Jesus thread...

[.blank cd]

Its funny, I majored in Biology. Spent many days having this type of discussion.

first off: my case is again demonstrated in your reply: We dont need to take another persons word in order to have all of these things properly covered for us. Thats not observational science. The study that says something is true is only accepted in the scientific community when it can be demonstrated in a lab based off of the research as it was published. Observations must be repeatable. You and I should be able to reproduce the results of all of these claims. If we have to rely on the guy that "knows more" then we have ignored the scientific method at its core.

I started in psych, but changed to CIS. I still have to finish and will probably go back to psych.

Thats what I'm saying. I don't have to rely on that guy that knows more. I can just as easily get a research job and find out myself. But in the case of religion, the guy that knows more is the pastor, and he makes scientific claims, and yet doesn't provide repeatable evidence. The problem I have is that religion is trying to become too scientific, and its not. Admit your biblical claim is purely philosophical, and I don't have a problem

Secondly: Abiogenesis has not been proven. Not even wanting to go into it so you can look up any of the hundreds or thousands of PhD written journals that tear that idea apart. You can also look up Spontaneous Regeneration. Basically it requires "magic" as Richard Dawkins calls it when referring to miracles testified to in religious documents.

I haven't said abiogenesis has been proven. I know it hasn't. It has been tested, conclusively. As a biology major I'm sure you're familiar with Miller-Urey and other similar experiments. These experiments say "these may have been the conditions and the elements present when the earth was formed." No one has torn it apart. The only thing that seems to be debated is the conditions in which life began.

That leads to my next statement. The faith aspect of science. Scientific theories can be disproven. Maybe not today or tomorrow. Maybe 100 years from now. There are tons of things that were observed in our past that we have learned were not true, but were true to us at the time of their origin. Yet some of them were so foundational to the understanding of our universe that to have even started to go against them would have be met with mockery.

Theories don't necessarily get disproven. They're simply replaced by better theories as our understanding and our observational abilities evolve. Kinda like how Newtons gravity theory was replaced by general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Religion is one thing that gives people comfort and stability. Some people aren't mentally equipped to deal with such a rock to their comfort zone as the thought that there's probably not a creator, that the stories that have been used to explain natural phenomenon are just myths, and that the end is just the end. I personally think of religion as a theory that has been replaced due to our drastic increase in observational abilities.

Science isn't definitive, or absolute at all. Anyone with an in depth knowledge of science will tell you that. But science will only explain what's within it's fundamental boundaries. It won't explain the supernatural and the philosophical.

[sport_122]

I started in psych, but changed to CIS. I still have to finish and will probably go back to psych.

Thats what I'm saying. I don't have to rely on that guy that knows more. I can just as easily get a research job and find out myself. But in the case of religion, the guy that knows more is the pastor, and he makes scientific claims, and yet doesn't provide repeatable evidence. The problem I have is that religion is trying to become too scientific, and its not. Admit your biblical claim is purely philosophical, and I don't have a problem

Its not philosophical. its just that I believe there are reasons to believe in the accounts that were written. Also your statement that a Pastor is the guy that knows more is not supported biblically.

I haven't said abiogenesis has been proven. I know it hasn't. It has been tested, conclusively. As a biology major I'm sure you're familiar with Miller-Urey and other similar experiments. These experiments say "these may have been the conditions and the elements present when the earth was formed." No one has torn it apart. The only thing that seems to be debated is the conditions in which life began.

Abiogenesis is discussed solely as an origins of life theory. I am very familiar with the Miller Urey experiments. You may want to pull some journals on this. They didn't prove abiogenesis. I could really go on about this, so if you want I can point to dozens of PhD's publishing huge problems with this study and the claims made about abiogenesis. Dont be mistaken. The there has never been a scientist to create life from nonlife. Well, except Frankenstein which is what scientist of the time accused them of reading when they came up with the primordial soup theory.

Theories don't necessarily get disproven. They're simply replaced by better theories as our understanding and our observational abilities evolve. Kinda like how Newtons gravity theory was replaced by general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Religion is one thing that gives people comfort and stability. Some people aren't mentally equipped to deal with such a rock to their comfort zone as the thought that there's probably not a creator, that the stories that have been used to explain natural phenomenon are just myths, and that the end is just the end. I personally think of religion as a theory that has been replaced due to our drastic increase in observational abilities.

Religion is not a thing of comfort. My faith does not tell me how stable I am, it tells me how unstable I am. It also tells me that I should look into my world and understand who God is. for instance, my faith applies historical information. two quick examples to help you glimpse into my mind.

Christs life: simply put. If he wasn't working miracles, he wouldn't have had 100's of followers and thousands of believers in a culture that was completely opposed to his teachings and claims to be God in the flesh. He would have been killed on the spot had he not convinced masses.

Christs death: If he had not risen, as he claimed, the movement would have died. The men who lost their faith when they saw him die would not have changed their minds to the point of losing their lives. Something made them decide that their faith was stronger than the threat of losing their lives.

Science isn't definitive, or absolute at all. Anyone with an in depth knowledge of science will tell you that. But science will only explain what's within it's fundamental boundaries. It won't explain the supernatural and the philosophical.

Philosophy covers things that can be studied through the scientific method. The same for supernatural things. Dr. Gary Swarze (spelling) of Arizona State university did a scientific study on the afterlife. He published his methods and his findings. You can get all the documentation and repeat the studies that he did to determine whether or not you get his results. Some scientists laugh at it, but you should read up on what he did. I think its great foundational work to show that science can deal with the metaphysical as this was his secondary goal. But i digress to my original point: Science has been hijacked by people who want to blatantly ignore these types of topics.

[quickdodge®]

... he wouldn't have had 100's of followers and thousands of believers ...

Have you ever heard of Charles Manson, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Nettles/Applewhite or even Fred Phelps?

Christs death: If he had not risen, as he claimed,

I do appreciate how you added the "as he claimed" part. No sarcasm involved, sir.

[sport_122]

Have you ever heard of Charles Manson, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Nettles/Applewhite or even Fred Phelps?



I do appreciate how you added the "as he claimed" part. No sarcasm involved, sir.

I sure have. AND? Do you have something intelligent to add, or are you going to regurgitate one liners to try to use suggestive hypothetical statements?

[quickdodge®]

I sure have. AND? Do you have something intelligent to add, or are you going to regurgitate one liners to try to use suggestive hypothetical statements?

And here I was responding to you because I didn't realize you'd get confrontational. I'm not going to drop down to that kind of arguing with you over my response. If you want to discuss it, I'm cool with that. If you're going to develop the need for insults, then that's not for me.

Sorry.

[sport_122]

And here I was responding to you because I didn't realize you'd get confrontational. I'm not going to drop down to that kind of arguing with you over my response. If you want to discuss it, I'm cool with that. If you're going to develop the need for insults, then that's not for me.

Sorry.

Ok. not confrontational. just looking for a real discussion. if you'd like to have one then begin it. You obviously have thoughts on what I have posted.

[quickdodge®]

Have you ever heard of Charles Manson, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Nettles/Applewhite or even Fred Phelps?



I do appreciate how you added the "as he claimed" part. No sarcasm involved, sir.

Ok. not confrontational. just looking for a real discussion. if you'd like to have one then begin it. You obviously have thoughts on what I have posted.

My point, sport, was that the aforementioned people (in my initial post to you) also had 100's of people and followers and they put their faiths and beliefs completely in his hands. That doesn't include the ones that laid down their lives for these and the many other cult leaders that have been around. All your argument in that scenario does for me is to show that Jesus could have been the first cult leader this world has ever had. And these people didn't have to use the "miracle" tactic to get their followers. And the things these cult leaders have done to gain their followers are much more believable than what was written in the Bible. Not to mention provable. That's all I was wanting to get at, my friend.

The second part was truly non sarcasm. I was glad that you used the word claim so as to show that it isn't factual, but believed or said to have happened.