creator, not opposing religion. The "Conflict Thesis" was dreamt up by two academics (Andrew Dixon White and William Draper) at the end of the c.19th - shortly after the (temporary) Darwin controversy - and is now discredited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

Regarding Man being in the image of God, this has been explained already on this thread, not least by me, yet you seem unable to grasp the point. There is no conflict between Man being, as he undoubtedly is, a hairless ape and him being in the words of Genesis, made in the image of God. Go back and read the thread again. It's about Man possessing an immortal soul and being (or becoming) morally aware. Nothing to do with what physical shape his body is, or how he evolved.

*Cardinal Wiseman gave a series of lectures in Rome in the 1840s about science and religion, in the course of which he showed the new discoveries of the age of the Earth were not in conflict with scripture. (In light of the Galileo affair, the Catholic church made sure it did not again make the mistake of opposing scientific discovery.) https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4BMPAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

exchemist, what religious Scriptures do say, that human being is undoubtedly a hairless mutated ape? Mutated, you forgot the word mutated, it was a mutation. Half truth is even worse than lie.

Where in the Bible is it written?

And this me, who were blamed of being a troll? What you write is dangerous, because science doesn't deal with the concept of a soul.

"Christianity has generally been supportive of science" - No, science was in accordance with religion. And it is very interesting that people always nodding on Galileo, because he renounced his beliefs. This is everything we should know about scientists.

Please, don't substitute concepts.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Context would be key to a difinative translation, the old foxhole argument does muddy the waters sumwhat...

The foxhole aphorism is about sudden conversion. But to be forsaken, there needs to be a prior relationship.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

The foxhole aphorism is about sudden conversion. But to be forsaken, there needs to be a prior relationship.

Indeed...

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

how many alcoholics, other than some priest's, think about god at all?

Not sure what the alleged connection is.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Not sure what the alleged connection is.

Human failure; and the enlightenment it may contain...

What happens if I mistake a lie for a truth???

On 7/21/2025 at 3:38 PM, m_m said:

exchemist, what religious Scriptures do say, that human being is undoubtedly a hairless mutated ape? Mutated, you forgot the word mutated, it was a mutation. Half truth is even worse than lie.

Where in the Bible is it written?

And this me, who were blamed of being a troll? What you write is dangerous, because science doesn't deal with the concept of a soul.

"Christianity has generally been supportive of science" - No, science was in accordance with religion. And it is very interesting that people always nodding on Galileo, because he renounced his beliefs. This is everything we should know about scientists.

Please, don't substitute concepts.

And where is nuclear physics explained in the bible? It is idiotic to suggest that any science that is not in the bible is therefore incompatible with Christianity.

But I’m close to giving up with you. The allegorical reading of the two Genesis creation stories has been perfectly respectable, orthodox theology since 200 AD. I have already pointed this out. As for the concept of a soul, others on this thread have pointed out this is not a scientific idea, as there is no observational evidence, of the kind science requires, to support it. Nor indeed is the concept of God. Science simply does not deal with such ideas. And that is fine. Such metaphysical or religious concepts are outside the remit of science, that’s all. Science is about the natural, physical world.

20 minutes ago, exchemist said:

And where is nuclear physics explained in the bible? It is idiotic to suggest that any science that is not in the bible is therefore incompatible with Christianity.

But I’m close to giving up with you. The allegorical reading of the two Genesis creation stories has been perfectly respectable, orthodox theology since 200 AD. I have already pointed this out. As for the concept of a soul, others on this thread have pointed out this is not a scientific idea, as there is no observational evidence, of the kind science requires, to support it. Nor indeed is the concept of God. Science simply does not deal with such ideas. And that is fine. Such metaphysical or religious concepts are outside the remit of science, that’s all. Science is about the natural, physical world.

ho-ho-ho, thank you exchemist. I also don't have what to say. Who am I to argue and ask questions? Moreover, arguing is my lack of consistency.

19 hours ago, m_m said:

ho-ho-ho, thank you exchemist. I also don't have what to say. Who am I to argue and ask questions? Moreover, arguing is my lack of consistency.

You could ask, what would the ubermensh do?

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You could ask, what would the ubermensh do?

You know, If you like Nietzsche and his philosophy it is good. But on my mind it's very important when you understand how his philosophy influences you personally, your relationships with your family, friends, with people, and how it influences your life in general. Because philosophy for the sake of philosophy is some foreign information, some words. I think so.

The same is with the image and likeness of God. It's important what it means to some particular person. If they believe, of course.

23 hours ago, m_m said:

ho-ho-ho, thank you exchemist. I also don't have what to say. Who am I to argue and ask questions? Moreover, arguing is my lack of consistency.

I have been spending time reading this thread, please at the bare minimum be open to what everyone else has to say

On 7/20/2025 at 12:59 PM, m_m said:

Why don't you discuss new scientific discoveries, if any?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385041217_Scientists_around_the_world_report_millions_of_new_discoveries_every_year_-_but_this_explosive_research_growth_wasn't_what_experts_predicted

There are about a few million scientific discoveries every year, saying "if any" shows that you need to read more on science in general as a whole.

18 hours ago, m_m said:

You know, If you like Nietzsche and his philosophy it is good. But on my mind it's very important when you understand how his philosophy influences you personally, your relationships with your family, friends, with people, and how it influences your life in general. Because philosophy for the sake of philosophy is some foreign information, some words. I think so.

The same is with the image and likeness of God. It's important what it means to some particular person. If they believe, of course.

Your natural bias, like everyone, sometimes blinds one to the truth; the wise among us, try to wake the rest of us up to the possibility that one's hero is just another person, that's as blind as we are.

The Ubermenche is the guy that can pursuade us to say "meh" when we find out that David Bowie used an autotune... 😉