Christianity vs. Science
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="slinky6"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="slinky6"]To worship Christ you have to believe in Christ. Which I don't because of the 40 year gap.
slinky6
Christ has been proven to exist.:|
Do you have to believe in Him to sign the date? No. You don't have to believe in Him to worship Him. The two are different.
Not the Christ of the Gospels. There was a 40 year gap between the death of Christ and any sort of writing about him. Which is truly mind-boggling considering what a swell-guy he supposedly was and considering he had magical powers!References?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeH49SVPj8II look forward to your explanation of this.
the gospel of John does NOT mention the destruction of the temple at jerusalem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeH49SVPj8I
I look forward to your explanation of this.
slinky6
Most youtube religion videos are incorrect....and actually...the Word was spread word of mouth initially. So it doesn't matter...He was spoken about.
[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]You don't have to believe in Him to worship Him..LJS9502_basic
What?
By doing as He does, you are worshipping Him. Many Atheists do as He does. Like I said, do you have to believe in Christ to sign the date?
Somehow I think you have the message of Christianity confused....and what does a date have to do with anything?
I think he was talking about 2007 years after christ, although to atheists and agnostics, and other religions it's before common era, and after common era.
I think in the end of this discussion a christian can be a scientist, but it limits they're study's to what he or she believes in.
[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="slinky6"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="slinky6"]To worship Christ you have to believe in Christ. Which I don't because of the 40 year gap.
mig_killer2
Christ has been proven to exist.:|
Do you have to believe in Him to sign the date? No. You don't have to believe in Him to worship Him. The two are different.
Writing is not proof.Then what is? How do we know anything ever happened in history?
If writing is proof. Well that makes Jesus even more unbelievable. Outside the Bible, Jesus is poorly documented.but he is documented. that proves he existed No, it doesn't. well then Sennacherib never existed Possibly, but it is more likely that he did than Jesus.
QUOTE] but he is documented. that proves he existed
No, it doesn't. well then Sennacherib never existed Possibly, but it is more likely that he did than Jesus.Jesus of nazereth existed at some point there is no question on that, the question is, did he do the things he said.
[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="slinky6"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="slinky6"]To worship Christ you have to believe in Christ. Which I don't because of the 40 year gap.
CptJSparrow
Christ has been proven to exist.:|
Do you have to believe in Him to sign the date? No. You don't have to believe in Him to worship Him. The two are different.
Writing is not proof.Then what is? How do we know anything ever happened in history?
If writing is proof. Well that makes Jesus even more unbelievable. Outside the Bible, Jesus is poorly documented.but he is documented. that proves he existed No, it doesn't. well then Sennacherib never existed Possibly, but it is more likely that he did than Jesus. all we know about sennacharib comes from the bible and a single shred of papyrus that isn't part of the bible.
[QUOTE="slinky6"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="slinky6"]To worship Christ you have to believe in Christ. Which I don't because of the 40 year gap.
mig_killer2
Christ has been proven to exist.:|
Do you have to believe in Him to sign the date? No. You don't have to believe in Him to worship Him. The two are different.
Writing is not proof.Then what is? How do we know anything ever happened in history?
If writing is proof. Well that makes Jesus even more unbelievable. Outside the Bible, Jesus is poorly documented.but he is documented. that proves he existed
But was he divine? That is the question.
[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="slinky6"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="slinky6"]To worship Christ you have to believe in Christ. Which I don't because of the 40 year gap.
mig_killer2
Christ has been proven to exist.:|
Do you have to believe in Him to sign the date? No. You don't have to believe in Him to worship Him. The two are different.
Writing is not proof.Then what is? How do we know anything ever happened in history?
If writing is proof. Well that makes Jesus even more unbelievable. Outside the Bible, Jesus is poorly documented.but he is documented. that proves he existed No, it doesn't. well then Sennacherib never existed Possibly, but it is more likely that he did than Jesus. all we know about sennacharib comes from the bible and a single shred of papyrus that isn't part of the bible. It says that he started wars with Judaeah. Are you saying there is no archaeological evidence for it? If that is true, then you are right--there is actually less evidence of his existence.
