Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?

5wize

Well-known member
Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?
The same thing that fuels these pages. It's a cocktail of 3 ingredients.

1) The desire to possess enough knowledge to control, or protect, one's world.
2) The ability of the mind to invent artificial answers out of the need to fill that void at all costs.... and
3) The hubris required to defend any threat against one's (or a group's) internal development of of points 1 and 2.

The desire for knowledge is like the desire for love. It makes one hungry to a fault and can create bad bedfellows. Just the thought that you possess the answers to something is self soothing in this oftentimes scary and capricious world. History is ripe with these examples and Christianity is just another one on the heap.
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
Well I suppose I am an engineering scientist myself.

I can only claim to follow Christ, and Him alone. The only spirituality that exists.
As an engineering scientist, and follower of Christ, who claims to be “Truth” itself, what would you do if the entire organized religion you grew up in taught that the world was flat? And when you showed them all the data an engineer could muster to prove the earth was indeed spherical versus being flat as they claimed, —and they told you that you were a heretic, then what? Do you follow the organized religion claiming the name of “Christ” or do you follow the Christ who is Truth itself?

See the dilemma now that I found myself in? Of course, it is clear the choice I made.
 

Furion

Well-known member
As an engineering scientist, and follower of Christ, who claims to be “Truth” itself, what would you do if the entire organized religion you grew up in taught that the world was flat? And when you showed them all the data an engineer could muster to prove the earth was indeed spherical versus being flat as they claimed, —and they told you that you were a heretic, then what? Do you follow the organized religion claiming the name of “Christ” or do you follow the Christ who is Truth itself?

See the dilemma now that I found myself in? Of course, it is clear the choice I made.
I've never met a flat earther, I've never even heard someone preach it's glories. Did your parents raise you in the flat earth society?

I've had people say I'm not saved, or believe heresies, yes. I've never concerned myself with them because I know Christ myself, no need for any other mans approval. Christ shows no favorites among men, He favors those who believe what He says and follow His commands. To love the Lord your God, and to love your fellow man. These are His commands.

I don't see your situation as a dilemma, more like a quest to prove yourself correct over the spherical nature of the earth. Flat earth is a kooky belief to me and not something I would ever debate, and I don't see you needing to convince anyone over it.

As it is written, this life for those in Christ is about righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

As it is with the immature in Christ, like those who cling to food laws and such, some day they may think better of it, Lord willing. So it is with immature beliefs of science.

What matters is Christ because if one does not have the love of Christ then they have nothing. Nothing at all. Not even the correct scientific beliefs matter.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
I've never met a flat earther, I've never even heard someone preach it's glories. Did your parents raise you in the flat earth society?

I've had people say I'm not saved, or believe heresies, yes. I've never concerned myself with them because I know Christ myself, no need for any other mans approval. Christ shows no favorites among men, He favors those who believe what He says and follow His commands. To love the Lord your God, and to love your fellow man. These are His commands.

I don't see your situation as a dilemma, more like a quest to prove yourself correct over the spherical nature of the earth. Flat earth is a kooky belief to me and not something I would ever debate, and I don't see you needing to convince anyone over it.

I was trying to draw a comparison between those who dogmatically deny a spherical earth and those who dogmatically deny evolution. I was hoping that you claiming to be an engineer scientist (and me as a biomedical scientist) could empathize with my dilemma over evolution and being rejected by organized religion for believing it, because an engineer would find the dogma of a flat earth ridiculous.

IOW, I find the denial of evolution by theists just as ridiculous as an engineer would find the denial of a spherical earth as ridiculous.
As it is written, this life for those in Christ is about righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
It is also about truth. If the church promotes error (denying evolution) then no amount of supposed “righteousness” can cover over that. They are a religion who claim the name Christ but in fact lack the Truth inherent in his nature.
As it is with the immature in Christ, like those who cling to food laws and such, some day they may think better of it, Lord willing. So it is with immature beliefs of science.
Science and reason are the only bulwarks standing between belief in superstitions and belief based on truth or knowledge of the divine. For it is by evidence and reason (Greek: Logos) that we can know the heavens and earth were made by God, not because Genesis chapters 1-2 say so.

For example, it is rational to perceive both good and bad existing in the world long before humans existed. In addition, it is rational to perceive everything happens for a reason (science upholds this premise). These would be the naked truths evident to all.

