[meemiathai]

Originally Posted by hullexile

I have no problem with science, why should I? My problem is that opposite of what you say, many people use science to justify closed minds. No, it is not scientific so it can't be true without ever testing whether there is any truth in it. The open minded truth searching science you talk about is a utopian dream ignoring the reality of scientific research funding.

You state that my argument about faith in science is used by all religious nutters (no offence taken) but similarly the argument that religion is used to control the uneducated masses is as old as they come. So am I part of the uneducated masses, or part of the control mechanism perhaps? Why are there so many educated believers?

Yes I don't understand God, but then I don't understand my wife either and she is just a mere mortal.

And no tears or bad marks (where did that outburst come from?)

You are wrong. If you believe in God then you should have a problem with science coz God does not need science. If you think there is science you are belittling God!

[dean-dzai]

Originally Posted by meemiathai

There is one more word for it. CHILDISH! I stopped playing god at the age of six. You know, playing with little characters and pretend yourself controls everything.

Well said climber!
I just cried.

I remember going through the same time, behind the steering wheel of my car having to pull over through the tears as my 'me' centered world collapsed around me. Many tears as my treasure was no-longer in me or things I could get myself, but as my treasure become the living God.

Evidence for Creationism can reveal some things, but that along with the Gospel will be called folly even with historic evidence for the crucifixion and resurrection, and archaeological evidence for the flood because us people in general don't like the idea that we aren't in control, or that we should trust someone else. "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Corinthians 1:18 ESV) Don't think it has ever been any different to this, always has, always will unless God chooses you for his own purpose. If he doesn't do this and make himself irritable to you nothing any Christian says will serve as much.

[dean-dzai]

Originally Posted by meemiathai

You are wrong. If you believe in God then you should have a problem with science coz God does not need science. If you think there is science you are belittling God!

Not so, if you trust God you will think he is a God who keeps his word, a God who said he did something and therefor did. So then, with this in mind, science will reveal it.

Creation arguments are quite strong, if you listen to them I find a world wide flood explains some of the archeology which evolution would struggle to explain. And even if that convinced you there was a worldwide flood you would still say a God did not do it because this is outside your presuppositions of reality.

[climber07]

Originally Posted by dean-dzai

Creation arguments are quite strong, if you listen to them I find .....

[HK_Newbie100]

Whilst I don’t disagree with Climber’s articulate little diatribe against organised religion a couple of pages back, I think religion has different functions for different people. The essence of religion I think is to try and convey and duplicate the clarity and “vision” of the people the religion aims to follow. If you strip away the myths and demagoguery of Jesus, for example, I think you will find a simple and ordinary human being of flesh and blood of extraordinary clarity who was essentially someone free from the mental pain and suffering that afflicts us all. Same goes for people like the Buddha and Lao Tzu. It’s understandable that many people would want to follow such examples.

But…there is no need to “believe” in these people. These people have not given you belief systems…actually, they were essentially trying to free people from their belief systems to see things differently, in a way simply to free them from their own misery. But their teachings solidified into edicts, dogma, rituals and so forth and then used as tools to, as Climber says, control the masses to behave in a certain way.

Man’s default state as he makes his way in this world is to erect and gather this and that belief system to try and explain this world and how to respond in it. Religion is simply a solidified belief system with many trimmings, but we all hold solidified belief systems that pervade every aspect of our lives. Belief systems are edicts that make us think the world is a certain way. They distort how we view reality. Eg being gay is wrong. Really? Reality is that being gay is being gay. There is no need to explain, justify or attach adjectives to how anyone is or how they choose to live their lives. Reality is how the world is stripped of our concepts of it. When we argue with reality, we always lose in the form of mental pain and stress. Your wife was “wrong” to leave you? (Belief system…wives are not supposed to just leave you). Reality…she just did. Result…stress.

If we accept one dictionary definition of religion as “something one believes in and follows devotedly”, then no one is free from religion…we replace what we define as traditional “religion” with some other belief system, with the end result that our lives are no more, no less disharmonious. Therefore it doesn’t really matter what side of the fence you sit on…we’re all in the same boat of falling prey to believing things that are not true, that deny reality and cause stress in our lives. People in the West with all the freedoms they enjoy are probably no more happier than people in a religiously oppressed country like Saudi Arabia because the freedom from religious oppression is replaced by the oppression of material expectation. Whatever we have, we “believe” we deserve better. Our belief systems simply shift focus.

[dean-dzai]

Originally Posted by HK_Newbie100

The essence of religion I think is to try and convey and duplicate the clarity and “vision” of the people the religion aims to follow. If you strip away the myths and demagoguery of Jesus, for example, I think you will find a simple and ordinary human being of flesh and blood of extraordinary clarity who was essentially someone free from the mental pain and suffering that afflicts us all. Same goes for people like the Buddha and Lao Tzu. It’s understandable that many people would want to follow such examples.

But…there is no need to “believe” in these people. These people have not given you belief systems…actually, they were essentially trying to free people from their belief systems to see things differently, in a way simply to free them from their own misery.

I cannot testify for the other people you talk of, you could well be 110% right. Jesus on the other hand, his own teaching is contrary. He taught his followers, we have agreeable testimony from many of them, not only of his teachings, but his resurrection from the dead to authorize his claim. If this were not the case and his followers made it up, they knew it to be made up (a lie), and no-one knowingly dies for a lie.

There are more copies of the Bible in antiquity then any other book. Of the ancient copies there are thousands more in antiquity then the 2nd most common book which is Homers 'Iliad'. If you want to throw the Bible out as trustworthy literature you need to throw out every book in antiquity which we consider to be of historic value.

[PDLM]

Originally Posted by dean-dzai

no-one knowingly dies for a lie.

Perhaps, but many people die in the belief that something is true which many others believe not to be true (and often even which science holds to be untrue).

Originally Posted by dean-dzai

If you want to throw the Bible out as trustworthy literature you need to throw out every book in antiquity which we consider to be of historic value.

Eh? Having historic value (which the bible undoubtedly does) does not imply that something is literal truth. Homer's Iliad has huge historical value, but you aren't suggesting that it is literally true are you?

[dean-dzai]

Kent Hovind's Creation Science video's are quite good. He does talk to the audience a lot in his seminars which can be quite long winded. I was looking here to post a YouTube video which is a debate between an Evolutionary Scientist and a Creation Scientist, it goes for around 2 hours to give you some idea of the depth of both fields, both fields are amazingly in depth - don't just assume it is Evolution who has years of quality research.

Answers in Genesis have good research also, on YouTube you will find many video's making fun of them - and it does not help Hovind in the lease that he got himself in trouble with the IRA (many YouTube video's from those who don't like him make fun of the IRA scandal which doesn't show anything for or against his science).

You presuppositions will guide how you look at 'truth'. If you were taught like me from a young age that Communism is bad, then you will have a hard time coming to terms with it. In North Korea they are taught that Americans are evil, so if a North Korean refugee was fleeing North Korea and a genuine American wants to offer help approached. As the refugee runs from the central authorities who would send him back to North Korea where you would more then likely face torture, starvation and possibly death.. that American trying to help is 'evil', it is that persons presupposition.

A Christian's presupposition which is taken by faith as fact that there is a God who created and a Jesus who rose on the third day, there will be research to prove this God's creation. All science works off presuppositions, starts with an idea, they we test it, see if it works - and we have a theory if it is plausible.



Would anyone watch a 2 hour video debate posted on this thread? The few minute 'piss takes' of each side are not worth their time for either side of the argument.

[climber07]

Originally Posted by PDLM

Iliad has huge historical value, but you aren't suggesting that it is literally true are you?

Just the nymphs part

[dean-dzai]

Originally Posted by PDLM

Perhaps, but many people die in the belief that something is true which many others believe not to be true (and often even which science holds to be untrue).

Eh? Having historic value (which the bible undoubtedly does) does not imply that something is literal truth. Homer's Iliad has huge historical value, but you aren't suggesting that it is literally true are you?

Good questions

1st, if the followers of Jesus saw him, touched him, ate with him after he rose from the dead. The historic records all agree the tomb was empty and the authorities said the disciples 'took' the body to make it appear as though he had rose from the dead. See - if this was so, the disciples knew if it was fraudulent or genuine. Regardless if others thought it was made up, they 'knew' and no-one willing dies for a lie.

2nd, Homer's Iliad is great history, the one thing we can ascertain from the notable historicity of the book is how well preserved it is. The Bible is written as fact, true events. Consider as history the following verse from The Bible.

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles." (1 Corinthians 15:3-7 ESV)

Does this sound as though it were intended to be taken literally? To me, yes, I think you would have to twist words a lot to say that was not intended to be taken literally. He is appealing to you, "Jesus rose, he did stuff, and those who saw it - ask them! They're still alive!"