Mere writing is not proof. Sorry.Jesus of nazereth existed at some point there is no question on that, the question is, did he do the things he said.
mark4091
[QUOTE="mark4091"]Mere writing is not proof. Sorry.Jesus of nazereth existed at some point there is no question on that, the question is, did he do the things he said.
CptJSparrow
I think writings can be used to establish historical accuracy. If several unrelated sources mention a particular person or event, then I think it would be safe to assume that the event happened or the person existed. Whether this is the case with Jesus, I don't really know.
The original post is misleading and of course the poll itself is highly skewed to favour the OP's view.
Science and religion does conflict and you would have to be very ignorant to avoid this issue. Einstein himself faced stringent criticisms of his findings from Christians in the United States and Copernicus/Galileo though financed by Church benefactors was also pressed to give Christianized interpretations much in the same way the Church didn't destroy Galens work because they believed his information could be subverted to Christian ideas. Least of all it avoids instances of Christian persecution such as Giordano Bruno's execution or in keeping all of Europe in dark by persecuting anyone carrying the Greco-Roman works. Contrast the time gap between Archimedes and Newton/Leibnitz.
It also fails to address the particular viewpoints of the scientists mentioned themselves. Einstein was not a Christian and his 'God' has little to do with what theists call God. The same can be said of Rene Descartes and the Cartesians whom Baruch Spinoza was bouncing ideas off of.
Then we get into the modern conflict of Evolution versus theocratic dogma and that's just from a discovery a century old. Kansas court Evolution hearings? Lawsuits against universities that don't accept "Christian" credit courses? Scopes Monkey Trial? As science continues to expand we will not only get into further conflict as Neuroscience chips away at preconceived ideas of Humans and the Self, we're also heading to a naturalistic universe that has no room for something called God as the sentient creator.
Science itself does not seek to directly prove God, but it does destroy any notion of God set in its path by people who demand their 'belief' as fact.
The original post is misleading and of course the poll itself is highly skewed to favour the OP's view.
Science and religion does conflict and you would have to be very ignorant to avoid this issue. Einstein himself faced stringent criticisms of his findings from Christians in the United States and Copernicus/Galileo though financed by Church benefactors was also pressed to give Christianized interpretations much in the same way the Church didn't destroy Galens work because they believed his information could be subverted to Christian ideas. Least of all it avoids instances of Christian persecution such as Giordano Bruno's execution or in keeping all of Europe in dark by persecuting anyone carrying the Greco-Roman works. Contrast the time gap between Archimedes and Newton/Leibnitz.
It also fails to address the particular viewpoints of the scientists mentioned themselves. Einstein was not a Christian and his 'God' has little to do with what theists call God. The same can be said of Rene Descartes and the Cartesians whom Baruch Spinoza was bouncing ideas off of.
Then we get into the modern conflict of Evolution versus theocratic dogma and that's just from a discovery a century old. Kansas court Evolution hearings? Lawsuits against universities that don't accept "Christian" credit courses? Scopes Monkey Trial? As science continues to expand we will not only get into further conflict as Neuroscience chips away at preconceived ideas of Humans and the Self, we're also heading to a naturalistic universe that has no room for something called God as the sentient creator.
Science itself does not seek to directly prove God, but it does destroy any notion of God set in its path by people who demand their 'belief' as fact.
Atrus
Good post.
The original post is misleading and of course the poll itself is highly skewed to favour the OP's view.
Science and religion does conflict and you would have to be very ignorant to avoid this issue. Einstein himself faced stringent criticisms of his findings from Christians in the United States and Copernicus/Galileo though financed by Church benefactors was also pressed to give Christianized interpretations much in the same way the Church didn't destroy Galens work because they believed his information could be subverted to Christian ideas. Least of all it avoids instances of Christian persecution such as Giordano Bruno's execution or in keeping all of Europe in dark by persecuting anyone carrying the Greco-Roman works. Contrast the time gap between Archimedes and Newton/Leibnitz.
It also fails to address the particular viewpoints of the scientists mentioned themselves. Einstein was not a Christian and his 'God' has little to do with what theists call God. The same can be said of Rene Descartes and the Cartesians whom Baruch Spinoza was bouncing ideas off of.
Then we get into the modern conflict of Evolution versus theocratic dogma and that's just from a discovery a century old. Kansas court Evolution hearings? Lawsuits against universities that don't accept "Christian" credit courses? Scopes Monkey Trial? As science continues to expand we will not only get into further conflict as Neuroscience chips away at preconceived ideas of Humans and the Self, we're also heading to a naturalistic universe that has no room for something called God as the sentient creator.
Science itself does not seek to directly prove God, but it does destroy any notion of God set in its path by people who demand their 'belief' as fact.
Atrus
I explicitly stated in the OP that Eistein did not believe in a personal creator. The poll is biased because there really is no conflict between t the two; Only between religious people and scientists.
Galileo introduced an idea that threatened the teachings of the universe for thousands of years. You're saying the Church should up and accept these without thinking about it? Whenever our beliefs are threatened, whatever the beliefs may be, people get defensive, and this is exactly what happened with the Church.
The conflict with evolution and religion is a conflict between some people on both sides. There are plenty of Christian evolutionists. If there was a conflict with the reluigion and the science, it would not be possible for a Christian to be a scientist. A naturalistsic belief is unrealistic and contradictory. Do you honestly believe the universe came by chance?
No, it doesn't.
MOST christians arn't in conflict with science, in fact I think most people trust science and most (basic) fields don't contradict the bible at all (physics for example). There are just the radical christians we see on the news, because honestly who is going to put a reasonable christian on the news? thats boring, people love to see the crazy 'EVOLUTION IS EVIL" people forming a protest because they don't have a real job and way too much free time.
PS Einstien was a Pantheist, not even a deist or theist. Same with newton and most great thinkers. Pantheism is a very beautiful concept and VERY apealing to scientists. but like i said a christian (darwin I believe) can easily contribute to the world of science.
MOST christians arn't in conflict with science, in fact I think most people trust science and most (basic) fields don't contradict the bible at all (physics for example). There are just the radical christians we see on the news, because honestly who is going to put a reasonable christian on the news? thats boring, people love to see the crazy 'EVOLUTION IS EVIL" people forming a protest because they don't have a real job and way too much free time.
PS Einstien was a Pantheist, not even a deist or theist. Same with newton and most great thinkers. Pantheism is a very beautiful concept and VERY apealing to scientists. but like i said a christian (darwin I believe) can easily contribute to the world of science.
DrummerJon
Exactly! If there was a conflict, all, or at least most, Christians would be against science! Only radicals are against it, and that stems more from a misunderstanding of science and the Bible than Christianity itself.
As for einstein, I know he was a pantheist. Newton was a Christian; Not a pantheist. Darwin was a Christian until his daughter died.
youre acting like they did think about it. They called him a heretic and wanted him dead. luckily he was hired by the demedichi family and was friends with a new pope, but the church hated him and forced him to claim his theorys were incorrect. I believe his last words were something like "But it DOES revolve around the sun" (cant remember exactly so i could be wrong, but that gist.)Galileo introduced an idea that threatened the teachings of the universe for thousands of years. You're saying the Church should up and accept these without thinking about it? Whenever our beliefs are threatened, whatever the beliefs may be, people get defensive, and this is exactly what happened with the Church.
