Science Vs Religion
- Thread starter SnakeLord
- Start date
SnakeLord said:
Indeed, the entire Chronicles of Narnia was a masterpiece but I wonder if you ever even noticed the abundant but not so subtle references to Jesus. I highly doubt it.
>"When a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards."<
--The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
God is not limited by His act of limiting Himself for our own personal understanding, therefore I can't visualize an omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), omnipresent (always present everywhere) and perfect Creator God that couldn't utilize absolute power, constrained only by His absolute wisdom, holiness, and perfect nature to remedy any injustice perceived by a mere mortal. It's beyond dispute at our level of understanding. For mere human beings, the comprehension of absolute truth, absolute wisdom, absolute mercy, absolute justice, absolute wrath, absolute love and all other possible virtues, (in their absolute) is not within our grasp.
Indeed, the entire Chronicles of Narnia was a masterpiece but I wonder if you ever even noticed the abundant but not so subtle references to Jesus. I highly doubt it.
>"When a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards."<
--The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
God is not limited by His act of limiting Himself for our own personal understanding, therefore I can't visualize an omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), omnipresent (always present everywhere) and perfect Creator God that couldn't utilize absolute power, constrained only by His absolute wisdom, holiness, and perfect nature to remedy any injustice perceived by a mere mortal. It's beyond dispute at our level of understanding. For mere human beings, the comprehension of absolute truth, absolute wisdom, absolute mercy, absolute justice, absolute wrath, absolute love and all other possible virtues, (in their absolute) is not within our grasp.
wes morris....karl marx..socialist bastard?
i'm deeply offended. he was a great man.
anyway.....what i'm saying is that religion is a catalyst for igniting people's faith.
my grandad had a stroke...very severe one...he slumped on the ground..but chanted mantras to goddess saraswati...the hindu god of learning and speech.
and he got better. he was discharged within 2 days. doctors said he should have been paralysed but he wasn't.
i'm not saying that god came down and intervened.....i'm saying praying to god gives people faith...in a way science can't give them.
religion is more a method for people to gain courage and faith than anything else.
again i'm not talking about the educated minority here.
i'm deeply offended. he was a great man.
anyway.....what i'm saying is that religion is a catalyst for igniting people's faith.
my grandad had a stroke...very severe one...he slumped on the ground..but chanted mantras to goddess saraswati...the hindu god of learning and speech.
and he got better. he was discharged within 2 days. doctors said he should have been paralysed but he wasn't.
i'm not saying that god came down and intervened.....i'm saying praying to god gives people faith...in a way science can't give them.
religion is more a method for people to gain courage and faith than anything else.
again i'm not talking about the educated minority here.
you shouldn't take offense at my opinion of a dead guy. regardless, I think he was a terrible man. i despise socialism. it's a huge lie and a horrible idea. socialistic tendencies are good. pure socialism is a terrible horrible ghastly idea, that's another thread though.
Faith in what? Themselves? God? Why does faith in god mean anything? You mean optimism? Hehe, I know of a LOT of people who use religion to CRUSH optimism.
who's to say he wouldn't have gotten better without the hindu god? that's sheer presumption.
good for him though!
yeah, through pure bullshit.
I kind of agree, but it's funny that you have to do it based purely on bullshit. Almost doesn't seem worth it eh? Worse, in order for this bullshit to be effective in it's job.. the "victim" (just to demonize it even more) often must repeatedly spout dogmatic lies which negatively effect everyone around them. Worse than THAT even is that bullshit is horrible for the victims mind, and those which they would infect with their bullshit. Ack.
Further, why is it that everyone thinks religion is the only way to "faith"? That's simply not true. I believe the problem is that people don't really care about the "truth" because once they find some bullshit that satiates their curiosity in whatever subject, they have a tendency to shut down and assume that their "truth" is it. "Game over, truth found... screw you if you think your truth is better than my truth (which doesn't even make SENSE)."
me either.
what i'm trying to say is that....for the masses, the situation is sort of like...ignorance is bliss.
god and religion, is the easiest way for the uneducated man to have faith and conviction in himself.
god is basically a comfort barrier.
it's easier for the uneducated majority to have unwavering faith in god...rather than harnessing their faith themselves.
god and religion, is the easiest way for the uneducated man to have faith and conviction in himself.
god is basically a comfort barrier.
it's easier for the uneducated majority to have unwavering faith in god...rather than harnessing their faith themselves.
So science has done remarkable things for man and given him knowledge about his world. Modern man has manipulated the laws of the universe and its materials to his benefit. Modern medicine has made it possible for almost everyone to live a long and healthy life. Question is, where is science in the decision to allow a homeless person to live longer? Where is science in the decision to send food to people who are starving? Science may be able to provide ways to do it, but WHY do it? Science does not give us reasons to be compassionate to others who are less fortunate. Nor does it give reasons why send food to the starving and the homeless.
Science may give man knowledge of what to do to extend life, but religion gives the reasons why life is valuable. Man has a great responsibility with every scientific advancement he makes. How he exercises and controls the results of his scientific advancements will depend on how much he values life.
(It is interesting to note that the most scientifically advanced nation was founded on Christian values and the majority of their populace believes in God.)
Science may give man knowledge of what to do to extend life, but religion gives the reasons why life is valuable. Man has a great responsibility with every scientific advancement he makes. How he exercises and controls the results of his scientific advancements will depend on how much he values life.
(It is interesting to note that the most scientifically advanced nation was founded on Christian values and the majority of their populace believes in God.)
Well, I'm not sure education is really the thing, maybe it's the thirst for knowledge in those people that is lacking, or the ability to attain/retain it if they DO seek it... regardless, for the most part I agree. I am however somewhat peeved when the religious right's morality is mandated by the force of their ignorant numbers. Further, I'm fundamentally annoyed when they preach to me like their opinion regarding religion is something that should matter to me too. *shrug*
I would say that regardless of my annoyance, things are exactly as they should be... by definition.
There has to be a reason other than our humanity? Saving lives, feeding the starving etc do not rely on religion or god. Religion and god will give an individual his own reasons to be humane but some can be humane without questioning the sky.
If you need a reason to be nice to people fair enough. Some of us don't.
Would i care is more to the point.
What's beyond our mere mortal understanding is whether a god even exists or not. As such i dislike people just assuming there is and never hearing a word otherwise. By the same token we shouldn't just say there isn't either. What we must accept is nobody knows- so there might be, there might not be. Nobody is in a position to tell me im a sinner, that i need to repent, or that my life would be better of as a christian. You don't know that, and that's a fact.
Maybe i do, maybe i don't.... Just accept whichever you want to believe, same as usual.
Before throwing something out onto the world science makes sure something works. It involves theory, extreme testing and then availability to the world. For example medicines- tested for months if not years then given to people when they know everything about it, the side-effects and whatever else.
Religion has no substantial proof or evidence and just throws it out to the public.
If you don't yet understand what i'm saying i'll try to put it in simple terms:
I don't agree that something that has no fact, no proof, no real basis be spread among people. You wont know until it's too late if it's the wrong thing to do. The simple fact anyone is in here debating, including religious against religious shows there is no proof. Everyone must be aware of that. Find the facts then you know exactly what you're dealing with. Until that time everything is mere heresay and you could be causing more harm than good, even if you think you're doing good- you might not be. Get the point yet? Probably not.
Pure heresay. There's nothing to prove there even is a god. That's a fact.
If you've not worked that out by now not even god could help you.
Conflict is 100000000 different religions all believing they are right, everyone else is wrong. Conflict is not my post stating religion should take a leaf from the book of science.
Looks like you require diagrams for every post. The bible is full to the brim of mass destruction but the saving of one or two people. Noah, Lot and so on and so forth. Each time god has destroyed and killed mass numbers and let one or two 'believers' live. Religious institutions adopt this mannerism. This forum is packed to the brim also with those who believe they are saved above others who have not accepted christ or not accepted buddah or whoever. It is all about pitting yourself against an enemy. The enemy is he who doesn't agree as you do. Ok, you don't burn their villages or kill their wives- but the more humanitarian style is to attempt to persuade someone into your specific belief, to help them too be saved.
Well to do things your way.... tell me where in my writing i said that.
However science and religion are two completely different things. One requires research and proof, the other only requires faith, nothing more.
That is because these are not questions for science; these are questions for philosophy, specifically ethics.
Except that argument from authority is really a very weak foundation upon which to build any philosophy, especially ethics.
No, you have it backwards here. Our ethics and values determine how we exercise the power that science has given us. Seeing as that nations and leaders have primarily operated under at least the facade of religion and noting the results perhaps it is time for religion to either adapt or give way to a more stable and rational foundation of values and ethics.
The U.S. has not always been the most scientifically advanced nation nor is there really any reason to suppose that it will remain so. At various times in history Greece, Rome, China, Sumer, Egypt, and Persia have held that position. That the U.S. does so now really has little to nothing to do with its citizen's religious beliefs.
~Raithere
What are you talking about, man?
Science doesn’t do shit, people do. What is your point?
Love has no substantial proof or evidence.
So you think our lives are lived on facts, do you?
The point I get, is that you are using your energy, to destroy something you do not understand.
Then why use the bible to show, that from your perspective, God selects people? If you are going to argue from the biblical point of view, then you must accept the whole thing, not just isolated events.[/quote][/b]
No, conflict is when two opposing sides clash. You are no different from people who believe they are right and everyone else is wrong, your brainwashing is now based in technology, instead of a religious institution, that’s all.
Maybe not, but ignorance can lead to conflict, and you display ignorance by only accepting the modern description of science, as science, couple that with the fact that you have no understanding of spirituality, but claim to have, well………
Looks like you’re trying to wiggle out of answering my questions.
But where is luck mentioned? Was there a reason for this anihilation?
“Each time” sounds like quite a few, could you pinpoint where this occurs. As we all know about Noah, there is no need to mention that.
[/b/]
Accepted Buddha, LOL!!!
You’re amusing.
Okay, you say this forum is full of this type of tyranny, can you show 5 threads, posts, or replies, by christians or muslims, where you are regarded as an enemy.
Have I tried to persuade you?
It is not that you have said it directly, but it is very difficult not to come to that conclusion.
So, can a person, who believes in God, be a scientist?
Love
Jan Ardena.
I guess that's the only way you can make yourself look intelligent, by picking on other peoples grammatical errors...
The same thing could be said about religion.
Your television, computer, stove, phone, modem, electricity lines, etc. are all science. And you are saying that science doesn't do shit???
NICE TRY! You try using that petty point to support the existence of a higher being. Let me point out that love is an emotion. Even so, love CAN be felt, both by the person and the receiver. Love can also be physical, thus it can be testable and proven. Love may be fighting and dying for a child - The very act is proof of love.
Nice try, again. Yes, are life in lived mainly on FACTS. Fire is hot, so I don't touch it. FACT. I go to work, I get money. FACT. I go to school, I get a better job. FACT.
Even things that we don't live our lives on are backed up by evidence and proof.
You are critizing this person, and I would like to join in. He should not waste his energy trying to destroy something that doesn't exist.
Prove that the Bible is false, and you prove that the Christian God is false. By breaking down the Bible, and God's idealogy and personality, we can prove whether he really exists.
We accept modern science because it is logical, testable, and has evidence to support it. We accept modern science because it gives results, and can be used to aid humanity.
Mountainhare,
Exactly, science and religion are only words which describe, they have no life.
From my perspective it is the existence of the Supreme Being that supports the existence of love.
So love is not physical, it cannot be tested in a laboratory, that is nonsense. What may be tested is the bodies actions and reactions to emotions.
Love
Jan Ardena.
Exactly, science and religion are only words which describe, they have no life.
Did “science” make these objects, or people?
You think love is a petty point?
From my perspective it is the existence of the Supreme Being that supports the existence of love.
I agree, so quit telling people who genuinely understand love, through firsthand experience, what love is.
The act can be verified, mainly by the object of that love, and to some degrees by observers who have experienced giving and receiving love, the act alone is not proof of love, as you said, it can be felt, the only proof is the intention of the lover.
So love is not physical, it cannot be tested in a laboratory, that is nonsense. What may be tested is the bodies actions and reactions to emotions.
Well do it then, lets break it down, this is what I’m talking about…..bring it on.
Okay, you accept modern science, that’s cool, I also accept modern science based on supportable evidence, anybody in their right mind would, but it cannot be the answer to everything, by its very nature. And it is not the only aid to humanity.
Love
Jan Ardena.
No no, when the religious man says god is all loving etc etc a non religious man is at total right to point out the bad side. I can use the bible to debate with you because you believe the bible to be the word of god, not me. Once there's proof of the existence of god then i can read every last word of the bible but until then i use it to point out flaws and opposites in what you say. For example: Truthseeker said: "There are no rules to get into heaven, god is all loving". As a rebuttal someone can point out from the same texts he uses to show that to be wrong. The minute i did that i heard: "Oh that's just mistranslation or metaphor". I don't have to 'accept' anything but if you argue in context of a book surely i can use the same book to show things other than that which you claim.
For the umpteenth time now all i said was religion should take a leaf out of the book of science. Science works for all mankind- religion is very individual based. I think if god is real and religion is worthy there would be no need for common threats of burning in hell and so on.
Is there ever a reason to mass annihilate your own children? I don't think so.
Lot and his wife- oh until she turned around to name but one. I assume you've read the bible and as such would probably know 'each time'. It's he manner with which god treats mankind that frankly i find appaling. The bible is full to the brim with destruction and death or childish threatening by gods hand. He works for one person and against others. Another example would be Abraham. Abraham moved to Gerar and told the king, Sarai was his sister instead of his wife. The king took his sister whereby god said: "... you are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman" The king explained his innocence and that he thought she was Abrahams sister, God replies: "Yes i know you did this with a clear conscience, and so i have kept you from sinning against me" Here he says he knows the king was innocent but made the original threat anyway. The says sinning against him? I would have said Abraham was the sinner for lying that his wife was his sister and allowing the king to end up in such a position. However god said Abraham was a prophet and threatened the king instead even though he already knew the mans innocence.(Genesis 20). A bit earlier it explains why Abraham told them Sarai was his sister. He feared for his own life.
Why is that amusing?
Yep. Will paste them in a new post.
Have you ever promoted christianity to anyone? It wouldn't matter what you said to me unless you had factual data to substantiate it. You might have, you might not have- i do not recall.
Meaning i have not said that, you're just making your own groundless interpretation.
They can do as they please- i don't give rules.
I'll get to the rest later.
Last edited:
annoying theists
People using SCIENCE made these objects.
Love is basically made up of three parts: Passion, committment, and intimacy.
All three can be tested.
Passion: The couple touch each other
Committment: The couple have stayed or will stay with each other for a long time. They are dedicated.
Intimacy: The couple are close, as in friends.
Now, which love do you want to prove exists??? That's right, there are quite a few types of love (unlike god, who does not exist)
So, you can test if love exists, by testing if the couple are friends, have sexual activity (not necessary), and are committed to each other, not ditching the other no matter what.
Another theist claim bites the dust...
Go to these links, and enjoy!
http://www.truthbeknown.com/biblecontradictions.htm
http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html
Humans never learn from their mistakes in history. Who made the mountains? God. Later it was discovered that tectonic plates pushing against one another made mountains. Who makes lightning? God. Later it was discovered that particles in the air and on the ground make lightning. You see, we get nowhere by labelling our ignorance "God". When a doctor sees a tumour on a human being, he does not write on it "God's work, don't touch"
People using SCIENCE made these objects.
Obviously you have never done physcology...
Love is basically made up of three parts: Passion, committment, and intimacy.
All three can be tested.
Passion: The couple touch each other
Committment: The couple have stayed or will stay with each other for a long time. They are dedicated.
Intimacy: The couple are close, as in friends.
Now, which love do you want to prove exists??? That's right, there are quite a few types of love (unlike god, who does not exist)
So, you can test if love exists, by testing if the couple are friends, have sexual activity (not necessary), and are committed to each other, not ditching the other no matter what.
Another theist claim bites the dust...
The contradictions in the Bible would take up FAR to much space on this forum...
Go to these links, and enjoy!
http://www.truthbeknown.com/biblecontradictions.htm
http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html
Sure it can. Just because science doesn't know every answer yet, because humans minds are still evolving, doesn't mean we have to give credit to a higher being.
Humans never learn from their mistakes in history. Who made the mountains? God. Later it was discovered that tectonic plates pushing against one another made mountains. Who makes lightning? God. Later it was discovered that particles in the air and on the ground make lightning. You see, we get nowhere by labelling our ignorance "God". When a doctor sees a tumour on a human being, he does not write on it "God's work, don't touch"
A CHALLENGE!!!
Hehehe, I have a challenge for Jan, and any other theist here.
We all agree that if Christ was never resurrected, then Christianity is false???
Good. Now, the challenge is, to tell me what happened on Easter. I don't need proof, or evidence, or anything like that. I just have one condition.
