You're lacking skepticism man, beware of Pseudoscience AKA "False Science" a claim that pretends to be scientific.

Don't be fooled by Pseudoscience too, always read with critical inquiry. Things to look out for: Their variables are often uncontrolled, data made up, claims non-falsifiable, references outdated or incorrect, testimonials heavily used, experts commonly misquoted. Ignorance of basic biology, chemistry and physics is often appalling.


Ancient Hebrew writings adopted by the early Christian church (and still taken as literal truth by tens of millions of Americans) taught that a young "flat" earth and the recent creation of life by an all wise, all-good god took place in a "creation week" about 6000 years ago (3000 years before the writing of Genesis, the first Book in the Bible). This was not just a belief but the foundation on which society stood, the very basis of our special status in the universe.

When I was doing research and studying the works of past scientists, I was amazed at how frequently the word "God" appeared in biology manuscripts as part of a "scientific explanation", even the works of scientist into the late 1800s. I found out that it was because the newly developed science of biology was still tied closely to theology. Why? Because all of the apparent design found in living organisms demanded a Creator. There was no other way to explain their existence.

But a new way of thinking slowly emerged about 400 years ago, if I remember correctly. Men started to rigorously probe the secrets of nature for the first time with no preconceived notions of what the answers had to be. Slowly began to develop creative, testable hypotheses to explain the raw evidence on its own terms, rather than by the ageless approach of "forcing" the data to conform to either stories in some "holly book", or to Greek logic or by explaining away the data ("Why is it this way?" "Because God wants it this way.") There after, serious disagreements began to emerge between the findings from this radically new mode of investigation which prompted to discredit the numerous claims found in the world's many "holy books".

Take for example, the Bible claims that the flat Earth is established and can never move Psalm 104:5. The Sun hurries back to where it rises Ecclesiastes 1:5. It has ends, Job 38:13, Jeremiah 16:19, Daniel 4:11 It has corners, Isaiah 11:12, Revelation 7:1. It has edges Job 38:13, Job 37:3, Job 28:24, Job 11:9. It has pillars Job 9:6, Job 38:4
Isaiah 40:22 is the only verse that says earth is a circle. Before any of you try to desperately use this verse to "prove" the the bible says earth is a sphere, here is a definition of a circle.

So, here comes the famous Galileo in the early 1600's, after many observations with the newly invented telescope, concluded that Earth was really not fixed in place at the center of the universe, but was moving around our star, the sun. But in 1633, Galileo was forced by the Roman Catholic Inquisition to recant on penalty of death his belief in this heliocentric (sun-centered) solar system. It was centuries later, in 1992 to be exact that the Pope finally "grudgingly" acknowledged that the Catholic church had wronged Galileo. Today's scientists (astronomers, Astor-physicists, cosmologists) have determined that, far from being fixed in space, earth is actually spinning at approximately 1000 mph at its equator and is also racing around its star at about 65,000 mph.

Biblical literalism (word-for-word biblical infallibility) has been increasingly discredited for well over a hundred years, not only because of the many scientific findings, but also because of a more thorough critical, scientific analysis of biblical texts, a process that is still actively pursued, and I don't mean "argued".

The history of modern science can be seen, in part, as a continuous struggle to overcome the biases and power of religions, of ingrained philosohies and of established authorities. Commitement to a "Truth," without ongoing skeptical inquiry, can and has degenerated into fanaticism. The ***** were so certain they had the Truth that anyone who thought diferently deserved to be removed. The same could be said for a number of religious and ideological groups today.

A society that believes it has the political or religious Truth simply imposes it; it is an authoritarian society that resist change. It stagnates. Remember, it took the Vatican head of the Catholic church, centuries to admit its blunter about Galileo, and in spite of major women's rights issues, poverty issues and serious overpopulation issues, the Pope is still opposed to all modern contraception.

A society that seeks the truth (i.e., a scientific society) acknowledges that it must itself change and adjust as knowledge grows. Humans who look for the truth must be free to do so, and a society which values truth must safeguard their freedom-freedom of thought, speech and writing. Such freedoms are essential to a scientific society.

 

Then you have a fluke like me. I understand the Bible, and why it is the word of God. In my last post I even made reference to how DNA may have landed on this planet. Then again, there may be DNA in every collection of atoms assembled in any given area of the Universe. The Bible was written to help guide civilization. With out that guidance things would have been much different. (I do not by any means say that it would be better)

You had a statement earlier about the cruelty of a God that would have to have another being die to shed blood so the rest could be forgiven. Before that point, there were animals sacrificed in the name of God. My belief, "How can you give back to the creator, what was already his to begin with?"

