Jump to content

Just Trying to Make Sense of it all


Recommended Posts

 

@Moontanman, we do have evidence that Jesus did something extraordinary.

 

No we do not, if you think you do feel free to show it...

 

All cultures reference all of time to his birth.

 

No they do not...

 

It follows that he must have done something that is truly unprecedented for that to have taken place.

 

No it does not follow since your claim is not true...

 

To me, this is consistent with countless, extreme miracles -- miracles as great as raising a bunch of people from death.

 

You have absolutely no evidence of any miracles what so ever... no one has ever been raised from the dead, and if it had taken place then historians would have recorded it... they did not so there is no evidence it happened...

 

You're right, such an event would impact the world greatly, as it has.

 

What impacted the world was the Roman Emperor Constantine deciding to make everyone worship his new religion, often under pain of death, one that he made up out of parts of Paganism and Judaism and a New Jewish Sect...

Edited by Moontanman
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Reading the Bible cover to cover may help you make sense of it all. When I did that, I realized I'd been listening to people cherry-pick passages from it all my life, trying to justify whatever they w

Just Trying to Make Sense of it all ---> Bible

Conveniently, I expect them to also mis-remember their vehement obstruction of stem cell research. Especially when we can start regenerating teeth and livers.

evansste, on 27 Jan 2013 - 16:38, said:

@Phi for All, when I talk about the similarities between my faith concerning my own age and Isaac Newton, and my faith about God, I'm focusing on the fact that my trust in all of them exist without verification. When I first learned of my birthday and Isaac Newton, I never questioned whether or not these facts are true. I was told and believed. I had, and have, no doubt about them. I could find documents and evidence that would support that my beliefs are true. But such evidence isn't the basis of my faith. My faith came first. That is to say -- When I was told of Isaac Newton, I didn't say, well show me the documents to support this, otherwise I won't believe. I believe already, and therefore am not shocked that there is evidence that supports it. The same is true with my belief about God and the Bible.

Any "documents and evidence that would support that [your] beliefs are true" would be from the Bible, which has been shown by many historians (including many religious historians) to be flawed, often misinterpreted, often contradictory and to a great extent untrustworthy. Circular arguments like that are irrational and based on fallacious logic.

 

I read "The Good News Bible". It's one that my mother gave to me when I was about six years old. It was probably chosen because it's written in modern English that is easy to understand. She gave it to me, I continue to read it, and I believe.

 

As for which Bible version I think is the right one -- they all have equal merit to me as long as the translation is consistent with the original text. For me, there's no sticking point here. As long as the goal of the translator is to accurately convey the message without intentially being deceptive, I don't have a problem. I don't view it any differently than how any other document is translated from one language to another. As long as the content is conveyed accurately, then I see no problem.

The Good News Bible also omits Acts 8:37 entirely, which is NOT, as you say, "consistent with the original text". The Codex Laudianus, the earliest known document containing the full Acts of the Apostles (a name given to the book much later when it was split from Luke) in both Greek and Latin, contains verse 37 which reads (KJV)"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God".

 

So, my friend, YOU HAVE A PROBLEM NOW, unless you didn't really mean what you said above. Your Bible removes the part of this verse where you need absolute faith in order to receive baptism, something the original text included. I can understand a few misinterpreted words here and there, but your translators thought that original text, which was considered DIVINELY INSPIRED by the Council of Nicea and by many sects of Christianity afterwards, was wrong and so they chopped that part out.

 

One can hardly blame a child for believing in something their parents encouraged them to believe. But at a certain point it's a mark of adulthood to critically examine your belief system. The fact that you argue that your belief in your name, the existence of Isaac Newton and the existence of God are virtually the same tells me you haven't done this yet, or that you continue to hold some things to be sacred and never question them.

 

I don't get hung up on little things like "meat" versus "grain" showing up in two different translations that you've pointed out. If I was really so concerned, I'd look at a bunch of translations and compare them all, or even learn Hebrew and Aramaic and then try to get my hands on the original manuscript. But I don't have this kind of concern. After all, with the translators trying to accurately convey a message, the message will be the same.

It may seem like a little thing, but it should raise some concern that your supposedly divinely inspired scripture translators don't see a difference between meat and grain. Most people would fire a translator who made mistakes like that (how many copies of the Good News Bible went into print?), and I think most people would consider that a huge mistake, especially if they're buying grain at meat prices, or they're following a recipe, or preparing a sacrificial offering to the god who decides what happens with their immortal soul.

 

For instance, this post could be translated into fifty different languages by fifty different translators. In the end, when read by thousands of readers, each having one of the fifty given languages as their native tounge, they would all know what we're talking about. We'd all be on the same page.

Fifty?! I doubt highly that statement would be true if you used only ten. Your misspelling, indeed your very use, of the word "tongue" to mean "language" would confuse half the translators and most of the readers.

 

As for the fact that the NIV ommits an entire verse -- you probably see by now that that means very little to me. A person can still read that Bible and learn the truth about God.

Which one of the 9000 accepted sects of Christianity's "truth" are you talking about?

 

Let me explain why it's possible for a person to be a Catholic and still be a Christian. Whether or not a person is a Christian is only based on one thing. It's based on whether or not they are trusting Jesus to get them into Heaven, and nothing else. If you wan't the heart of the Gospel summed up as simply as possible, that would be it. So it's very possible for a person to be a Catholic and be a Christian. After all, what's a Catholic? Depending on who you ask, you may get all kinds of answers. As I've said, I'm not a Catholic, and I don't know a whole lot about what they do. But lets say a person goes to a Catholic church. Maybe they go because that's what their parents did. Their parents made them go to a Catholic church during their entire childhood, so they are simply doing what's familiar -- nothing more. To them, going to church may be a ritualistic thing, and so because of their tradition, they consider themselves to be a Catholic.

 

Now lets say that same person has a true desire to know God. They already know the Gospel and have made that one choice that matters. They are trusting in Jesus to get them into Heaven. If that's their true belief, and their true choice, then they're a Christian. It all boils down to whether or not a person has chosen to trust that it's Jesus who will get them into Heaven. That's it.

 

The fact that Catholics are the largest Christian sect in the world doesn't mean anything. The situation was very similar in Jesus' day. The teahers of the law, the Pharisees, were very religious. They too were the big group that everyone saw as righteous and godly in that day. But none of this meant anything to God. God looks at the heart of each individual, and is interested in what each of us has chosen (1st Samuel 16:7).

 

I'm not judging Catholics by pointing out that some of their practices are unbiblical. The Bible is God's revelation. It's his law, not mine. By reading it, I'm able to know the difference between right and wrong. I'm able to know what to do, and what not to do. Because you see someone speed by you on the highway at 100 miles per hour in a 55 mph zone, that doesn't make you a judge. You just recognize that they're breaking the law.

