|
|
|
|
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/27/2008 11:11:38 AM | I personally couldn't care less if a Christian God exists or not - either way it wouldn't/doesn't bother me. I have my vision of God, one that doesn't require proof and won't be subject to irrational writings of men. Think of it as a gut feeling - you know how you feel and commit yourself to the cause...
Therefore, because my God is a spiritual connection I naturally resonate with it...
How then can I now ignore God's presence in my life? Sure, you might say: Not everything should be based on feelings, to which I'd reply: Take away my feelings and you take away my life...
Being comfortably numb is for the dead. :) | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/27/2008 11:31:14 AM | [quote[I tried to believe,but if I can't square a belief in my head,it hasn't a chance to lodge in the heart.I cannot and will never shut my critical thought process down in favor of blind faith. How can anyone trust a document that encourages people not to think as in "Lean not unto thine own understanding"? Your critical thinking skills are your friend!
Here is the major flaw in your assessment of "evidence".
You see when a person is blind they can't see. And, to me, it is you that has blind faith. You can't get past your prejudice. You believe that the bible is not true. Yet there is historical, internal and critical thinking that validates it. There is a right and wrong way to live. There is a way that leads to happiness. There is a love that is self sacrificing. The Bible gives examples of these things. And, at the same time it never says to believe without proof.
It is religious men that have made a mockery of the Bible. They have interpreted it in ways to advance their cause, make money, and kill other people so they could have their property. God's word is straight forward and true. Your view of the Bible is also distorted by what men have done to it.
For example, when it it says that we are not to lean on our own understanding, it is speaking of moral and ethical decisions, not anything else. Mankind can make all the inventions it wants. You can design your house anyway you want. But, God says the
way of cheating, lying, adultry, stealing, and making those stupid images to represent Him are wrong. He wants us to use our critical thinking, and conclude that those things that He says are wrong are actually wrong. God asks you to think it through.
The Bible does not ask its believers to shut down their critical thinking. God says let us reason together, and Paul says to prove all things. What is the best way to live? Are there really better gods than Him? Is there really a better way to live that His commandments?
Adam and Eve thought so. They used their critical thinking. Hey it looks good, tastes good, and I will be like God. So, they took it. And you also take the same exact bait. I will decide for myself what is right and wrong. It is heady. It feels good to our human nature, but it will eventually lead to suffering, pain, and destruction.
So, think critically. Do you think America is getting stronger economically, ethically, morally, or weaker as we move into an atheist and agnostic society? Are people more honest in business or politics today? Are children of the next generation more self disciplined or less? Are TV and Movies becoming more trashy as they become better technically? Do we really not need family? Can we change our gender and have "f" buddies instead of being loyal to one person? Is that fulfilling in the end, and is it valuable to society? Use your head man, we are heading for destruction as people forget the values and standards of that book.
You appear to think that your way is superior. You think you have a moral compass within yourself. You think you can make moral decisions. But, you have no such compass. In the end, everyone does what they think is right, and it leads to anarchy. The creator left His instruction book telling us what works best, and we ignore it.
I say, when it comes to those things that really matter, you just don't see life the way it really is. The laws of physics don't help you when you are down. They don't hold you when you hurt. They don't sacrifice for your benefit. They don't have a plan for your destiny. The Bible offers that.
Once the people of America forget God's way of fairness, decency, and sacrificial love, the nation will fail. And, we are already on that path, and the people who think like you are helping to bring it about. The Bible warned us about it, but we ignore it, and go on as if we know better than our maker. The tragedy that will befall us as a result is worse than you could ever imagine.
But then it is just the opinion of the one who created all this. Who am I to say? Perhaps your physics can save you. You can freeze your brain and thaw it out when man has all the answers. Or, perhaps you could use your vast and brilliant critical thought to come up with a better set of commandments for us to live by. Myself, I am older. And, the older I get, the more I think those commandments are brilliant. It came from the best critical thinking I have ever found. I have found the courage to admit it. God is smarter than I am.
Art | |
|
| |
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/27/2008 1:03:32 PM |
You can't get past your prejudice.
Prejudice?Against whom?I have nothing against people , just backward,superstitious ways of thinking.
Adam and Eve thought so
A fairy tale based on a much older myth called the Enuma Elish . This is what I'm talking about and it proves my point.In spite of the mountains of evidence that backs up evolution, you and your ilk hang onto the myth that the world is only 6000 years old and that the world's population was started by two people.Of course never mind the fact that such is genetically impossible,you have faith and the bible says it's so,that's all you need.
A person of critical thinking requires more than a mere fairy story.
You think you have a moral compass within yourself
We all have a moral compass within us. Morals are embedded into our DNA, they are similar to an animal's instincts but are more highly evolved.
As far as your moral assessments of what is supposedly better,if you bothered to do some research on humanistic thought and philosophy,you would find some very astringent moral codes. The difference here is that you believe they were handed down to you by a supreme being, I maintain they exist simply as a societal construct and like everything else,subject to adaptation and change. You don't need religion to be morally "good".
The laws of physics don't help you when you are down.
Laws of physics aren't emotional security blankets like your faith is.They just govern the physical world.Just like every other religious person, you quickly address the emotional aspect of faith.This is what it's really about isn't it? It FEELS good to believe that you have an invisible sky fairy taking care of you and listening to your prayers. Faith works for you because of it's emotional security. I need no such crutch. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/27/2008 1:53:43 PM | Hobbiest said:
So, think critically. Do you think America is getting stronger economically, ethically, morally, or weaker as we move into an atheist and agnostic society? Are people more honest in business or politics today? Are children of the next generation more self disciplined or less? Are TV and Movies becoming more trashy as they become better technically? Do we really not need family? Can we change our gender and have "f" buddies instead of being loyal to one person? Is that fulfilling in the end, and is it valuable to society? Use your head man, we are heading for destruction as people forget the values and standards of that book.
Simply wonderful posts, Art, (Hobbiest), especially this segment above. I'm so grateful that there are people like yourself responding in this forum on the topic of Religion. Your wisdom is sound and it's obvious that our Creator is at work in your life as you share the knowledge you have gleaned from a walk with Him. Please don't stop.
America is in steady decline, morally, ethically, and spiritually. I doubt we'll recognize her ten years from now. If I didn't believe as strongly as I do in God, I would be afraid. I know what is coming. Anyone who reads their Bible can read Revelation and get informed on future prophecy. These events are now occurring before our very eyes. The one world government is being planned and prepared as we speak. It is on its way. The one world leader is even now amongst us or being raised up to be. His way is being prepared by the false prophet. All we do now is wait -- and pray without ceasing.
God is here and He is real. There is no need to prove anything to anyone. This is purely a faith matter. You either believe or you don't. This actually is a simple black and white decision we each must make. Agnostics may slide by for a time but that time is quickly coming to an end.
People do have a choice to make. Those who have hardened their hearts to Him have already chosen. I'm grateful that we have a forum like this to discuss these matters and that by the time Jesus Christ returns to us, every single human being on this planet will have had opportunity to know Him or to reject Him.
| |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/27/2008 7:30:13 PM |
nor can I explain something to you, that is only made known through the reality of the experience.
Not a big deal ,except you make yourself look a bit silly, arguing against something that you know nothing about.
My ex mother in law knew of many other "realities". She was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic, and often talked of her other "realities". If she stayed on her meds, the other "reality" didn't manifest itself as much.. gee, I wonder why... OK, you have your "other realities", you can keep them, I'm not interested. I may look silly talking about them, but most of the people I know of that talk of invisible people who appear to them, or voices from somewhere talking to them look a lot sillier than I, those folks wear hospital gowns and dwell in places that have bars on the windows and people in white coats that take care of them.
Your "other reality" tends to vanish when those experiencing them are introduced to Thorazine, Haldol , Halcyon and other antipsychotic drugs.Likewise much of your "other reality" can even be induced by certain other drugs and electrical stimuli. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/27/2008 8:15:18 PM |
America is in steady decline, morally, ethically, and spiritually.
Other than the spiritual part (which is good), this statement is quite arguable.
Anyone who reads their Bible can read Revelation and get informed on future prophecy.
Get informed on what? The Bible is batting .000 on legit prophecies. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/27/2008 9:00:14 PM |
My ex mother in law knew of many other "realities". She was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic, and often talked of her other "realities". If she stayed on her meds, the other "reality" didn't manifest itself as much.. gee, I wonder why... OK, you have your "other realities", you can keep them, I'm not interested. I may look silly talking about them, but most of the people I know of that talk of invisible people who appear to them, or voices from somewhere talking to them look a lot sillier than I, those folks wear hospital gowns and dwell in places that have bars on the windows and people in white coats that take care of them.
Your "other reality" tends to vanish when those experiencing them are introduced to Thorazine, Haldol , Halcyon and other antipsychotic drugs.Likewise much of your "other reality" can even be induced by certain other drugs and electrical stimuli.
Well, that's not true, as I know people on psych-meds, and they still believe.
Before you say the obvious-- many thinkers suffered from mental illnesses; maybe it's not wise to bring mental illnesses into the equation?
A recent example would be John Forbes Nash, a paranoid schizophrenic.
And, well, I think it's safe to say a large number of writers suffer from depression.
Are they all worthy of dismissal too?
You know, all those books you read? Throw them away! The authors needed medicine!
Burn your Hemingway! Burn your Plath and Woolf! Burn your Kerouac! Burn Kafka and Nietzsche! Dostoyevski? Of course! Burn em' all!
| |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/28/2008 12:33:24 AM | I said:
America is in steady decline, morally, ethically, and spiritually.
Shammgod said:
Other than the spiritual part (which is good), this statement is quite arguable.
Well, by all means, feel free. I don't mind at all if you do...argue with me, that is.  | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/28/2008 5:41:46 PM |
And Laws of Physics? What do the Laws of Physics have to do with researching whether a person existed and researching the veracity of a historical documents (other than tests conducted on the materials used)?
The laws of physics are relied upon in every field of science. If a story has elements that are outrageous and clear violations of the laws that govern the universe and all living organisms on this planet (such as a person rising from the dead, being born of a virgin,walking on water, etc), then in my mind, they can't possibly be true and accurate. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, the gospels are myth, just like the majority of the stories in the Bible. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/28/2008 5:52:40 PM | Well, that's not true, as I know people on psych-meds, and they still believe.
Of course they still believe. Antipsychotic medication can only deal with the symptoms of mental illness. The one suffereing may not have episodes or hallucinations anymore, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will disbelieve the hallucinations they once had . My ex mother in law was rational when she was on her meds, but she was still convinced that her neighbors had machinery in their apartment that sent electric shocks across the walls to her in her apartment. Hallucinations are very real to people who suffer from them.
A recent example would be John Forbes Nash, a paranoid schizophrenic.
And, well, I think it's safe to say a large number of writers suffer from depression.
Are they all worthy of dismissal too?
You know, all those books you read? Throw them away! The authors needed medicine!
Burn your Hemingway! Burn your Plath and Woolf! Burn your Kerouac! Burn Kafka and Nietzsche! Dostoyevski? Of course! Burn em' all!
I really don't see what that has to do with anything. Hemmingway never claimed to be the spokesperson for God with a dogma plan for one's life like the religious "prophets" of the Bible did. They never asked anyone to believe in their hallucinations, if they suffered from them and never insisted that their opinions and beliefs should be adopted by their readers.
| |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/28/2008 6:21:09 PM | The laws of physics are relied upon in every field of science. If a story has elements that are outrageous and clear violations of the laws that govern the universe and all living organisms on this planet (such as a person rising from the dead, being born of a virgin,walking on water, etc), then in my mind, they can't possibly be true and accurate. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, the gospels are myth, just like the majority of the stories in the Bible.
Well argued: In my own case, I feel it would be sinning against good sense to believe such science denying propositions as miracles, and I don't really need to be any less sensible than absolutely necessary. In retrospect, if Jesus ever existed as a real man/god he should have foreseen the skeptical age of scientific rationalism and laid off the miracles out of sheer respect.
I'd find it much easier to believe in a Jesus that could make a nice cup of tea than one who could walk on water. Why, oh why didn't the Apostles pursue this line of mythmaking? | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/28/2008 7:15:09 PM |
Why, oh why didn't the Apostles pursue this line of mythmaking?
Same reason why Hollywood recycles scripts. Anything successful gets duplicated. It's safe and easy, no original thinking needed. Miracles were succesful in all religious schtick in ancient times and apparently they're still popular as we have all kinds of charlatans on TV and other media proclaiming "miracles". Funny thing, I've never seen a faith healer heal an amputee.
I really think you have to be really jaded with the natural world to believe in miracles. What exists in the natural world is miraculous enough for me. A sunset, a snowflake, the beauty seen from the Hubble telescope, if those aren't miracles, I don't know what is. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/28/2008 7:23:32 PM |
I've never seen a faith healer heal an amputee.
Verily. If miracle workers exist, they seem to be displaying an unfortunate bias against amputees that needs to be addressed. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/28/2008 7:25:28 PM | romanticoptimist
Further, if the whole passage was a forgery, why would the forger create a Lucan style, obviously Christian, forgery? Could be a lot of reasons. Because people make mistakes. Because people are lazy. Because people are writing to a crowd that won't go to much trouble investigating the authenticity of a passage if that passage tells them what they want to hear. Because its easier to sneak forgeries past people in the 4th century than it is in the 21st century.
Whatever the reason(s), allow me to summarize your defense of its authenticity: it can't be a forgery because its too obvious a forgery to be a forgery.
It makes much more sense that the passage (without the two disputed phrases) is authentic and a direct copy or paraphrase by Josephus of an existing Christian, probably apologetic, source. That is, Josephus isn't saying he believed these things about Jesus, but simply stating that some people did. Thus, he supports the existence of the historical Jesus, not the beliefs about Jesus. So Josephus, a Jewish historian who believed in Vespassian as the messiah, wrote a passage professing Jesus as christ - yet never bothered to mention that he was speaking another person's sentiments? That would be like you professing to be a loyal follower of the Islamic religion and forgetting to mention that you were speaking for someone else.
There are numerous reasons why this passage has been considered a forgery for the last 300+ years:
As you mentioned, non-christians don't go around professing Jesus as christ.
As you mentioned, this passage was written in a different style and using a different vocabulary than the rest of Josephus' work ("Antiquities of the Jews").
Context. Squeezed in a chapter between stories of massacres of his countrymen is this completely unrelated passage, professing faith to Jesus. And supposedly forgetting to cite that he was speaking for others.
Its brevity. Josephus has written entire chapters about magistrates, horse thieves, etc - yet the most spectacular being that ever lived is only worth a few sentences. For example, he wrote over twice as much about John the Baptist.
He ended the subsequent paragraph with a reference to "another outrage," this train of thought is interrupted with the Testimonium, following it comes the outrage he seemed to be referring to.
Josephus has mentioned a score of other Jesuses and Joshuas, but never Jesus the Christ or any of his wonders.
There's a few more points but when you read them, keep in mind that the Testimonium, if true, would perhaps be the most powerful proof of Jesus written by a non-christian, which makes it all the stronger due to impartiality. From a christian perspective it is almost too good to be true.
The ancient table of contents that summarizes the work, written by a christian, fails to mention the Testimonium. Such a remarkable passage - not even worth a mention?
During their controversies against Jewish opponents, no christian has ever cited the Testimonium, written by a jewish historian no less, until after Eusebius (a 4th century christian bishop known for forgery) got his hands on it.
In fact, no one has ever quoted the Testimonium until Eusebius got his hands on it. As soon as he did made it public, everyone cited it.
At least 11 church followers cited the work before Eusebius got his hands on it, but not the Testimonium.
Origen, who quoted the work many times, including the chapter the Testimonium is in, never mentioned the Testimonium. Although he used the work to verify the existence of John the Baptist, it would be very unusual that he didn't also use it to verify the existence of Jesus.
To sum it up, even though the Testimonium is so important for validating Christ's existence, nobody quoted it until centuries later after it passed through the hands of a known christian forger. Then it was quoted ad nauseum.
Also, Josephus was born shortly after Jesus' death. Even if the Testimonium was true, its only hearsay anyway. No contemporary historian has ever found Jesus to be worth writing about. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/28/2008 7:50:22 PM |
Instead you refuse to even consider evidence because you have already decided that the one is impossible and therefore the other doesn't exist
No,that's not how I look at it. I agree with you that one can decide not to accept the existence of miracles but still accept the possibilty of a historical Jesus. These are two separate issues. I don't believe in miracles because they defy the laws of physics and therefore the miraculous events described in the NT are myths and legends, not unlike those told of Hercules or Dionysus in their day. I have grave doubts about the existence of the historical Jesus because the story itself lacks historical veracity in my opinion. Two separate issues. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/30/2008 12:05:05 AM | | Yeah, a lot of the facts get distorted because of the Zeitgeist film which is mostly nonsense. The God Who Wasn't There is a far better film and includes actual historians like Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier who know what they're talking about. Though a good amount of biblical accounts can be legitimately tied to older stories. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/30/2008 6:57:27 AM |
Yeah, a lot of the facts get distorted because of the Zeitgeist film which is mostly nonsense
You have to listen carefully to the wording of the narration. For example when the narrator talks about Horus being born of a virgin, the narrator doesn't say, "Horus was born of a virgin", he says something like, "In a manner of speaking (or some such), Horus was born of a virgin..."..Egyptian mythology does mention virgin birth, but it's not directed at Horus, but possibly the Sun God, Ra. Also, mythic mystery religions went through several dynasties and were influenced by the political changes, not unlike the way the Pope adds doctrines for Catholics to believe, such as the Assumption of Mary, which came about simply when the Pope retired to solitude and thought about it for awhile and then, after pulling the Assumption doctrine seemingly out of his butt, he announces the Assumption of Mary to the canon. 
The bottom line is that ALL religion evolves and changes throughout history. I'm sure a few thousand years from now, the worship of Christ will evolve and change as well, in fact it's doing just that. Many churches are accepting gays not only as church members, but as clergy as well. Likewise many churches have accepted evolution and are moving to a more allegorical interpretation of scripture than the literal, which the social climate will soon reach a point where Christians will either have accept it, or move further away from mainstream religion to cult status as their primitive beliefs become more antagonistic toward accepted belief. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/30/2008 9:08:00 AM | rockondon said: Whatever the reason(s), allow me to summarize your defense of its authenticity: it can't be a forgery because its too obvious a forgery to be a forgery. Not so. That may be your deliberate distortion, but not what I said -- the clue would be your need to paraphrase rather than quote.
I sad: It makes much more sense that the passage (without the two disputed phrases) is authentic and a direct copy or paraphrase by Josephus of an existing Christian, probably apologetic, source. That is, Josephus isn't saying he believed these things about Jesus, but simply stating that some people did. Thus, he supports the existence of the historical Jesus, not the beliefs about Jesus.
rockondon paraphrase again, and said:So Josephus, a Jewish historian who believed in Vespassian as the messiah, wrote a passage professing Jesus as christ - yet never bothered to mention that he was speaking another person's sentiments? That would be like you professing to be a loyal follower of the Islamic religion and forgetting to mention that you were speaking for someone else. No. What I said is clear. What I stated in the message I wrote three weeks ago is clear.
As you mentioned, this passage was written in a different style and using a different vocabulary than the rest of Josephus' work ("Antiquities of the Jews"). You misquote me again. Parts of this passage appear to be not directly Josephus, and the most probable explanation is that they are a direct quote from a Lucan source apologetic that is also referenced in other contemporary historical documents. The computer search referred to seems to demonstrate that is the likeliest possibility. This is historical research not math. there is no absolute, only probabilities and possibilities.
Jospehus (and his contemporaries) often quoted or referenced others without regard to footnotes, end notes, appendices, or even quotation marks so the fact that he didn't is totally irrelevant. If you had bothered to study the material, you would know that.
The amount of material he wrote is irrelevant. His was a contemporary history, mostly anecdotal, mostly everyday.
If you want to dispute what I said, feel free to do so. But you'll have to do better than paraphrasing, misquoting, and misrepresenting. Good luck with that.
Oh, and if you're going to quote others and cut/paste, at least have the integrity to cite references. It's not like you're Josepehus you know! | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/30/2008 11:00:31 AM | Has anyone figured out why the God/Jesus character, master of the universe, maker of all things, omnipotent being, couldn’t master the lowly art of handwriting?
Why did the Jesus character not realise how harmful the central theme of his tale: voluntary suffering is praiseworthy, would found an industry based on masochism?
How could the God/Jesus character who managed to be his own Father and his own Son at one and the same time not manage to be unequivocal?
How did the Jesus/God character manage to perform feats of medical wonder like bringing the dead back to life without being whipped off to become the ruling Emperor's chief physician?
Why did the Romans not immediately apprehend the Jesus character after he's walked on water and changed water into wine? How much money would the Roman army have saved on ships and grape growing if they did manage to figure out the tricks behind such feats of magic?
Why would a God thing feel it was important to make a visit to the planet in order to get him self flailed and nailed to two planks simply because a rib woman had been conned into robbing an apple by a talking snake?
Jesus is just a Santa for adults who don't want to grow up! | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/30/2008 3:18:27 PM |
Jesus is just a Santa for adults who don't want to grow up!
Very good analogy. I've often wondered why the messianic event was placed into a part of history that's so difficult to corroborate.I mean, the external "proofs" offered by Christians and Christian apologists are all very arguable as to their authenticity. There were scores of other historians that lived in the area and would've witnessed him. Also, how credible is it to think that Pontious Pilate would've let Barrabas, a revolutionary zealot who killed Romans go??? Considering how ruthless the Roman Empire was, if such had've happened, wouldn't Rome had seen Pilate's act as sedition and had him executed as well? How credible is it to believe that a group of seriously anal retentive Jews (the Pharisees ) to conduct a trial on the Eve of Passover? Both points addressed in Flemming's film?
Moreover, why aren't there any records besides the Bible of Christ's trial before the Sanhedrin and appearance before Pilate? It seems to me that if God intended this as the ONLY way to salvation, then his PR skills suck. Why not put the messianic event in the 20th century, where there would be films, photos, recordings and such to at least document his existence? Also, it seems to me that if Christ were actually that much of a perceived threat to the Pharisees and the Roman Empire, would they not have written volumes of propaganda denouncing him and showing fault with his teaching? You can rest assured that if Christ had lived in Nazi Germany and managed to preach before the Nazis caught up with him, Joseph Goebells would've produced volumes of news articles , films, recordings and other media to discredit him. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/30/2008 6:21:36 PM |
So, think critically. Do you think America is getting stronger economically, ethically, morally, or weaker as we move into an atheist and agnostic society? Are people more honest in business or politics today? Are children of the next generation more self disciplined or less? Are TV and Movies becoming more trashy as they become better technically? Do we really not need family? Can we change our gender and have "f" buddies instead of being loyal to one person? Is that fulfilling in the end, and is it valuable to society? Use your head man, we are heading for destruction as people forget the values and standards of that book.
I don't think it has anything to do with the book or the principles.
I think it has to do with personal accountability. We can teach the principles of the bible (or koran, or whatever) til we're blue int he face. We can stuff it down someone's throat until they regurgitate it back into our face. There is no penalty for the violation of church doctrine other than "God'll get you back! Just you wait!". Getting thrown out of the village in 2008 is much different than excommunication in 1208.
We need to regulate what children watch, what they play, etc. We hold the sponsors of that media accountable by choosing what channels and documents we provide access to them. We do our role as responsible citizens and parents. That's all we can hope to do.
This isn't something new. Let's play 'name the famous Greek philosopher who was forced to drink hemlock for subversion of youth'. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/30/2008 6:38:13 PM |
The laws of physics are relied upon in every field of science. If a story has elements that are outrageous and clear violations of the laws that govern the universe and all living organisms on this planet (such as a person rising from the dead, being born of a virgin,walking on water, etc), then in my mind, they can't possibly be true and accurate. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, the gospels are myth, just like the majority of the stories in the Bible.
The beauty of science is that theories are solid until disproven. It was once scientific fact that the world was flat. As science grew that was easily displaced. You'll have to forgive me for using such a trite example, but it serves the purpose.
Sometimes the most absurd scientific theories paired with a little imagination equal human invention. Heavier than air flight comes to mind for me. The idea of Icarus is absurd, but the idea of a paraglider not so much. Science and religion.
Science is a beautiful thing - it proves the properties of nature until those properties are disproved. Myths and stories are beautiful things, as well - they teach important properties of behavior and reaction to other living things. Both are necessary in my opinion.
I would think scientists are the most spiritual of any of us. They believe unfailingly, they are always willing to test and try their thoughts, and they disprove that which does not work or re-apply it later when new things come about that may facilitate it.
Most importantly, when they find something disproven they are just as enlightened and fulfilled. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/30/2008 6:41:15 PM |
I'd find it much easier to believe in a Jesus that could make a nice cup of tea than one who could walk on water. Why, oh why didn't the Apostles pursue this line of mythmaking?
Empirically, if he'd had been exposed to healing techniques of the Far East those miracles would make a lot of sense.
The Apostles did :) after all, the "church" had to come together and vote on what books were to be accepted as proper for inclusion.
If you haven't read the books of the Apocrypha you're missing out on some fun reading. :) | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 7/1/2008 6:52:33 AM |
Most importantly, when they find something disproven they are just as enlightened and fulfilled.
That's the major difference between a scientist and a religionist. ,The scientist welcomes the opportunity to be proven wrong, because it advances the cause of science. Richard Dawkins explained this very well in his documentary, "The God Delusion", where he shared a story from his undergraduate days when an old professor's theories were proven wrong by a young scientist. He said the old man stood up as the young man got a standing ovation from his peers and then went over to the young scientist and shook his hand and thanked him for proving him wrong.
A religionist is "always right" because he only goes by what his dogma tells him. Dogma becomes his anchor, his rock against change, because change is what the religionist fears most, as well as anything that might show a flaw in his religion. Creationists come to mind with their lame attempts at twisting the facts around to fit the absurd myth of Genesis. No ice age, no meteors that hit the earth, all of those craters and such were created by the flood, and of course all of those "other savior gods" of mythology were placed there by Satan because he knew in advance that Jesus would come.
What a belief system! | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
