You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Scientists...Got it wrong again!
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
I've never understood the view that science is somehow anti-God.
Science seeks the Truth. It doesn't say it FOUND the Truth. That is why it works in theories - and as you know, you can never conclusively prove a theory, just gather continuing supportive evidence.
If you believe in God, then God would be the ultimate Truth.
So some are comfortable believing they have found Truth, and some are saying they are searching for Truth (taking the scenic route, if you like).
The only issue is when you say you have definitive Truth - because that would mean you have an understanding that would make you equivalent to God, which is claiming a lot.
Science seeks the Truth. It doesn't say it FOUND the Truth. That is why it works in theories - and as you know, you can never conclusively prove a theory, just gather continuing supportive evidence.
If you believe in God, then God would be the ultimate Truth.
So some are comfortable believing they have found Truth, and some are saying they are searching for Truth (taking the scenic route, if you like).
The only issue is when you say you have definitive Truth - because that would mean you have an understanding that would make you equivalent to God, which is claiming a lot.
Quote from nutmeg:
And last but not least.
The Virgin Birth of Jesus is a religious tenet of Christianity and Islam which holds that Mary miraculously conceived Jesus while remaining a virgin.
The precursor to artificial insemination.
except that many gods that predate jesus had virgin births. it seems when primitive men concieved gods they were more important if their stories have a virgin birth attached.you have to be blind not to see where the jesus virgin birth myth came from:
Zoroaster/Zarathustra
--Zoroaster was born of a virgin and âimmaculate conception by a ray of divine reason.â
--He was baptized in a river.
Mithra of Persia
--Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts.
Attis of Phrygia
--Attis was born on December 25 of the Virgin Nana.
Dionysus/Bacchus
--Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger.
Horus/Osiris of Egypt
--Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Merion December 25 in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
Osirisâs coming was announced by Three Wise Men: the three stars Mintaka, Anilam, and
Krishna of India
--Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki (âDivine Oneâ) on December 25.
Alnitak in the belt of Orion, which point directly to Osirisâs star in the east, Sirius (Sothis),
significator of his birth . . .
Quote from WaveStrider:
I've never understood the view that science is somehow anti-God.
Science seeks the Truth. It doesn't say it FOUND the Truth. That is why it works in theories - and as you know, you can never conclusively prove a theory, just gather continuing supportive evidence.
If you believe in God, then God would be the ultimate Truth.
So some are comfortable believing they have found Truth, and some are saying they are searching for Truth (taking the scenic route, if you like).
The only issue is when you say you have definitive Truth - because that would mean you have an understanding that would make you equivalent to God, which is claiming a lot.
The "science" guys will ALWAYS frame the debate as "science vs religion". You cannot get them on topic, you cannot keep them on topic. What I basically said earlier was that I can look around and the evidence fits the creation story much better than anything else... so they start up talking about religious nuts, they have to shove the whole topic into religion and from there to politics because they win via politics. They own the venue for debate and they get their funding from politicians. They cannot really win the real debate but they can win nonetheless...
Regarding all the religions, Genesis [flesh it out by reading Antiquities by Josephus] explains it all... after the flood there was a leader called Nimrod. He was pissed at God for the flood. He became a political and religious leader and then people dispersed all over the planet and they took his religion with them. The similarities in religions of that type all over the world are notable. It's all pretty muchly putting people in charge and placating demons or controlling lesser demons by appealing to greater ones and without knowledge of the down side of doing that...
Regarding science seeking truth, don't assume that to be true. They turn up truths from time to time but take the Smithsonian for example: their charter is to promote evolution, nothing more or less. They do willfully ignore any evidence to the contrary and approach the whole world of science the same way an advertiser approaches the world of products.. magnify the upside and hide the downside...
Quote from vhehn:
except that many gods that predate jesus had virgin births. it seems when primitive men concieved gods they were more important if their stories have a virgin birth attached.you have to be blind not to see where the jesus virgin birth myth came from:
Zoroaster/Zarathustra
--Zoroaster was born of a virgin and âimmaculate conception by a ray of divine reason.â
--He was baptized in a river.
Mithra of Persia
--Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts.
Attis of Phrygia
--Attis was born on December 25 of the Virgin Nana.
Dionysus/Bacchus
--Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger.
Horus/Osiris of Egypt
--Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Merion December 25 in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
Osirisâs coming was announced by Three Wise Men: the three stars Mintaka, Anilam, and
Krishna of India
--Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki (âDivine Oneâ) on December 25.
Alnitak in the belt of Orion, which point directly to Osirisâs star in the east, Sirius (Sothis),
significator of his birth . . .
Well ! Speaking of "blindness"!
You should research your "virgin birth" club a little deeper.
