Taking Science on Faith

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

No, "The Way" as the movement was first called grew by leaps and bounds. It was communicated orally initially, then was written as you say in the later part of the 1st century by those who witnessed the events. By 312 CE it was the predominant faith of the Roman Empire.

This is just a guess, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest this, why was there nothing written about JC for nearly 60 years… I mean he must have been quite a prominent figure at the time!!!!

Quote

You do know a lot of Biblical facts but on this one you obviously have no idea. Paul wrote about issues he felt were important for the spiritual development of his Churches. And thank God he did.

Im afraid it is you that has little idea, may I suggest you do a little research before blurting out silly statements…

Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. However, there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth.

So explain that one… I would have thought that story of Christ would have been rather important in the development of the church.. but for some reason Paul didnt know (well didn’t write) anything about The virgin birth, the 3 wisemen, the entrance into Jerusalem, he never mentions Pontius Pilate or a Jewish mob or any trials at all. Paul doesn't know any of what we would call the story of Jesus, except for these last three events. And even these, Paul never places on Earth. Just like the other savior gods of the time, Paul's Christ Jesus died, rose, and ascended all in a mythical realm.

Paul doesn't believe that Jesus was ever a human being. ("If Jesus had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest."--Hebrews 8:4)

He's not even aware of the idea. And he's the link between the time-frame given for the life of Jesus and the appearance of the first Gospel account of that life.

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[maadmax 0]

--Semantics. And incorrect. Or at the very least, a purported "difference" that in fact - which is to say, in the absence of semantic gymnastics - is no genuine difference at all.People who don't believe in God, don't believe in God because they believe there is no God. Any other characterization is semantic claptrap.Atheism is not a belief; it is simply the absence of a particular form of belief. Not believing in God is atheism. "Believing" there is no God is...atheism. Now here's where people trot out the word "agnosticism". Spare me. Agnosticism doesn't really exist. The word "agnostic", distilled to its essence, is really just a safe harbor some atheists use to label themselves because they're afraid theists will think less of them if they call themselves atheists.

You have the condescending, just hate to lower myself to the level of these bottom feeders routine going strong. Does this help you make your points more emphatically? Your statement almost sounds like you understand that belief in something that can't be proven, like there is or is not a God if based on faith. Please correct me if I have misunderstood your comments.


....

[maadmax 0]

-So explain that one.................

Sorry to disappoint you, but Paul wrote what he thought was important for the spiritual development of his Churches. I, like you, have thought many times why didn't Paul write about more stuff. All I can say is if he did it was lost to history, if he didn't then it wasn't necessary to
accomplish his purpose. I would bet that what we have recorded in Paul's letters is not the sum total of all he knew.

[JackC 0]

Quote

But in general, I don't care what people believe as long as it works for them. They don't have to justify it to me.

Edmund Burke is credited with saying "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". I just think that not calling bullshit when you see it is the educational equivalent of doing nothing. That's how you get into a situation where more people believe in the Devil than believe in evolution.

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

-So explain that one.................

Sorry to disappoint you, but Paul wrote what he thought was important for the spiritual development of his Churches. I, like you, have thought many times why didn't Paul write about more stuff. All I can say is if he did it was lost to history, if he didn't then it wasn't necessary to
accomplish his purpose. I would bet that what we have recorded in Paul's letters is not the sum total of all he knew.

Ok so lets just ignore for a moment the fact Paul didn't know anything about the story of Christ, and explain then why Paul didn't even believe that Christ was human and ever existed on earth.....

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I couldn't disagree more. I was formerly an athiest, but then understood a little more aboutt he universe and the scientific model and realized that atheism or absolute believing in a god is ridiculous. I say we answer the easy questions like cancer and AIDS, then we go to origin and destony. ............So for you to say that people like me are looking for a safe harbor is so far wrong it's inane at the least. ............... I call myself an Agnostic due to there not being enough evidence on either side, any side to place enough faith to feel confident that that is the destiny. I lean toward the scientific approach, hence Atheism, but I certainly place no strong faith in it....

nicely put, Luckmeister

edit: When you really want to get them going - use the terms 'fanatical' and 'faith' and 'belief' in the same sentence as 'atheism' and it becomes even more fun. I treat outspoken and defensive "Atheists" with the same regard as born again Christians.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,412]

>Edmund Burke is credited with saying "all that is necessary for the
>triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

Again, if you think that religious belief is evil, then we are talking about two different things.

There's only one person here trying to push his religious beliefs (or lack thereof) on other people, and ridiculing those who do not believe as he does. Ironic.

