Reply With Quote
lolthe God Delusion
Science is indeed powerful, but it is limited to the physical world. There are obviously other areas of human thought to which the scientific method is not applicable, and inductive rather than deductive reasoning must be used.
lolthe God Delusion
You do realize you've just suggested that someone should read the god delusion, as your counterpart would suggest you read the bible?
Im just sdaying to be more open mided and take in mor eperspectives than those fed to you by your preacher.
The God in the Bible is very physical.
Zeus liked to get more physical than He.
He entered the physical world. He appeared to people, knocked up Mary, killed people,
If we had some of Jesus's hair wouldnt science show its composition as human and divine?
and here i was pretty sure angels appeared to people on God's behalf. the only "physical" (if even that) manifestation i can think of is appearing as a burning bush. God took a stroll down from heaven and knocked Mary up? priceless.
OK, so God appeared to people through angels, burning bushes, visions, etc. That provides eyewitness evidence. If you find the eyewitness evidence credible, you believe in God. If you don't, I guess you keep on looking. The listener judges the credibility of the witness inductively, just as in a court of law on a jury.
The Bible says that God struck some people dead. It also says that he created the Earth. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the mere cir stance that the Earth exists were interpreted as incontrovertible physical evidence one way or the other about the existence of God. People look at the evidence and decide what they believe -- or do not believe -- inductively.
Mary had a child named Jesus according to the historical record. If you had the DNA in theory (since it is not in fact possible), I suppose you could attempt to determine the familial relation of Jesus to Mary. Since nobody has God's DNA, and since a non-corporeal spirit would be unlikely to have DNA in the first place, it would be difficult to compare Jesus's DNA to the Father's.
These are the parameters by which I would describe myself as an agnostic as opposed to an athiest, the problem is these distinctions are always so clean and precise. For example: if "God doesn't exist, period!" = atheist, and "I really don't know one way or the other" = agnostic, then where does "I find no evidence for the existence of God as defined by x religion" fall into?
Does forming a hypothesis that God may not exist make one an atheist?
It means you're using the intelligence God gave you! (haha)
And take them from who??? My search for truth has led me to GOD.
Don't just assume that my belief structure has somehow been handed down to me.... and that I 'blindly accepted' everything without question.
the question is who believes in the bible?
every now and then a new revision comes out......so wtf is changing the stories or adding more myths in it?
So you are an agnostic who leans toward atheism. What causes you to lean one way as opposed to the other? From what set of assumptions and/or values are you starting?
New "revisions" are in fact different translations. Since language is dynamic, and colloquial usage changes over time, failure to update translations leads to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. The Bible is written in three languages: the Old Testament is in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, and the New Testament is written in 1st-century Greek. A translation into English from 1611 would be somewhat difficult to understand today, especially for the poorly-educated, since English has changed significantly in the past 400 years.
No translation reflects the full original meaning perfectly, because human languages do not correspond perfectly to one another in figures of speech. However, it is unlikely that people are all going to become fluent in ancient languages, so instead the holy texts are translated into the vernacular, while clergy and other scholars become educated in the ancient languages in order to understand and convey original meanings not fully transmitted through translation.
They just intend to make it more readable and understandable to our generation...
Made up example:
from ---
"...the feline wandered into thine house, that thou mayest see and believe. Verily, verily, I say unto you that the whiskered beast will conceive ten more..."
to ---
"... the cat came to your house so that you would see for yourself and believe. Truly, the cat will conceive 10 kittens..."
Of course the sentences above don't make any sense... but at least the second one is written in a more readable format. I agree that interpretative errors may at times be introduced into the text (sometimes on account of doctrinal agendas). Nevertheless, that's why people study the old texts, and try to understand the nuances of the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew passages since they do in fact provide better perspectives when understood from those contexts.
According to some on this board it is absolutely and scientifically
proven you should never believe in God. You should only believe
in what the Government sanctions and the Liberals believe in. You
know like global warming and the fight against poverty and the
killing of children while they are still the womb. Never, never
should anyone be held accountable for their own actions. It is
absolutely wrong to do that: Hold people accountable. There is
no right or wrong.
Why isnt it possible? I bet Jesus cut his fingernails and trimmed his hair. We wouldnt need Gods DNA. Just by looking at Jesus's we would know that he is divine.
Are yall saying angels, visions, burning bushers, Jesus, and Mary getting knocked up are not physical? Such physical things can be studied by science if they existed.
It depends on which "God" you are referring to. If it's a non-religious deist view of God (The Einsteinian deism referred to ealier), then I remain agnostic, if it's the anthromorphized, activist God of Christianity, the Greek pantheon, Pre-Columbian myth, etc. - then I definitely lean atheistic. Of course, if presented with any deity other than the Christian vision of God, Christians will readily subscribe to an atheistic view of those gods and godesses as well.
Aparently my assumption was correct because you didnt answer my question. It is safe to assume that most peoples belief structure was handed down to them. Oh and blind faith is the same thing as faith. A priest taught me that. When you had questions to whom did you turn? The church or outside sources?
Its an attempt to make sense out of senseless and contradictory stories. Religious authorities adjust the Bible to make it more acceptable to the faithful. A slave is a slave not a servant! They were not treated like servants but like slaves!
what other divine DNA samples would we have to compare it with? would His chromosomes line themselves up to spell divine?
I hope you arent refering to me. Im not liberal or conservative. I hate it when people think you need to choose sides. You know there are other ethical philosophies out there than what God prescribes.
How would you know by looking at Jesus' DNA that Jesus is divine? What does divine DNA look like?
And how exactly in 2007 are you going to get fingerprint and hair samples anyway from a guy who lived in the first century, for whom you don't even know what you are looking for?
What about Mary's pregnancy would you be studying? Are you going to jump in a time machine back to 7 B.C. with a gynecologist to inspect whether her hymen is intact?
And no, I don't really hold that Christianity teaches that angels, visions, and burning bushes are physical manifestations of this world that could be studied by science., but rather spiritual manifestations.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions