Christianity: Friend or foe to science?

[Unknown Soldier]

In Western societies (which are the most successful societies) there is a difference between murder and capital punishment FOR murder. And under the New Covenant, God allows governments to use capital punishment for murder but no other crime.

I disagree with both of those morals, but I respect your freedom to hold your own opinion about any morality.

Most intelligent Christians and biblical scholars read the beginning of the chapter 8 of John and realize that Jesus was only referring to the Pharisees.

I used to hold that same view until I started studying the subject of the roots of hatred for Jews. I remember my Dad hated Jews, and he used to quote Matthew 27:25 which says, 'His blood be on us and on our children.' To my Dad this was the Jews demanding their own punishment for "killing God." As it turned out I learned my Dad's opinion has been very popular among Christians through the centuries and it eventually led to the Holocaust under der Fuhrer.

Most theocracies are bad. But not the Hebrew one. It had a unique purpose to introduce humans to Gods moral laws that later produced the greatest nations on earth.

I have a different opinion. To me the theocracy under Moses was actually his dictatorship. Moses created or at least borrowed Yahweh, and Moses put his own words into the mouth of this created God. So Moses "played God" to his own bloody advantage.

That was not the Bible's mandate under the New Covenant. It only applied to the Old Covenant where the nation of Israel could not have any blatant public sinners in its population.

So why were "blatant public sinners" suddenly acceptable in public? Either Jesus changed His mind, or His creators decided to make Him say something different.

The only reason we disagree on morality is because you are not a Christian and reject many teachings of Christian morality.

But you disagree with Christians too.

But Christian morality is based on the moral character of the moral lawgiver of the universe not opinion.

Who commanded you to give to the poor while you disobey. So even you and Jesus disagree over morals!

He was letting them know that that could potentially happen.

Tragically, yes, Christianity has broken up many families.

But if both parents are Christians usually the children become Christians.

Yes. Christian belief is based largely on family tradition.

I know why. We inherited the tendency from our original parents.

LOL--why do you think Eve and Adam hated Jesus?

Yes, everything good about the world comes from Him and He wants us to live with Him and enjoy Him forever. And all we have to do is ask.

That doesn't sound the least bit enticing to me. I prefer the real world where we all just die and are gone.

No, as I stated above most of the time the whole family becomes Christian.

So if most families don't break up over Christianity it's OK?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

No, they are two very different historical events. Jesus existed only 2000 years ago and we have written eyewitness accounts of His existence from that time period. Evolution happened millions of years ago with no eyewitnesses and much scientific evidence showing that it is unlikely to have occurred.

Actually, the evidence for evolution is far better than that for a historical Jesus. We don't even need any "expert consensus" for evolution.

In any case, the details of the claim being made don't matter. If you accept the majority of expert agreement as evidence for one claim and deny it for another claim, then you are making a fallacious argument.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

modern science and 'civilization' describe the current world and invent solutions for this world's disabilities.

Christianity is an ABSOLUTE. 100 % accurate, but generally without explanations. "Theology" is nothing more than a human effort to "fill in the blanks, ans is often inaccurate - sometimes WILDLY SO.

"Science" is nothing more than humanity's effort to "Find out" what we don't know.

COnsequently "Theology", and Science are often bitter enemies, and Science which STARTS WITH THE CONCLUSION that Gen 1:1 is inaccurate will always be Christianity's enemy.

 

[Gary Mac]

Christianity is an ABSOLUTE. 100 % accurate, but generally without explanations.

That is because most try and figure it out for their own terms instead of letting God Himself figure it out in you.

"Theology" is nothing more than a human effort to "fill in the blanks, ans is often inaccurate - sometimes WILDLY SO.

Yes and do not seek GHod first and let Him open up How He is and all of His heaven in you. Not Even Jesus could escape that fact proven in Matt 3:16.

"Science" is nothing more than humanity's effort to "Find out" what we don't know.

In the chase of Christendom, Most people set their own rules for a god.

COnsequently "Theology", and Science are often bitter enemies, and Science which STARTS WITH THE CONCLUSION that Gen 1:1 is inaccurate will always be Christianity's enemy.

And what most do not understand because they bypass God who is a Spirit and not physical where Gods kingdom is not physical, it isn't of this world, it is of Spirit and everything in it. God created man in His same Spiritual image. and Adam was the very first to be created of Gods Spirit, Gen 3:22.