What an amazingly flexible book this bible of yours is! It lets you magically decide who is interpreting the revelation correctly, it acts as a guide for morality (again, if you interpret it correctly) and if you ignore it's flaws and inconsistencies in just the right way, you get into heaven, unlike the unbiblical, law-breaking believers (who are obviously speeding).

 

Back to the amputees. Jesus is very clear that God can do anything (Matthew 19:26). For this reason, I have no doubt that he can grow back limbs. There are different instances in the Bible where God gets irritated because people choose to doubt him, or put him to the test. He's much more pleased with those who trust him unconditionally.

Yeah. That works out very well for Him and His clergy.

 

For me to conclude that God hates amputees, or that he's unable to grow back limbs, would result in me calling God a liar. He's been very clear throughout his word that he loves people and that he can do anything.

You didn't answer my question. People talk about miracle cures for cancer and other afflictions, but something truly miraculous like regrowing a limb seems beyond him.

 

Did you know that we're very close to figuring out how salamanders can initiate embryonic limb growth when they lose a leg? All other vertebrates form scar tissue to reduce blood loss while they escape the situation, but salamanders can burrow and hide while regrowing the limb. We have everything we need to do it (human embryos can still initiate regeneration but lose the ability before birth), we just need to figure out which enzyme triggers this ability instead of scarring. We've outgrown our need to run when injured for the most part, and soon we're going to be able to help the amputees that God has forsaken.

 

If my dog analogy led you to believe that my view is that we are God's pets, then I apologize. I'm 99% sure that you were just being sarcastic, but it doesn't hurt for me to be clear. I'll admit that it's not a perfect analogy.

I intended no sarcasm.

 

No analogy is perfect, so why use them? It's mostly because you think your reader doesn't understand your point in plain language, so you try a story about something similar that always falls short.

 

If you feel your point isn't being understood, come at it from a different angle. It doesn't help to make analogies, no matter how clever, apt or close to the original you may think it is.

 

I was trying to show how easy it is for a less capable mind to trust another that has greater comprehension.

I never said it wasn't easy. We can see the clergy has you firmly on their side. But when, or if, you allow yourself to be educated in critical thinking and explore beyond the Good News Bible your mother gave you at the age of six, you will see that what you've been using isn't trust, it's blind faith.

 

 

 

 

And let me make it clear that I'm not attacking you, but rather your ideas. I really appreciate your joining to discuss these matters here. It shows a willingness to hear other points of view as you share your own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Did you know that we're very close to figuring out how salamanders can initiate embryonic limb growth when they lose a leg? All other vertebrates form scar tissue to reduce blood loss while they escape the situation, but salamanders can burrow and hide while regrowing the limb. We have everything we need to do it (human embryos can still initiate regeneration but lose the ability before birth), we just need to figure out which enzyme triggers this ability instead of scarring. We've outgrown our need to run when injured for the most part, and soon we're going to be able to help the amputees that God has forsaken.

 

Like most medical advances the general population will give credit to god for allowing the researchers to "discover" the ability to grow back limbs... circular reasoning spinning at near light speed...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like most medical advances the general population will give credit to god for allowing the researchers to "discover" the ability to grow back limbs... circular reasoning spinning at near light speed...

Conveniently, I expect them to also mis-remember their vehement obstruction of stem cell research. Especially when we can start regenerating teeth and livers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, let me say that I am a Christian. And I am conflicted. I cannot dismiss either my religion or my belief in science. In fact, I want to be a professor in a science. It is my belief that the physical rules that our universe abides by was created by God or a god, however you may see it. And I do not understand why the majority of scientists are atheists. Would not such a mathematically governed universe such as ours need a creator? Don't computers need programmers? Why did such influential men such as Issac Newton believe in a god whil today's scientists do not.

 

Any input is welcome. I'm just a thirteen year old trying to understand the universe and why life matters.

 

 

Hello Young Thinker,

 

 

Apologies I have not had time to read the myriad of intellectual replies you have received.

 

 

First of all, may I congratulate you on thinking about these things at the relatively

young age of 13 and appearing to have a strong grasp of the English language at

such an age. My compliment is not meant as patronizing or facetious, simply

respectful of someone who most probably outstrips many 23 year olds by finding

a forum and questioning such things openly. Do not lose the ability to question

as much as possible; it is useful and admirable in equal measure.

 

 

The issue, as I have no doubt has been highlighted, is who created the creator?

 

 

If your logic is that these rules require a creator, then surely, by your own

logic, that creator requires a creator, can you see the cycle that we get into?

 

 

Historically, there are great religious men (such as newton) and great non-theists as well

(see link 1), both camps can claim great historical people, although I think it

must be said that as time goes on, the number of great scientists that claim to

be non-theist is rising, which may simply be a sign of western society being

more accepting of non-theists (see link 2), as opposed to burning them for

heresy and such (Around 35,000 people were executed on the basis of heresy

during the dark ages in Europe).

 

 

Your final statement, swap the words 'thirteen year old' for the words 'human being'

and you will find you have something in common with the majority of the people

on this forum and in the world. That question in itself is one not to be

answered in the simple context of 'science OR religion' but one that is deeply

personal and significant for us all.

 

 

I will not imprint upon you my values, and you should be weary of anyone who

tries to, instead you should seek your own answer to the question, and define

why your life matters to yourself and to those around you.

 

 

What to do with the time you have is the choice that defines what you think matters.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/08/10/survey-says-atheism-is-on-the-rise-worldwide-and-in-america/

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

P.S.

This is my first post on the forums, I have skimmed the rules, but apologies if

there are any errors or faux pars in my post, it is not intentional and corrections

are always accepted.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Phi for All, you said "Any 'documents and evidence that would support that [your] beliefs are true' would be from the Bible, which has been shown by many historians (including many religious historians) to be flawed, often misinterpreted, often contradictory and to a great extent untrustworthy. Circular arguments like that are irrational and based on fallacious logic."

Not all evidence that supports the Bible comes directly from the Bible. Seven day weeks, a five day work week, the fact that humans cook food before eating it, the concept of marriage, and the fact that nearly all of humanity references all time to the birth of Jesus, are just a handful of examples. But as I've said before, for me, it doesn't matter. Not only does using the Bible to support the Bible not bother me, my faith isn't based on evidence. These are the things that I mentioned before. Many things that make sense to believers is foolishness, or irrational, to non-believers (1st Corinthians 1:18-31, 2:6-16, 3:18-20 and Matthew 11:25-27).

As for Acts 8:37 -- You're right, my Bible doesn't print verse 37 within the paragraphs of the text. Instead, there's a little footnote and the verse is placed in the bottom margin of the page. There's a little note that says "some manuscripts have this verse". I've seen these little notes at the bottom of the pages for many years, and as I've said before, it never bothers me. This is because these notes never change the overall message of the Bible. Like verse 37, this same truth is mentioned in other places in the Bible. I don't know how many verses there are in the Bible that specifically say that people are saved by faith in Jesus -- but such verses are everywhere. The most popular ones are taught to children in Sunday schools, and by their parents, very commonly (Like John 3:16). No one who seeks is misled.

When it comes to the "meat" versus "grain" thing, as well as anything else like that, we're best served to remember the true nature of God. As I've said before, when you read the Bible as a whole, you really learn that no one's going to get into any trouble over something like this. To emphasize such things as this to this extreme level of importance is to blow them out of proportion, while ignoring what really matters to God.

It's just like when Jesus was talking about the Pharisees (Matthew 12:1-14). He was upset with them because they placed overemphasis on the wrong parts of scripture. They were upset with Jesus when he healed people on the Sabbath. But Jesus made clear what is really important to God. The Pharisees were condemning people who were doing things like eating heads of grain while walking through a field on the Sabbath. Jesus told the Pharisees that any one of them would pull a sheep from a well if it fell in on the Sabbath, yet they were condemning Jesus for healing people on the Sabbath. No one would be so misled that they would end up under God's wrath over a typo. My Bible may have typos. If I looked hard enough, some words may be misspelled. But this won't alter my relationship and knowledge about God.

When it comes to understanding God's word, and knowing what he is like. The Bible is clear that every Christian receives the Holy Spirit, which guides them in the way of the truth (1st John 2:27, John 14:15-17). The Bible is also clear that God will reveal himself to anyone who turns to him (John 14:21, James 4:7-10), and that if you come close to God, he will come close to you. The fact that God gives his Holy Spirit to Christians, which leads them to understand God's word, will again seem like nonsense to unbelievers (1st Corinthians 2:6-16). But I've already talked about that unrelatable difference between Christians and non-Christians, so I won't reitterate further.

You also said "One can hardly blame a child for believing in something their parents encouraged them to believe. But at a certain point it's a mark of adulthood to critically examine your belief system. The fact that you argue that your belief in your name, the existence of Isaac Newton and the existence of God are virtually the same tells me you haven't done this yet, or that you continue to hold some things to be sacred and never question them."

You're right -- As I've said before, these faiths are similar. But I also said there are a few big differences. Unlike the others, my faith about God IS sacred, unwavering, and unquestioning. It's another one of those things that non-believers view as nonsense. But God is pleased with a child-like faith. He says that we must come to him like children (Mark 10:13-16). There are many examples of God being pleased with faith like this. All of the good examples shown in the Bible have such faith.

As for the fifty translations -- I can't agree with you. If your view of translations was correct, then many translations, in every circumstance, would be critically flawed and inaccurate. However, people accurately communicate with each other via translators, and translations, all of the time. Any competent translator, who would be translating my post, would understand both languages fairly well. Because you understand English, you immediately understood what I meant when I mentioned "tongue" instead of "language". You even caught my typo. The translator would also understand English, and would do the same. As a reslut, he/she would understand what I mean and render an appropriate translation.

You asked, "Which one of the 9000 accepted sects of Christianity's "truth" are you talking about?"

I'm talking about all that agree with what the Bible teaches. Many are right about some things, and wrong about others. I subscribe to no denomination. I believe what the Bible says. Christ doesn't care about denominations -- that's something that was invented by the world. Those who trust in Jesus alone for salvation are Christians. This is what the Bible teaches.

You said, "What an amazingly flexible book this bible of yours is! It lets you magically decide who is interpreting the revelation correctly, it acts as a guide for morality (again, if you interpret it correctly) and if you ignore it's flaws and inconsistencies in just the right way, you get into heaven, unlike the unbiblical, law-breaking believers (who are obviously speeding)."

I mentioned the Holy Spirit a little earlier. The Holy Spirit enables Christians to know the truth. As was said before, this will be unrelatable to unbelievers (1st Corinthians 2:6-16).

Back to amputees -- I could give the example of Jesus healing the slave's ear that had been cut off when Jesus got arrested (Luke 22:50-51). However, if this example isn't good enough for you, then I can still talk about it a little more.

As I've said before, no one knows why God does all of the things that he does. The Bible is clear that his thoughts are beyond us. For me to give a reason as to why he has allowed few records to exist of him re-growing limbs, would be me giving some loose speculation. Because there's no verse that specifically says "why"; whatever I said wouldn't be what God has said. I'm certain that his reasons aren't your reasons (that he can't, or that he doesn't care about amputees). The Bible is clear that both of these reasons are false. There are plenty of reasons why God may have done this -- many are probably beyond our understanding. However, to show that there are even reasons that are within human understanding that could give an answer as to "why" -- I'll give one. This is to show that there are certainly reasons other than your two -- which the Bible already shows to be wrong because of God's character and because of what he has already revealed.

The Bible is clear that there's a constant spiritual war that exists between God's creation (humans) and the devil. The devil's name, Satan, even means "man's opponent". God has warned us about Satan, explaining that he is a liar, deceiver, and a manipulator. He's the father of lies and his goal is to defy God by destroying mankind (John 8:44). God said that the Christian's best defense against the devil is to resist him and stay close to God. Just as sheep are safest when they are close to their shepherd, the closer Christians are to Jesus, the safer we are. But non-believers are much more vulnerable.

The Bible has shown that God allows Satan to have certain freedoms to tempt people. He allowed it with Job (Job 1:12), and also with Peter (Luke 22:31-32). He allows Christians to be tempted so that they can reveal the true nature of their faith, proving it to be genuine. Just as gold is tested to show that it's real, so is a Christian's faith tested (1st Peter 1:6-9). Because Christians have the Bible, which warns us to be alert (1st Peter 5:8-9), and faith in Jesus, which gives us the ability to be victorious over the devil (1st John 5:4-5), Christians have an advantage over non-Christians. This is one of the reasons why it's easy for my faith to be sacred and unwavering. I know that it's under attack, and that the devil will try to do anything to deceive me and all other humans. If a person is highly intellectual, it makes sense that Satan would attack with false evidence and misleading logic. He can easily outwit humans because he is the master deceiver. For this reason, I can see how suppressing evidence of God restoring limbs, could have a great impact on those who doubt and don't believe. It causes them to question God's power and goodness. But it has little effect on those who believe what the Bible says about God.

So ultimately, I can imagine the amputee issue being an effective tool that the devil uses in order to deceive those who don't believe. The devil preys on mankind's intellect, pride, arrogance, and emotion. This view won't at all be popular with non-Christians, but it fits what I know to be true about God, the devil, and how the devil attacks.

@Moontanman is right about God getting credit for all of the good things that happen in the world. The Bible says that all good things come from the Lord, so I believe it too.

All of you are right that the advances in limb generation are amazing. I saw a story on "60 Minutes" that showed how some sort of swine powder allowed a man to grow back the tip of his finger after it was cut off. That's a technology that is available today. They aren't sure that it would work for an entire limb, but a finger tip is still pretty amazing.

@Phi for All, the fact that you said that you're not attacking me, is helpful. I've had these types of discussions with people who believe differently than I do and all such discussions have to end at some point. The topic is so sensitive and polarizing that eventually people often just want to argue. When it reaches that point, I'll have to just let it go.

I didn't join in this conversation to argue. Arguments aren't helpful and the Bible says that its something that I should always try to avoid (2nd Timothy 2 verses 14 and 23-24). I also didn't join in this discussion because I'm searching for answers. Answers, I have. I joined in this discussion because @young thinker showed a legitimate search for truth and understanding, and I wanted to help. I'm certain that a Christian doesn't have to abandon God in order to enjoy science. All it takes is a healthy understanding of both God and science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Phi for All, you said "Any 'documents and evidence that would support that [your] beliefs are true' would be from the Bible, which has been shown by many historians (including many religious historians) to be flawed, often misinterpreted, often contradictory and to a great extent untrustworthy. Circular arguments like that are irrational and based on fallacious logic."

 

Not all evidence that supports the Bible comes directly from the Bible. Seven day weeks, a five day work week, the fact that humans cook food before eating it, the concept of marriage, and the fact that nearly all of humanity references all time to the birth of Jesus, are just a handful of examples. But as I've said before, for me, it doesn't matter. Not only does using the Bible to support the Bible not bother me, my faith isn't based on evidence. These are the things that I mentioned before. Many things that make sense to believers is foolishness, or irrational, to non-believers (1st Corinthians 1:18-31, 2:6-16, 3:18-20 and Matthew 11:25-27).

God worked for six days not five BTW - are we just slackers now? If 7 days a week and time being measured from birth of Christ props up the bible do the months being most widely being named after Greco-Roman gods prop up those myths? And the most widespread names for days of the week coming from a mixture of Norse and Greco-Roman? The earliest evidence of cooked food predates Moses - by about a quarter of million years. I break rules (dietary and others) from Leviticus on a practically daily basis - as have my ancestors for generations and as have many wandering desert peoples; as I presently typing this message it is clear that the consequences have not been too harsh. Leviticus contains proscriptive and prescriptive rules of discrimination - we do things this way - others do it incorrectly and they must be shunned. None of the above is evidence - it is happenstance desperately roped into the bolster a poor story.

 

As for Acts 8:37 -- You're right, my Bible doesn't print verse 37 within the paragraphs of the text. Instead, there's a little footnote and the verse is placed in the bottom margin of the page. There's a little note that says "some manuscripts have this verse". I've seen these little notes at the bottom of the pages for many years, and as I've said before, it never bothers me. This is because these notes never change the overall message of the Bible. Like verse 37, this same truth is mentioned in other places in the Bible. I don't know how many verses there are in the Bible that specifically say that people are saved by faith in Jesus -- but such verses are everywhere. The most popular ones are taught to children in Sunday schools, and by their parents, very commonly (Like John 3:16). No one who seeks is misled.

No one who seeks is misled? Seriously - that justifies every schism, every sect, every heresy, every perversion of faith; so from your perspective all forms of seeking results in the correct answer. Or will you pull a "no true scotsman" and rewrite as no one who seeks with true faith is misled.

When it comes to the "meat" versus "grain" thing, as well as anything else like that, we're best served to remember the true nature of God. As I've said before, when you read the Bible as a whole, you really learn that no one's going to get into any trouble over something like this. To emphasize such things as this to this extreme level of importance is to blow them out of proportion, while ignoring what really matters to God.

So can we also forget the bollox about sexual morality, orientation, and proscription and concentrate on love god and love your neighbour as yourself? - cos I will if you will. The idea of wealth and the needle-based torture of camels might even make a comeback - now that would be fun. You do realise that as soon as you state that some parts of the bible are worth following and that others are of a different flavour you admit a non-divine provenance and that is no end of grief.

 

It's just like when Jesus was talking about the Pharisees (Matthew 12:1-14). He was upset with them because they placed overemphasis on the wrong parts of scripture. They were upset with Jesus when he healed people on the Sabbath. But Jesus made clear what is really important to God. The Pharisees were condemning people who were doing things like eating heads of grain while walking through a field on the Sabbath. Jesus told the Pharisees that any one of them would pull a sheep from a well if it fell in on the Sabbath, yet they were condemning Jesus for healing people on the Sabbath. No one would be so misled that they would end up under God's wrath over a typo. My Bible may have typos. If I looked hard enough, some words may be misspelled. But this won't alter my relationship and knowledge about God.

 

When it comes to understanding God's word, and knowing what he is like. The Bible is clear that every Christian receives the Holy Spirit, which guides them in the way of the truth (1st John 2:27, John 14:15-17). The Bible is also clear that God will reveal himself to anyone who turns to him (John 14:21, James 4:7-10), and that if you come close to God, he will come close to you. The fact that God gives his Holy Spirit to Christians, which leads them to understand God's word, will again seem like nonsense to unbelievers (1st Corinthians 2:6-16). But I've already talked about that unrelatable difference between Christians and non-Christians, so I won't reitterate further.

I am sorry but I would have to distinguish between typos and a different set of gospels. There are honest and earnest posters on this very forum that would argue for the canonical nature of the gospel of thomas - this is not a matter of a slight error in the type shop, it is a root and branch reformulation of a religion about 300 years after the death of christ. Aside from the holy book troubles - look at early christianity, the differences between the faith of Origen and that of Augustine.

 

You also said "One can hardly blame a child for believing in something their parents encouraged them to believe. But at a certain point it's a mark of adulthood to critically examine your belief system. The fact that you argue that your belief in your name, the existence of Isaac Newton and the existence of God are virtually the same tells me you haven't done this yet, or that you continue to hold some things to be sacred and never question them."

 

You're right -- As I've said before, these faiths are similar. But I also said there are a few big differences. Unlike the others, my faith about God IS sacred, unwavering, and unquestioning. It's another one of those things that non-believers view as nonsense. But God is pleased with a child-like faith. He says that we must come to him like children (Mark 10:13-16). There are many examples of God being pleased with faith like this. All of the good examples shown in the Bible have such faith.

