JM, I don't think you should have introduced scripture to support your stance in a debate where people don't believe in the veracity of that scripture in the first place. Other than that you are fighting your corner pretty well.
How does science explain gravity? This is what scientists can't find; we've been looking for the reason behind gravity for years. Maybe God is the answer, maybe not, but this is what I have been thinking about over the past few months. I might give those books a read Mick, I'm really looking forward to the A2 Philosophy course where the existence of God is examined. It's important to think about different views, so you can see where other people are coming from.
OK, I was just showing that there was an answer for that particular argument, and that it wasn't just being swept under the carpet when the scriptures were written.
Do you believe that the New Testament can be taken literally? Are you aware that the earliest of the Gospels was written 60 years after the events it describes? That's like me writing a history of the Second World War with no access to film footage but only by interviewing Chelsea pensioners. To further muddy the waters, you have to bear in mind that this document was written 2000 years ago. Reading Shakespeare without side notes is difficult enough and that's less than 500 years old. You have the additional problem that Jesus spoke Aramaic. To get to the modern English version of the New Testament it's been translated 3 times: Aramaic > Classical Greek > Latin > English. I'm bi-lingual and am acutely aware how often confusion can arise when translating between 2 modern languages. If you think the New Testament isn't riddled with mistranslations, you're kidding yourself. Add to that that the Council of Nicea rejected large chunks of the New Testament in 325 AD because it contradicted current doctrine. There is also evidence that sections of the NT have been altered or hidden since then for political reasons. Given all of the above, I don't see how any reasonable person would chose to: i) base their life around what was written in such a book ii) try to use such a book as evidence for anything
Scientists are looking at the very essence of gravity right now. There has been no evidence of a spiritual being so far. Just like in all scientific experiments over the past 500 years there has not been one scrap of evidence of God. Quite the contrary actually. The more science advances so the existence of a God decreases. What you're doing is trying to fit God into the ever decreasing areas of science which have yet to be fully explained. It comes across as clinging to hope. Faith if you will.
If you're talking about the language barrier, Catholic bibles are translated directly from the original text, only they have the words 'Im Obstrum' in he front cover. It's the most reliable source we have of the life of Jesus. If you actually read it, it doesn't contradict. I know that parts were changed in the Council of Nicea, but I don't know enough about it to talk about it properly.
I can see where you're coming from, the gravity thing was just me putting two and two together. I welcome scientific fact, things that have been prove, but if you look at the cutting edge particle physics, it requires as much faith as belief in a God.
Oh well. I've got to go now. It's been a refreshing change to have a sensible and interesting discussion (well all things being relative!) on here that wasn't hijacked by the usual bigoted nonsense. Later lads and lassies!
Fair points squiggler. i don't think JM is taking it literally and I think he's hunting down every argument put to him when he has already made a reasonable case. That being that his faith is his own and he isn't pushing anyone in any direction, science and religion can coexist comfortably. i don't think he needs to go any further than that. i) the bible (NT in particular) is a heavily edited work in the first place and people have placed different interpretations on different elements over time. This is why the council of Nicea sat in the first place and why there was a schism in the 10th century, why the reformation took place and why there have been so many Christian churches formed over the last few hundred years. slight doctrinal and slight organisational differences but the central tenets of them all remain the same. ii) people aren't looking for evidence.
What original text? You speak as if the New Testament was one document. It's a collection of the writings of several different people from different places, and separated by many years.
You know enough JM, you are just talking about the bible rather than the faith it describes. You don't need to.
The original compilation of texts put forward in the Council of Nicea, that made the first Bible. Also, not just the Gospels, but the collection of letters that St. Paul wrote to the various cities around Europe are very interesting; it's the basis for modern Christianity. You're right of course, it's not one document, I'm just saying 'The New Testament' because it's easier than saying 'The collection of texts, letters and accounts written by believers in Jesus after His death'
Gravity is explained by the fact that particles are attracted to each, the more particles the bigger the attraction. It doesn't explain why particles are attracted to each other, but still to throw a god in there to explain everything we don't understand is ludicrous. On the subject of the New Testament and the Theory of Evolution being compatible with each other - they simply are not. The New Testament reasserts creationism several times, both Jesus and all the Apostles affirm the authority, historicity and accuracy of Genesis dozens of times. We have absolutely no provision in there for scientific certainties, such as the Dinosaurs, several types of human breeds including the Neanderthals and the billions of years the planet existed before humans sprang up. If it was the intention of god to create humans in his own image, as an all powerful omnipotent being he certainly went about it in the most convoluted way. To create spores which spent billions of years fighting with each other until one final morphed into his own image is surely a weird way of going about your business, especially when you have the ability to instantly create wee Paddy and Patricia without having to throw asteroid strikes in there to get rid of the pesky dinosaurs.
god is actually the sun ........ every religion speaks of the son of god rising bringing light to the world ........the sun rises every morning bringing light
What you are saying here is that you're unable to defend what is written, and we just need to take your word for it.
Well, everything is relative. Maybe this stage of humanity is as close to omnipotent as you can get, we could destroy all life on Earth if we wanted to. Maybe everything had to grow from spores and amino acids because it was the only way to do it; it's cited often by religious authorities that God is timeless, or has no concept of time, that's just earthly. I know, it sounds a bit like bullshit, but to me it makes sense.
Mick, that requires a literal interpretation of the text and to dismiss the human frailties of the NT authors and editors to lend doctrinal credence to their writings.