It is very obvious that there were people here way before Adam for his own child went into the land of Nod and took a wife, but Adam was the very first to be created in Gods image that is a Spirit and not of this world. Most Christians are so elementary that all they see of Gods creation is man of flesh.

Jesus was very clear in Luke 17:20-21, that the kingdom of God does not come with observation, it is within you. Not very many believe Jesus in that sadly. Born of flesh and born of Spirit are two completely different things.

 

[El Cid]

Because you are doing the typical atheist use of the Bible. Taking verses out of context to make it say things it doesnt actually say.

And that's just what you are doing as I see it. But all we can do is disagree on the Bible like everybody else does.

No, it can be demonstrated in most cases what is the correct interpretation if you use grammatico-historical hermeneutics.

No, there is evidence from science, history and philosophy for their infallibility.

I've never noticed any infallibility in the Bible. Most of what the Bible says I cannot check for error to see if it's right or wrong.

You can check some of the scientific claims of the Bible, like whether there was a definite beginning to the universe and the Big Bang theory has confirmed it.

No, its a compliment to make a point, as a rather intelligent person...

Saying that "even you can be infallible" is a pretty obvious insult. So much for objective morality unless insulting a person is subjective morality.

No, I am just stating that humans can be infallible for short periods without any help from God.

...I am sure you have scored a 100 on a test. For that period you were infallible.

No, for the moment I answered some questions correctly. That doesn't qualify me as infallible because I could have answered other questions at other times incorrectly. And then how could I be infallible?

For the period that you took the test and scored a 100 you were infallible. But yes in time you go back to being fallible.

It shows that people can be infallible even without God directly intervening supernaturally. So also the writers of the Bible can be historically accurate with relatively minor interventions by God.

Anybody can get a lot of history correct without God. So I see no reason to make exceptions of the Bible writers. If they were right, then it was just human correctness.

Not over a period of 13.8 billion years. You need God's help for that.

If you are right then you are infallible for that specific case. Infallibility just means being right or correct in what you write or say, either for long periods or short.

Then what does "fallible" mean?

It means you cannot maintain infallibility at all times.

Even the apostles had writings that were not included in the Bible that were not infallible.

In what ways were those writings not infallible?

They were not error free.

As I demonstrated earlier in this thread you and Catholics are incorrect.

We'll just need to disagree. Again, complete agreement over the Bible's contents appears to be impossible. It's a hopelessly confusing book.

No, see above.

And you as an atheist...

I'm a truth seeker, actually.

You dont seem very open minded.

...tend to take verses out of context.

Actually, I know the context and am careful not to lift anything out of that context. Now, it is possible that I am being confused by the Bible's many vague and ambiguous passages

No, you have taken verses out of context. LIke the verses about Peter. You ignore the verses that gave all the other disciples the same power as Peter.

 

[Gary Mac]

No, it can be demonstrated in most cases what is the correct interpretation if you use grammatico-historical hermeneutics.

But if you see it through spiritual eyes, it does not have the same connotations as carnal minds reads them.

You can check some of the scientific claims of the Bible, like whether there was a definite beginning to the universe and the Big Bang theory has confirmed it.

Gods kingdom is not of this world, it is not physical at all, it is spiritual.

No, I am just stating that humans can be infallible for short periods without any help from God.

You cant know anything about God who is a Spirit without His same spirit that the mind is.

For the period that you took the test and scored a 100 you were infallible. But yes in time you go back to being fallible.

And that is the problem with man in carnality who cannot relate to the spiritual world.

Not over a period of 13.8 billion years. You need God's help for that.

Gods heaven and earth was not formed in man until Adam, he was the first to know the spiritual aspect of his being, Gen 3;22.

It is very obvious there were people here way before Adam for his own son went into the land of nod and took a wife, so there had to be people here in order for him to do that.

It means you cannot maintain infallibility at all times.

You can only if you have Gods same disposition o mind, perfect even as God in His kingdom is perfect. Where is His kingdom? Luke 127:20-21 it does not come withobservatin, His heaven or hell is not a place we go to observe, it is within you.

That is what man learns of Spirit that is not of this physical world.

They were not error free.

Only Gods Spirit be your own can one know the Ruth of it all.

No, see above.

You dont seem very open minded.

Most here are very closed minded to Spirit.

No, you have taken verses out of context. LIke the verses about Peter. You ignore the verses that gave all the other disciples the same power as Peter.

