Jesus thread...

[guinness]

Not the boks in the Dead sea scrolls, but the little Genesis, and the book itself called The Book of Enoch. Correct, Elijah was carried away and then Enoch simply vanished, but I never said that either of them returned. Was just making a reference as a joke in a sense, but not literal. If anything, the two witnesses described in Revelation are going to be Elijah and Moses or Enoch.

[geoff]

You do realize that these other books including the Book of Enoch are considered Gnostic writings. They were not accepted by the early 1st and 2nd century church because they strayed from the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. They believed salvation was obtained through knowledge and self awareness. They completely ignored the teachings of Jesus and were seen as heretics. You understand now why there teachings and writings were not included in the Bible? Further, have you read any of the Book of Enoch? It's almost like a myth story of Hercules.

[sport_122]

Faith, by it's very definition is a belief in something without evidence, a belief in something whether it's true or not. The thing about science is, that it's true whether you believe in it or not.

Not true. Because the scientist does not go back and rework all observations that lay the framework for their current research. They take those things on faith. Faith that because someone has told me that this is what happens when I do A to B and I am assuming it is true when I am going to something to D. Even scientists argue about the 'Laws' of science. There is a much stronger grain of faith in science than you would expect. And don't get me started on the part of the scientific method that would even lead you to believe that IF you do something to D, that you will accurately predict a result. That belief is an example of faith in and of itself.

[.blank cd]

Not true. Because the scientist does not go back and rework all observations that lay the framework for their current research. They take those things on faith. Faith that because someone has told me that this is what happens when I do A to B and I am assuming it is true when I am going to something to D.

How do you figure scientific research is based on faith? Can you give an example of "faith based" scientific research?

There is a much stronger grain of faith in science than you would expect. And don't get me started on the part of the scientific method that would even lead you to believe that IF you do something to D, that you will accurately predict a result. That belief is an example of faith in and of itself.

Which part of the scientific method is this? Can you explain further?

[sport_122]

How do you figure scientific research is based on faith? Can you give an example of "faith based" scientific research?


Which part of the scientific method is this? Can you explain further?

Sure. BTW its not faith based science, its the part of science that mandates the use of faith.

this is a little length but hang in there

Faith is a belief. It can be blind or it can be evidential.

How many of your friends believe in the big bang or evolution? How many of them have actually gone out and done some sort of research to prove it vs relying on what was told to them in class?

Hypotheses and the use of controls are typically results of someones belief that certain things are given and will present a specific type of result.

An example. All theories and hypothesis that are based off of the Big Bang. The big bang cannot be proven. It can be strongly hypothesized through observation, but it has never been observed. Even though this is the case, we have TONs of scientific hypothesis' that are based off of "IF" the Big Bang is how our universe was formed.

Evolution, as a theory of origin, cannot be proven because we don't have complete development data. And we never will. It will remain a theory that people take on faith, based off of incomplete origin records.

The arguments around these types of things always make me laugh we people argue science vs religion

There is this side of science where some people believe everything will be made known in time. we are realizing how much we don't know through the scientific method not how much we do know. For every one thing we think we figure out, we ask one hundred questions. But for some reason, there are a group of people who seem to think it different. Simply not true.

And ironically, all of these exact things can be said for people who claim faith in God.

My personal belief is that the atheistic movement, at some point in history, began to cling onto science as if it were a way to forge your own path without having to give any credit to God. the scientific method is much older than the atheist. That said. science does not rival or argue against God. People argue against God.

[.blank cd]

Sure. BTW its not faith based science, its the part of science that mandates the use of faith.

this is a little length but hang in there

Faith is a belief. It can be blind or it can be evidential.

How many of your friends believe in the big bang or evolution? How many of them have actually gone out and done some sort of research to prove it vs relying on what was told to them in class?

Hypotheses and the use of controls are typically results of someones belief that certain things are given and will present a specific type of result.

An example. All theories and hypothesis that are based off of the Big Bang. The big bang cannot be proven. It can be strongly hypothesized through observation, but it has never been observed. Even though this is the case, we have TONs of scientific hypothesis' that are based off of "IF" the Big Bang is how our universe was formed.

Evolution, as a theory of origin, cannot be proven because we don't have complete development data. And we never will. It will remain a theory that people take on faith, based off of incomplete origin records.

The arguments around these types of things always make me laugh we people argue science vs religion

There is this side of science where some people believe everything will be made known in time. we are realizing how much we don't know through the scientific method not how much we do know. For every one thing we think we figure out, we ask one hundred questions. But for some reason, there are a group of people who seem to think it different. Simply not true.

And ironically, all of these exact things can be said for people who claim faith in God.

My personal belief is that the atheistic movement, at some point in history, began to cling onto science as if it were a way to forge your own path without having to give any credit to God. the scientific method is much older than the atheist. That said. science does not rival or argue against God. People argue against God.

Hmmm. I see

I've noticed you've referred to a scientific theory as a layman theory. These are two different things.

Lets imagine for a second, you've got 20 neighborhood friends who don't know how a newspaper is printed. You really want to find out and you happen to have a big magnifying glass. You see a bunch of blue, pink, and yellow dots. You tell all your friends that the picture on the front of the paper is just a bunch of dots arranged into a pattern that looks like that picture, and you tell them how you found that out. This is what you'd call your scientific theory. It's how you explain how your picture comes from a bunch of dots and you've tested it with your magnifying glass. You've just done science! Now that all of your friends know, they go and tell their friends what you did and so on and so fourth. Which of these kids took this information on faith? Faith, by its definition, is a belief, or trust, without supporting evidence. All of these kids can ask you, all of these kids can work to make some money to buy a newspaper and a magnifying glass. Same thing happens in a science classroom. Not only are you learning facts and theories, but also how the people who found them come across the answer.

The way we explain how a process works is a scientific theory. The current model of evolution, Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, is indeed a fact and a theory. It's been tested, and observed. The thing is, a lot of people tend to believe its used to explain the origin of life. It is simply the way we explain how we get from point a to point b. It is not a theory of origin. There is a completely different framework for this. We call it Aboigenesis. It has also been tested, conclusively, many times.

One of the problems with the debate is that , people don't seem understand modern evolutionary synthesis, abiogenesis, and the Big Bang, and the differences between them. And they're all so complex, it would take a doctorate in astrophysics, particle physics, biochemistry, and evolutionary biology to really cover it all.

My question to you is, could it be possible that you don't believe it because you don't really understand it? Maybe there's more you should know about it?

[sport_122]

Hmmm. I see

I've noticed you've referred to a scientific theory as a layman theory. These are two different things.

Lets imagine for a second, you've got 20 neighborhood friends who don't know how a newspaper is printed. You really want to find out and you happen to have a big magnifying glass. You see a bunch of blue, pink, and yellow dots. You tell all your friends that the picture on the front of the paper is just a bunch of dots arranged into a pattern that looks like that picture, and you tell them how you found that out. This is what you'd call your scientific theory. It's how you explain how your picture comes from a bunch of dots and you've tested it with your magnifying glass. You've just done science! Now that all of your friends know, they go and tell their friends what you did and so on and so fourth. Which of these kids took this information on faith? Faith, by its definition, is a belief, or trust, without supporting evidence. All of these kids can ask you, all of these kids can work to make some money to buy a newspaper and a magnifying glass. Same thing happens in a science classroom. Not only are you learning facts and theories, but also how the people who found them come across the answer.

The way we explain how a process works is a scientific theory. The current model of evolution, Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, is indeed a fact and a theory. It's been tested, and observed. The thing is, a lot of people tend to believe its used to explain the origin of life. It is simply the way we explain how we get from point a to point b. It is not a theory of origin. There is a completely different framework for this. We call it Aboigenesis. It has also been tested, conclusively, many times.

One of the problems with the debate is that , people don't seem understand modern evolutionary synthesis, abiogenesis, and the Big Bang, and the differences between them. And they're all so complex, it would take a doctorate in astrophysics, particle physics, biochemistry, and evolutionary biology to really cover it all.

My question to you is, could it be possible that you don't believe it because you don't really understand it? Maybe there's more you should know about it?

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.

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.

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. The point is, after years of believing some things and learning to understand our world based off of those things, we have often times found out that we were wrong. So what do we call the confidence that people had in those ideas that were found to be invalid.

My final thought: (tribute to Springer) Science is not an enemy to my faith. I am a supporter of the scientific method. I believe that people are given observational tools by God. I just simply wanted to point out that I noticed a lot of people making claims like Science is definitive. Thats wrong. as i said before, the arguments aren't even about the science, they are about the presuppositions of the people who are arguing. PS. too tired to proof read.

[bu villain]

I just simply wanted to point out that I noticed a lot of people making claims like Science is definitive. Thats wrong.

I agree that science is always subject to revision but that is exactly why it is distinctly different from religious faith.

[.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.

[E36slide]

The ignorance is strong in this thread....


The one thing that always makes me laugh when i read the bible is the part where adam and eve populate an entire planet. Oh and the talking snake....oh and the ship that saved all the animals from the flood...honestly if you would have never read the bible and didn't know who or what god was you would think it's a children's book. The idea that people who don't believe in god will go to hell is blasphemy. There are third world countries that will never know who or what God is. The idea that people push religion on others also annoys me. Christianity is a racists religion. What makes your religion any better the Hinduism or any other religion.


Religion is a business simple and plain. I go to 12 stone and they have a mother fucking star bucks in their church. Yet ppl go hungry or can barely make it by.

I also believe in the way of since; i guess i too am ignorant and going to hell.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[Echonova]

The ignorance is strong in this thread....


The one thing that always makes me laugh when i read the bible is the part where adam and eve populate an entire planet. Oh and the talking snake....oh and the ship that saved all the animals from the flood...honestly if you would have never read the bible and didn't know who or what god was you would think it's a children's book. The idea that people who don't believe in god will go to hell is blasphemy. There are third world countries that will never know who or what God is. The idea that people push religion on others also annoys me. Christianity is a racists religion. What makes your religion any better the Hinduism or any other religion.


Religion is a business simple and plain. I go to 12 stone and they have a mother fucking star bucks in their church. Yet ppl go hungry or can barely make it by.

I also believe in the way of since; i guess i too am ignorant and going to hell.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

I'm seriously just quoting this so you can't edit your post...





Wow.

[E36slide]

I'm seriously just quoting this so you can't edit your post...





Wow.

I don't mind. This is what i believe. I could go in more dept and provide factual information...but i don't care to explain why i don't belive in god.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[Echonova]

I don't really care if you believe in 8lb 7oz baby Jesus or not. But if you don't believe then why go to church at all? Or did I just read your post wrong?


If you're going for a chick, you're doing it wrong. But I digest.

[E36slide]

I don't really care if you believe in 8lb 7oz baby Jesus or not. But if you don't believe then why go to church at all? Or did I just read your post wrong?


If you're going for a chick, you're doing it wrong. But I digest.

My grandmother lol

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[-EnVus-]

My grandmother lol

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

Did I just read you don't go to church for chicks you go for your grandma ?
Seriously is that all it takes to get in her cotterpooter these days

[E36slide]

Did I just read you don't go to church for chicks you go for your grandma ?
Seriously is that all it takes to get in her cotterpooter these days

She doesn't like going alone.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[-EnVus-]

She doesn't like going alone.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

I read my good book at home I think church is for sinners looking for resolution Grandma must be a sinner

[Echonova]

Yes, church is for sinners. If you're 100% righteous with God then you don't need church.



If you don't believe in God, you don't need church.





Everyone else, needs church.

[E36slide]

I read my good book at home I think church is for sinners looking for resolution Grandma must be a sinner

She just likes the church. It's entertaining

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[ahabion]

The ignorance is strong in this thread....


The one thing that always makes me laugh when i read the bible is the part where adam and eve populate an entire planet. Oh and the talking snake....oh and the ship that saved all the animals from the flood...honestly if you would have never read the bible and didn't know who or what god was you would think it's a children's book. The idea that people who don't believe in god will go to hell is blasphemy. There are third world countries that will never know who or what God is. The idea that people push religion on others also annoys me. Christianity is a racists religion. What makes your religion any better the Hinduism or any other religion.


Religion is a business simple and plain. I go to 12 stone and they have a mother fucking star bucks in their church. Yet ppl go hungry or can barely make it by.

I also believe in the way of since; i guess i too am ignorant and going to hell.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

I hope and pray that I run into you at church one day... maybe we can even meet at the Starbucks.

[E36slide]

I hope and pray that I run into you at church one day... maybe we can even meet at the Starbucks.

Why...will you give me a "praise the lord holla loooya" hug?

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[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.

[-EnVus-]

Atheist want to truly believe there is no God cause the idea of a higher being just means they are to be judged for wrong things they do or believe. A person who does have faith also has heart and that means the spirit can forever live on. Id rather have faith and a delusional thought that I have a chance in a after life then to die and just turn to dirt THE END. "Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies"

[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.

[quickdodge®]

Atheist want to truly believe there is no God cause the idea of a higher being just means they are to be judged for wrong things they do or believe. A person who does have faith also has heart and that means the spirit can forever live on. Id rather have faith and a delusional thought that I have a chance in a after life then to die and just turn to dirt THE END. "Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies"

And this just makes no sense.

[sport_122]

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.

i understood that. The assumption that you make is based off of the presupposition that because some men in the present day have made foolish claims then all men throughout history who have made outstanding claims were fools as well. The evidence would say something to the contrary.

Here are questions I'd ask to test a persons knowledge on the actual claims made around Christ's death and resurrection. I think the answers to these questions cast an incredibly different spectrum on him vs the occult leaders you mentioned. I also think that peoples sarcasm gets heavily in the way of hearing and understanding a claim before trying to cast doubt on it.

Who were the followers of Christ? How many were there? How many people saw him perform miracles? How many people challenged the validity of his miracles? How many people saw him after he died on the cross? How many of his followers were with him when he died? What happened to him after his resurrection? Did his followers believe he was resurrected right away?

[geoff]

Im curious as to why the same objections come up time and again. I have already made the arguement that evidence supporting Christ's story exists historically. What i boils down to is a simple rejection of the evidence laid before you. Science can be flawed, especially when assumptions of conditions or what not are used. History on the other hand either happened or it didnt. If there only existed writings of Christ from Christians, then one could argue that such evidence is biased....yet that is not the case.

[ahabion]

Why...will you give me a "praise the lord holla loooya" hug?

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

No, I'd shake your hand, pat on the back, buy you a drink and say "Good to see ya, God bless." Leave.

[TIGERJC]

WOW an imaginary friend thread. Please grow up or at the very least just think.