Silver_Dragon17
The church might have been defensive but defensive in the sense that they covered their ears screaming "lalala if you dont stop I'm going to snap your neck'
[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]youre acting like they did think about it. They called him a heretic and wanted him dead. luckily he was hired by the demedichi family and was friends with a new pope, but the church hated him and forced him to claim his theorys were incorrect. I believe his last words were something like "But it DOES revolve around the sun" (cant remember exactly so i could be wrong, but that gist.)Galileo introduced an idea that threatened the teachings of the universe for thousands of years. You're saying the Church should up and accept these without thinking about it? Whenever our beliefs are threatened, whatever the beliefs may be, people get defensive, and this is exactly what happened with the Church.
DrummerJon
The church might have been defensive but defensive in the sense that they covered their ears screaming "lalala if you dont stop I'm going to snap your neck'
They called him a heretic because he insulted the Pope.:|
This article explains it better than I.
[QUOTE="DrummerJon"]MOST christians arn't in conflict with science, in fact I think most people trust science and most (basic) fields don't contradict the bible at all (physics for example). There are just the radical christians we see on the news, because honestly who is going to put a reasonable christian on the news? thats boring, people love to see the crazy 'EVOLUTION IS EVIL" people forming a protest because they don't have a real job and way too much free time.
PS Einstien was a Pantheist, not even a deist or theist. Same with newton and most great thinkers. Pantheism is a very beautiful concept and VERY apealing to scientists. but like i said a christian (darwin I believe) can easily contribute to the world of science.
Silver_Dragon17
Exactly! If there was a conflict, all, or at least most, Christians would be against science! Only radicals are against it, and that stems more from a misunderstanding of science and the Bible than Christianity itself.
As for einstein, I know he was a pantheist. Newton was a Christian; Not a pantheist. Darwin was a Christian until his daughter died.
oh I didn't know about that darwin thing, and im glad we agree with the main point of the thread. I could have sworn newton wasn't very religious though (not until he was near death). I think he was a deist now that i think about it. I'm going to go do some research.oh I didn't know about that darwin thing, and im glad we agree with the main point of the thread. I could have sworn newton wasn't very religious though (not until he was near death). I think he was a deist now that i think about it. I'm going to go do some research.
DrummerJon
Yes, sadly, Darwin fell under the "Why does God let bad stuff happen?!" thing when his daughter died, so he went agnostic.
I really think Newton was a Christian, but maybe I'm wrong. I'll also have to look it up.
[we just went over this in my history course, he insulted the second pope who he was friends with. the pope liked talking with him and gave him permission to publish his thoughts as long as he also has the catholic viewpoints too, so G wrote a nice story of two people arguing and made the catholic sound like a bumbling idiot (sometimes quoting what the pope had said to him) I'm talking about the pope before him. The church with the other pope wanted to kill him for supporting Helocentrism. Luckily he was hired by the demedichis (even though it forced him to leave his daughters) and was in safe hands. all he had to do was say sorry become a catholic and say he was wrong. He obviously didnt want to die so he said he was wrong yadda yadda his buddy becomes pope etc.They called him a heretic because he insulted the Pope.:|
This article explains it better than I.
Silver_Dragon17
[QUOTE="DrummerJon"]oh I didn't know about that darwin thing, and im glad we agree with the main point of the thread. I could have sworn newton wasn't very religious though (not until he was near death). I think he was a deist now that i think about it. I'm going to go do some research.
Silver_Dragon17
Yes, sadly, Darwin fell under the "Why does God let bad stuff happen?!" thing when his daughter died, so he went agnostic.
I really think Newton was a Christian, but maybe I'm wrong. I'll also have to look it up.
ok you were mostly right about newton, he was a christian, but i was partally right because he rejected portions of christianity (like the trinity). He basically rejected anything that went against natural science and believed everything else. Then in his later years he sort of stopped with science and wrote about religion alot.And its so sad when that stuff happens to people like darwin, he was such a shy intellegent guy, he acually didnt want to publish his ideas in fear of making too much of a fuss.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment