Some thoughts on Easter Sunday

[AdminAssistant]

The sticky wicket here is that faith is belief in an absence of proof. Despite what some would say, there is no scientific evidence of the existence of a divine being. The reasons for belief and type of belief vary from person to person. Someone may feel that God has intervened in their life. Some have just been raised with it so long that they can't even imagine that it's not true.

I get at what you're saying, Ghel, and I'm becoming more of an atheist every day. But there's no scientific explanation for faith.

[Fryk]

To me, the problem is not faith itself. It's when people believe things that have been directly contradicted by evidence. That's not faith. It's stubbornness

[crashhelmet]

People like to throw in "Scientific Proof," or the lack there of, as an argument against faith and religion/spirituality. How accurate is science? How many research studies are performed with the full intention of proving a hypothesis to be correct? Tested and restested and skewed until the originator's theories all turn out to be correct or a prior study to be proven wrong?

Countless studies have been done over the years to find out whether or not milk is good or bad for you. Whether or not it helps give you strong bones or makes you fatter. Whether or not it will make you live longer or give you cancer. It's quite coincidental how often the studies with good results are sponsored by the Dairy/Agriculture industry.

At one time, it was "Scientific Fact" that you could cure psychological disorders with leeches and drilling holes in peoples heads.

It used to be "Scientific fact" that the solar system was geocentric.

Scientists hide behind the excuse that they're always learning and discovering more and more and that justifies their disproven "facts" of the past.

Has science ever proven that Jesus Christ did not exist or performed the miracles that He is said to have performed? Has science ever proven that the "Big Bang Theory" is the exact way the universe was created? Have they even considered that it could quite possibly be the manner in which God created the Heavens and the Earth? Has science ever proven that Adam and Eve never existed? Does the Bible ever say anywhere that Adam and Eve were homosapien?

The Bible has its own inconsistencies and hypocrisies. I'll admit that, but will say again that, like science, it has been written and rewritten countless times over by people fueling their own agendas.

So... How much "faith" does Science require?

CH

[Ghel]

Asked and answered. I've told you this, in more than one thread, I think.

To paraphrase from memory, you have faith. You believe based on your own interpretation of the bible, using things that God or Jesus are quoted as saying as a guide. That seems an odd choice, since God demanded human sacrifice (both in the OT and of his own son) and Jesus proclaimed that anybody who doesn't believe will go to hell and suffer for eternity.

But there's no scientific explanation for faith.

That's pretty much the point. There's no good reason to believe (none that's ever been explained to me), and without that, there's no reason to expect others to agree with the believer.

Countless studies have been done over the years to find out whether or not milk is good or bad for you. Whether or not it helps give you strong bones or makes you fatter. Whether or not it will make you live longer or give you cancer. It's quite coincidental how often the studies with good results are sponsored by the Dairy/Agriculture industry.

What you say may be true, but the great thing about science is that it's peer reviewed. Other scientists can, and often do, review not just the results, but also the processes used in scientific studies. The experiments can be repeated to determine whether the conclusions are justified. In this way, science is self-correcting.

You don't get that in religion. Nearly every religion has some tenet or dogma that is unquestionable, that must be taken on faith. In science, nothing is sacred. Anything can be questioned. If someone feels they have a better explanation for something, they can do the research or the experiment to try to falsify it.

At one time, it was "Scientific Fact" that you could cure psychological disorders with leeches and drilling holes in peoples heads.

It used to be "Scientific fact" that the solar system was geocentric.

Scientists hide behind the excuse that they're always learning and discovering more and more and that justifies their disproven "facts" of the past.

That's right. The earth was never flat, no matter how many people believed it. The earth was never the center of the universe, no matter how many people believed it.

Has science ever proven that Jesus Christ did not exist or performed the miracles that He is said to have performed?

You can't prove a negative. Can you prove that Jesus Christ did exist and did perform the miracles that are attributed to him?

Has science ever proven that the "Big Bang Theory" is the exact way the universe was created?

That is where all the evidence is leading.

Have they even considered that it could quite possibly be the manner in which God created the Heavens and the Earth?

Why complicate things by positing a God, when the universe can be explained quite well by the Big Bang?

[Hobbs]

To paraphrase from memory, you have faith. You believe based on your own interpretation of the bible, using things that God or Jesus are quoted as saying as a guide. That seems an odd choice, since God demanded human sacrifice (both in the OT and of his own son) and Jesus proclaimed that anybody who doesn't believe will go to hell and suffer for eternity.

God didn't actually make Abraham sacrifice his son. It was a test.

As for Jesus, he was God. In order to cleanse the world of sin, He suffered, like a sinner, and died for those sins. In the original Nicene Creed, there was a phrase, right after saying Jesus had died "...he descended into Hell, and on the third day rose, in accordance with Scripture..."