Therefore, a rational soul who recognizes good exists and is caused by something (or someone) would seek to know that Good, hence the motivation of mystics, gnostics, heirophants, philsophers, etc., who were all seekers of the divine Good or cause of all things. Given this paradigm, who are the irrational but religious fundamentalists (those who choose myths over truth) and a-theists (those who deny a cause for Good in all things).
What matters is Christ because if one does not have the love of Christ then they have nothing. Nothing at all. Not even the correct scientific beliefs matter.
True, LOVE is a virtue manifest by the world ordering cause. But so is TRUTH. Where does that leave those who deny it?
 
Last edited:

5wize

Well-known member
I've never met a flat earther, I've never even heard someone preach it's glories. Did your parents raise you in the flat earth society?

I've had people say I'm not saved, or believe heresies, yes. I've never concerned myself with them because I know Christ myself, no need for any other mans approval. Christ shows no favorites among men, He favors those who believe what He says and follow His commands. To love the Lord your God, and to love your fellow man. These are His commands.

I don't see your situation as a dilemma, more like a quest to prove yourself correct over the spherical nature of the earth. Flat earth is a kooky belief to me and not something I would ever debate, and I don't see you needing to convince anyone over it.

As it is written, this life for those in Christ is about righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

As it is with the immature in Christ, like those who cling to food laws and such, some day they may think better of it, Lord willing. So it is with immature beliefs of science.

What matters is Christ because if one does not have the love of Christ then they have nothing. Nothing at all. Not even the correct scientific beliefs matter.
You must be a member of the People's Front of Judea and not that blasphemous organization parading around calling themselves the Judean People's Front. Good for you. You've chosen wisely.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
The same thing that fuels these pages. It's a cocktail of 3 ingredients.

1) The desire to possess enough knowledge to control, or protect, one's world.
2) The ability of the mind to invent artificial answers out of the need to fill that void at all costs.... and
3) The hubris required to defend any threat against one's (or a group's) internal development of of points 1 and 2.

The desire for knowledge is like the desire for love. It makes one hungry to a fault and can create bad bedfellows. Just the thought that you possess the answers to something is self soothing in this oftentimes scary and capricious world. History is ripe with these examples and Christianity is just another one on the heap.
This makes sense to me.

I have yet to hear from any theists, who this thread was tacitly aimed at.
 

Furion

Well-known member
I was trying to draw a comparison between those who dogmatically deny a spherical earth and those who dogmatically deny evolution. I was hoping that you claiming to be an engineer scientist and me as a biomedical scientist could empathize with my dilemma over evolution and being rejected by organized religion for believing it for an engineer would find the dogma of a flat earth ridiculous.
What "organized religion" has rejected you?

IOW, I find the denial of evolution by theists just as ridiculous as an engineer would find the denial of a spherical earth as ridiculous.

It is also about truth. If the church promotes error (denying evolution) then no amount of supposed “righteousness” can cover over that. They are a religion who claim the name Christ but in fact lack the Truth inherent in his nature.

Science and reason are the only bulwarks standing between belief in superstitions and belief based on truth or knowledge of the divine. For it is by evidence and reason serves that we can know the heavens and earth were made by God, not because Genesis chapters 1-2 say so.

For example, it is rational to perceive both good and bad existing in the world long before humans existed. It is rational to perceive everything happens for a reason (science upholds this premise). These would be the naked truths evident to all.

Therefore, a rational soul who recognizes good exists and is caused by something (or someone) would seek to know that Good, hence the motivation of mystics, gnostics, heirophants, philsophers, etc., who were all seekers of the divine Good or cause of all things. Given this paradigm, who are the irrational but religious fundamentalists (those who choose myths over truth) and a-theists (those who deny a cause for Good in all things).

True, LOVE is a virtue manifest by the world ordering cause. But so is TRUTH.
I don't care about anyone's scientific beliefs.

When I see their scientific beliefs dictate who they think is approved by God, I get curious, start asking questions.
 

Furion

Well-known member
You must be a member of the People's Front of Judea and not that blasphemous organization parading around calling themselves the Judean People's Front. Good for you. You've chosen wisely.
That sounds interesting, tell me more
 

docphin5

Well-known member
What "organized religion" has rejected you?
Another poster claiming to be a Christian was just mocking me. Wasn’t that you?
If only there were a pious do gooder mystic to guide everyone into resurrectionless cosmic nirvana.

Are you that mystic?

Play some misty-ic for me, papa needs some Gaia!


I don't care about anyone's scientific beliefs.
There are NO beliefs in science. A conclusion is either supported by data or it isn’t. Enough data and it becomes a Theory, for example, the Theory of Evolution. But don’t mistake the common meaning of “Theory” with regards to science.

