I think there have been countless "religious leaders" (by whatever name you call them) that we in for an uncomfortable time in the afterlife.

 

I moderate a discussion board that is mostly about space/science/astronomy/mathematics, etc. We have an ongoing discussion about what time really is.

During one discussion about time and space - as I read the posts of one of our extensively eduated posters, he was describing what it would be like to "exist outside of space/time". As he explained what this 'person' would be able to know/see/do, it occured to me that he was describing what God claims to know/see/do in the Bible.

I did not inject religion into the discussion, as that is not allowed in that sectoin of our board. But it sure got me to thinking!!!!

If God is not a physical being (and I sure don't think he is) then the constraints of space/time can't constrain HIM. I continue to monitor the discussion (and never join in, as my education level is not sufficient - I can, however, effectively moderate the discussion), it is wonderful food for thought!

But as has been pointed out, no one will ever prove He exists.

 

Looking in a book which was written by people with no scientific knowledge, which has been later translated and corrupted many times over is a waste of time. It can hardly be expected to provide a rational answer to questions that had never arisen at the times of its writing. What most of us take as a given was heresy in days past.
The only writings in it that have any use are lessons on morality and the ten commandments, surely these are the basics of civility and are common to many religions.

 

onehundred80:

Did you miss my question in post 38?

 

I am sorry that you feel this way as you probably havent done enough research as you would know that there were some pretty awesome scientist in the days of old that condtributed to the writings of the bible and one little nugget for you: Had they not been as informed as they were the issue of the great scientists that set out to prove that the world was flat would have been very easily clarified had they done a little bible reading.

Remember principle is principle, there is nothing new under the sun just new approaches to the same principle. Wether you steal from my farm or your broker steals from your investments its still stealing. Nothing has changed.

Well at least you see a little of the light in the value of the commandments. Really the foundation on what this country was based.

Oh BTW can you tell me where the week originated? I would be curious if you know...

 

Hey, hold it here...........what "awesome" scientists helped write the Bible?

Firstly, the Bible you hold in your hands today has been translated, modified, re-written & changed from the first bibles hundreds if not thousands of times. The first written bibles were conceived approx. 400 years after Jesus supposedly lived. Does ANYONE's legacy maintain congruency after 20 generations have passed?

Scientists?! What men of science had a hand in writing this book? If you're talking about men interpreting it so that one thing or another sounds like the Earth isn't flat, well, I guarantee I can interpret of package of raisin oatmeal cookie ingredients to sound biblical, too! The best scientists of the time were Arab & if it wouldn't be for Islam's conquering of Spain, European scientists would've hardly existed. After all, it was a sin, punishable by death, to question anything not Bible-based. As far as contributing, I guess if you mean helping to change something in the original book to make it sound like something else, that wouldn't surprise me since the original translators of the early bibles couldn't translate Hebrew to Greek or Latin worth a darn.

The Ten Commandments - there aren't actually ten of them, it all depends on just which list you refer to: Exodus 20 or 34 or Deuteronomy 5; & then really only 3 have any significance to the human condition, the rest are just endless repeats of why this god is better than their god & why this god needs this, that & the other. Oddly too, I always hear about how wonderful these little jewels of common sense are but never hear about what their penalties are for messing with them! Let's see:
Lord's name in vain? Death (Lev.24:16). Working on the Sabbath (better make sure just which Sabbath you're choosing!)? Death (Exo.31:15). Adultery? I'll bet you're getting the idea now: Death (Lev. 20:10). I would claim that the 3 Commandments that make any sense: murder, theft & adultery, apply without the remaining nonsense.

 

I don't know if it's God, but somebody must quietly tell the seventeen-year cicada, all of them at once, that it's time to finally wake up.

 

(This post NOT directed at anyone here.)

I have been reading the Bible for 32 years now. I find the following to be the truth:

1) The Bible was not meant to tell us HOW God did anything. It is not intended as a source of technical or scientific knowledge.

2) It IS intended to tell us WHAT God did, the whys of His way, etc.

Having said that, while there is no big pack of scientific knowledge in there, there will NOT be anything "wrong" in there, either. Take for example the old testament phrase, "He hangeth the earth on nothing".

Now, this was written over 2,000 years ago. It is hard to understand the phrase unless you know that:
... the earth is round, not flat.
... the earth DOES "hang" without any huge elephant, giant man or other wierd thing holding it up!

So, over 2,000 years ago, the Bible was describing what we now know is true: the earth is a round ball that somehow (magically to those minds back then) hangs with no "support".

I get very irritated when preachers/believers/etc. try to make the Bible a scientific text, because I don't see it as one. While, again, there will be nothing technically incorrect - I still say that I have found VERY LITTLE in it that is technical at all!!!!!

It just wasn't intended to be technical, it was intended to be aimed at the HEART.

 

The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everthing magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.

Makes perfect sense.

 

1.) Well, of course not. I'm refuting a previous contributor's assertion that 'scientists' had a hand in the writing.

2.) Well, he certainly seems to be just like us, designed in our image with the same jealousy & envy humans have. He's murderous, capricious & vengeful, JUST the guy I'd like to follow!

3.) He hangeth - please list just where this passage is found. I'd like to see for myself just what this is in reference to.

As to your second post: that would be an incorrect definition. The correct one would be:
Denial of the existence of God.

As to your assertion that an invisible being created all we see in 7 days (or, at least this one. BTW, stolen directly from Sumerian creation myths) I see that it makes at least as much sense as the big bang.
The big bang is our best attempt to describe how all we see around us was created. It is NOT set in stone & the whole theory can be dumped tomorrow if we find something better. Your belief that an invisible diety waved his hands & voila', instantly created everything is as not as fanciful an idea as the big bang is how?

I'm not interested in getting into this argument on this thread. I'd rather let John's comments stand where they are. If you guys are interested in carrying this no-win discussion on further I would like to, once again, suggest you take it here & stay civil:
https://www.crossfireforum.org/forum...e-general.html

 

Kurts,

Just to inform you of a little bible history, and I am not sure of your bible knowledge or history but with over 30 years in the bible and a strong opinion as yourself I agree with you that this is a no win discussion.

However let me clarify a little for you, Moses who is the author of the first 5 books of the 66 book bible (as an example), was a scientist amongst other things. As one raised in the courts of Egypt as a prince he was educated deeply in the sciences with the best education of that time. He would have been one well acquainted with the higher sciences. But regardless I won’t belabor the issue because it is apparent that you and I have different positions.

I don’t want you to accept my position just respect that someone does not agree with yours. In the end if it is about you vs. me we will waste time arguing indefinitely. (Now there’s a definition of infinity )

One last note on the commandments, there are only ten and then again there are really only 2 but that’s another discussion for infinity. But for clarification Ex 34 is not the 10 commandments but rather some of the mosaic laws guiding the people at that time in their conditions and circumstances using the principles of the 10. Note that Ex 34 denotes the 10 commandments in verse 28, and in chapter 31 vs. 18 makes it clear that they were written with the very finger of God. So obviously these are not something that someone that does not believe in God would ascribe to so I am not sure if you would agree with them anyway. And as you stated “I would claim that the 3 Commandments that make any sense: murder, theft & adultery, apply without the remaining nonsense.” It really isn’t about you or my claims as these are not what we deem good bad or indifferent, we didn’t write them.

As it is with religion and Politics these discussions get kind of personal and I have no intention or desire to make these attacks. I will bow out gracefully and say that we can agree to disagree. I have had an opportunity to meet and know people from my travels around the world with all religious persuasions and respect each person in their experience. Yes my beliefs are a key part of who I am, and feel that this is true for probably most of us. But to dialogue on these issues is always informative, and at the end of the day it is really important that we genuinely love each others as we love ourselves and treat each other with respect. If we can do this more in life because it really makes life in a sometimes sad world just that much better!

Email and forums do these types of discussions such a disservice because much is lost in translation and the dialogue is constrained. The main difference between my position and possibly many others is where my Love really comes from (God the source of Love), and when you have seen how God has changed your life and others you are quickly amazed that no amount of working on yourself to be a better person could have achieved it. As humans our love is really tainted with selfish desires and goals (look at how quickly we find love and get divorced as an example). Note we all can take phrases or contents from the bible or any book to form our opinions or agendas in life, and misquote passages to make the fit into our little package but at the end of the day, the whole body of work speaks for itself and makes it pretty clear of God’s love for His creation. What a gift!

Respectfully

Nate

 

Nate, excellent post. The writers of our Bible were in many cases learned people of their day. Many of the Psalms were written by David and Solomon, both well educated including in the sciences. But, as you point out, in what was known scientifically at that time.