Peter and Paul both pretty screwed by that definition - even Christ wavered, the scene in gethsemene is one of the most human parts of the gospel story . Through admitting your faith is unquestioning, naive, and simplistic you frustrate many of the more complex arguments put against religious devotion; although you do open yourself to being challenged to differentiate your faith from that in the tooth-fairy.

 

As for the fifty translations -- I can't agree with you. If your view of translations was correct, then many translations, in every circumstance, would be critically flawed and inaccurate. However, people accurately communicate with each other via translators, and translations, all of the time. Any competent translator, who would be translating my post, would understand both languages fairly well. Because you understand English, you immediately understood what I meant when I mentioned "tongue" instead of "language". You even caught my typo. The translator would also understand English, and would do the same. As a reslut, he/she would understand what I mean and render an appropriate translation.

 

You asked, "Which one of the 9000 accepted sects of Christianity's "truth" are you talking about?"

 

I'm talking about all that agree with what the Bible teaches. Many are right about some things, and wrong about others. I subscribe to no denomination. I believe what the Bible says. Christ doesn't care about denominations -- that's something that was invented by the world. Those who trust in Jesus alone for salvation are Christians. This is what the Bible teaches.

 

You said, "What an amazingly flexible book this bible of yours is! It lets you magically decide who is interpreting the revelation correctly, it acts as a guide for morality (again, if you interpret it correctly) and if you ignore it's flaws and inconsistencies in just the right way, you get into heaven, unlike the unbiblical, law-breaking believers (who are obviously speeding)."

 

I mentioned the Holy Spirit a little earlier. The Holy Spirit enables Christians to know the truth. As was said before, this will be unrelatable to unbelievers (1st Corinthians 2:6-16).

 

Back to amputees -- I could give the example of Jesus healing the slave's ear that had been cut off when Jesus got arrested (Luke 22:50-51). However, if this example isn't good enough for you, then I can still talk about it a little more.

The point is that it happened once in a much disputed account only retold through an anthology with dubious authorship. The point being that it is disingenuous to claim (and I am not saying you do - but many do) the existence of miraculous healing mediated through prayer here and now. A very obvious way for this healing to manifest itself would be regrowing of limbs - this does not happen. The fact that miraculous healing only happens in sicknesses which are hard to predict and do undergo spontaneous remission makes the disinterested observer question the narrative of miracle.

 

As I've said before, no one knows why God does all of the things that he does. The Bible is clear that his thoughts are beyond us. For me to give a reason as to why he has allowed few records to exist of him re-growing limbs, would be me giving some loose speculation. Because there's no verse that specifically says "why"; whatever I said wouldn't be what God has said. I'm certain that his reasons aren't your reasons (that he can't, or that he doesn't care about amputees). The Bible is clear that both of these reasons are false. There are plenty of reasons why God may have done this -- many are probably beyond our understanding. However, to show that there are even reasons that are within human understanding that could give an answer as to "why" -- I'll give one. This is to show that there are certainly reasons other than your two -- which the Bible already shows to be wrong because of God's character and because of what he has already revealed.

If God's mind is ineffable, unknowable, and beyond human comprehension - how can anyone make any claims for any religious truths? You cannot pick and choose those bits of an ineffable plan that are revealed - you might think you have knowledge but you might be as confused and incorrect as the heathen. Either it is interpretable and we can all interpret, or it is unknowable and none of us can; you must realise that the claim that only those that think as Christians do have been given the gift of interpretation is obscurantism, clannishness, and elitism all rolled into one!

 

 

The Bible is clear that there's a constant spiritual war that exists between God's creation (humans) and the devil. The devil's name, Satan, even means "man's opponent". God has warned us about Satan, explaining that he is a liar, deceiver, and a manipulator. He's the father of lies and his goal is to defy God by destroying mankind (John 8:44). God said that the Christian's best defense against the devil is to resist him and stay close to God. Just as sheep are safest when they are close to their shepherd, the closer Christians are to Jesus, the safer we are. But non-believers are much more vulnerable.

 

The Bible has shown that God allows Satan to have certain freedoms to tempt people. He allowed it with Job (Job 1:12), and also with Peter (Luke 22:31-32). He allows Christians to be tempted so that they can reveal the true nature of their faith, proving it to be genuine. Just as gold is tested to show that it's real, so is a Christian's faith tested (1st Peter 1:6-9). Because Christians have the Bible, which warns us to be alert (1st Peter 5:8-9), and faith in Jesus, which gives us the ability to be victorious over the devil (1st John 5:4-5), Christians have an advantage over non-Christians. This is one of the reasons why it's easy for my faith to be sacred and unwavering. I know that it's under attack, and that the devil will try to do anything to deceive me and all other humans. If a person is highly intellectual, it makes sense that Satan would attack with false evidence and misleading logic. He can easily outwit humans because he is the master deceiver. For this reason, I can see how suppressing evidence of God restoring limbs, could have a great impact on those who doubt and don't believe. It causes them to question God's power and goodness. But it has little effect on those who believe what the Bible says about God.

Telling people whose allegiance you desire that there is an external and nebulous existential threat which requires strict adherence to faith articles has been used since the beginning of humanity - and it still is.

So ultimately, I can imagine the amputee issue being an effective tool that the devil uses in order to deceive those who don't believe. The devil preys on mankind's intellect, pride, arrogance, and emotion. This view won't at all be popular with non-Christians, but it fits what I know to be true about God, the devil, and how the devil attacks.

So a few regrowths would thwart satan's evil plan as well as helping those amputees.

 

 

 

@Moontanman is right about God getting credit for all of the good things that happen in the world. The Bible says that all good things come from the Lord, so I believe it too.

 

All of you are right that the advances in limb generation are amazing. I saw a story on "60 Minutes" that showed how some sort of swine powder allowed a man to grow back the tip of his finger after it was cut off. That's a technology that is available today. They aren't sure that it would work for an entire limb, but a finger tip is still pretty amazing.

 

@Phi for All, the fact that you said that you're not attacking me, is helpful. I've had these types of discussions with people who believe differently than I do and all such discussions have to end at some point. The topic is so sensitive and polarizing that eventually people often just want to argue. When it reaches that point, I'll have to just let it go.

 

I didn't join in this conversation to argue. Arguments aren't helpful and the Bible says that its something that I should always try to avoid (2nd Timothy 2 verses 14 and 23-24). I also didn't join in this discussion because I'm searching for answers. Answers, I have. I joined in this discussion because @young thinker showed a legitimate search for truth and understanding, and I wanted to help. I'm certain that a Christian doesn't have to abandon God in order to enjoy science. All it takes is a healthy understanding of both God and science.

 

 

As youngthinker is trying to be both - and you are claiming they are not in complete contradiction (which I agree with to an extent); I will jsut ask you to reconfirm something. I take many things on faith (although I love phi's definitions and explanations above) - but I also know that every single one of those things I take on faith I could research and find convincing impersonal evidence for its truth and falsity that I could put to jury of my peers. Is there any single item of your christian faith for which you can say the same thing? Is there any one item of christian faith that if youngthinker stopped believing then a team of researchers could notice the difference?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Phi for All, you said "Any 'documents and evidence that would support that [your] beliefs are true' would be from the Bible, which has been shown by many historians (including many religious historians) to be flawed, often misinterpreted, often contradictory and to a great extent untrustworthy. Circular arguments like that are irrational and based on fallacious logic."

 

Not all evidence that supports the Bible comes directly from the Bible. Seven day weeks, a five day work week, the fact that humans cook food before eating it, the concept of marriage, and the fact that nearly all of humanity references all time to the birth of Jesus, are just a handful of examples.

 

Dude, you need to read your history. All those things, marriage included, predate the Bible by quite a bit. And the B.C/A.D. reference is simply a convention that's used because it would cost too much to replace it (much like adopting the metric system in the US).

 

As for Acts 8:37 -- You're right, my Bible doesn't print verse 37 within the paragraphs of the text. Instead, there's a little footnote and the verse is placed in the bottom margin of the page. There's a little note that says "some manuscripts have this verse". I've seen these little notes at the bottom of the pages for many years, and as I've said before, it never bothers me.

 

Then your argument is hypocritical, since you claimed that all versions of the Bible " have equal merit to me as long as the translation is consistent with the original text". I've shown that this isn't so with your version, yet you just blow it off and say "it never bothers me". This seems more like you're simply not questioning why the original text was omitted.

 

When it comes to the "meat" versus "grain" thing, as well as anything else like that, we're best served to remember the true nature of God. As I've said before, when you read the Bible as a whole, you really learn that no one's going to get into any trouble over something like this. To emphasize such things as this to this extreme level of importance is to blow them out of proportion, while ignoring what really matters to God.

 

Another convenient argument where you get to say one thing, have it refuted, and then claim it really doesn't matter.

 

You also said "One can hardly blame a child for believing in something their parents encouraged them to believe. But at a certain point it's a mark of adulthood to critically examine your belief system. The fact that you argue that your belief in your name, the existence of Isaac Newton and the existence of God are virtually the same tells me you haven't done this yet, or that you continue to hold some things to be sacred and never question them."

 

You're right -- As I've said before, these faiths are similar. But I also said there are a few big differences. Unlike the others, my faith about God IS sacred, unwavering, and unquestioning. It's another one of those things that non-believers view as nonsense. But God is pleased with a child-like faith. He says that we must come to him like children (Mark 10:13-16). There are many examples of God being pleased with faith like this. All of the good examples shown in the Bible have such faith.

 

More circular arguments, where the only evidence to support why you believe in the Bible comes from the Bible. It seems much more likely that the early Christian leadership, including its sponsor Emperor Constantine, simply wanted a flock of unquestioning, faithful sheep who wouldn't cause trouble for the secular authorities the way all the others did.

 

In fact, many scholars believe that Acts of the Apostles was purposely split off from the Gospel of Luke and renamed so as to send a message to Constantine that Christianity wasn't going to cause him any hassles. It's very obviously written from an apologist point of view.

 

As for the fifty translations -- I can't agree with you. If your view of translations was correct, then many translations, in every circumstance, would be critically flawed and inaccurate. However, people accurately communicate with each other via translators, and translations, all of the time. Any competent translator, who would be translating my post, would understand both languages fairly well. Because you understand English, you immediately understood what I meant when I mentioned "tongue" instead of "language". You even caught my typo. The translator would also understand English, and would do the same. As a reslut, he/she would understand what I mean and render an appropriate translation.

 

My point was this: Many books that had been considered for the New Testament were passed over by the Council of Nicea because they weren't considered divinely inspired, even beautiful accounts like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Phillip. If the books that did make it into the New Testament really were divinely inspired, what gave your translators the right to change or omit any of it?

 

You asked, "Which one of the 9000 accepted sects of Christianity's "truth" are you talking about?"

 

I'm talking about all that agree with what the Bible teaches. Many are right about some things, and wrong about others. I subscribe to no denomination. I believe what the Bible says. Christ doesn't care about denominations -- that's something that was invented by the world. Those who trust in Jesus alone for salvation are Christians. This is what the Bible teaches.

 

All 9000 sects claim to agree with what the Bible teaches, and that's really the point. They all interpret the Bible differently, including you, and while you think many are wrong about some things, they think you're the one who's wrong. And I think it's an incredibly specious argument from all of you to claim that your sect is the only one that knows "what the Bible teaches".

 

@Phi for All, the fact that you said that you're not attacking me, is helpful. I've had these types of discussions with people who believe differently than I do and all such discussions have to end at some point. The topic is so sensitive and polarizing that eventually people often just want to argue. When it reaches that point, I'll have to just let it go.

 

I didn't join in this conversation to argue. Arguments aren't helpful and the Bible says that its something that I should always try to avoid (2nd Timothy 2 verses 14 and 23-24). I also didn't join in this discussion because I'm searching for answers. Answers, I have. I joined in this discussion because @young thinker showed a legitimate search for truth and understanding, and I wanted to help. I'm certain that a Christian doesn't have to abandon God in order to enjoy science.

 

Arguing and confrontation are part and parcel of any good discussion. If both parties agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary. Aggression is what we're all looking to avoid, and that's easily done if we attack ideas and not the people who have them.

 

You can't simply claim you have the answers and let it go at that. You do everyone, and mostly yourself, a great disservice when you think that way. This is the part of religion that doesn't mix well with science. Science is all about questioning and testing, not assuming and pretending to know what you don't know.

 

All it takes is a healthy understanding of both God and science.

 

A healthy understanding of God?! I thought you couldn't know the mind of God. And you haven't given me any indication in your arguments that you have a healthy understanding about science either.

 

Personally, I think a person can have their religion and study science as well. They just have to realize that there is a clear line between the natural and the supernatural, and that blind faith is the weakest of all beliefs while it pretends to be the strongest. Hope that your beliefs are correct, take all the good that your religion teaches and practice those kindnesses every day, but be skeptical when someone tells you they know the Truth with a capital T.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have strong feelings about people like evansste, he is what is known in religious circles as a sheep, these people have been at best been mislead and I think it's more accurate to say they have been brain washed. They grow up listening to preachers, pastors or ju ju men feed them the supposed word of god in little sound bites and the the idea of questioning these sound bites is blasphemy and cannot be tolerated. They are told that questioning is wrong but the real reason they are told not to question is because their so called leaders know that anything less than blind obedience might allow them to throw off the shackles of being a sheep.

 

These professional preachers are toxic to humanity, they demand blind obedience of huge numbers of people who don't realize the entire thing is nothing but a scam. I often recommend AronRa's videos of the foundational falsehoods of creationism because he does such a good job of explaining why these people are so dangerous. You don't have to be an atheist to be free of these false beliefs but you do have to understand that you are being lied to. I feel for evansste but he has to want to know the truth, he has to understand his religious leaders are not much more than snake oil salesmen and their extravagant life styles depend on people being sheep....

 

This idea that the bible is the word of god is trivially falsified, how could the word of god be anything but perfect? If god wrote these books no human author could possibly compete with him, it would be an absolutely accurate description of the natural world and would reveal profound morality. All men who can sense such things, if they can sense such things at all, would completely agree and religions should come together in agreement ... Instead we see exactly the opposite, nothing but religions continuously fracturing into ever smaller groups who all say the others are being deceived. The only reasonable option is they all are being deceived by the men who claim to be messengers from god....

 

Evansste, I bear you no ill will but you have to want the truth you have to search for it, the search is not easy, preconceptions will have to be examined critically and do not expect to see what you want to see...

Link to post
Share on other sites

1st Corinthians 1:10-31 says:

"By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ I appeal to all of you, my brothers, to agree in what you say, so that there will be no divisions among you. Be completely united, with only one thought and one purpose. For some people from Chloe's family have told me quite plainly, my brothers, that there are quarrels among you. Let me put it this way: each one of you says something different. One says, 'I follow Paul'; another, 'I follow Apollos', another, 'I follow Peter'; and another, 'I follow Christ.' Christ has been divided*(a) into groups! Was it Paul who died on the cross for you? Were you baptized as Paul's disciples?
I Thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius. No one can say, then, that you were baptized as my disciples. (Oh yes, I also baptized Stephanas and his family; but I can't remember whether I baptized anyone else.) Christ did not send me to baptize. He sent me to tell the Good News, and to tell it without using the language of human wisdom, in order to make sure that Christ's death on the cross is not robbed of its power.
For the message about Christ's death on the cross is nonsense to those who are being lost; but for us who are being saved it is God's power. The scripture says, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and set aside the understanding of the scholars.' So then, where does that leave the wise? or the scholar? or the skillful debaters of this world? God has shown that this world's wisdom is foolishness!
For God in his wisdom made it impossible for people to know him by means of their own wisdom. Instead, by means of the so-called 'foolish' message we preach, God decided to save those who believe. Jews want miracles for proof, and Greeks look for wisdom. As for us, we proclaim the crucified Christ, a message that is offensive to the Jews and nonsense to the Gentiles; but for those whom God has called, both Jews and Gentiles, this message is Christ, who is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For what seems to be God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and what seems to be God's weakness is stronger than human strength.
Now remember what you were, my brothers, when God called you. From the human point of view few of you were wise or powerful or of high social standing. God purposely chose what the world considers nonsense in order to shame the wise, and he chose what the world considers weak in order to shame the powerful. He chose what the world looks down on and despises and thinks is nothing, in order to destroy what the world thinks is important. This means that no one can boast in God's presence. But God has brought you into union with Christ Jesus, and God has made Christ to be our wisdom. By him we are put right with God; we become God's holy people and are set free. So then, as the scripture says, 'Whoever wants to boast must boast of what the Lord has done'."

*(a) Christ has been divided; some manuscripts have Christ cannot be divided.

The above scripture says what I've been saying all along. It explains why there are divisions in the church, and also the great divide between the Christian view and the non-Christian view. Rather than reitterate in my own words, I decided to just post the actual scripture. I could never say it any better anyway.


2nd Corinthians 6:14-7:1 says:

"Do not try to work together as equals with unbelievers, for it cannot be done. How can right and wrong be partners? How can light and darkness live together? How can Christ and the Devil agree? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? How can God's temple come to terms with pagan idols? For we are the temple of the living God! As God himself has said, 'I will make my home with my people and live among them; I will be their God, and they shall be my people.' And so the Lord says, 'You must leave them and separate yourselves from them. Have nothing to do with what is unclean, and I will accept you. I will be your father, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.'
All these promises are made to us, my dear friends. so then, let us purify ourselves from everything that makes body or soul unclean, and let us be completely holy by living in awe of God."

I intend for this to be my last post on this topic. As I've said before, I joined this discussion in order to answer the questions that @young thinker was asking -- which I have done. The above scripture shows that the divide between Christians and non-Christians is just too big for us to have any real common ground. Because I can't help, and in order to avoid a perpetual quarrel that is going nowhere, I feel I should just let it go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1st Corinthians 1:10-31 says:

 

[biblical support for the veracity of the Bible snipped]

 

The above scripture says what I've been saying all along. It explains why there are divisions in the church, and also the great divide between the Christian view and the non-Christian view. Rather than reitterate in my own words, I decided to just post the actual scripture. I could never say it any better anyway.

 

 

2nd Corinthians 6:14-7:1 says:

 

[biblical support for the veracity of the Bible snipped]

 

I intend for this to be my last post on this topic. As I've said before, I joined this discussion in order to answer the questions that @young thinker was asking -- which I have done. The above scripture shows that the divide between Christians and non-Christians is just too big for us to have any real common ground. Because I can't help, and in order to avoid a perpetual quarrel that is going nowhere, I feel I should just let it go.

 

Well, thanks for talking with us. I want you to know I've read every word you've written. I've also studied the Bible and read it cover to cover multiple times. I highly recommend a complete read-through, rather than relying on others to produce perfectly applicable verses cherry-picked from the writings of multiple authors, none of whom ever met Jesus in real life.

 

Since you say you're not coming back, I'll leave you with this to ponder. Judaism protects their copies of the Tanakh (what you would call the Old Testament) by requiring strict supervision of their making and delivery to the temples so the word of God remains the same as the original. They even carry on an oral tradition that stresses the original pronunciation and cantillation as they're read aloud. In talking to you about the New Testament, I got the sense that this kind of accuracy is very important to you. You gave a very honest, rational reply when you said that accuracy compared to the original texts was what gave a translation merit for you. So I can't really believe it when you tell me it doesn't bother you that the Good News Bible is so far off the original texts. You and I both know it should bother you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The above scripture shows that the divide between Christians and non-Christians is just too big for us to have any real common ground. Because I can't help, and in order to avoid a perpetual quarrel that is going nowhere, I feel I should just let it go.

 

Not really, Paul had surpassed everyone in his lifetime. I am a follower of Helios and I defend Christianity and Judaism more than any believers and non-believers who pee on the Cross, the divide is not so big as you think so, only ignorant and unwise men quarrel with each other, the theology of Christians, Jews, Hellenic religions and eastern religions are one and the same, only names change in what they are describing.

 

The last thing what we want is to raise our kids brainwashing them to think that anyone who is worshipping a different God than their own is a devil worshipper. That's the last thing we want really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, let me say that I am a Christian. And I am conflicted. I cannot dismiss either my religion or my belief in science. In fact, I want to be a professor in a science. It is my belief that the physical rules that our universe abides by was created by God or a god, however you may see it. And I do not understand why the majority of scientists are atheists. Would not such a mathematically governed universe such as ours need a creator? Don't computers need programmers? Why did such influential men such as Issac Newton believe in a god whil today's scientists do not.

 

Any input is welcome. I'm just a thirteen year old trying to understand the universe and why life matters.

While the Isaac Newton part I can only speculate on. But he was from a time where people didn't really question the existence of god. Maybe how people decided to worship, but not the existence. The reason now a days probably has a lot to with inconsistencies and the sheer lack of evidence that disproves the scriptures. I personally can not discard a god figure from my life either. But instead of getting hung up on a religion written by man to accompany what I perceive as god. I instead realize that anything with the ability to create such perfection and complexity. Probably wouldn't get hung up on the trivial crap of human beings.

 

Wow, this thread smells like hypocrisy and ignorance. Its like sitting at a table with stupid people, who really have no clue what they are talking about try argue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this thread smells like hypocrisy and ignorance. Its like sitting at a table with stupid people, who really have no clue what they are talking about try argue.

 

Okay, what do you know that we don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While the Isaac Newton part I can only speculate on. But he was from a time where people didn't really question the existence of god.

Because those who did believe in a forgiving and gentle god had some nasty ways of dealing with those who strayed from the true path. Theologians have been trying to prove the existence of god for millennia, and these "proofs" neatly match with some of the more obvious arguments against the existence. It was an intellectual pursuit that was necessarily not completely overt, and was couched in double talk; but the questioning was there.

 

Maybe how people decided to worship, but not the existence.

How to worship was even more divisive than the existence - swift's gulliver is a little later but still talks of the meaningless wars over religious minutiae

 

 

The reason now a days probably has a lot to with inconsistencies and the sheer lack of evidence that disproves the scriptures. I personally can not discard a god figure from my life either. But instead of getting hung up on a religion written by man to accompany what I perceive as god. I instead realize that anything with the ability to create such perfection and complexity. Probably wouldn't get hung up on the trivial crap of human beings.

 

So what does the god figure in your life accomplish or mean?

 

 

Wow, this thread smells like hypocrisy and ignorance. Its like sitting at a table with stupid people, who really have no clue what they are talking about try argue.

 

That's very kind of you - thank you for sharing

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its like sitting at a table with stupid people, who really have no clue what they are talking about try argue.

 

You gotta love internet Karma. Calling everybody else stupid and fumbling your grammar in the same sentence is poetic justice. tongue.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, let me say that I am a Christian. And I am conflicted. I cannot dismiss either my religion or my belief in science. In fact, I want to be a professor in a science. It is my belief that the physical rules that our universe abides by was created by God or a god, however you may see it. And I do not understand why the majority of scientists are atheists. Would not such a mathematically governed universe such as ours need a creator? Don't computers need programmers? Why did such influential men such as Issac Newton believe in a god whil today's scientists do not.

 

Any input is welcome. I'm just a thirteen year old trying to understand the universe and why life matters.

Do you have proof that most scientists are atheists? I doubt that.. I would say most of them are agnostic, but i don't have any proof either to assert this claim.

Science is not a belief to be believed in. It is a combination of theories and facts. So you don't really have to dismiss the existence of god, or the lack of thereof for science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have proof that most scientists are atheists? I doubt that.

 

In 1998, only 7% of scientists embrace a belief in god(s). That number is almost certainly lower now given the increase in secularism and nonbelief this past decade and a half. Now, I've also seen studies where about 36% of scientists believe in god(s), but that still means that 64% do not... which in my estimation still accurately reflects "most" even given the more conservative estimate.

 

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

 

This study stated a 33% belief rate among scientists: http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

 

Fortunately, nonbelief is on the rise among non-scientists, as well: http://www.pewforum.org/unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx

Link to post
Share on other sites

The article doesn't explain about which god exactly was in question..If the god(s) in question is the Hebrew god that created the earth in 7 days or something similar, then yes you can say that most scientists are atheist.
However there are other more interesting view on god such as Spinozism.


Personally I do not really care for the topic of god's existence, but I do share scientists in their disbelief of gods such as the Hebrew or Hindu gods.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If one waters down the meaning of god so significantly that it essentially means anything the believer wants it to mean, and countless different things to different believers, then what utility is there in calling it god? The term becomes so interchangeable that it is rendered useless. Why not just call it the universe, or the cosmos, or "all that stuff I don't yet understand?"

 

I think the deistic position is one where a person realizes the extreme ridiculousness of the Abrahamic gods like Yahweh or Allah, but lacks the courage or conviction or fortitude to walk away from the god concept altogether. I can say that I don't believe in god(s) without saying I'm certain none exist. I can also say there are a great many unanswered questions about this universe and our existence as part of it without satisfying myself with the non-answer of "goddidit."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Science, it is the nature of the profession not to accept anything without evidence,

when it comes to God the same rule applies. Fence sitting is a safe bet when

it comes to anything uncertain therefore science should also look into the value

of faith. The concept of God being is probably the oldest and well known concepts

there is deserves a full scientific investigation, people want the facts on God

not the fiction. Confusion around this concept has caused much misery and

strife throughout history and in the world today. Does that tell you anything

about the nature of his being.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fence sitting is a safe bet when it comes to anything uncertain therefore science should also look into the value

 

of faith.

 

How do you define faith? Is it just believing, or hoping, or is it something else?

 

When I've asked people who consider themselves devout [insert applicable sect here], they always tell me about total conviction, unquestioning confidence, unwavering acceptance. These same people often distrust science when huge bodies of evidence drawn from reality supports its explanations. Instead, they prefer absolute acceptance of magic and mysticism over trust in what actually exists in front of them.

 

I think it's clear that the value of faith is in the gullibility of those who profess its superiority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.