False Christians?

Either a Christian rejecting science or a scientist rejecting spirituality would be wrong. Both would be narrow minded to some extent. I'm no champion of science, but it's obvious that the criticisms of science advanced by Christians are false. EG. the idea that for some reason God planted a lot of dinosaur bones in the earth and so on.

 

Again, you've not provided a shred of evidence to support your claim that the so-called "Gnostic Gospels" are more reliable than the Christian Bible. I've cited evidence to the contrary, and you've simply ignored it.

 

Yawn...

I don't think either are that reliable.

 

in order for a true christian to be true to his god... he would have to be anti-progress on every level... does anyone not remember the whole give up all your worldly possessions and follow him by faith alone passage? well i guess not on this forum or you wouldnt have a computer to bitch on!

 

I'll take that as ironclad affirmation.

Side note:
You should tremble in fear at the state of my knowledge on the subject of religious engineering, brocktoon.

You would do well to bring your own up to par.

 

HuckFinn,
"I seriously doubt his ability..."

Is that not YOUR definition of a false christian? Doubt in your god?
Limitations to omnipotence?

" I also find no reason at all to suspect him or his disciples of such grand deceit. Not only is this suggestion an unwarranted character assassination, it's also completely illogical. What could have possibly motivated them to stage such a massive deception, when it only brought them intense persecution and deat?"

History gives reason- as stated, crucifixion was a commonly used NON-FATAL punishment.
As for motivation...
nearly 2,000 years later, a world wide war came to stop for a day becuase of this magnificent feat of social engineering. Or do you "doubt his ability" to habor such a lofty goal as the desire to make millions of people's lives just a little bit better? And what of the millions of non or casual believers who are a little nicer, a little kinder, for a couple of weeks each winter?
Give the man credit for his accomplishments!

"Their lives would've been much easier if they'd recanted their story, which at least one of them would've done if it were a fabrication."

What of those whose gospels do not survive?
What might Peter say?


"His Gospel includes plenty of supernatural elements pointing to Christ's deity."

A blank check of a statement. What examples? Where?

"You've provided no objective historical or textual support for your opinions. Are they based on anything more than personal preference?"

I have, and no, they are not.
But possibilities are to be investigated, whereas blind belief rest un-examined.


"However, you don't seem very interested in the totality of his message."

It appears that you are the one failing to see a gestalt here. Your fixation on a supernatural belief system hides the life significance of Jesus from your reason. Open your mind.

 

No.

Science does not reject religion, because religion has not yet fallen under the purview of Science.
Nothing to experiment with or to quantify.

And ignore brocktoons false history and definition of science.

Christianity has been fighting against the advancement of knowledge for many hundreds of years. Gallileo spoke aloud before being forced to recant- how many others feared to speak at all?

Even now, there are brocktoons in the world who fight science and the advancement of knowledge with lies and misrepresentation, presenting there religion as science and science as religion.

No matter- it still moves!

 

I have found that the scientists I relate the best to are spiritual, like Einstein, for example. He has been quoted many times referring to God or miracles in a positive way.

On the other hand, Carl Sagan, whom I have read, and have respect for his vast knowledge, is not one of my favorites. His writing comes across to me very flat.
And once I read his views on spirituality, which I took to be quite confidently dismissive and derisive, I thought to myself 'now I know why he sounded so dull.' It is cuz he differs from me regarding the miraculous nature of life.
Science and spirituality, love and logic, need to be together, for me.
It is not a case of one or the other, in my view.

 

First off.. whoever said that Crucifixon was typically a 'Non-fatal' punishment is the winner of the most ignorant and blatantly stupid comment in HipForums 2004 year end 'Stupid Moron' awards.

Please tell me it wasnt Geckopelli who pulled that blatant ignorance out of his ass - because Im really getting sick of him winning every year!?

To the One and Only Geckopelli's Second most backwards thinking comment about 'Christianity' fighting against Science.. ROFLMFAO is an old Skool reply that comes to mind!

BTW Gallileo WAS A CHRISTIAN, Galilieo did NOT PROVE the Earth revolved around the Sun (although it turned out he was accidently right) and he WAS NEVER MADE TO RECANT.
In fact, Galilieo STATED THE BIBLE IS INERRANT got into a personal grudge-match with his old friend THE POPE.

Annnyway...

Modern Science CAME FROM A CHRISTIAN WORLD VIEW.

Dr. M Bumbulis (A Real Scientist) explains how modern science (not just knowledge but the inquiry and testing of the how, why and whats) came to be in the midst of a world at the 'Peak' of Christianity:

The founders of modern science were all bunched into a particular geographical location dominated by a Judeo-Christian world view.
I'm thinking of men like Louis Aggasiz (founder of glacial science and perhaps paleontology);
Charles Babbage (often said to be the creator of the computer);
Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method);
Sir Charles Bell (first to extensively map the brain and nervous system); Robert Boyle (father of modern chemistry);
Georges Cuvier (founder of comparative anatomy and perhaps paleontology); John Dalton (father of modern atomic theory);
Jean Henri Fabre (chief founder of modern entomology);
John Ambrose Fleming (some call him the founder of modern electronics/inventor of the diode);
James Joule (discoverer of the first law of thermodynamics);
William Thomson Kelvin (perhaps the first to clearly state the second law of thermodynamics);
Johannes Kepler (discoverer of the laws of planetary motion);
Carolus Linnaeus (father of modern taxonomy);
James Clerk Maxwell (formulator of the electromagnetic theory of light); Gregor Mendel (father of genetics);
Isaac Newton (discoverer of the universal laws of gravitation);
Blaise Pascal (major contributor to probability studies and hydrostatics);
Louis Pasteur (formulator of the germ theory).

These are the GRAND DADDIES of what anyone calls 'Science'.
Geckopelli or I could not so much as say the word 'Science' without owing it to these guys!

Dr. Bumbulis addresses the unfounded and unwarranted 'story' used to explain away the Christian world view of Science's Fathers:


Of course, the cynics would claim these men were not *really* Christians. That is, they really didn't *believe* in Christianity, but they professed such beliefs because they did not want to be persecuted.
This is the "closet-atheist" hypothesis.
But it doesn't square with the facts.
Many of the founders of modern science were also very interested in theology.
If you read Pascal, this is obvious.
Mendel was a monk.
Newton often said his interest in theology surpassed his interest in science.

Link for Geckopelli to deliberately avoid considering http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5372815

Scholars such as Oppenheimer and Whitehead affirm that it was the Christian world view that gave birth to science.
Specifically, the Christian views of man and of nature during the Renaissance and the Reformation were the spark that ignited the fires of science.

Earlier I mentioned Werner Von Braun who like Newton was a Creationist but since BlackG brought up Einstien I thought this would be appropriate:

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2).
Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists."
This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

What say you now Gecko?

 

Obviously you have read a different account of the life of Galileo than myself, because I understand that he was most definitely made to recant, after being threatened with physical torture if he refused.

 

Hopefully someone here has a more in-depth account of Galilieo's clash with the Pope?
My recollection (and I guess we could google this) is that he ended up keeping his conclusions to himself.
This is not the same as 'Recanting'.
The next thing about this - it seems to me Galilieo did NOT have enough reason to believe the Earth rotated around the Sun anyway.

Yes.. years later a Christian Scientist (not the cult) DID demonstrate it was this way.. but Galilieo was right by accident?

Galileo was a Christian.
The Sun revolving around the Earth is NOT a Christian teaching or anything from our scriptures.
Galileo's main problem is that he and the Pope were aquaintences and The Pope just stuck with the Roman 'Left-over' theory on the Galaxy.
Galileo published his results and made fun of Pope dude.

Bitter Rivalry ensues.

This ridiculous Propaganda story about the Valiant Truth-loving Naturalist being persecuted by Rich Old White Evil Christians is just that - Propaganda.

This similar re-writing of history goes on in Uni's with Christopher Columbus being described as a Noble Naturalist who is 'Scoffed at' by 'Religious' fools who believe the Earth was Flat (falsely described as a Biblical teaching).

So ya.. if anyone has a REAL documented history of Galileos run in with the Pope - post away.

I just know its not the 'Atheist' version is all.

 

Well actually some of the science is already perverted.
The God of the bible states that mans wisdom is foolishness to Him. Because God is all knowledge. And because He alone knows the greater truths, some of our theories must look pretty stupid.
I think man has done many wonderful things, yet often to rule out God man imbraces theories, and will try and state them as facts.
It's because of Christianity that often there is progress.
The new age that is coming will involve the return of Christ. That is why the East Gate in Jerusalem is still sealed, that is why the Jews are back in Israel at this time.

 

definition of a false cristian, to me.
One who claims to know the facts about jesus and god, and then proceeds to rant at all who do not see the facts they are claiming are unequivocally facts. no one alive for the last 1000 years can speak of jesus in terms of facts.
and that's a fact jack.

 

What facts are you talking about.... PLEASE be specific.

 

I wasn't referring to any specifics, just the many times that I have read many who refer to their faith in God, and bible interpretations as facts.

I think it was you that said God will always be a mystery to me. If it was you, that sounds very certain, so how do you know?

In the definition I posted, you were not being singled out as the target.

 

There is no reason why Science and Christianity or Religion for that matter can not coincide. This, "Either/Or" attitude is annoying. I am Catholic--I beleive in Evolution. There is no reason why God could not have made earth, nature, and evolution.

 

BlackGuardXIII
Science and spirituality, love and logic, need to be together, for me.
It is not a case of one or the other, in my view.

I just wanted to paste that quote of mine to show my belief is much like yours.

Re: the either/or mentality.
My conclusion as to why so many cannot grasp the concept that it is not an inevitable choice of one over the other.
It is ego, in my view, to do so.
The path I admire is trying to find common ground, and to look past differences, as much as possible.
What I see in epidemic numbers is people trying to find, or even making up reasons to differ.
It does not bode well, unless we start to respect that others can differ, and not be wrong.

 

Well evolution is just another unfounded religion, which is based on no evidence. It is because of this many scientist are now starting to come forward and state that this is the case. In the past any scientist who did not follow the party line would find their funding would mysteriously dry up and disappear. The straw that really broke the camels back was the fact that after one hundred years of searching, they were never able to find even one fossil which demostrated trans-species. With millions of years of evolution these fossils should of been easy to spot. Yet they never found even one. This is just one of the nails that is sealing the evolution box.

 

Well Christians believe in dinosaurs and there are passages in scripture that even mentions them. Which I found to be of some intrest because we are speaking of thousands of years not millions. Also the fact that the bones can be found proves they existed. The problem with those who believe in evolution is that the fossil record shows no trans-species. Yet some would say to be a good scientest especially when it comes to evolution, you must believe in it, even when there is no evidence to support it. They have had over one hundred years to find a fossil showing trans-species and they can't. They say there are millions of years of fossils, and they can't even find one to prove their theory?

 

Well the bible said that Jerusalems east gate would be sealed until Christ returns. The gate is sealed and the bible said the prophecy would not fail. The moslems found out about the prophecy and tried to break through the gate twice and failed, just as the bible said they would. The bible also stated that at the time of the end the Jews would return to their land and retake Israel and Jerusalem as well. They have, I think the bible is pretty reliable.