A few posts ago Pizzaguy really made a critical point though. The Bible was not written to be a science text. I don't think any of us are claiming that it was intended to be a scientific tome, but what we seem to be claiming is that science and the Bible are not mutually exclusive. At times, it has appeared science refutes biblical claims, but then new scientific discoveries or theories come along that will align with the Bible. Science, through archeology, has made discoveries supporting the biblical narrative.

But, we all must remember, churchmen have made mistakes. We are all human and subject to error and failure. At times church leaders have gotten it wrong and made incorrect decrees based in inaccurate interpretation.

A few posts ago, I was trying to show that regardless of which belief we subscribed to with origins, it was based on faith, or assumptions. Well, one's position relative to the historicity of the Bible is also based on assumption. So often I hear people say elements of our Bible was stolen or borrowed from other religious texts. Well, which came first. Who stole from whom? In quickly looking up Sumerian creation belief it appears to have been formulated around the same time as the earliest writings in our current Bible used by Christians and partly by Jews. And yes, the configuration of our Bible was set many years after Jesus, but the individual books were written long before that over many centuries.

Much like Nate said, I do find value in these discussions, but only when they are kept at a civil level, and all too often that does not happen. Kurts, I really appreciated your respectful replies to John. I'm not a frequent poster here, but I am a faithful reader of this forum so feel I know many of you to a certain degree. So, I know how rancorous the political/religious debates can get. If our intent is to convince unbelievers of the errors of their ways, then yes, it is a no-win situation. I doubt John had that intent with his original post anyway, though I really shouldn't speak for him.

Ray

 

That better?

 

Ray, on the money with your post, And to echo your sentiments on John I will speak for him because he is a good guy just sharing his joy with others that are interested.

I just find it a shame that the strong language, sometimes offensive and even sometimes racially charged posts go on on this forum and when someone posts something uplifiting it ends up getting turned into an agression match.

When we really stop and look at things on a broader scope, life is soooooo much bigger than our stuff, our likes and the drama of the day. We are but a small pixel in the scrren of life and understanding our part in it takes most of us a lifetime

Thanks for your comments and lets keep this discussion civil!

Nate

 

It would be a LOT of work for the moderators, but over at thespaceport, we don't allow that. ANY reference to another poster that is off-color, insulting, offensive or considered "unfriendly" triggers moderator action.

From our TOS:

The Spaceport is a group of friends. As such, we expect everyone to treat other with respect. We recognize that even best friends sometimes get upset with each other, especially when discussing politics or religion. Please try to refrain from getting so upset that it offends others. Remember to apologize occasionally, and step back when you need to cool off.

1. Do not make personal attacks. We encourage healthy debate but if you cannot make your point without attacking a poster on a personal level then do not engage in the conversation. Attack the issues at hand, not the person posting
2. Everyone has an opinion, not everyone shares all opinions. It is possible for you to disagree with someone's opinion and still have a discussion on a topic and stay friends with that person.

Like I say, it's a lot of work for us on the "site team", but we all agree that it is worth it. I still edit a LOT of posts, and issure a few warnings each week - but that is the nature of the internet!

 

I'd be glad to! Gimme time, I'm at work. I will have to dig it up, the verse was brought to my attention by Alan Hayward's book "God Is" in 1980! I was new to the church and was questioning the Bible. I'd heard about all the 'scientific errors' in the Bible when a friend suggested that book. He (a physicist) goes thru the Bible addressing it in the eyes of a scientist. MOST of what he points out is obvious, like this passage.

It's just FINDING the passage in a volume THAT big that is the challenge.

Oh, and I loaned the book to *someone* and never saw it again - and it's out of print.

 

Kurts my good friend, As usual your logic is fairly impeccable but please do not be confused about a couple of things.

Jesus may have supposedly Risen from the dead, that is for believers to deal with. But his existance on the planet is not supposed having been documented by both Jewish and Roman scribes of the time. His cruxifiction is not fiction.

As to the use of the term scientist, perhaps he meant to refer to the intellectuals of the time as they were the scribes, the Levites, who were the acedemic elite if you will. I would agree, they weren't scientists.

The Bible is full of fiction not supportable by archeology or civil records. There is ample evidence of Noah's flood but not of the mass extinction reported. There is no evidence of Moses in any Egyption writings and they were fanatical about recording everything.

So, did Moses exist? The children of Isrreal most certainly spent time in Egypt and most certainly retook their lands in what is now Palistine. Did the great flood come and some damm fool build a big boat for his farm animals?

Much of the Bible, old testament, is (or is from) contemporainious records, much is a collecton of stories. That is what it is. The new testaments are writen accounts, not all of which are in the "official" text. Written by personal witnesses with their own biases yes, but accounts of actual events, not "supposed."

As to the science.
Science, whether theological or emperical, was and is always practised by acedemics in institutions that can fund the activity. The Early Christian church was very much involved in "science." Their pursuit was certainly biased, but not strictly so as you have suggested. By the end of the first mellinium, the stranglehold of the early church gave way to more honest, intellectual pursuit of science. Had not that happend, we would not have seen the Renaissance period in Italy.

Most all of our current institutions of higher learning got their start as religious colleges, including many that are now state universities. But as the recent Notre Dame contravercy has shown, the secular approach has become the norm in most educational matters.

To be blunt,the most secular of institutions get their funding from somewhere. A state, an industry, a philanthropist. Each has their thumb on the scale of the emperical pursuits they fund, make no doubt about it.

In other words, the answers they pursue are often found to be the answers that benefit the Benefactors.

That's a fact, and you can bank on it.


roadster with a stick

 

Thank you, all of you. I truly appreciate the sentiments, and you guys hit it on the money speaking on my behalf, so I thank you for that. Kurts and I have ZERO beef; in fact, I have utmost respect for him because of the way he has shown a polarizing viewpoint, yet has completely respected all involved.

I posted this with intent of uplifting those who share my beliefs. For my fellow Christ-followers, I wanted to encourage, bless, and open up to them. BUT, I also posted with intent of perhaps encouraging those who do not follow Christ, to entertain the notion of "what if"...

"What if" they lend their lives to Christ, even as a brief experiment? I firmly believe God would reveal Himself in that time... In a way that only that person would know. Not for show, or for display... but the subtle things. Things like, long-lost children returning with open arms, and peace within marriage, or maybe even freedom from conviction in instances of divorce, etc. Who knows? God has no limits.

And if they truly 'hated' learning about Christ and receiving what He has planned for each and every one of us, then that would be the person's choice to "return to normal" and they owe me ZERO explanation. In fact, I'd prefer to never know of it in the first place. Let THEM seek God and do so privately, so that God receives all glory and honor.

I have no issue with people respectfully asking questions... believer or not. There are two types of people in this world; sinners and saved sinners. Pursuit of Christ is not a blanket of perfection. It is instead a thirst to reveal yourself to others in a way that welcomes them into the spirit, whether it's by encouragement, teaching, or leading by example.

I thank you all, each and every one of you, for your points and questions. More so, I thank you all for the respect granted.

You guys rock.

 

Franc,

Thanks for your thoughts as well and although we will likely disagree on many of the comments you listed above, to Johns point there are several things in the bible that have been proven true. For example the red sea crossing, the chariots of pharaoh have been found in the red sea. Oh and by the way scientist explanation for the earth being a tad off its axis is ...?


The concept of science and the bible just as Ravery said they are not mutually exclusive, in fact I feel that the bible is all about science which is the study of God's love for his creation. The term science is defined as "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. " Well we should be able to agree that there is at least a little science in the Bible , either way I believe that all of creation is science and the book is founded on that is the bible so I would probably keep it on the shelf. It’s funny how science works because some those great cockamamie theories that man have come up with and that we attribute as science "like the world being flat", well some of them like that one were answered in the bible long before they even pursued that crazy "scientific" theory (Is. 40:22).


One point that I will echo with you loud and clear however is how secular (and I would add religious) institutions get their funding from somewhere. They are often biased and will pander to their benefactors. Religion has been used as a tool to manipulate and has jaded the masses. This has been more injurious than we can imagine. Much of these types of discussion are best done one on one in a forum of openness without the goal of convincing one or the other and rather working things out with a truly open (not foolishly open) mind.


Life has become more about the bottom line (money), and that line is really not that important, it should really be about each other and living a life that is fruitful and an gift to others. Just like the tree that falls in the forest and the question is does it make a sound, I wonder if the richest man or woman sitting in their house with no one on earth the share with, are they really happy?


Respectfully,


Nate

 

Is that copyrighted? Or can I use it?

Good line.


Addressing the scientific angle;
One element of string theory is that we, our reality, may be nothing more than a momentary thought in the mind of some big cosmic entity. Not exactly comforting.

What if he falls asleep or worse, changes her mind?

franc