Christianity: Friend or foe to science?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ironic is, the Bible most read is the KJV

I tend to doubt that.
Do you have any stats that would reflect that?

and was compiled by a team of scholars and authorized in 1611 (if I remember correctly), by a king James who was an atheist and didnt believe in a God at all.

King James had nothing to do with the actual translation.
For the time, it was a decent translation.

And look how many today believe what he authorized as an atheist. That should have a clue to the religious minds that something just isn't right here!

How so?
One could validly argue that his position made him unbiased in the translation.
 
Did you ever notice that Christian apologists and evangelists like El Cid and Theo are loathe to encourage people to check the history of the Bible and Christianity or much less history in general? If people did do such historical study then as you say they would learn the real roots of religion and have their faith shaken. Yes, like I have pointed out many important details of the root of Christianity have been erased by time, but there's enough that is extant to sow doubt in any honest person's mind. For instance, history demonstrates that pagan religions and their gods existed thousands of years before the Bible came along yet those pagan beliefs have much in common with Judaism and Christianity.

Ignorance preserves the marriages of fools to their lies, and knowledge leads to their divorces.
What is manifest today is so-called, self-proclaiming “Christians” who are truly in darkness asserting what is absolutely false as if it were true, and clueless that they unwittingly serve the “Prince of Lies”, and no one is the Wiser. Evolution is a perfect example of an absolute truth pertaining to the natural world overwhelmingly documented by ten thousand scientists, hundreds of thousands of science publications (see Pubmed), yet, so-called Protestant christians (versus catholics have accepted evolution as true) with or without a biology degree will assert that evolution is false. And the goats go, “Baaah! Tell me more what I want to here!”
 
What is manifest today is so-called, self-proclaiming “Christians” who are truly in darkness asserting what is absolutely false as if it were true,

It's amazing to me that you have no problem kicking someone out of the kingdom of heaven over evolution, as if that was some sort of essential Christian doctrine.

and clueless that they unwittingly serve the “Prince of Lies”, and no one is the Wiser.

That's pretty insulting for someone who claims to be a Christian.

Evolution is a perfect example of an absolute truth

<Chuckle>
There is no such thing as "absolute truth" in science.
Everything is subject to further study, and subject to change when more information is available.
Remember geocentrism?

pertaining to the natural world overwhelmingly documented by ten thousand scientists,

I'm curious as to your definition of "overwhelmingly documented".
There are hypotheses, but the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of them have never been tested.

And the few experiments which have been done (eg. Miller-Urey) have been an absolute failure.

Not to mention all the fraudulent "missing gap" fossils which have been created over the years.

hundreds of thousands of science publications (see Pubmed), yet,

All that shows is that evolution is a popular thing to believe.

so-called Protestant christians (versus catholics have accepted evolution as true)

I don't think you can make generalized claims of either group.
 
It's amazing to me that you have no problem kicking someone out of the kingdom of heaven over evolution, as if that was some sort of essential Christian doctrine.
Truth is an essential doctrine last time I checked..

That's pretty insulting for someone who claims to be a Christian.
Only if it applies to you.

<Chuckle>
There is no such thing as "absolute truth" in science.
Everything is subject to further study, and subject to change when more information is available.
Remember geocentrism?
Evolution is a settled science overwhelmingly documented by hundreds of thousands of science publications by tens of thousands of scientists all over the developed world. Only religious fundies, even those claiming to hold a degree in biology, deny the overwhelming evidence for it. Even the Catholic church had to concede it is true.

I'm curious as to your definition of "overwhelmingly documented".
There are hypotheses, but the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of them have never been tested.
BS.

And the few experiments which have been done (eg. Miller-Urey) have been an absolute failure.
BS

Not to mention all the fraudulent "missing gap" fossils which have been created over the years.
Only promoted by religious fundies. The peer reviewed, reputable, science world has no idea what you are blathering about. You are merely feeding your target audience with more misinformation.

All that shows is that evolution is a popular thing to believe.
Documented by peer reviewed science in tens of thousands of scientific studies (see Pubmed). VERSUS your opinions about what the Bible means to Protestants.