[ I would suggest that the reading of Justin "Dialogue with Trypho" or Arnobius "Against the Heathen" would lay the historical groundwork for you ]
Your argument makes perfect sense IF one is in agreement that Jesus is one in a long line of "great philosophers" and "inspired men", nothing more, nothing less.
IF, however, Jesus is "God with us", then the "pre-dating" portion of your critique is lacking, as nothing would or could "pre-date" the Creator.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/virgin_birth.htmlQuote from Barth Vader:
Well ! Speaking of "blindness"!
You should research your "virgin birth" club a little deeper.
[ I would suggest that the reading of Justin "Dialogue with Trypho" or Arnobius "Against the Heathen" would lay the historical groundwork for you ]
Your argument makes perfect sense IF one is in agreement that Jesus is one in a long line of "great philosophers" and "inspired men", nothing more, nothing less.
IF, however, Jesus is "God with us", then the "pre-dating" portion of your critique is lacking, as nothing would or could "pre-date" the Creator.
The Virgin Birth and Childhood
Mysteries of Jesus
James Still
Biblical scholars have long ago dismissed the literal interpretation of the miraculous virgin-birth of Jesus. Also, many liberal Christian denominations have either quietly purged the curious piece of teaching from their body of philosophy, or conveniently ignore the issue altogether. Despite this, the allure of such an intriguing concept is still very powerful and Jesus' virgin birth continues to enjoy the unquestioning belief of millions of people. The purpose of this essay is to explore the mythological connections between prodigal children in history with an emphasis on the meaning and symbology of virgin birth as it particularly relates to Jesus. In this way Jesus' virgin birth and the mysteries surrounding it will be fully explored in the mythological context from which it derives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.awitness.org/essays/virgin.html
THE ORIGINS OF THE
STORY OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH
Why did Matthew find it necessary
to insist that Christ was born of a virgin?
There is no suggestion of a virgin birth in Mark's gospel, and the first we hear of it is in the Gospel of Matthew. Mark's gospel tells the story of a radical Jewish rabbi who led his people in rebellion against the religious system of the day, and was crucified for this very reason. Like a good Jew, in Mark's gospel Christ insists that no one call him good, âfor there is no one good except God alone,' and that if you want to find salvation and enter the kingdom of heaven, you should keep the commandments of God (a very Jewish response which you can contrast with the later Christian theological description of salvation described in the formula âbelieve in me and thou shalt be saved.' This concept is alien to Mark's gospel, and is also uncharacteristic of the other synoptic gospels.) Mark's Christ is a very Jewish rabbi and revolutionary, while Matthew's Christ
The above just demonstrates how you willfully ignore all contrary evidence to your belief preferring instead to frame a science vs religion political debate. Can you not stay on topic?Quote from Eight:
The "science" guys will ALWAYS frame the debate as "science vs religion". You cannot get them on topic, you cannot keep them on topic. What I basically said earlier was that I can look around and the evidence fits the creation story much better than anything else... so they start up talking about religious nuts, they have to shove the whole topic into religion and from there to politics because they win via politics. They own the venue for debate and they get their funding from politicians. They cannot really win the real debate but they can win nonetheless...
Regarding all the religions, Genesis [flesh it out by reading Antiquities by Josephus] explains it all... after the flood there was a leader called Nimrod. He was pissed at God for the flood. He became a political and religious leader and then people dispersed all over the planet and they took his religion with them. The similarities in religions of that type all over the world are notable. It's all pretty muchly putting people in charge and placating demons or controlling lesser demons by appealing to greater ones and without knowledge of the down side of doing that...
Regarding science seeking truth, don't assume that to be true. They turn up truths from time to time but take the Smithsonian for example: their charter is to promote evolution, nothing more or less. They do willfully ignore any evidence to the contrary and approach the whole world of science the same way an advertiser approaches the world of products.. magnify the upside and hide the downside...
Existence must have predated a Creator. Creators can't exist unless existence exists. No Creator could exist were there not existence.Quote from Barth Vader:
[...]
IF, however, Jesus is "God with us", then the "pre-dating" portion of your critique is lacking, as nothing would or could "pre-date" the Creator.
you guys are funny. you think of yourselves as scientific minded yet you cant even manage to let go of a flood myth even though every piece of evidence tested shows no flood.Quote from Eight:
The "science" guys will ALWAYS frame the debate as "science vs religion". You cannot get them on topic, you cannot keep them on topic. What I basically said earlier was that I can look around and the evidence fits the creation story much better than anything else... so they start up talking about religious nuts, they have to shove the whole topic into religion and from there to politics because they win via politics. They own the venue for debate and they get their funding from politicians. They cannot really win the real debate but they can win nonetheless...
Regarding all the religions, Genesis [flesh it out by reading Antiquities by Josephus] explains it all... after the flood there was a leader called Nimrod. He was pissed at God for the flood.
the flood story is the one story in the bible that could not have happened without leaving evidence:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm
History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth