Can you be Religous and a Scientist

[David F.]

Was Jesus born of immaculate conception? That is unprovable and so falls in the realm of Faith.

Yes, I do agree, the Bible is essentially unchanged in the past 1900 years or so (the writings were not brought together and "cannonized" until 325AD but we have evidence that the writings did not change prior to that event). I would say that is quite an astonishing feat.

Does science change? Well, no - once a truth is found, it doesn't change. Pythagoras got the triangle pretty much figured out and it's just as true today as it was then. It might be refined as Einstein refined Newton's Laws (although Newton's other findings - Calculus, Optics - do not change) but the basics do not change. 1 + 1 = 2 and I'm pretty sure this was also true 2000 years ago. The Earth was spinning around the Sun and the basic rule of F = Gmm'/r^2 was true even then, although man didn't know it yet.

Perhaps what you mean is that new truths are discovered in Science - and I might agree with you on that. This doesn't mean the truths are really new since they were just as true 2000 or 4000 years ago, but man just hadn't figured them out yet.

It just seems that the truths contained in Religion were discovered earlier than the truths of science.

 

[David F.]

There are four supernatural events which are all key to Christianity and if any of the four turn out to be false, then Christianity falls (along with, for the first two, Judaism and perhaps Islam).

First, the fall of man from the Graden of Eden must be true (can there be a Garden unless the Creation story is also true - these may be linked). It must be that sin came into the world by just one man. In order for one man to die for the sins of the world, and in order for God to be just, then the fall of just one man - Adam - must be true and he must (absolutely required) be the father of us all.

Second, God must have come down on the mountain and spoken the 10 commandments to the people (and subsequently given a copy to someone - Moses - so the people couldn't forget). Without the law, there is no sin and no reason for Christ to die for our sins.

Third, Jesus must have been born of immaculate conception. The second commandment clearly states that the sins of the fathers (not the mothers) are passed to the children to the third and fourth generation. If Jesus had a human father then he would be sinnful and must die for his own sins - and could not die for the sins of others.

Fourth, Jesus must have arisen from the dead. If there is no afterlife and we cannot follow in Jesus footsteps to rise ourselves from the dead (at the end) then there is no point in all of the Judeo/Christian doctrine. If there is nothing after death, then why bother to be good (obedient to God's Law)?​

The efforts of Athiests are not surprisingly focused at pulling down one or more of these pillars of Christian belief. These are all supernatural events and thus are without proof. All four must stand or Christianity is a farce. It is hard to see how one can believe in both Christianity and Evolution.

 

[Starman]

It just seems that the truths contained in Religion were discovered earlier than the truths of science.

David I would like you to agree that change is a universal constant.

Science will not give truth, for truth is an alternitive to lying.

Science will provide theory and fact suported by experimentation.

Science is primarily mans ability to measure things.

The Christian Religion is not scientific however it does contain alot of history and it was created by Man without the ability to change this is one of the major falts of the Bible.

Don't you think it is time that someone re-wrote the text to bring it into the 21st century after all Jesus was a Jew and if I rember correctly he did not believe everything he read and he saw that the writings were problematical to say the least. So after Jesus is dead you write a whole new text based on the Jewish text and you call it the word of Christ. In fact it is the words of many people and not of Jesus Christ. Improvment to the Christian faith is needed you could call it 21st Christianity.

So why do the Christians resist change? Could it be fear? Who was it that said the only thing you have to fear is fear itself?

 

[David F.]

There is no more to be read into the difference between 'asah and bara than there is in the English words "made" and "created" used in the KJV.

We have to keep in minde that the Bible was not written in English so, while the translation is generally good, if we want a precise definition of what it says, we must go to the original language. Nevertheless, let's look at the English dictionary* shall we:

created

Create \Cre*ate"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Created; p. pr. & vb. n. Creating.]
1. To bring into being; to form out of nothing; to cause to exist.

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. --Gen. i. 1.

2. To effect by the agency, and under the laws, of causation; to be the occasion of; to cause; to produce; to form or fashion; to renew.

Your eye in Scotland Would create soldiers. --Shak.

Create in me a clean heart. --Ps. li. 10.

3. To invest with a new form, office, or character; to constitute; to appoint; to make; as, to create one a peer. ``I create you companions to our person.'' --Shak.​

I think it would be fair to say we are using the first definition - especially since Webster even quotes the bible. However, all of the definitions refer to something which did not exist prior. Both the English word Created and the Hebrew word bara' specifically refer to something coming from nothing. It seems the translators did a good job here.

made

( P ) Pronunciation Key (md)
v.
Past tense and past participle of make.

adj.
1. Produced or manufactured by constructing, shaping, or forming. Often used in combination: handmade lace; ready-made suits.
2. Produced or created artificially: bought some made goods at the local store.
3. Having been invented; contrived: These made excuses of yours just won't wash.
3. Assured of success: a made man.​

The first/prefered definition means manufactured out of raw materials - not out of nothing. The second uses the word created but in conjuction with artificially, not supernaturally and with no hint of making something out of nothing. Just as the Hebrew word 'asha is a broad action/doing verb, so the word made is a broad action verb. Seems to fit quite well.

I think Webster does indeed indicate a difference in these two words just as there is a difference in the two Hebrew words. Protest as much as you like, but the bible does make this distinction and the distinction brings the bible into line with science. The other possibility, that the Earth, and the plants, were create before the sun, moon or stars, doesn't even make sense from any point of view - not even that of an ancient nomadic tribe.

The heavens, as seen from Earth, contain the sun, the moon and the stars so when it says, in the very first verse, that God created the heavens and the Earth, and then says in the fifth verse that there was the first day, then we must read, without putting our own ideas into the text, that the Heavens (and those things in the Heavens) and the Earth were created prior to the first period of light - the first day. In order for the Earth to be without form and for the spirit of God to move upon the face of the waters before God said "Let there be light", the Heavens and the Earth and all the water had to be there first. Not even a simple nomadic shephard could mix this up.

Perhaps you would prefer a story which says:

"God created, out of nothing, time and space and the universe in all its diversity. After all this work, God then came to a tiny speck of a planet and spent six days terraforming it and building self-sustaining molecular machines (organic computers) - information abundant life-molecules and multi-cellular structures - aquatic and terrestrial creatures, from the water and raw materials of the planet's crust. God then crowned his achievements by making His most complex organism, a homo-sapien after the same pattern of the other life He had made, and God put in this crowning achievement, an eternal spirit, like unto His own and gave it free will to choose between good and evil and to corrupt the good things He had made and to ignore Him and become Atheists - denying that their Creator ever existed."​

Somehow, I don't think this would have been apropriate for a nomadic tribe of sheep herders who couldn't even, in most cases, read or write. What God did choose to write is probably better for them - don't you think?

Bob, Silas, It seems like, when someone explains a hard passage, you would simply say "Oh, I get it" and go on... unless there is an agenda here?

* Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

 

[David F.]

I'm sorry you think I am being creative about scripture. That is certainly not my intention. I am trying to read the text exactly as it appears and to understand what that text is telling me - not any preconceived ideas or teachings form religion. If you think I am being creative (making up something which is not there) then please tell me where and I will do my best to stop - or I will try to explain why I see what you do not. I certainly do not want to be creative when it comes to reading the bible.

David I would like you to agree that change is a universal constant.

No, I don't think I will agree to this. The laws of nature do not change. Our understanding of those laws might change but the laws, the fundamental relationships between matter and energy and matter/energy structures, do not change ever in the history of the universe (since the Big Bang).

Science will not give truth, for truth is an alternitive to lying.

OK, I will accept your use of the word Truth, but then I must substitute something else in my previous posts. I used Truth to mean factual, observable items or laws which can be experimentally verified and have no other explanation (sometimes experiments may seem to validate a theory but that theory may not be the only explanation for the experimental results). A truth would be something with only one meaning or explanation - "the Earth is round and not flat." (please don't quibble about the word "round").

There are. however, other Truths - such as philosophical Truths (love and hate exist but they are not scientific - we should avoid destroying ourselves and others but I don't know how you would quantify that in a scientific formula). Many of these philosophical Truths are gathered together to form Religions. Just because these truths are not scientifically testable, does not indicate that they are not in fact Truths.

If you don't want to use the word Truth for these scientific and philosophical ideas, what word shall we use?

Science will provide theory and fact suported by experimentation.

Science is primarily mans ability to measure things.

The Christian Religion is not scientific however it does contain alot of history and it was created by Man without the ability to change this is one of the major falts of the Bible.

Once again, I don't agree with the necessity that everything changes. Everything made of matter changes slowly to energy/chaos. That is one of the Laws of Nature - but the Law itself, the Truth, does not change.

Don't you think it is time that someone re-wrote the text to bring it into the 21st century after all Jesus was a Jew and if I rember correctly he did not believe everything he read and he saw that the writings were problematical to say the least. So after Jesus is dead you write a whole new text based on the Jewish text and you call it the word of Christ. In fact it is the words of many people and not of Jesus Christ. Improvment to the Christian faith is needed you could call it 21st Christianity.

So why do the Christians resist change? Could it be fear? Who was it that said the only thing you have to fear is fear itself?

Change in Truth leads to Lies. Truth is Truth and does not change. Jesus, in fact, said that the OT scripture could not be broken, John 10:35. Jesus did not see any need to change the Truth. What Jesus saw were those (Pharisees and Sadducees - the intellectual elite of his time) trying to change the Truth, annd He fought against them, not against the scriptures.

Oh, and your quote is from FDR. The scriptures in fact say to: Fear God.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

David F.: There are four supernatural events which are all key to Christianity and if any of the four turn out to be false, then Christianity falls (along with, for the first two, Judaism and perhaps Islam).

First, the fall of man from the Graden of Eden must be true (can there be a Garden unless the Creation story is also true - these may be linked).It must be that sin came into the world by just one man. In order for one man to die for the sins of the world, and in order for God to be just, then the fall of just one man - Adam - must be true and he must (absolutely required) be the father of us all.
*************
M*W: The 'adama' symbolizes the Earth and the eve and the serpent (hwwh) symbolizes truth, wisdom, and evolution. Since the garden story is only allegorical, how can you prove this story to be true? After all, it was taken from earlier Sumerian creation stories.
*************
David F.: Second, God must have come down on the mountain and spoken the 10 commandments to the people (and subsequently given a copy to someone - Moses - so the people couldn't forget). Without the law, there is no sin and no reason for Christ to die for our sins.
*************
M*W: The Ten Commandments were composed by Moses and were only meant for the tribes he was ushering through the desert. I'm not saying that there is no other value to the Ten Commandments, I'm just saying that Moses wrote them after he thought he had seen god in a burning bush. The Ten Commandments were written for the Egyptians. It is from these Egyptians that Judaism was created.
*************
David F.: Third, Jesus must have been born of immaculate conception. The second commandment clearly states that the sins of the fathers (not the mothers) are passed to the children to the third and fourth generation. If Jesus had a human father then he would be sinnful and must die for his own sins - and could not die for the sins of others.
*************
M*W: It was Jesus' mother who was the alleged "Immaculate Conception,' not Jesus. It's sad, but true, Jesus did have an Earthly father. His name was Pandira.
*************
David F.: Fourth, Jesus must have arisen from the dead. If there is no afterlife and we cannot follow in Jesus footsteps to rise ourselves from the dead (at the end) then there is no point in all of the Judeo/Christian doctrine. If there is nothing after death, then why bother to be good (obedient to God's Law)?
*************
M*W: The only accounts for the risen Jesus were written or commissioned by Paul. Jesus was alive when they Joseph of Arimathea took him down from the cross. You are totally right, there is no point at all of the Judeo/Christian doctrine.
*************
David F.: The efforts of Athiests are not surprisingly focused at pulling down one or more of these pillars of Christian belief. These are all supernatural events and thus are without proof. All four must stand or Christianity is a farce. It is hard to see how one can believe in both Christianity and Evolution.
*************
M*W: How convenient for Christians! There are not many atheists who would take the time to try to bring christianity down. None of these four supernatural events can be corroborated with evidence which is obvious to me (an atheist with a vengence on christianity) that christianity truly DOES NOT exist. What christians believe today is Pauline christianity. It has nothing at all to do with Jesus. When a person really learns and understands Jesus, the history, the man, the rabbi, he will undoubtedly give up Paul's false christianity.

 

[David F.]

As I pointed out, all four of these are supernatural events. The only evidence is testamony. There is no scientific proof - which neither proves nor disproves the veracity of the events. This is why Christians stress faith over proof.

There is also no proof that your redactionist version if history is correct, which means you are relying on faith just as much as I am.

 

[Yorda]

Since the garden story is only allegorical, how can you prove this story to be true? After all, it was taken from earlier Sumerian creation stories.

Why do you think the story is taken from Sumerian creation stories? Only because it's the same story? Of course it's the same, because there can be only one truth. Why do they tell the same truth in the Sumerian scripts as in the Bible? Because it's not a story, it's real, even though it's symbolic! The flood in the Bible is Real. But when Noah was building the ark, there were also other "sons of god" who were building boats, because they knew that the flood would come. They fled from that land, the place where Sahara desert is now, because they knew what would happen there!! You know... the Sahara desert became "extremely dry" about 5400 years ago - the time of the flood. So the Sumerian texts tell about the same event, but with different characters. There's nothing 'supernatural' about the flood... or when Moses split the sea... or anything..!!

 

[sideshowbob]

Bob, Silas, It seems like, when someone explains a hard passage, you would simply say "Oh, I get it" and go on... unless there is an agenda here?

Actually, I thought Silas was agreeing with you - that my viewpoint is overly simplistic.

I "get" your explanation all right. I "got" it decades ago. I didn't agree with it then and I don't agree with it now. A lot of other people don't agree with it either.

You make the common mistake of assuming that if people understood what you were saying, they would agree with you. You also make the common mistake of assuming that people who disagree with you are know-nothings. A true Christian would show more respect.

As I said before, your "explanation" is unsatisfying because so much of it is personal interpretation. It is only a "hard passage" if you insist on seeing it as an accurate chronology.

 

[David F.]

Actually, I thought Silas was agreeing with you - that my viewpoint is overly simplistic.

I "get" your explanation all right. I "got" it decades ago. I didn't agree with it then and I don't agree with it now. A lot of other people don't agree with it either.

You make the common mistake of assuming that if people understood what you were saying, they would agree with you. You also make the common mistake of assuming that people who disagree with you are know-nothings. A true Christian would show more respect.

As I said before, your "explanation" is unsatisfying because so much of it is personal interpretation. It is only a "hard passage" if you insist on seeing it as an accurate chronology.

Bob, this is not a Side Show, this is truth time. If you choose to reject truth because you don't like it, then go ahead. That's God's gift to you - freewill to choose Him or to reject Him. Your rejection does not mean I am wrong.

If you think I have used "interpretation" then show me where. Unsubstantiated accusations show no respect or intellegence at all.

You already said I was mistranslating words so I went to the sources and showed you that both in the English and in the Hebrew I got the words right. Now, either give me some concrete examples of where I am wrong so we can discuss this, or run along and play.

 

[sideshowbob]

If you choose to reject truth because you don't like it, then go ahead. That's God's gift to you - freewill to choose Him or to reject Him.

I am not rejecting God. I am rejecting your interpretation of the Bible.

If you don't know an interpretation when you see one, I don't think there's much hope for you. I'll leave it to somebody with more patience to explain it to you.

"For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise." (2Co 11:19)

As I have said before, you disgrace Christianity with your arrogant attitude.

 

[David F.]

Do you then consider yourself a Christian? What do you believe?

 

[Michaelangelo]

Namaste Starman

I think it funny that in Genesis on the 1st day god created Day and Night and he seperated Day from Night yet he did not create the Sun and the Moon untill the 4th day. If he already had light and dark, day and Night then why did he have to create the Sun on the 4th day?

It is good to see that the inconsistencies are making you think!

Here is something else to consider...

Why do all the days contain good, except for day two?

(Any preacher / teacher that can't this question doesn't even have a basic understanding of the bible.)

Origen said it best...

"But all the narrative portion, relating either to the marriages, or the begetting of the children, or to battles of different kinds, or to any other histories whatever, what else can they supposed to be, save the forms and figures of hidden and sacred things? As men, however, make little effort to exercise their intellect, or imagein that they posses knowledge before they really learn, the consequences is that they never begin to have knowledge;"

Peace

 

[Silas]

Actually, I thought Silas was agreeing with you - that my viewpoint is overly simplistic.

Erm, no, Bob - if anything, since my refutation of David's interpretation comprised of a single sentence, I might have been saying that your viewpoint was overly complicated!

I "get" your explanation all right. I "got" it decades ago. I didn't agree with it then and I don't agree with it now. A lot of other people don't agree with it either.

You make the common mistake of assuming that if people understood what you were saying, they would agree with you. You also make the common mistake of assuming that people who disagree with you are know-nothings. A true Christian would show more respect.

As I said before, your "explanation" is unsatisfying because so much of it is personal interpretation. It is only a "hard passage" if you insist on seeing it as an accurate chronology.

I'm so glad you're here, saves me typing pretty much the same thing.

Bob, this is not a Side Show, this is truth time. If you choose to reject truth because you don't like it, then go ahead. That's God's gift to you - freewill to choose Him or to reject Him. Your rejection does not mean I am wrong.

If you think I have used "interpretation" then show me where. Unsubstantiated accusations show no respect or intellegence at all.

You already said I was mistranslating words so I went to the sources and showed you that both in the English and in the Hebrew I got the words right. Now, either give me some concrete examples of where I am wrong so we can discuss this, or run along and play.

But in fact, sideshowbob simply demonstrated that your attitude - that we should just take your explanation with no comment and say OIC - is pretty much unfounded. Over on another thread, spidergoat (a believer) posted part of Exodus XXI and asked what it meant (it was to do with why the Evil Bible had cited it, I guess). I posted a quick explanation that it was about the Bible's endorsement of slavery and sexism. But all I had done, in effect, was sort out the arcane 17th Century English and summarise it briefly in plain 21st Century English. What you did was take a passage which is written in fairly plain English, and interpret it in a way that was clearly nothing to do with how it was originally intended to be read, by adding words that aren't remotely there, and by providing dictionary definitions which do not particularly support your point. You also state (without even a saving "in my opinion") that the viewpoint is of someone on the waters of the earth - something the actual Genesis neither says nor implies at any point.

Whoops, I didn't mean to go into detail about why your explanation was not instantly jumped on as expressing an unrealised Truth so that we could move on. What I wanted to say was that there is actually nothing in sideshowbob's post cited above which could be construed as remotely disprespectful or insulting to you - merely disagreement and a mild complaint about your arrogance. Your post in reply, by contrast, said "Now, either give me some concrete examples of where I am wrong so we can discuss this, or run along and play." You complained that sideshowbob had not shown respect, and you respond with utter disrespect. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise Luke 6:31

 

[James R]

There are four supernatural events which are all key to Christianity...

No, just your particular brand of fundamentalist Christianity.

 

[Whip Stevens]

God said,"Let Newton be!" and all was Light.

 

[Godless]

There are many scientist who are theists; Though they leave their religion at home when they go to work!.

Godless.

 

[Whip Stevens]

Yesterday I found scribbled on a legal pad the following quote "Religion is often more open minded about science than science is about religion." Below it was the name Ghost Boots. Does any body know who Ghost Boots is?

 

[Silas]

Mankind was caught in everlasting night,
God said "Let Newton Be!" and all was Light.

It did not last,the Devil crying "Ho!
Let Einstein Be!", restored the status quo.​

Science is neither open minded nor close minded about religion. Religion is irrelevant to science. If science shows that supposedly infallible books of Religion are in fact in error, what is that to science? Science is concerned with determining facts in the areas that facts are determinable. It transpires that the origin of species and life are included within facts that are determinable. If, at the bottom, it's down to God, science simply does not have the means to determine it. Creationists attempt to deny the evidence for the non-intervention of God at the later, higher stages. Scientists have to assume a naturalistic - ie driven by the laws of physics - explanation for the initial genesis of life, although we'll probably never know the exact truth.

 

[David F.]

No, just your particular brand of fundamentalist Christianity.

I see, can you please elaborate?

I have tried to get rid of all the extra stuff (no doubt good, but still extra) and concentrate on just the essentials of Christianity. I cannot seem to get rid of any of these and still maintain Christianity. If we get rid of the Fall of Adam, then Paul's argument about "by one man sin came into the world" collapses. If we get rid of immaculate conception then Jesus would have inherited sin and must therefore die for his own sins thus not dieing for mine, and so forth.

What version of Christianity do you have in mind which denies any of these fundementals (and I may not even have all the fundementals listed but this is just what I can find). Can you describe such a liberal religion and why anyone should believe it?