I don't think you can make generalized claims of either group.
If the shoe fits…
 
Bearing false witness is a sin.
Just so you know.
So is eating pork.
I love how you use the most extremist terminology ("loathe"?!) to misrepresent people.
When was the last time you encouraged anybody to read any of Richard Carrier's books? Carrier has written extensively on the history of the Bible and early Christianity.
I actually love studying church history, and I've been studying the history of the Bible for years.
That's irrelevant to what I said. I said that you are loathe to encourage other people to check the history of the Bible and Christianity or history in general.
How would you even know my position?
I know your position by reading your posts, of course.
False.
I've found that it only serves to strengthen my faith.
So knowing that the Bible is based on earlier pagan mythology strengthens your faith?
Again, you show your ignorance of history.
No I don't.
The vast majority of false religions involved polytheism, and Judeo Christianity stands out in stark contrast to them all.
That's not true at all. There is polytheism in both the Bible and Christian theology. Angels, for example, are just demigods with a different name. And the Trinity is actually three gods rather than three persons.
And you may not be aware of this, but the pagans in the first couple of centuries used to call Christians "atheists", since they denied all the pagan gods, and only worshipped on God.
Actually, it was the Romans who called Christians atheists. I don't know how that's relevant to Christianity and polytheism, though. Are you saying that since Christians didn't accept Roman polytheism then Christians could not be polytheists?
You would know, being the king of ignorance.
Your Christian love is just amazing.
 
Truth is an essential doctrine last time I checked..

So you're saying one has to have perfect knowledge of all truth, or else they aren't saved?

Evolution is a settled science overwhelmingly documented by hundreds of thousands of science publications by tens of thousands of scientists all over the developed world.

Repeating the same mantra over and over.
The brainwashing apparently worked.

Only religious fundies, even those claiming to hold a degree in biology, deny the overwhelming evidence for it.

Actually, I reject evolution for scientific reasons, not religious ones.
But you won't accept that, since it doesn't fit your narrative.

Even the Catholic church had to concede it is true.

You appear to be misinformed:

"The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God."


So you think the Miller-Urey experiment was a huge success?


You appear not to understand how science actually works.
But there has been a lot of misinformation lately, about "Not questioning the science".
 
So is eating pork.

You are ignorant of the teachings of Jesus:

Mark 7:18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” ( Thus he declared all foods clean.)

When was the last time you encouraged anybody to read any of Richard Carrier's books? Carrier has written extensively on the history of the Bible and early Christianity.

An atheist activist?
No bias there, right?

That's irrelevant to what I said. I said that you are loathe to encourage other people to check the history of the Bible and Christianity or history in general.

And you would continue to be wrong.
I'm not sure why the personal attacks.
I would encourage anyone who's interested to study the issue for themselves, and get balanced viewpoints.

I know your position by reading your posts, of course.

I don't believe I've spoken about church history in the forums, so you have no way of knowing whether I find it "loathsome" to encourage others.

So knowing that the Bible is based on earlier pagan mythology strengthens your faith?

Well, I suppose we could discuss your opinion.

That's not true at all. There is polytheism in both the Bible and Christian theology.

Polytheism in the Bible, certainly.
And God rebuked the Jews for it many times.

Angels, for example, are just demigods with a different name.

Redefining terms now?

And the Trinity is actually three gods rather than three persons.

Nope.
The Trinity is explicitly one God.

Your Christian love is just amazing.

Gal. 4:16 Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?

Isn't it interested that you feel free to call me ignorant, but when I point out your ignorance, you find it "unloving"?
Double standards much?
 
So you're saying one has to have perfect knowledge of all truth, or else they aren't saved?

Repeating the same mantra over and over.
The brainwashing apparently worked.

Actually, I reject evolution for scientific reasons, not religious ones.
But you won't accept that, since it doesn't fit your narrative.

You appear to be misinformed:

"The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God."

So you think the Miller-Urey experiment was a huge success?

You appear not to understand how science actually works.
But there has been a lot of misinformation lately, about "Not questioning the science".
Despite whatever misinformation you peddle for the goats to consume there are ten thousand scientists in every country of the world who have documented through the scientific method the overwhelming evidence for evolution. All of it available for anyone to reproduce and actually test for themselves. Yet, you will continue peddling your religious opinion because it sells to your target audience, the uneducated religious fundamentalist.
 
Despite whatever misinformation you peddle for the goats to consume there are ten thousand scientists in every country of the world who have documented through the scientific method the overwhelming evidence for evolution. All of it available for anyone to reproduce and actually test for themselves. Yet, you will continue peddling your religious opinion because it sells to your target audience, the uneducated religious fundamentalist.

Scientists can't even produce a small protein in a lab under supposed "evolutionary" conditions (the Miller-Urey experiment). And a protein is a million times less complex than an entire cell.

You're the one who keeps obsessing over "religion".
I don't bring it up.
My reasons are all scientific.
 
All the Bible is is mans testimonies with their dealings with God. The Bible is not a historical document, it is a religious document compiled by mans own experiences and they all had different experiences with or about a God.
It has been confirmed historically many times by archaeology and ancient documents.
The only one I trust is what was quoted of Jesus, the rest are mans own ideas just as they are today. All have a testimony about a God and if it isn't the very same as Jesus received in Matt 3:16 then You are no different from any writers of the book.
While all believers are Gods children, Only Jesus is the beloved unique Son of God and had a dove representing the Holy Spirit descend upon Him at His baptism.
For instance lets look at Pauls account. Paul teaches that I am a sinner. Jesus teaches that I am the righteousness of God in Christ and cannot sin because I am born of God. 1 John 3. Perfect even as my Father God in heaven is perfect and I am the temple of God, He in me and I in Him are one see Jesus prayer to our God for me to be in John 17.

If you took out everything in the Bible except that what was quoted of Jesus you would have a completely different outlook on who Jesus was, Who God is and who Christ is. But because people listen to others instead of Jesus, you go without with what Jesus taught to be like Him, have the mind of Christ, walk as He walks in His same light with the same signs following you.

Do you know why the majority claiming to be of Christ do not have His same mind and do not walk as He walks in His same light as Jesus did with the same signs following? You follow the advice of mans own belief systems instead of the way of God in Christ to be His anointed one. Christ in you just as He was in Jesus starting in Matt 3:16 is when Jesus became anointed of God.
Your unorthodox understanding of Gods word has only produced a church congregation of one, YOU. I cannot believe God would only have one true human follower.
Read it then you can call it antichrist lies as you do in nearly every post.
I have never called your posts antiChrist lies. But they are heretical beliefs.
 
why do so many people assume that the Bible tries to be scientific ? Imagine Moses writting down Gods Word, about Lancaster Bombers and or Jump Jets for example ? again, God telling Moses how and what to do by a Heart transplant for example, both of which are very very REAL! ?

The reason the bible has come so far is God wisdom of how and what to put/write in it..
cheers.
I am not claiming the Bible is a science textbook, only that on the few times it does touch on science it is correct.
 
Scientists can't even produce a small protein in a lab under supposed "evolutionary" conditions (the Miller-Urey experiment). And a protein is a million times less complex than an entire cell.

You're the one who keeps obsessing over "religion".
I don't bring it up.
My reasons are all scientific.
You are just as wrong in denying evolution as flat-earthers are in denying a round earth. The worst part is that you do it in the name of God misleading christians in the process. Hence turning religion against science. The OP.
 
You are ignorant of the teachings of Jesus:

Mark 7:18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” ( Thus he declared all foods clean.)
Jesus was contradicting the Law of Moses which forbids the Jews to eat pork.
An atheist activist?
No bias there, right?
You are attempting to discredit the work of Richard Carrier by making an appeal to bias. But in so doing you discredit the Bible writers. They were at least as biased as Carrier ever was.
And you would continue to be wrong.
I'm not sure why the personal attacks.
I would encourage anyone who's interested to study the issue for themselves, and get balanced viewpoints.
Who did you encourage to read the history of the Bible and Christianity or history in general? I've read about all three subjects, and you seem unhappy with the results. And of course Richard Carrier has studied all three as a professional historian, and you dismiss his work as biased. So obviously you want people to know history but only insofar as they end up agreeing with you.
I don't believe I've spoken about church history in the forums, so you have no way of knowing whether I find it "loathsome" to encourage others.
You obviously loathe disagreement lashing out at anybody who disagrees with you.
Well, I suppose we could discuss your opinion.
You dodged my question: So knowing that the Bible is based on earlier pagan mythology strengthens your faith? If my agenda was to make an idol out of the Bible I suppose I wouldn't want to answer that question either.
Polytheism in the Bible, certainly.
And God rebuked the Jews for it many times.
There are bits and pieces of pagan polytheism in the Bible which was meant to be part of the nature of "God" who was actually Gods. You may wish to read El, Yahweh, and Elohim: The Evolution of God in Israel and its Theological Implications for more information. From that article:
It is often taken for granted today that the differing terms for God in the Hebrew Bible function as synonyms, although, originally, not all terminology used for God referred to the same deity.
It is amazing what revelations seeking knowledge can bestow upon us, is it not?
Redefining terms now?
No. I'm just pointing out that the Bible's angels are demigods with a different name.
Nope.
The Trinity is explicitly one God.
That's what we're told, but upon critical examination the Trinity is exposed as polytheism where each of the three gods that make it up are called "persons" which is meant to cover up the Trinity's polytheism.
Gal. 4:16 Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?

Isn't it interested that you feel free to call me ignorant, but when I point out your ignorance, you find it "unloving"?
Double standards much?
Where did I call you ignorant?
 
Jesus was contradicting the Law of Moses which forbids the Jews to eat pork.

So you think you have a better understanding of Scripture than Jesus.
Good to know.

Who did you encourage to read the history of the Bible and Christianity or history in general?

Why would I need to?

I've read about all three subjects, and you seem unhappy with the results.

I have absolutely no idea why you would jump to that conclusion.
With such poor mind-reading skills, I suggest you don't quit your day job.

And of course Richard Carrier has studied all three as a professional historian, and you dismiss his work as biased.

Where did I "dismiss" anything?
Are you reading someone else's posts, thinking they were written by me?

So obviously you want people to know history but only insofar as they end up agreeing with you.

<Chuckle>
You have horrific reading comprehension skills.
I explicitly said people should get a balanced viewpoint (ie. not just one side). That does NOT mean, "only insofar as they end up agreeing with [me]".

Seriously, I think you're trying to troll me, and get me to lose my temper or something.
Maybe it's time for me to obey Jesus in Matt. 7:6.

You obviously loathe disagreement lashing out at anybody who disagrees with you.

Again, your mind-reading skills are abysmal.
The only one "lashing out" at anyone is you.
Why do you feel the need to constantly misrepresent me?

You dodged my question:

Maybe I'm not interested in having a discussion with you when all you're going to do is insult me whenever I disagree with you.

So knowing that the Bible is based on earlier pagan mythology strengthens your faith?

Your question is fallacious, since it contains a false premise.

If my agenda was to make an idol out of the Bible I suppose I wouldn't want to answer that question either.

<sigh>
More personal attacks by you.
I don't "idolize" the Bible.
 
You are just as wrong in denying evolution as flat-earthers are in denying a round earth. The worst part is that you do it in the name of God misleading christians in the process. Hence turning religion against science. The OP.
Well said by you, I do believe that he has come to a Religious Website just to say he/she does not like religious type Website ?
 
So you think you have a better understanding of Scripture than Jesus.
Good to know.
No. I pointed out the fact that Jesus is quoted as contradicting Moses. That's a problem you must resolve if you want an inerrant Bible.
Why would I need to?
Because you claim to encourage people to study the history of the Bible. Is that claim true? It appears that it isn't true.
I have absolutely no idea why you would jump to that conclusion.
You denigrate my knowledge about the Bible. So that's what you do if you truly encourage people to read the Bible and its history and they reach conclusions you don't like.
With such poor mind-reading skills, I suggest you don't quit your day job.
I don't need to read your mind. I read your posts, and I can see they're full of falsehoods.
Where did I "dismiss" anything?
You dismissed Carrier's work as "biased" just like I said.
I explicitly said people should get a balanced viewpoint (ie. not just one side). That does NOT mean, "only insofar as they end up agreeing with [me]".
What do you mean by "balanced"?
Seriously, I think you're trying to troll me, and get me to lose my temper or something.
Maybe it's time for me to obey Jesus in Matt. 7:6.
Hey--it was you who first "trolled" me. If you don't like what I post, then don't respond to it.
Maybe I'm not interested in having a discussion with you when all you're going to do is insult me whenever I disagree with you.
You keep dodging my questions.
I don't "idolize" the Bible.
How can it be inerrant? Only God is inerrant.
 
You keep dodging my questions.

Maybe I don't feel like wasting my time in discussions with rude people who constantly misrepresent me.

I don't OWE you any "discussion".
I don't OWE you any "answers" (especially when you clearly are never going to accept them).
Get over yourself.

It's sad that you are clearly so threatened by a book you CLAIM you don't even think is true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top