I've already said that Hell isn't about suffering. That's mostly a construct of medieval imaginations. Someone earlier mentioned Gehenna; that was merely a metaphor explaining what an undesirable place Hell is. All it truly is, in both Judaic and Christian forms, in a separation from God.

[crashhelmet]

To paraphrase from memory, you have faith. You believe based on your own interpretation of the bible, using things that God or Jesus are quoted as saying as a guide. That seems an odd choice, since God demanded human sacrifice (both in the OT and of his own son) and Jesus proclaimed that anybody who doesn't believe will go to hell and suffer for eternity.

Demanding a sacrifice and saying sinners should be put to death are two different things. But again, that was Old Testament. Sending Jesus to the world to be sacrificed to save us from our sins isn't demanding. I don't remember any part of the Bible where God spoke to the Romans and the Jewish Elders saying "You better crucify Him or I'll smite you!"

That's pretty much the point. There's no good reason to believe (none that's ever been explained to me), and without that, there's no reason to expect others to agree with the believer.

That's the funny thing about beliefs. They're beliefs. Whether or not you choose to believe them is up to you.

What you say may be true, but the great thing about science is that it's peer reviewed. Other scientists can, and often do, review not just the results, but also the processes used in scientific studies. The experiments can be repeated to determine whether the conclusions are justified. In this way, science is self-correcting.

But Science is treated as if it doesn't need self-correction because everything is fact. It's only a theory or a hypothesis until it's proven right or wrong. Unfortunately, it's often times proven right or wrong again. And again. And again. etc etc etc.

You don't get that in religion. Nearly every religion has some tenet or dogma that is unquestionable, that must be taken on faith. In science, nothing is sacred. Anything can be questioned. If someone feels they have a better explanation for something, they can do the research or the experiment to try to falsify it.

Nothing may be "sacred" but some things are still treated as such.

You can't prove a negative. Can you prove that Jesus Christ did exist and did perform the miracles that are attributed to him?

I've got 4 different cultures from His time that all say He did, have written books about Him, and only differ on whether or not they consider Him a prophet, the Messiah, or some carpenter stirring up trouble.

Why complicate things by positing a God, when the universe can be explained quite well by the Big Bang?

Where does it start? Everything in Science has a starting point. What caused the Big Bang? What caused the events that led up to whatever it was that caused the Big Bang?

While I may be Christian and have belief and Faith in God, I'm open minded enough to consider that Adam and Eve could've been Homo-Erectus or some other ancient species that Science believes we may have evolved from or that God's 6 days of creation were not exactly the same length that our days are.

Science is supposed to promote an open mind. Why is yours closed?

CH

[Ghel]

God didn't actually make Abraham sacrifice his son. It was a test.

But Abraham intended to go through with it, which means he thought that human sacrifice was something his God would ask of him.

This is not the only instance of human sacrifice in the OT. I'll have to look up where it is, but I can think of at least one other where they actually went through with the sacrifice.

As for Jesus, he was God. In order to cleanse the world of sin, He suffered, like a sinner, and died for those sins. In the original Nicene Creed, there was a phrase, right after saying Jesus had died "...he descended into Hell, and on the third day rose, in accordance with Scripture..."

Which means that God sacrificed himself to himself, took a masochistic 3-day vacation in Hell (which, by your definition, means he was separated from himself), knowing full well that when those three days were done, he would return to Heaven.

I've already said that Hell isn't about suffering. That's mostly a construct of medieval imaginations. Someone earlier mentioned Gehenna; that was merely a metaphor explaining what an undesirable place Hell is. All it truly is, in both Judaic and Christian forms, in a separation from God.

Yet Jesus said that anyone who doesn't believe in him will die and suffer in eternal hellfire. This is something that the Bible states is a direct quote, so by your earlier statements, you must believe it.

[Hobbs]

Give me the Bible verse then.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Wait, lemme get this:

Science is bad because some people try and abuse it?

Holy fucking ape shit! I never thought of that before! IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!11!!one!

Really, science and religion are opposite sides to the same coin. Both are systems by which people define their beliefs and what compromises right and wrong. Science is based on evidence, religion is based on faith. Either can be abused by shitty people on an ego trip so it's the individuals duty to question their peers on either side. It just seems that the ego-trippy douche-bags are much more rife on the religion side, or at least that there's either little or no vocal opposition, or it's being crushed by those on top

You've got to pick what makes the most sense to you. Science, Religion, Logic, or all or none of the above. In each case there's a right and wrong way of doing it, the question is: How predisposed are people in a specific area of their system to being assholes/abusing their power?

On this front, the Mormon assholes, Social Darwinist shits and Global Warming fucks can all eat shit and die, together in their respective hypocritical filth piles

Have a NICE day!

