-
Posts
-
I don’t accept that the big bang theory implies there is a bigger likelyhood of a “God” or “creator” as you are using newtonian implications of cause and effect contrary to widely held view that something can come from nothing as I explained on the other thread involving quantum physics. It’s far too simplistic to simply say that because many people are taking an educated guess which is what the big bang theory is responsible for , ( the emphasis on theory) it means there must be a God.
The big bang theory points to an origin of space and time. It points to an area where there is no time and no space. This is compatible with Christianity. It’s also compatible with atheism. Stephen hawking has been going up and down like a yoyo on God, but from what I understand he’s working on string theory to show how the cosmos came into existence. There is no reason why spontaneous creation took place. There is no reason to doubt that the cosmos rests on an elephant’s back, and that the elephant is standing on the shell of a tortoise. Unlikely, but who knows? It’s as rational as the belief that love created the cosmos, and took human form as Christ. And that is as rational as that the cosmos is a cold and indifferent area, and that we are as cold and indifferent to one another. In short, ‘science’ has advanced beyond the 19th century mechanistic belief in cause and effect (Newtonian mechanics) and has become incrasingly aware of mystery (the ‘dark energy’ which makes up most of the cosmos, dark meaning unknown). Which is my point. Science doesn’t prove God’s existence, but it is accepting that it can’t disprove it either.
I agree with most of this.. what I would say continual advancement in science provides more questions than answers. You have to remember that scientists living in bygone eras were also probably agnostic or atheist but had to at least purport to believe in “God” as in those days you were publically shunned for not adhering to what was seen as a mandatory faith in the lord almighty. Openly stating they had no belief in God would not only mean they would be ostracised from their peers but most likely putting themselves in real danger from physical assaults by people viewing them as “evil” etc. It’s not that long ago in human history people who didn’t conform to a stereotype in various walks of life were burned at the stake for being demons/witches etc so it’s an area even as a prominent scientist that had to be trod over carefully.
It’s relevant to the discussion. So which God(s) do you believe in ?
all in good time.
Scep worships Moloch.
1 member liked this post.
You state “There is a more adult form of Christianity” but you either believe in the bible and logically embrace Christianity or you don’t.. I fail to see how you can differentiate between the two. You can’t cherry pick parts of a religion that seem more credible and dismiss the less likely aspects as being unworthy- the religion either stands or falls on the very book it’s based on which is the bible.
well, that’s an interesting point, and one made by Dawkins. However, Biblical literalism is no longer accepted by most Christian theologians – the liberal Christians of the 19th century are in agreement with all but fundamentalists today that we have to cherrypick the bible. We’ve been cherrypicking the Bible from before it was written. There are many, many gospels, including one where the Holy Cross stands up and talks – a bit like a Monty Python sketch. I’m not sure whether it’s the gospel of Thomas or of Peter, but can look it up if you wish. The Bible we have today is a selection of those Gospels. John wasn’t even part of it for quite a while. Nobody knows when the Bible came together in the form we now have it, but there are parts which don’t fit. The story of the woman taken in adultery was stuck into John but doesn’t belong there. The Council of Trent in the 1540s finally decided that’s where it definitely belongs, but it sticks out like a sore thumb. Doesn’t mean that Christianity is wrong, though. Just that cherrypicking has been taking place since it appeared in written form – and therefore before.
If you are cherry picking you are essentially leaving parts out so of course it’s wrong as it’s clearly containing false material. To coin an analogy, if someone was recounting in court as a witness about events of a certain night and it was found out to be littered with erroneous rubbish and falsehoods then it would completely discredit the rest of what they said. You wouldn’t state , “well they admit to being wrong on this part but lets cherry pick parts we know are wrong leaving them out”. The bible is supposed to be divine inspiration not a book which can be viewed as possibly true in parts but not others… if some parts don’t stand up to scrutiny then it all collapses like a house of cards
what I would say continual advancement in science provides more questions than answers. You have to remember that scientists living in bygone eras were also probably agnostic or atheist but had to at least purport to believe in “God” as in those days you were publically shunned for not adhering to what was seen as a mandatory faith in the lord almighty. Openly stating they had no belief in God would not only mean they would be ostracised from their peers but most likely putting themselves in real danger from physical assaults by people viewing them as “evil” etc. It’s not that long ago in human history people who didn’t conform to a stereotype in various walks of life were burned at the stake for being demons/witches etc so it’s an area even as a prominent scientist that had to be trod over carefully.
Absolutely right.
In 1500, we lived in an enchanted universe, full of hobgoblins and elves. There were regular reports of cows giving birth to human beings (hence jc – sorry just joking). There were atheists but you had to shut up. The common sense was Christian.
In 2000, the common sense is atheist, and is expressed by Dawkins. We live in a disenchanted universe, and Christians are seen as slightly odd in the head, to be laughed at. This is not helped by teh fact that the description fits some of the Christians to a T.
In 2500 who knows what the common sense will be, or whether we’ll be living in a different kind of enchanted universe/ The scientific discussions about the nature and origins of the cosmos today are certainly pointing to its mystery – read about black holes and dark energy.
We should be looking at things in more perspective than Dawkins.
Will answer your second point about cherry picking shortly.
1 member liked this post.
Scep worships Moloch.
This is actually one of my main problems with christianity, most christians seem just to completely ignore that their holy book confirms that other gods exist. Moloch is mentioned in Leviticus, 2 Kings, and Jeremiah. And Exodus goes as far as confirming the existance of the entire Egyptian pantheon, even implying that they have power rivaling that of the christian God.
This seems like a massive thing to overlook on the part of christians, especially those that believe the bible is literally true.
drac,
you have a funny sense of humour, but I liked the Moloch quip…made me chuckle.
I am no expert on the Old Testament, and haven’t read it all. Probably will never read it all. I cannot take it seriously – a congeries of a foundation myth, a bloody history, great poetry and a prophecy of a Messiah born to the Jews.
I think Israel had its one God, and other tribes worshipped multiple Gods. Moses had a big crackdown on this.
When Moses defeated one tribe (I can find the reference if needed, somewhere n the book of Numbers), he told the victors that they should kill all prisoners except the young virgins. They could deal with those virgins….as they please. This was greeted with roars of appreciation.
The God of the OT is a very nasty God. When some kids poke fun at the prophet Elisha as old baldy, Elisha prays to god for vengeance, and God set lions on the teenage tormentors. They died slow.
Teach ’em.
I think that by the time he got to the New Testament, God had had a personality change. maybe he went to an anger management class. Or maybe having a son calmed him down..it does that to a lot of men.
you have a funny sense of humour, but I liked the Moloch quip…made me chuckle.
The God of the OT is a very nasty God. When some kids poke fun at the prophet Elisha as old baldy, Elisha prays to god for vengeance, and God set lions on the teenage tormentors. They died slow.
From the research I have done on this the old testament God is probably the Mesopotamian god of war, Ashur. The two religions originated from the same area of the world, and share a lot of common elements in their myths. The story of Noah in the bible in particular is very similar to the Mesopotamian flood myth, where Ashur places his war bow into the sky as a promise not to punish his human followers again, the same as God does with the rainbow.
It would also explain why God is so violent, if he was originally a god of war. I think the Islamic version of God also fits with this description.
I think that by the time he got to the New Testament, God had had a personality change. maybe he went to an anger management class. Or maybe having a son calmed him down..it does that to a lot of men.
The new testament doesn’t seem to be based on older relgions, and doesn’t contain nearlly as many contradictions as the old testament (although there are some).
It does seem to describe a completely different god though, which is likely based on what I said previously.
Edit:
I don’t believe that any gods are real, I am talking only from the perspective of the bible where we live in a world that has multiple gods that exist in parallel.-
This reply was modified 7 years, 1 month ago by
draculina.
If you are cherry picking you are essentially leaving parts out so of course it’s wrong as it’s clearly containing false material. To coin an analogy, if someone was recounting in court as a witness about events of a certain night and it was found out to be littered with erroneous rubbish and falsehoods then it would completely discredit the rest of what they said. You wouldn’t state , “well they admit to being wrong on this part but lets cherry pick parts we know are wrong leaving them out”. The bible is supposed to be divine inspiration not a book which can be viewed as possibly true in parts but not others… if some parts don’t stand up to scrutiny then it all collapses like a house of cards
Well, a lot of Christians would fervently agree with you on cherry picking, rude boy (can’t you change your name; it seems very apposite on most threads but not on this one lol; you make serious and intelligent points in these threads; they’re not usually laced with insult and contempt)
But others would deny that the Bible is the Word of God. It’s a collection of witnesses to the Word of God, and in the New Testament they ain’t eye witnesses, apart from (maybe) John.
Mark (usually accepted as the first Gospel now) seems to be a result of discussions with Peter at Rome. Peter used to give his stories about the miracles, the passion and the Resurrection to large crowds in the city, and a centurion seems to have approached mark and told him that the stories should be put down. mark wrote them down, but the historical and topographical side as are sloppy. The Gadarene swine would have had to run more than 9 miles to jump that cliff, for example, and most people now accept that Mark got the date of the crucifixion wrong.
Matthew and Luke recorded the stories going the rounds among Christian groups since Jesus’s death. They were written between 80 and 90AD, and used both mark and something called the Q Gospel – this is a collection of sayings and stories, and was almost certainly oral. They are as sloppy historically and topographically as Mark, which isn’t surprising as they used Mark. They also get the date of the crucifixion wrong.
John claims to be an eyewitness, and the topography is surprisingly detailed and accurate. He is also held to have got the date of the crufixion right – he claims to have been present there, the only disciple not to have run away. Or rather he records the eye-witness to the crucifixion; there is dispute as to whether he was himself the Beloved Disciple.
So really, unless you’re a nutter who refuses to listen to any argument (and they do exist) you are forced to cherry pick.
Some Christians even refuse to accept that Jesus is the literal Son of God – they interpret it as a metaphor.
So Dawkins is creating an Aunt Sally. He needs to literalists as much as they need him.
It’s relevant to the discussion. So which God(s) do you believe in ?
all in good time.
Take your time :)
It’s relevant to the discussion. So which God(s) do you believe in ?
all in good time.
Take your time :)
St Alfie, could you explain why it’s important??
This thread was set up to defend the viability of a God of some kind.
It’s operated on the basis of rational discussion. Questions which have no answers are of more relevance to this thread than answers which demand no questions.
That means the thread can only go so far. I think that what has been demonstrated is that a God is feasible, not definite. The brash rejection of God by atheists has been shown to be on the same plane as the simple assertion of faith by theists.
A Christian God is of a very different type, and in my view much harder for us to accept than a Muslim or Jewish God. You’re going beyond rational argument.
A Christian God is a viable argument, but it’s not on the same level as this thread. In My Very Humble Opinion.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 1 month ago by
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!