Christianity Changes View

[Atothetheist]

If you use the scientific method on everything, you can't come out with any concept of beauty, love, good, or evil. Science can tell us a lot but it simply cannot answer the larger, most important questions of life; it just cannot be used on everything.

Can you tell me why not?

Science can't tell you how to act, that is true. I should have clarified. I am talking about the physical, claims of religion.

There is no bigger question that I can not answer without religion.

 

[Grazer]

Can you tell me why not?

Science can't tell you how to act, that is true. I should have clarified. I am talking about the physical, claims of religion.

There is no bigger question that I can not answer without religion.

Are you referring to science disproving miracles or them being violations of the laws of nature therefore are not possible?

 

[Mike S]

Can you tell me why not?

Science can't tell you how to act, that is true. I should have clarified. I am talking about the physical, claims of religion.

There is no bigger question that I can not answer without religion.

Science is a powerful tool for understanding the how of things, but can't answer the why. So, we can begin to understand how it is we exist, but not why. That is a bigger question that science can't answer, it can only dismiss it as being unknowable.

 

[jasoncran]

I should say I'm not surprised that they let people post this kind of stuff below. Way below.

ah jesus came to do away the torah by fulfilling its promises. he is the torah and that is written in our hearts. christians arent under the torah and we dont have to offer animal sacrifices for our sins nor follow the mosiac law.

jesus being god forgave man and didnt tell them usually to see the high priest for that sin save the lepers. and that was only to allow them back into the camp. they didnt have to dip themselves into the jordan seven times.

 

[smaller]

ah jesus came to do away the torah by fulfilling its promises.

Where did you learn that?

Matthew 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Don't you know that everything in the New was taught from the Old? They just didn't see it.

he is the torah and that is written in our hearts. christians arent under the torah and we dont have to offer animal sacrifices for our sins nor follow the mosiac law.

That is taught in the Old as well. Did you miss it?

Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

jesus being god forgave man and didnt tell them usually to see the high priest for that sin save the lepers. and that was only to allow them back into the camp. they didnt have to dip themselves into the jordan seven times.

There are many fleshly views of the Old Testament. That is what the people of the Old Covenant had and still have as well.

s

 

[empathologicalism]

The scientist.
I am one, a chemical engineer to be specific, and I once felt exactly as the young man posting, doggedly denying non-evidence based things, claiming superior rationality via the scientific method...etc.

However, the more I read the easy stuff like Hawking and similar, and some more mathy stuff about astrophysics and things, and followed those fields in Scientific American and the media, (pre-internet) you realize that the scientific method IS great and I adhere strictly to it as much as possible, logic and reason, all that.
But what it will render is a lot of sceintific inquiry that leads to a leap of faith that is couched in avoidance language, and I was embarrassed when I realized that the existence of God was well covered by questions Id pondered when I was 9 years old like "what is nothing?"..."how can something come from nothing"...no theory answers this....not one, and the one's that even remotely attempt to SEEM like they do all do the same little trick, at the end of the derived equations, they do not balance. Whats the trick? Invent a new constant OR invent the existence of some "thing" thats invisible but its presence allows the theory to hold.
Dark Matter
String Theory
Work Holes
Higgs Boson

Those are, every one, faith based things. They are the atheists god.

 

[Drew]

Interesting, please give me details.

Ok, let's deal with the unclean foods issue first.

In Mark 7, Jesus does indeed repudiate the setting aside of God’s Laws in favour of human ones. But Jesus clearly goes beyond this and overturns some of the Levitical food laws:

15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."] 17When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

Jesus really cannot be misunderstood here - he clearly states that all foods are clean. This cannot be reconciled with the Levitical food laws which clearly state some foods are unclean.

So the fact that Jesus also repudiates abandonment of the Law of Moses in favour of man-made laws must not be seen as His only point in the whole chapter. It clearly is not - in addition to repudiating such add-ons, He also declares all foods clean. And that is at variance with the Law of Moses itself, not man's distortions of it.

This may seem incoherent – if Jesus criticizes the substitution of man-made laws for Torah, surely he must be affirming Torah, mustn’t He? The answer is no. It is entirely coherent for Jesus to offer an historical critique – telling the Pharisees that they tossed aside God’s laws and replaced them with human ones – and yet go on to declare the abolition of Torah itself, as He so clearly does here. Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees does not endorse the continued applicability of Torah – He is critiquing their attitude to it in the time of its applicability, which, interestingly, comes to an end in His very declaration that all foods are indeed clean – a clear overturning of Levitical food laws themselves.

 

[Drew]

Interesting, please give me details.

On the matter of whether the Law of Moses is "eternal". (Let me know if the fonts are funny, I have trouble figuring them out).

Texts such as this one from the prophet Isaiah hint that a time will come when the Law of Moses will indeed be set aside:

What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?"
Says the LORD.
"I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
And the fat of fed cattle;
And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats.
12"When you come to appear before Me,
Who requires of you this trampling of My courts?
13"Bring your worthless offerings no longer,
(Incense is an abomination to Me
New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies--
I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly.
14"I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts,
They have become a burden to Me;
I am weary of bearing them.

The Torah contains prescriptions for sabbath observance and for performing sacrifices. This text from Isaiah suggests that those practices will indeed come to an end.

 

[chaz345]

I have gained skills to see through things. I have gained scientific knowledge about the origins of life. I am able to know the method of scientific inquiry, and have the critical thinking skills to apply it to normal things in life. I have realized the beauty of life as a complex process. I am able to accept people's differing opinions on different ideas because they have different perspectives. Whether or not those ideas are true are subject to debate.

None of these things is inherently at odds with Christianity.

 

[chaz345]

I can seek the truth, Atheism is not stating we know for sure there is no God. We are saying there is no reason to believe.

Maybe it's a perspective issue but in my experience a great many atheists do indeed state that they know for sure there is no God.

 

[Drew]

Faith is useless if you apply it to the scientific method. If you really use the scientific method on everything, you can't come out being a christian, or a muslim, etc.

What exactly are you saying here?

If you are saying that one cannot make a "scientific" argument for the truth of Christianity, I would be inclined to agree with you.

But, and this is important, that this may be so does not, in any sense, make Christianity "anti-scientific".

To agree that the truthfulness of Christianity cannot be demonstrated scientifically is simply to say that, if Christianity is "true", its truth has to be established by other means.

Do you believe that only those things that are subject to the "hypothesis - test" scientific model can be true? I think very few would hold that position - many (all?) historical events cannot be "reproduced". Does this mean they are not true. I am happy to discuss the role (and limitations) of the scientific method as a means to discern truth.

 

[Drew]

Can you tell me why not?

Science can't tell you how to act, that is true. I should have clarified. I am talking about the physical, claims of religion.

OK, let's talk about the claim of the resurrection. If I understand the scientific method properly, the hypothesis "Jesus rose from the dead" could only be verified if we somehow "tested" the hypothesis by somehow, "re-running" history and seeing what happened.

Perhaps this is not the best explanation, but I trust you realize that many things we all hold to be "true" (e.g. Washington crossed the Delaware) simply cannot be tested scientifically - we cannot reproduce this event "in the laboratory".

Yes, the claim that Jesus rose from the dead is a remarkable claim - we have no evidence in "general life" about people rising from the dead. But this is hardly evidence that it did not happen.

To try to understand your position, can you please explain precisely on what basis you reject the notion of the resurrection of Jesus?

 

[Atothetheist]

OK, let's talk about the claim of the resurrection. If I understand the scientific method properly, the hypothesis "Jesus rose from the dead" could only be verified if we somehow "tested" the hypothesis by somehow, "re-running" history and seeing what happened.

Perhaps this is not the best explanation, but I trust you realize that many things we all hold to be "true" (e.g. Washington crossed the Delaware) simply cannot be tested scientifically - we cannot reproduce this event "in the laboratory".

Yes, the claim that Jesus rose from the dead is a remarkable claim - we have no evidence in "general life" about people rising from the dead. But this is hardly evidence that it did not happen.

To try to understand your position, can you please explain precisely on what basis you reject the notion of the resurrection of Jesus?

I reject the ressurection of Christ simply because I see no compelling evidence to say that it did happen.

Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.

As for the person who says nothing can't make something. Just because science can't explain it yet, doesn't give you the right, or any reasonable idea to posit a being.

 

[Free]

I reject the ressurection of Christ simply because I see know compelling evidence to say that it did happen.

Do you accept that George Washington crossed the Delaware, as Drew claims, or that he even existed?

Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.

Such as what? What would you expect for historical events, particularly the claim that Jesus died and rose again? Is there any other evidence that can be had besides eyewitness testimony that has been written down?

 

[smaller]

I reject the ressurection of Christ simply because I see know compelling evidence to say that it did happen.

Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.

As for the person who says nothing can't make something. Just because science can't explain it yet, doesn't give you the right, or any reasonable idea to posit a being.

At the core theology deals with intangibles. Science with tangibles. They tend not to mix well. But those engaged with love and passion in science do so on a basis of theological matters.

There are matters that science can't reach that can't be put into a formula.

If christian theology says God in Christ is love and that He loves you and that we all benefit in living and reacting with each others that way, some will find and take comfort in that and live in that, and others will say, so what? Show it to me in a formula or set it before my eyes so I can see it and measure it.

They are internal matters of the heart. Won't be found in a dissection of same.

Even science bows to the concept of the infinite and can not come to the end of certain math formulas as there is no end to be had.

s

 

[Grazer]

I reject the ressurection of Christ simply because I see know compelling evidence to say that it did happen.

Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.

As for the person who says nothing can't make something. Just because science can't explain it yet, doesn't give you the right, or any reasonable idea to posit a being.

What if a case could be made that the resurrection did happen? Would you be willing to take a look at it? Please note I'm not saying I will prove it, just that I will put the case forward.

 

[Atothetheist]

What if a case could be made that the resurrection did happen? Would you be willing to take a look at it? Please note I'm not saying I will prove it, just that I will put the case forward.

Of course, if you can put a case for it. I will look at it, but again.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Atothetheist]

At the core theology deals with intangibles. Science with tangibles. They tend not to mix well. But those engaged with love and passion in science do so on a basis of theological matters.

There are matters that science can't reach that can't be put into a formula.

If christian theology says God in Christ is love and that He loves you and that we all benefit in living and reacting with each others that way, some will find and take comfort in that and live in that, and others will say, so what? Show it to me in a formula or set it before my eyes so I can see it and measure it.

They are internal matters of the heart. Won't be found in a dissection of same.

Even science bows to the concept of the infinite and can not come to the end of certain math formulas as there is no end to be had.

s

Your point?

Emotions and morals are, in my opinion, an evolutionary adaptation. They are beneficial. Brain scans can pinpoint areas that show certain human emotions, and morals.

 

[Atothetheist]

For instance, science cannot answer why the universe came into existence, the purpose and meaning of life and what happens after we die. There are many such questions science simply cannot answer.

Scientism, that science is the only means to truth, which appears to be what you believe in, is self-contradictory.


Do you accept that George Washington crossed the Delaware, as Drew claims, or that he even existed?


Such as what? What would you expect for historical events, particularly the claim that Jesus died and rose again? Is there any other evidence that can be had besides eyewitness testimony that has been written down?

The meaning of life is simple, to help your species survive. It is a evolutionary benefit, and evolution IS scientifically backed up.

I believe in washington because NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE SIGNED DOCUMENTS FROM THE MAN, but we have his tomb, his house, his quotes, his paintings, we have multiple historical documents. This is more than enough evidence.

Jesus only has the bible, and two documents. Hardly extraordinary evidence.

I never said it was the only way to truth, but the scientific method is THE BEST way to truth.

 

[Atothetheist]

The scientist.
I am one, a chemical engineer to be specific, and I once felt exactly as the young man posting, doggedly denying non-evidence based things, claiming superior rationality via the scientific method...etc.

However, the more I read the easy stuff like Hawking and similar, and some more mathy stuff about astrophysics and things, and followed those fields in Scientific American and the media, (pre-internet) you realize that the scientific method IS great and I adhere strictly to it as much as possible, logic and reason, all that.
But what it will render is a lot of sceintific inquiry that leads to a leap of faith that is couched in avoidance language, and I was embarrassed when I realized that the existence of God was well covered by questions Id pondered when I was 9 years old like "what is nothing?"..."how can something come from nothing"...no theory answers this....not one, and the one's that even remotely attempt to SEEM like they do all do the same little trick, at the end of the derived equations, they do not balance. Whats the trick? Invent a new constant OR invent the existence of some "thing" thats invisible but its presence allows the theory to hold.
Dark Matter
String Theory
Work Holes
Higgs Boson

Those are, every one, faith based things. They are the atheists god.

I highly doubt you are a scientist if you do not know what theories are, and how they can be tested. Or the data we have on Dark Matter. Are you talking about Worm Holes?

Higgs is a theorized particle to account. For th standard model. If the standard model holds up, we can infer there is a Higgs out there.

Even a fifteen yearold knows this(me) if you are who you claim you are, you should be ashamed of your ignorance and arrogance to claim they are our "gods."