In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.
Now, to help you write your 'account', I have taken some main points from Luke, Mark, Matthew, John and Paul. This will help you write your story...
What time did the women visit the tomb?
Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)
Who were the women?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?
Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
Matthew: No (28:2)
Mark: Yes (16:4)
Luke: Yes (24:2)
John: Yes (20:1)
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)
Where were these messengers situated?
Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
What did the messenger(s) say?
Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)
Did the women tell what happened?
Matthew: Yes (28:8)
Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
John: Yes (20:18)
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
John: No (20:2)
When did Mary first see Jesus?
Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
Matthew: Yes (28:9)
John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
Did the disciples believe the two men?
Mark: No (16:13)
Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
What happened at the appearance?
Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Where did the ascension take place?
Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
John: No ascension
Paul: No ascension
Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)
Enjoy Christians!
Hehehe, I have a challenge for Jan, and any other theist here.
We all agree that if Christ was never resurrected, then Christianity is false???
Good. Now, the challenge is, to tell me what happened on Easter. I don't need proof, or evidence, or anything like that. I just have one condition.
In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.
Now, to help you write your 'account', I have taken some main points from Luke, Mark, Matthew, John and Paul. This will help you write your story...
What time did the women visit the tomb?
Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)
Who were the women?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?
Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
Matthew: No (28:2)
Mark: Yes (16:4)
Luke: Yes (24:2)
John: Yes (20:1)
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)
Where were these messengers situated?
Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
What did the messenger(s) say?
Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)
Did the women tell what happened?
Matthew: Yes (28:8)
Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
John: Yes (20:18)
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
John: No (20:2)
When did Mary first see Jesus?
Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
Matthew: Yes (28:9)
John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
Did the disciples believe the two men?
Mark: No (16:13)
Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
What happened at the appearance?
Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Where did the ascension take place?
Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
John: No ascension
Paul: No ascension
Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)
Enjoy Christians!
MooseKnuckle
Registered Senior Member
mountainhaire-
Its psychology....not physcology
Its psychology....not physcology
MooseKnuckle
Registered Senior Member
Jan-
Yes its true that the concept of love exists, no doubting that. But you see, the concept of love can exist independently of God. Basically the notion of a supreme being is not needed to understand "love".
Love can be looked at as a effect of common social interaction throughtout our history. We Can look at this issue through the eyes of natural selection
Love , like hate, exists only by virtue of its past contribution to genetic proliferation. At the level of the gene, it is as crassly self-serving to love a sibling, an offspring, or a spouse as it is to hate an enemy.
You can look at love like you look at hunger. Both feelings are designed to motivate one to a certain action. It is beneficial for the organism to have these feelings innately imbedded into the composition of the mind. This is because emotions are a great deciding factor in one's actions and if these emotions can be administered without much conscious thought and sometimes on an instinctual level than the varying brain processes used for decision making can be on a convienent sub-conscious level. This would allow for unconscious analysis. When someone is hungry they do not consciously examine their need for nutrients, instead the mind produces a feeling (hunger) that is sucessfull in leading to the desired activity- eating. Love can be looked at on this very same level. Love allows one to engage in behaviors necessary to interact with people and to sustain relationships that are beneficial for one's survival and genetic legacy.
Yes its true that the concept of love exists, no doubting that. But you see, the concept of love can exist independently of God. Basically the notion of a supreme being is not needed to understand "love".
Love can be looked at as a effect of common social interaction throughtout our history. We Can look at this issue through the eyes of natural selection
Love , like hate, exists only by virtue of its past contribution to genetic proliferation. At the level of the gene, it is as crassly self-serving to love a sibling, an offspring, or a spouse as it is to hate an enemy.
You can look at love like you look at hunger. Both feelings are designed to motivate one to a certain action. It is beneficial for the organism to have these feelings innately imbedded into the composition of the mind. This is because emotions are a great deciding factor in one's actions and if these emotions can be administered without much conscious thought and sometimes on an instinctual level than the varying brain processes used for decision making can be on a convienent sub-conscious level. This would allow for unconscious analysis. When someone is hungry they do not consciously examine their need for nutrients, instead the mind produces a feeling (hunger) that is sucessfull in leading to the desired activity- eating. Love can be looked at on this very same level. Love allows one to engage in behaviors necessary to interact with people and to sustain relationships that are beneficial for one's survival and genetic legacy.