Everyone who has received from God the same as Jesus did in Matt 3:16 where God opened up all of His spiritual kingdom in him are exactly like Him as Jesus became.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

No, it can be demonstrated in most cases what is the correct interpretation if you use grammatico-historical hermeneutics.

But don't all Christian sects use hermeneutics? It's not working. They're at each other's throats.

You can check some of the scientific claims of the Bible, like whether there was a definite beginning to the universe and the Big Bang theory has confirmed it.

Actually, many imaginative people all over the world have created creation mythologies. By sheer chance some mythology will turn out to be approximately correct.

No, I am just stating that humans can be infallible for short periods without any help from God.

LOL. That's such bizarre logic. If A is B some times, then A is B all the time.

For the period that you took the test and scored a 100 you were infallible. But yes in time you go back to being fallible.

I'm going to move on from this issue. It's too twisted.

Not over a period of 13.8 billion years. You need God's help for that.

So you think people are stupid and anything smart they do is actually God. Is that correct?

They were not error free.

Please be more specific. What did the apostles write that has errors?

You dont seem very open minded.

Perhaps people might be more inclined to read the Bible if you stopped insulting them saying they can't understand it or that they're lying about it. I made a good faith effort to read and study the Bible, and I get my face slapped by Christians when I end up disagreeing with them over it.

No, you have taken verses out of context.

See? This is what I was just referring to. To be honest you should warn anybody you ask to read the Bible how you will mistreat them when they're done.

LIke the verses about Peter. You ignore the verses that gave all the other disciples the same power as Peter.

I've already rebutted everything you've argued about that issue. So now it's time to insult me in the name of Jesus.

 

[Gary Mac]

No, it can be demonstrated in most cases what is the correct interpretation if you use grammatico-historical hermeneutics.

Yes' and God Himself come to you and open up in you who He is and all of His heaven as is demonstrated in Jesus in Matt 3:16 it the only truth from GHod Himself. Everything else is only a belief about Him.

You can check some of the scientific claims of the Bible, like whether there was a definite beginning to the universe and the Big Bang theory has confirmed it.

Better yet, check Gen 3;22, this is when Gods kingdom that is Spirit was revealed in man and not before. His kingdom is Spirit and not of this world. Man was here way before Gen 3;22, proven that Adams own son went into the land of Nod and took a wife. Adam was only yhte first to receive Gods knowledge of Spirit.

No, I am just stating that humans can be infallible for short periods without any help from God.

Everyone who has recieved Gods same Spirit of mind are infallible. We are perfect even as our Father in heaven is perfect and walk as He walks in His same light of mind.

For the period that you took the test and scored a 100 you were infallible. But yes in time you go back to being fallible.

The moment one receives from God His perfections passes His test to be perfect as He is and in His same image.

Not over a period of 13.8 billion years. You need God's help for that.

So do you. God opened His kingdom to man about 9000 years ago in Adam, he was the first to be of Gods creation and that is as far back as is recorded based on time schedules and generations.

It means you cannot maintain infallibility at all times.

It only means that you cant from lack in having Gods perfections as your own disposition. Only because you cant doesnt mean others cant.

They were not error free.

All are error free who has Gods same disposition of mind, perfected in His kingdom that does not come with observation but is within us all who has recoieved in us His kingdom. Luke 17:20-21.

No, see above.

You dont seem very open minded.

That is a gross understatement for your own mind.

No, you have taken verses out of context.

In which you are chief!

LIke the verses about Peter. You ignore the verses that gave all the other disciples the same power as Peter.

And you ignore all the verses that gives us the same power as God gave Jesus.

 

[El Cid]

us: I just searched two different Bible versions, and I couldn't find that passage. Can you cite it?
ec: Matthew 18:18.

Which Bible version are you citing? Here's the NKJV of Matthew 18:18:

“Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

There's no mention here of the "keys to heaven" that Jesus promised to Peter. It looks like Peter was special in that he was the only apostle that Jesus made such a promise to.

In ancient greek binding and unbinding usually involved keys. So while the words are slightly different they mean the same thing.

us: And as I will demonstrate now, I can contradict your interpretation, and you cannot prove me wrong. That's the problem with the Bible: People cannot resolve their differences over much of what it says. One passage is clear, though: 1 Corinthians 14:33 tells us that "God is not the author of confusion." As such an author, God did not author the Bible.

ec: Only by taking it out of context.

I didn't take anything out of context as far as I can tell. It looks like we are very confused by the Bible!

Fraid not. Most biblically literate Christians are not confused by the Bible.

The Bible plainly teaches that Christ and faith in him is the cornerstone and foundation of the church. Not Peter.

If that's true, then why are we arguing about the relevant Bible passages?

Because you dont try to understand the context.

us: I suspect that the church of Rome altered Matthew 16:18-20 to make itself the most prominent Christian church. Can you prove that that passage is historical?

ec: In none of the oldest copies of Matthew is there any evidence of alteration.

You'll need better evidence than that to convince me that the Christian church then or ever was trustworthy. It could have covered up text tampering easily enough because we don't have the original manuscripts.

No, but we have manuscripts within 100 years of the originals. And you dont have any evidence at all that they were altered, you just assume it because of your antiChristian bias.

us: Is there a Bible passage that lists these essentials? Where do you get them? I do hope you're not just arbitrarily judging some Bible doctrines as "essentials" because your sect emphasizes them.

ec: No, you recognize the essentials when you study the Bible and the early Christians came up with them.

What different people see as important in the Bible will differ with the individual's point of view. That's just human nature.

But God has changed our nature.

The Apostles Creed summarizes the essential doctrine and the Ten Commandments and the moral teachings of Christ summarize the essential Christian behavior.

Sure, and other people will see the Bible's poetry as important or perhaps its prophecy while others may think none of it is important. You need to understand that not everybody agrees with you and that your opinions are not facts.

Those that accept the infallibility of the Bible agree with me on the basics.

us: So in your view God thinks that documents are substitutes for actual people. As I see it, a real God would know better and never ask people to accept anything less than actual miracles and miracle workers. A God people have created, on the other hand, could not offer anybody that kind of evidence, so his creators have him demand that people settle for mere words.

ec: The true God would do things that humans would not expect or predict.

A manufactured God can do the same easily enough. People and the Gods they create can be awfully tricky!

No, human made God would have such high sexual standards. Most manmade religions allow sex with anyone at anytime.

The only way you could know better than God is if you were omniscient. Are you claiming omniscience?

I didn't say I can know better than God does, but I can know better than other people do. And since I know far more than the God of the Bible does, then the logical conclusion for anybody to come to is that people created the God of the Bible. And yes, unfortunately that God cannot save you from eternal death, but you'll get over it. I did.

The Bible recorded scientific facts about the universe 3500 years before scientists discovered them.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

In ancient greek binding and unbinding usually involved keys. So while the words are slightly different they mean the same thing.

I think it's best to stick with what we know about what the Bible actually says rather than guessing what it might mean. So I must disagree with your conjecture that Matthew 18:18 is referring to keys when no such keys are mentioned.

So although we cannot agree with what some Bible passages are implying, please note that I don't add anything to the text to save my position while you do. My logic is then more valid than yours because you violate Occam's razor.

Fraid not. Most biblically literate Christians are not confused by the Bible.

No doubt you define "Biblically literate" as those who agree with you. That's begging the question.

Because you dont try to understand the context.

That's false, and even if it was true, there's no way you could know I'm deliberately taking anything out of context. I do know that when Biblical apologists paint themselves into a corner trying to smooth over a problematical Bible passage, they very often charge the critic with taking the passage out of context with nothing to show for that charge.

No, but we have manuscripts within 100 years of the originals.

That's plenty of time to alter what the original manuscripts stated.

And you dont have any evidence at all that they were altered, you just assume it because of your antiChristian bias.

Well, if I have a bias against Christians being slow to trust them, then maybe that's because I have reason to be slow to believe what they say. In any case, until you prove otherwise, I stand by my position that the Bible's founding documents were tampered with by various Christian groups to gain advantage over other Christian groups.

But God has changed our nature.

It sounds like you are contradicting the dogma of free will here.

Those that accept the infallibility of the Bible agree with me on the basics.

So what of it? Agreement is not necessarily truth.

No, human made God would have such high sexual standards. Most manmade religions allow sex with anyone at anytime.

Why would a real God care about sex at all? And in particular why would a real God lay down strict rules securing the genetic investment of powerful men many of whom were polygamists? Men who had harems of wives and concubines would definitely create a God like that.

The Bible recorded scientific facts about the universe 3500 years before scientists discovered them.

Then by all means use the Bible to predict an important scientific discovery. As far as I know there's never been anybody who has done so.

 

[El Cid]

Astronomers see strong evidence of the greatest miracle almost every day. They can look in their telescope and see the creation of the universe in real time.

I should have defined "miracle" which as it turns out is very hard to do. So let me just define "miracle" as any of the supernatural acts by God or Satan described in the Bible. So if you wish to appeal to creation as a miracle, then you'll need to show me an example of God creating something. I've never seen any such miracle.

The creation of the universe is a miracle described in the Bible, Genesis 1:1. And cosmologists say the laws of physics break down at the creation, which plainly implies it was supernatural. You can look into a telescope and see the miracle of the Big Bang.

You are also free to deem the dictator as moral, since there is no objective standard to determine the truth.

Yes, and that's what you do. I must admit it is disturbing for me to see you choosing to laud a God who kills pregnant women and babies, but you have your own opinions about morality like everybody else. I cannot and will not force you to choose life over death if you choose the death of your religion.

Those were evil women who would have taught their children evil and evil would have increased in the world, God was reducing evil in the world at the time and in the future and meanwhile the children got to go to heaven before they turned evil.

I am glad to be stuck with God, because he has always treated me and millions of others well.

I'd prefer a God who treats everybody well and not just me and a few others.

I wouldnt call millions or maybe billions, a few others.

Hitler...

What would Christian apologists do without Hitler? He's the best thing that's ever happened to them!

...claimed he was using reason to exterminate the Jews, how could you prove him wrong?

I don't believe Hitler used reason much. I just listened to the audiobook Nietzsche and the Nazis by Stephen Hicks, and Hicks writes that the Nazis were opposed to the use of reason. In any case, nobody can prove Hitler wrong. He was determined to act on the hatred for Jews that originated in the New Testament.

Ok then you should be able to easily refute his reasoning for killing jews with reason. Hitler hated Christianity so his hatred of jews had nothing to do with the NT.

You think it is reasonable to kill harmless unborn children, millions would disagree with you.

I have no ideal where you got this libel.

You are prochoice regarding abortion arent you?

The Bible sets Jesus and the disciples as our examples. When people rejected their message, they just walked away. There were no physical threats.

The threats against unbelievers are often implied in the Bible. Based on your own Bible reading, would you say that nowhere in the Bible are unbelievers threatened?

Never under the New Covenant does Jesus or his disciples threaten unbelievers physically.

Stating the fact that Gods moral laws are objectively true is hardly condescending tripe.

Perhaps not, but your saying your morality is objectively true is condescending tripe.

It is not MY morality it is human morality and so far you have not refuted that fact.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The creation of the universe is a miracle described in the Bible, Genesis 1:1. And cosmologists say the laws of physics break down at the creation, which plainly implies it was supernatural.

I don't follow your reasoning. If the laws of physics differed at the birth of the cosmos, then why say that it was "supernatural"? I suppose it's coincidence, but the same magic people hope will save them they also see in cosmology.

You can look into a telescope and see the miracle of the Big Bang.

But there are no Gods you will see through any telescope. You'll only see Mother Nature as her physical activities continue to create and recreate our evolving cosmos.

Those were evil women who would have taught their children evil and evil would have increased in the world...

It's sad that you have such a dim view of people. History teaches that when we strip people of their humanity, we open the door to treating them like rodents.

God was reducing evil in the world at the time and in the future...

With all that "reduction of evil" it's sad to see how much evil remains. God just never gets the job done.

...and meanwhile the children got to go to heaven before they turned evil.

Yes. In your world killing kids is the best you can do for them.

I wouldnt call millions or maybe billions, a few others.

What billions is God serving well?

Ok then you should be able to easily refute his reasoning for killing jews with reason.

Why should I be able to refute Hitler's reasons for killing Jews? In my opinion doing so was every bit as bad as the Jews killing the Amalekites.

Hitler hated Christianity so his hatred of jews had nothing to do with the NT.

I think that Hitler got a lot of his ideas from Christianity in particular the idea of rallying large numbers of people against a common perceived enemy.

You are prochoice regarding abortion arent you?

Not really. I have no strong opinions about abortion.

Never under the New Covenant does Jesus or his disciples threaten unbelievers physically.

Actually Jesus threatened to destroy people's bodies in hell although I'm not sure who he directed the threat at.

It is not MY morality it is human morality and so far you have not refuted that fact.

There's nothing factual about morality.

 

[El Cid]

The sin in this scenario was the lying.

And lying to maintain important personal possessions (like you do) is met with death.

When?

How do you know this?

I'm using logic to infer that no just, merciful God would or could kill people for acting to keep what they need.

But they didnt need it. That was the point.

Because I am not omniscient.

Just use common sense like most people do! A cosmos-creating God would not order poor people to give up what little they have on pain of death. He created all, He has all to give, and He would give to those in need by Himself.

He didnt do that.

To answer my own question, many people cannot figure out this very simple, perfectly clear reasoning because they have dogmas to believe in that are at variance with reality. So to maintain the beloved dogmas, they disregard reality.

What is reality and how do you know?

Evidence?

You should check out The Clergy Project which is meant to help atheistic clergy get out of the closet. I know you'll ignore it because if you really wanted evidence that many preachers are closet atheists, you would have looked it up yourself.

That project is mostly clergy that change their minds and reject Christianity after a few years. Most of them sound like they didnt start out as atheists. Any atheist that continues to pretend to be a Christian minister is one of the biggest hypocrites in the world.

Well God himself tells us to check whether your church leaders are teaching the truth contained in His word. If they are not then reject their teaching.

I don't need God for that--just Google. I've been using Google to check what you say.

Google says very little about Gods word.

So far they have not done anything to me, but the government has tried to force Christians that own businesses to go against their beliefs. Such as Christian bakers and photographers.

The government forces everybody to go against their beliefs. Christians are no different in that regard.

It doesnt force people that believe the government dogma to do anything. In fact it rewards them. They try to destroy the people that DONT go along with the government dogma like that you CAN change your biological gender or sex but you cannot change your sexual desires or feelings. The government tries to force this insanity on those who disagree and force them to endorse it.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

And lying to maintain important personal possessions (like you do) is met with death.

When?

When what?

But they didnt need it. That was the point.

How do you know that Ananias and Sapphira didn't need the proceeds they received from the sale of their possession?

Anyway, your "objective" moral here is that a man and his wife are to be put to death for keeping what belonged to them. I'm just glad that my morals are subjective because that way I can disagree with the barbarous acts of despots.

Just use common sense like most people do! A cosmos-creating God would not order poor people to give up what little they have on pain of death. He created all, He has all to give, and He would give to those in need by Himself.

He didnt do that.

He didn't do what?

What is reality and how do you know?

Reality is what the world is. I can't say I know much about it for certain, but my senses seem very helpful in navigating reality. That's why for me "seeing is believing."

Any atheist that continues to pretend to be a Christian minister is one of the biggest hypocrites in the world.

Atheistic clergy in the closet are often there because they have so much invested in being there. Their ministry is their bread and butter. Sometimes hypocrisy is necessary. In my personal opinion, hypocrisy isn't necessarily bad.

Google says very little about Gods word.

Maybe, but Google has tons to say about the Bible.

It doesnt force people that believe the government dogma to do anything. In fact it rewards them. They try to destroy the people that DONT go along with the government dogma like that you CAN change your biological gender or sex but you cannot change your sexual desires or feelings. The government tries to force this insanity on those who disagree and force them to endorse it.

If "government dogma" is so terrible, then why are Christians always trying to use that dogma to advance their beliefs? Laws against abortion are but one example of attempts to legislate Christianity.

 

[utilyan]

Many people, including Christians, see Christianity as science's foe. Christianity is seen as based on faith while science is based on carnal unbelief which can destroy faith in Christ. Needless to say, many people criticize Christianity for its perceived opposition to science. But is Christianity really a foe to science? Most Christian apologists answer with a resounding no. They cite the many great scientists who have been Christians as evidence that Christianity poses no threat to legitimate science. In fact, apologists see the rise of modern science as to Christianity's credit.

But what do you Christians say about Christianity in relation to science? Do you like science and have interest in its discoveries? Is science good or bad in your estimation? Do any of you fear science and see it as a threat to your faith? Are any of you scientists or plan to become scientists?

Answers would be greatly appreciated!

Since its appreciated..... xD

Friend. Or at least a good ladder rung. See Galileo stuff certainly takes the lime light for most us science casuals. But monastic institutions of Christianity is a great foundation which later gave way to schools/universities. Some might say they even invented western atheism.

Although less ideal (who doesn't love crazed fanatics and zealots?) in a ruthless time it was like a hunker down base hold back invaders/ spread common latin/literacy. These monasteries were your copy machine and the bible business we talking about a book costing thousands.


Athiest-science is still based on very exceptional faith. That one morning NOTHING got up, fixed coffee and proceeded to create everything else, Is still a spectacular belief.

Agnostic I feel is a wiser position. Don't really assume or insists both extremes.

Empirical evidence is still also FAITH-BASED. Faith being you a dependent on TRUST.

You are not your eyes, You have never seen anything, ever. Your eyes report a signal to the retina. So your brain takes it on FAITH to work with the information provided.

We can prove this easily with illusions. Or any instance you thought you heard or saw and were mistaken.

Today as far as American Christianity If they can cut the spiritual terrorism( like folks who preach believe or burn forever) and bigotries it might even be a very productive for science.

As is, its profitable for frightening small minds, two-edge sword. You get fanatics and zealots, but you wouldn't want weak minded folks believing they DONT go to hell for being bad.

 

[El Cid]

No, He doesnt need it, but we need it or we will die eternally. He wants us to live forever because He loves us.

Again, we'll just need to disagree. Based on my own study of the Bible, God must need to be glorified, worshiped and obeyed. Otherwise his manic reaction to feeling rejected doesn't make sense.

That is because if we reject Him we go to hell. He doesnt want us to go to hell.

No, He is never lonely because He can always communicate with the other members of the Trinity. But He loves us, so He enjoys our company.

The Bible God appears lonely to me because He goes to such great lengths to get our attention demanding that we either love Him or die.

He goes to great lengths because He doesnt want us to die and go to hell.

He has made his presence known to all of us some just choose to ignore Him and repress that knowledge.

I can just as easily assert that you have dishonest motives, and you choose to believe in an imaginary God being too weak to live your life otherwise. So how do you feel being accused that way? It's not very nice, now is it? So respect others the way you want to be respected.

I chose to ignore him and repress that knowledge as well for a time. I am not singling anyone out.

Actually most of us lead ourselves to hell. Satan sometimes just nudges us along, but it is mostly us that takes ourselves down that path.

That's odd considering that most people don't know where hell is and that most people seek whatever heaven they can find on earth. It appears that people just aren't enticed by the Christian promise of heaven. You'll need to work harder if you want to snag people.

Most people know how to get there, because their conscience tells them for awhile until they start to repress it.

Yes, unless you check every single Nigerian lottery there could be one that is real, so it is with miracles unless you are omniscient.

I'll just stick with my judgment that miracles are faked until I see one that's real. If I'm wrong, then I might find a real miracle some day.

The Big Bang was not faked. It has been confirmed by science.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That is because if we reject Him we go to hell. He doesnt want us to go to hell.

Well, if God wants us to prefer living in heaven with Him, then anger and violence on His part is unlikely to inspire our wanting to do so. One obvious alternative is a second heaven without God. Those who find God to be unlovable can go live there.

He goes to great lengths because He doesnt want us to die and go to hell.

But what if somebody simply cannot love God? Will God condemn them to hell for rejecting Him?

By the way, it's generally considered a vice to be unable to take rejection. So why isn't it a vice for God to be unable to take rejection? I would expect a perfect being to have thick sin.

Unknown Soldier:
I can just as easily assert that you have dishonest motives, and you choose to believe in an imaginary God being too weak to live your life otherwise. So how do you feel being accused that way? It's not very nice, now is it? So respect others the way you want to be respected.

I chose to ignore him and repress that knowledge as well for a time. I am not singling anyone out.

What does this have to do with what I posted above?

Most people know how to get there, because their conscience tells them for awhile until they start to repress it.

How? Is GPS helpful to find heaven?

The Big Bang was not faked. It has been confirmed by science.

Again, by "miracle" I mean some act of God like what we read in the Bible. Do you have anything like that?

 

[El Cid]

It is called free will. God gave him wisdom AND free will.

So God gave Solomon wisdom knowing that Solomon would freely will to chase girls instead.

Yes.

How is it improbable? Many great men have been led astray by their lust for women.

How many of those great men had a God of wisdom behind them?

Many.

The evidence says otherwise.

I don't know of any good historical evidence for Solomon.

We have ancient documents from the Hebrews that were written near the time of Solomon in the area he lived.

No, I demonstrated it is Gods ideal from both Testaments. And yes it has existed long before Christianity. There is evidence from science that heterosexual monogamy even existed among early humans and prevented humans from going extinct.

I've never heard of that before.

Read the September 2014 issue of Scientific American.

That is also why we should not recognize the delusion of "gay marriage" by doing so we may go extinct eventually.

I don't completely disagree with you here. Heterosexuals have had so much trouble with marriage that it seems foolish for gays to marry.

Most of them dont really want to marry. Most homosexual men want multiple sexual partners and not be limited to just one. They only pushed gay marriage to try to normalize the behavior, and it worked to a significant extent.

Hardly, if he respected polygamy He would have mentioned more than one woman.

As far as I know Jesus never disapproved of polygamy.

Yes but He endorsed monogamy as the ideal. Read Matthew 19:4-6.

Yes, but it is more than just a physical event, given how breaking monogamous relationships can cause some of the same psychological problems that a death in the family can cause. Especially for women. Monogamy is favored by God to prevent more women from being mentally hurt.

Then Esau, Jacob, David, and Samuel in addition to Solomon were never favored by God in that way. They were all polygamists. Never once did God disapprove of their marriage arrangements.

They knew that it was not the ideal because they knew the story of Adam and Eve but yes God was merciful and let them keep their multiple wives.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Yes.

I can't buy that an all-wise God would give wisdom to Solomon only to have Solomon act foolishly as a womanizer. The whole idea is downright blasphemous. For some reason the Bible writers often wrote blasphemy making God out to be a petty, insecure buffoon. Perhaps the idea is that they hoped their readers would think that nobody could make up lies that outrageous.

Many.

So you believe your God is a God who makes good use of womanizers like Solomon. That's also blasphemous.

We have ancient documents from the Hebrews that were written near the time of Solomon in the area he lived.

To assume you know what area Solomon lived in is to beg the question regarding Solomon's existence. Here's your logic:

We have documents from the time and place where Solomon lived.
Therefore, Solomon lived!

You are assuming that Solomon lived to prove he lived. That's your fallacy.

Read the September 2014 issue of Scientific American.

I don't have that issue, and I cannot recall that Scientific American documented that monogamy saved people from extinction.

Most of them dont really want to marry.

Wise men!

Most homosexual men want multiple sexual partners and not be limited to just one.

I don't have a problem with that as long as nobody gets hurt. If some men want and enjoy sex with other consenting men, then let them have fun.

They only pushed gay marriage to try to normalize the behavior, and it worked to a significant extent.

That's fine with me. I try not to dictate "normalcy" to others.

Yes but He endorsed monogamy as the ideal. Read Matthew 19:4-6.

I've already explained that at least in the Gospels, Jesus never explicitly endorsed monogamy. In fact, polygamy may go back as far as Adam because Jewish tradition tells us that in addition to Eve there was a Lilith who was a wife of Adam. Jesus never condemned Adam for being married to at least two women.

They knew that it was not the ideal because they knew the story of Adam and Eve...

and Adam's second wife Lilith--don't forget Lilith!

...but yes God was merciful and let them keep their multiple wives.

Then what's the problem with polygamy if God has allowed it?

 

[El Cid]

Helping the poor should always be handled on a case by case basis. How is that based on a falsehood when it is based multiple studies based on facts.

You are misrepresenting the plight of the poor to save your theology. They lack what they need. No God is helping them.

My family went through several years of being poor and God helped us. And I know many others that God has helped. But God never promised an easy life or being wealthy even for Christians.

Luck is just word we use when we dont know the cause.

Then what is the cause of some people born into wealth and others into squalor? Is that part of God's plan?

God allows it to happen to cause spiritual growth which will help destroy evil forever.

Sometimes He does. Most Christians I know are very generous. Studies have shown that Christians give more to charity than atheists and other liberals.

I'm beginning to be very distrustful of studies. I'd be more impressed with actual generosity none of which I've seen from you.

You dont know me.

If God gave people everything they need then we would never grow spiritually.

How often do you go without what you need to grow spiritually?

I have gone without a wife for over 30 years.

God didnt design hermaphrodites. They are the result of genetic malfunctions brought about by the damaged universe.

Actually, hermaphrodites result from the inherent, unexpected whims of nature. We humans invented the ideal of binary sexuality. Nature doesn't care what we think is ideal.

No, humans are biologically binary. This is a scientific fact.

Wanting homosexuals to go to heaven and avoid hell, sounds very loving to me.

If you're loving, then don't create a hell for homosexuals.

Hell was not created for homosexuals, it was created for sinners. Which is everybody. But God has given us a way to avoid it.

Remember as I stated earlier I was an agnostic, not a Christian from teh beginning.

I'm referring to the beginning of your current beliefs including your belief in a God who will grant you immortality. You started out with that conclusion and then proceeded to seek ways to believe it.

No, I was convinced by various experiences and evidences before I was a Christian.

You are the one denying the history of science.

I will need to read a good book on the history of science.

Yes you should.