My belief is, that Jesus was sent here to teach us these things. By Gods intent, even if it were the hands of man that caused it to happen. As I have stated before, People search for the answers, regardless of anyone trying to knock door to door to give the the answers to the individuals.

In an assessment of our universe, if you open your mind up to todays scientific model. The things we see as complete (solid matter, stars, Matter in general) are not the complete structure of the Universe. Basically in even Einstein's theories, our universe is made up of what is missing from it (antimatter/ dark matter). In any case we've built gigantic machines to study smaller and smaller particles of matter.
CERN, the machine to bust hadrons, We have the Quarks(up, down, top, bottom, charm, and strange) fairly much as to the best of my understanding are the smallest building blocks of everything we are. But then there is still something missing. So scientist postulate and write papers as to their ideas and findings, but still have no answers. These scientist in their quest for truth throughout history do this research to get the answers they desire. But they are searching for the same answers men of Faith leave to Faith.

Every scientific breakthrough in history has ended up as some sort of weapon to kill others. The Atomic Bomb being the epitome to date. So when man finds out how to build cold fusion reactors, do you think the knowledge will be used for 100% good? I say if you follow history at all, No. It will be the biggest blunder mankind has made to date. But it is in our very nature to find out.
The cosmic make up of matter itself is not what is there, it is what is missing from it that makes it solid. If all the missing matter of the Universe were combined with what we can observe, there would simply be light. Is there life within that light? We don't know. But that is the beginning of our quest for truth.

On another subject entirely. DNA. Have you taken a close look at the double helix. I have to ask myself when I study it, "Why is there a gap in between the rows of matched sets of genes? To me it looks as though a third string is missing. Not important, just one of the many things that make me say "hmmmmm?"

But then, these are just rantings of a mad man, that opens himself up to much criticism. But if you did not have the same questions on your mind, you certainly wouldn't waste your time picking away at the belief of others. Also in doing so, you are enabling the Gospel to be spread much as directed by Jesus. He even gave thanks to the people that slay him, because when they did, the old prophesies were fulfilled.

Remember from one of my posts from this thread. In my signature remains the statment, "Time knows the beginning"

 

^^ Great post OGT!

Woah man! You sound like that crazy religious guy Jake Busey played in Contact who blew up the machine!


Every scientific breakthrough ended up as a weapon? How about the polio vaccine? (I'll bet you'll claim something like chemical/biological warfare as the "end result" ) I guess man was better off back in the Dark Ages when pursuing science and free thinking got you killed.

Maybe the problem is with the nature of man to turn scientific breakthroughs into ways to control and dominate other men, something Religion has pushed for over a thousand years. If you don't think organized religion is meant to dominate over you, just look at the Pope.


What? Can you explain this a little better, I'm not really following the "adding missing matter turns everything to light". Are you talking about anti-matter?

When I look at a person with a big forehead and 2 matching eyes, it looks like they're missing a 3rd eye. Sounds like I'm saying something scientific, but really I'm just making stuff up. While that works for Religion, if you 'make up' science, you'll be found out sooner or later.

Once you have your degree in microbiology, biochemistry and genetics, I'll consider your "missing third string" hypothesis.

That's usually called martyrdom, it's one of the ideologies being used by some Religious fanatics to blow themselves up while taking as many innocent lives as possible.

- NCSU

 

Who did Jesus harm?

 

Hate to break the news to you, but Jesus is not the only religion out there. Now if you want to go down the road saying since Jesus is the reason for Christianity, all the horrible things Christians have done over the past 2 millennia are directly related to Jesus.

As for martyrdom, I just don't believe, on the whole, that it is a positive ideology. Sometimes it happens in a 'good' way, like standing up for freedom for example. However, it also leads to people doing horrible things for their "cause".

Just because Jesus was martyred doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing. Just tell that to the guys overseas getting killed and injured by suicide bombers, oops, I mean, suicide martyrs.

As Obi Wan Kenobi said, "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can ever imagine!"

- NCSU

 

Just because people have committed evil claiming to do so in Jesus' name (and there have been thousands upon thousands over the centuries) doesn't mean Jesus did so or condoned it. Jesus himself has harmed no one.

 

Let me begin by say this: My wife often tells people to beware of me cause I am the kind of person if asked what time it is, I would not only tell the time but I would also give information about who invented the watch, why was it invented, when was it invented, how time has changed history and will continue to change history and ..... In some way My wife's analogy is correct, I do tend to ask a lot questions and give detailed answers of what I think I know.