[Fryk]

I can help with the biblical reference, Ghel. The story you're thinking of is the story of Jephthah and his daughter. It's found in Judges chapter 11.

Jephthah was a military leader (to sum up) in those days, and was facing both the Philistines and the Ammonites. He struck this deal with god, beginning in Judges 11:30:

Jephthah vowed a vow to Yahweh, and said, If you will indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand,

11:31 then it shall be, that whatever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be Yahweh's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

11:32 So Jephthah passed over to the children of Ammon to fight against them; and Yahweh delivered them into his hand.

11:33 He struck them from Aroer until you come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and to Abelcheramim, with a very great slaughter. So the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

11:34 Jephthah came to Mizpah to his house; and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances: and she was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter.

11:35 It happened, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! you have brought me very low, and you are one of those who trouble me; for I have opened my mouth to Yahweh, and I can't go back.

11:36 She said to him, My father, you have opened your mouth to Yahweh; do to me according to that which has proceeded out of your mouth, because Yahweh has taken vengeance for you on your enemies, even on the children of Ammon.

11:37 She said to her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may depart and go down on the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my companions.

11:38 He said, Go. He sent her away for two months: and she departed, she and her companions, and mourned her virginity on the mountains.

11:39 It happened at the end of two months, that she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she was a virgin. It was a custom in Israel,

11:40 that the daughters of Israel went yearly to celebrate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

So.... yeah, human sacrifice to God. God didn't precipitate it, sure, but he accepted it.

[Ghel]

Yes, that's the one I was thinking of. There's also these:

In Numbers 31:25-29, God instructs Moses to take their spoils of war (including captured slaves) and cut a bunch of them in half as an offering to the Lord.

In 2 Samuel 21, King David offers up 7 descendants of his predecessor, Saul, to be killed because God told him it would end a famine.

As for the eternal hellfire, Mark 9:43-44 quotes Jesus as saying " And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." He goes on to repeat the same advice about feet and eyes.

I suppose it's only fair for me to point out that even if the God described in the Bible existed, I would not worship him. If I had indisputable evidence of the existence of God, I would no longer be an atheist. But I would not be a Christian, either. The notion that God would punish anyone for the "sin" of not believing in him, or reward anyone for believing in him, despite the lack of evidence, is unforgivable.

[Hobbs]

As for King David, I'd refer you to the History Channel special "Battles of the Bible" or something similarly titled. It has one of my favorite war historians in it, describing David's ruthlessness in war.

Again, Jesus is using symbolic use of fire to describe the consumation of someone's soul in Hell. As for the actions of the OT, Jesus even said, "I am the way of the New and everlasting covenant..."

Technically, blaspheme of the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin, so you're even.

[HYHYBT]

But there's no scientific explanation for faith.
---End Quote---
That's pretty much the point. There's no good reason to believe

This here is a basic problem: for some people, these two statements are equivalent in all cases, and for others they are not.

Really, science and religion are opposite sides to the same coin. Both are systems by which people define their beliefs and what compromises right and wrong.

Since when did science start lining off right from wrong? Science is essentially amoral. And no, that's not remotely the same thing as saying that religion is necessary for morality, only that science, as such, does not provide it.

[crashhelmet]

Wait, lemme get this:

Science is bad because some people try and abuse it?

Science isn't bad. It just can't be considered as "perfect" or indisputable as many make it out to be.

CH

[Ghel]

Science isn't bad. It just can't be considered as "perfect" or indisputable as many make it out to be.

I don't know if this is directed at me, but since I answered your earlier post...

Science is the best tool we have to understand the universe. It is self-correcting, but I would never say that it is perfect. Nor would I say that we should base our morals off science. Even Richard Dawkins said that evolution tells us what is, not what should be.

...David's ruthlessness in war.

I don't see how this applies. According to the passage, God specifically told David that it was Saul's fault that there was a famine. So David offered up all of Saul's male descendants to be killed, which God rewarded by ending the famine. It may have happened in wartime, but the reasoning had nothing to do with war.

You didn't respond to the other two depictions of human sacrifice that were mentioned.

Again, Jesus is using symbolic use of fire to describe the consumation of someone's soul in Hell.

But you said...

The rule of thumb (my point of view, not the Church) is that, if it's not quoted (ie. what Jesus/God said) than it's not meant to be taken literally.

If you're just going to say that everything that Jesus said that you don't agree with is symbolic, then why use the Bible as an authority at all? Why not use your own moral compass, which I consider to be vastly superior to the morals of the Bible, even if we don't always agree.

As for the actions of the OT, Jesus even said, "I am the way of the New and everlasting covenant..."

Jesus also said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Which just goes to show that you can find a verse to support any position.

Technically, blaspheme of the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin, so you're even.

How can I blaspheme something that, as far as I can tell, doesn't exist?