In common parlance, theory is often used to refer to something that is rather speculative. Because of this, it sometimes takes on a negative tone (for example, when creationists refer to evolution as “just a theory”). This definition strongly contrasts with the definition of theory as it is used in science: a theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.

IOW, Evolution is accepted as fact by everyone but religious fundamentalists. It is not a belief, Just overwhelming evidence repeated by multiple methods of scientific study in every nation ALL demonstrating the same results.
When I see their scientific beliefs dictate who they think is approved by God, I get curious, start asking questions.
 
Last edited:

shnarkle

Well-known member
Another poster claiming to be a Christian was just mocking me. Wasn’t that you?
Is mockery a characteristic of Christians? I don't recall seeing that listed as a fruit of the spirit.
the definition of theory as it is used in science: a theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.
The definition can used just as easily to describe mythologies; they both have incredible explanatory power, and yet as new data is discovered, theories, just like their mythological siblings must be abandoned. Theories and mythologies provide a framework for placing data to make it comprehendible, but as the data distorts the frame, it must be replaced with a framework that can accommodate it.
IOW, Evolution is accepted as fact by everyone but religious fundamentalists.
Put another way, "it's settled science". Of course no scientist would ever make such a claim in the first place because nothing in science is settled.
It is not a belief, Just overwhelming evidence repeated by multiple methods of scientific study in every nation ALL demonstrating the same results.
All funded by the same people. Science has gotten one hell of a black eye over the last few decades what with all the peer reviewed garbage that has turned out to be fraudulent.

If science were as noble as some pretend it to be, there would be more scientists looking into the problems with the theory of evolution rather than trying to find more evidence to make it work, but then a scientist has to make a living too. Those who don't follow the money are cooking burgers at Wendy's
 

Furion

Well-known member
Another poster claiming to be a Christian was just mocking me. Wasn’t that you?
Weren't you labeling and then mocking fundamentalists?

Again, what organized religion has rejected you? Or were you just puffing your martyr chest?

Just wondering why you think so highly of yourself. I know it's not over Christ, you got nuthin in that regard.
There are NO beliefs in science. A conclusion is either supported by data or it isn’t. Enough data and it becomes a Theory, for example, the Theory of Evolution. But don’t mistake the common meaning of “Theory” with regards to science.

In common parlance, theory is often used to refer to something that is rather speculative. Because of this, it sometimes takes on a negative tone (for example, when creationists refer to evolution as “just a theory”). This definition strongly contrasts with the definition of theory as it is used in science: a theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypothesesIIOWW, Evolution is accepted as fact by everyone but religious fundamentalists. It is not a belief, Just overwhelming evidence repeated by multiple methods of scientific study in every nation ALL demonstrating the same results.
So it's a theory and not a belief according to you. Ok.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
If science were as noble as some pretend it to be, there would be more scientists looking into the problems with the theory of evolution rather than trying to find more evidence to make it work, but then a scientist has to make a living too.
If a scientist could produce data disproving evolution then he would win a Nobel Peace prize and would be recruited by the top universities in the world.

Those who don't follow the money are cooking burgers at Wendy's
That would be the lot of a professional priest, pastor, or ”Biblical scholar” who went against the party line, in this case, Christian orthodoxy, resulting in no job. Where else is a professional clergy going to get a job if not in the organized religion of his denomination? Nobody else cares what he has to say, that is, enough to pay him for it. Therefore, religious clergy are beholden to their dogmas, otherwise they cannot eat.

An a-theist is more likely to come up with the correct meaning of scripture versus a fundamentalist because the a-theist has nothing to lose. His income does not depend upon the organized religion and he has no concerns for his soul being judged a heretic.

Which brings me to an obvious fact. The only group fighting against evolution is religious fundamentalists; and the only reason they fight against evolution is because of their dogmas, which collapse in face of reality and truth of evolution. But rather than critically analyze their dogmas they invent useless reasons to deny evolution. Why? Because they would find themselves unemployed since no one else, other than their church, cares what they have to say. You are a victim of that system by repeating their errors.

The irony here is that the world-ordering-cause (i.e., Dynamis Logos) used evolution as a mechanism to diversify biological life resulting in human consciousness. To wit, fundamentalists are fighting the remedy to their own self-inflicted wound, that is, incorrect dogmas/doctrines and ignorance in the world/cosmos.
 
Last edited:
Top