Moving on, according to faithful believers there is only one "God" one Jesus and one Bible, yet there are thousand upon thousand of denominations world wide who call themselves "Christian" and every one of them claim to have the "great truth" and they can prove it from their Bibles, as you, can understand.

You understand the Bible in its entirety or only part of the Bible?

You know the Bible is the word of God in its entirety as stated in 2 Timothy 3:16 or only part of the Bible is the word of God?

 

No he did not condone it, but people still committed those acts in his name.

Just as Tumba 'blamed' scientific advancement for all the modern weapons and death caused by said advancement, Jesus is just as responsible for all that resulted from 'his' Religion. As is every other Religious leader who promoted intolerance of other Religions. If any Religion really tolerated any other Religions, there'd be no movement to convert 'heathens' to become Christians, or what have you. If anyone knows of a Religion like this, please toss in your $0.02! I don't claim to know all beliefs of all peoples!

I've admitted I was not raised religiously, I don't go to church, never went to Sunday School and only have exposure to various beliefs because of my associations with people of those beliefs. I have attended many different churches, with friends of those various dogmas, and even dated Jew who was born and raised in Israel (whose family spoke Hebrew at home), so I've got a pretty decent spectrum of religions to draw on. Though I will admit, I don't know much about the Muslim faith or much about the Far East faiths like Buddhism.

Still, I have yet to really learn of a Religion that says, "Here's what we want you to believe, but if you believe something else that's OK too." Show me that Religion, and I'll take a good long serious look at it.

I'd like to believe there's something for us all beyond death (be it reward or punishment, nothingness seems even worse, though I think that's most likely), wouldn't we all like to believe that after our time on this Earth there is another adventure awaiting us? Make the best of the time you have here because that's really the only time you have that's guaranteed. I don't think anyone here thinks that "evil is right". Everyone (should) want to live a good life, help those you can, do the right thing. But I don't think doing those things requires a Religion. Even those of the most firm faith, somewhere deep down inside, have to have, at some point, a sliver of doubt that their belief might not be 100% right. If not, explain why there are so many 'different' Christian sects.

- NCSU

 

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He doesn't have the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17)

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. (Mark.7:9-13) "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10)

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (Matthew 15:4-7)

Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)

 

Woah! How many of y'all are ready to chop off a hand for sinning? I mean, Grandma always said it was a sin, and I know I'm a righty... That's New Testament too right, so it still counts?

- NCSU

 

WOW!!! ............I wonder if Jesus ever says to himself in retrospect, "Holy Jesus, did I say that?!".

Jesus says he is the only way to salvation yet he purposely disillusions us so that we will go to hell.

Jesus explains that the reason he speaks in parables is so that no one will understand him, "lest . . . they . . . should understand . . . and should be converted, and I should heal them.... Matthew 13:10-15

Jesus even explains that he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell. Mark 4:11-12

Jesus says that those who have been less fortunate in this life will have it even worse in the life to come. Mark 4:25

Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. Couldn't Jesus simply sent the devils out, yet he chose instead to place them into pigs and kill them. Mark 5:12-13

Man oh man, this is called animal abuse. I need to send this one to The Humane Society of the United States of America.

 

Jesus was making the same point others have been making about picking and choosing which commandments to obey. Much of what he said was figurative or even hyperbolic. How many times have you heard people say things like, "I would rather die than do something or an another." When the Jews received the Law, they were a primitive people and needed strict rules spelled out. Life was harsh so harsh rules were needed. Christ came to replace Mosaic Law with principles for life. He gave many examples and principles on how we should live and few commandments, especially when compared to the plethora of rules under Mosaic Law.

One fallacy many "Christian" extremists are guilty of is quoting scripture out of context. They are not the only ones who make that mistake.

 

So what exactly was he saying here:

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21)

"He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." Matthew 15:4-7

 

You haven't lived until you have known Druids intimately (seriously, I was ready to marry one not too long ago; I'm still friends with members of the family). All seriousness aside, how can you blame Jesus for those who came after he left Earth and do not follow his Word even though they may claim to be doing so? People have misused the Bible to justify unjust wars, to support slavery, etc.

There are so many "'different Christian sects" because people are human and do not always interpret things the same. Many also misuse God's Word for their own ends.

 

In the "sacred Bible, the word of "God" states in Revelation 21:8

"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

How am misinterpreting this verse or taking it out of context when I say that any true loving being, especially one that proclaims himself to having the very essence of forgiveness, would never condemn his own children to everlasting torment, especially for something as menial as lack of faith?