[maadmax 0]

-- Ok so lets just ignore for a moment the fact Paul didn't know anything about the story of Christ, and explain then why Paul didn't even believe that Christ was human and ever existed on earth

I can't see where you came to that conclusion. In Acts 9:20 Saul who later changed his name to Paul was observed telling people that "Jesus was the Son of God." I can't imagine any of his hearers had any question who he was talking about. Acts 13:22&23 Paul says Jesus was born through the line of David.
Acts 13: 28-31 Paul teaches Jesus was crucified and resurrected from death.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Again, if you think that religious belief is evil, then we are talking about two different things.

Bill, it was an analogy, surely you could see that. Not all religious belief is evil, I never said it was.

The point is not whether a belief (any belief, not necessarily religious) is evil (whatever that means) but that simply sitting by and doing nothing when you see obvious bullshit allows that bullshit to be perpetuated. It doesn't matter whether it's the the 45 degree rule for exit separation or Darwin's theory of evolution or the length of Bill Booth's beard. Doing nothing allows that bullshit to thrive.

Presumably since you are happy for people to believe anything at all in a religious setting, you're equally happy for people to believe anything at all when planning exit separations too. Or do you have separate rules for religion?

Quote

There's only one person here trying to push his religious beliefs (or lack thereof) on other people, and ridiculing those who do not believe as he does. Ironic.

Perhaps you would do me the curtesy of pointing out where I said any of that because that wasn't my intent.

It seems you are persistently misunderstanding me, so I guess my writing must be really shitty because I can't imagine you would do it intentionally, would you Bill?

[billvon 2,412]

>but that simply sitting by and doing nothing when you see obvious
>bullshit allows that bullshit to be perpetuated.

Yep. We all see bullshit all the time. You see it in the macho posturing of tandem students in bars. If I don't step in and tell the woman "he just did a tandem, he was just cargo" am I "perpetuating the bullshit?" You may think so, but I could care less. Let him brag on his tandem.

You see it in the "only my specific interpretation of the bible is correct and everyone else is wrong and going to hell." If I don't argue with them, am I "perpetuating the bullshit?" Again, maybe - but it just doesn't bother me that he thinks that; no skin off my nose. (And arguing over such things is pointless anyway.)

Now, if someone at my DZ wants to teach other people the 45 degree rule? Then that might (literally) be skin off my nose, and I'm probably going to talk to them about it.

I am sure you see a difference there.

[Shotgun 1]

In a country that is largely dominated by Christians, their beliefs have the ability to affect pretty much everyone else, so it makes sense to call bullshit on the stuff that so many Christians seem to think of as fundamental truths.

Perpetuating religious beliefs has much deeper implications than "perpetuating the bullshit" of some individual's braggadocio (as in the example you used).

[JackC 0]

Quote

You see it in the "only my specific interpretation of the bible is correct and everyone else is wrong and going to hell."

That's not true. I can see there are many ways to interpret the bible. The literalist view is not consistent with logic and within the limits of logic, it can be shown to be false. But that's the only one that can conclusively be shown to be false and even then only within those very rigid rules. Other interpretations have to be dealt with on a case by case basis and have varying degrees of validity. You don't even need to believe in God to take something positive away from the Bible. Christian-Atheist is a perfectly possible position to hold although more orthodox Christians may disagree.

Quote

Now, if someone at my DZ wants to teach other people the 45 degree rule? Then that might (literally) be skin off my nose, and I'm probably going to talk to them about it.

I am sure you see a difference there.

There is a difference. The 45 degree rule affects you as a skydiver immediately. Creationism being taught as science (whether inside or outside school) doesn't affect you directly or physically so you might be happy to let it slide. But it does affect the children subjected to it, which in turn affects society and therefore affects everyone.

There's no point going after every piece of BS you see but in my opinion the ones that have lasting consequences, even if they don't affect you personally, are worth calling.

[billvon 2,412]

>That's not true.

Of course it's not true. It's just not worth arguing about. It's like arguing whether coke or pepsi is better.

>The 45 degree rule affects you as a skydiver immediately.

Agreed.

>Creationism being taught as science (whether inside or outside school)
>doesn't affect you directly or physically so you might be happy to let it
>slide.

Creationism being taught in public schools _does_ affect me directly; I am paying for it. So I would object to that and try to get it removed.

Creationism being taught outside the classroom (say, in a sunday school) - that's up to the parents of those kids. I think they're wrong, but it's their choice.

[DannHuff 0]

Quote

That's not true. I can see there are many ways to interpret the bible. The literalist view is not consistent with logic

The literalist view is logical and rational. If the atheist is correct and there is nothing after death, you have lost little. If however the Bible is correct and after death there is heaven and hell and God to be accountable to, those who do not believe in Christ have lost everything for eternity. And eternity is a very long time.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Quote

That's not true. I can see there are many ways to interpret the bible. The literalist view is not consistent with logic

The literalist view is logical and rational. If the atheist is correct and there is nothing after death, you have lost little. If however the Bible is correct and after death there is heaven and hell and God to be accountable to, those who do not believe in Christ have lost everything for eternity. And eternity is a very long time.

But if the Koran is correct then both of us will be burning in hell.

Pascale's wager sucks.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's not true. I can see there are many ways to interpret the bible. The literalist view is not consistent with logic

The literalist view is logical and rational. If the atheist is correct and there is nothing after death, you have lost little. If however the Bible is correct and after death there is heaven and hell and God to be accountable to, those who do not believe in Christ have lost everything for eternity. And eternity is a very long time.

But if the Koran is correct then both of us will be burning in hell.

Pascale's wager sucks.

I'm waiting for Zeus. You'll all be sorry when He returns!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[beowulf 1]

Forget heaven or hell or Zeus I am going to Valhalla!

When Ragnarok comes you guys will all be sorry!!

[DannHuff 0]

Quote

But if the Koran is correct then both of us will be burning in hell.

Pascale's wager sucks.

Yes, you are correct. The truth will dictate what the outcome beyond this life will be. For me I have made the necessary investigations and settled in my mind and heart what the truth is. Not to say I have all the answers. A lot of people I meet that are vehemently anti the Bible I find have actually never read it in any depth.

With such great odds at stake, can I ask if you have investigated the evidence in order to reach a conclusion for yourself?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

The truth will dictate what the outcome beyond this life will be. For me I have made the necessary investigations and settled in my mind and heart what the truth is.

With such great odds at stake, can I ask if you have investigated the evidence in order to reach a conclusion for yourself?

Have you?

There are 20+ major branches of Christianity, 2 major branches of Islam, there's Judaism, there are 4 branches of Hinduism, there are 3 branches of Buddhism, there are the Sikhs, the Shinto, the Bahai and the Jainists, there are even some Zoroastrians still left.

Have you fully investigated all their claims? Read and studied their literature?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DannHuff 0]

As I said, I have satisfied in my mind and heart what or more correctly who the author of truth is. My journey of discovery has included study of other faiths.

My point was many people who vehemently deny the Bible have never read it in any depth. I would greatly encourage people to read the life of Christ in the gospels, particularly the book of John, before arguing against it.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

As I said, I have satisfied in my mind and heart what or more correctly who the author of truth is. My journey of discovery has included study of other faiths.

Have you read the Koran? The Vedas and Upanishads? The Guru Granth Sahib? The Sutras? The Avesta?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

But if the Koran is correct then both of us will be burning in hell.

Pascale's wager sucks.

Yes, you are correct. The truth will dictate what the outcome beyond this life will be. For me I have made the necessary investigations and settled in my mind and heart what the truth is. Not to say I have all the answers. A lot of people I meet that are vehemently anti the Bible I find have actually never read it in any depth.

With such great odds at stake, can I ask if you have investigated the evidence in order to reach a conclusion for yourself?

Have you read "IN ANY DEPTH" the holy books of Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Shinto, Sikhism, Jainism, Cao Daism, Tenrikyoism... in order to make your informed decision?

Could well be you've backed a loser.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

As I said, I have satisfied in my mind and heart what or more correctly who the author of truth is. My journey of discovery has included study of other faiths.

My point was many people who vehemently deny the Bible have never read it in any depth. I would greatly encourage people to read the life of Christ in the gospels, particularly the book of John, before arguing against it.

No book written by man (who else is going to write them?) will tell us what is beyond death. We'll find out soon enough.
With so many different religions telling us what will become of us, I see it as a power struggle of any given religion to build their membership through fear tactics. Been that way for thousands of years. Long before chritianity came about.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[DannHuff 0]

Quote

Quote

As I said, I have satisfied in my mind and heart what or more correctly who the author of truth is. My journey of discovery has included study of other faiths.

Have you read the Koran? The Vedas and Upanishads? The Guru Granth Sahib? The Sutras? The Avesta?

I'll answer that when you have answered my question on whether you have read the gospels in any depth?

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Quote

As I said, I have satisfied in my mind and heart what or more correctly who the author of truth is. My journey of discovery has included study of other faiths.

Have you read the Koran? The Vedas and Upanishads? The Guru Granth Sahib? The Sutras? The Avesta?

I'll answer that when you have answered my question on whether you have read the gospels in any depth?

You can answer my question then (post #172 of this thread) since I went to schools in which we had (Christian) religion classes twice a week for 12 years, so I have read the gospels in depth.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.