Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

That Religion Thing?

Options
1…34689…13

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Jackobyte
    Registered Users Posts: 6,321 ✭✭✭Jackobyte


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm just saying that the Bible actually doesn't say that the earth is 6,000 years old. It seems odd to me that people would criticise the Bible without knowing what it is saying. Some limited understandings of Christianity hold to this certainly (as in your link), but there is no explicit passage that gives the age of the earth. This is why I can quite happily hold to modern science, and believe in God as can many others.
    We know when Jesus supposedly lived, ~2000 years ago. We are told his genealogy. Presuming none of them lived for more than 150 years(just for arguments sake), we reach Adam a good bit faster than the ~250,000 years Homo Sapiens have been around.

    The Gospel, according to Luke.
    Even giving every generation extraordinary life spans, we still only reach 11,500 years since creation, even less by Matthew's account. And this is from the Book into which all Catholic faith is placed. The book that was carefully selected by the heads of the religion, omitting countless other gospels which show Jesus is a bad light or contradict the 4 selected.


  • Options
    #153
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Jackobyte wrote: »
    We know when Jesus supposedly lived, ~2000 years ago. We are told his genealogy. Presuming none of them lived for more than 150 years(just for arguments sake), we reach Adam a good bit faster than the ~250,000 years Homo Sapiens have been around.

    The Gospel, according to Luke.
    Even giving every generation extraordinary life spans, we still only reach 11,500 years since creation, even less by Matthew's account. And this is from the Book into which all Catholic faith is placed. The book that was carefully selected by the heads of the religion, omitting countless other gospels which show Jesus is a bad light or contradict the 4 selected.

    I'm not a Roman Catholic, but you're wrong about the selection of the Gospels. They were selected according to criterion of date. I have a book with the excluded Gospels and I've read through many of them. They postdate Jesus by centuries. There is no way they could have been based on eyewitness testimony as the 4 canonical Gospels are.

    As for the genealogies, this also excludes the idea that in Jewish society at the time of Christ often only notable figures were included in genealogies.

    It is possible also that Adam wasn't the only human in existence. Genesis chapter 4 suggests that there may have been others in existence and that the Genesis account is providing us a particular account of a general Fall in the nature of humanity.


  • Options
    #154
    ohthebaby
    Registered Users Posts: 1,808 ✭✭✭ohthebaby


    I always took the creation story to be a metaphor for what actually happened over hundreds of thousands of years with evolution and stuff.


  • Options
    #155
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ohthebaby wrote: »
    I always took the creation story to be a metaphor for what actually happened over hundreds of thousands of years with evolution and stuff.

    The Hebrew language is often lost in English translations. The word that is used for day is 'yom' which is also used in the Tanakh (Jewish Old Testament) for periods longer than a day.

    Also it is interesting to see that the Genesis 1 account says that God created the sun and the moon on the fourth day. This is more than likely included to counteract pagan practices of sun and moon worship, to say that these aren't actually your God, but your God created these and much more.

    It's way more interesting to examine and probe into the Bible for what it is. Genesis 1 to me isn't a science book, it is explaining the abundant meaning of life, that is an expression of a wonderful Creator who longs for us to know Him and love Him.


  • Options
    #156
    Jackobyte
    Registered Users Posts: 6,321 ✭✭✭Jackobyte


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm not a Roman Catholic, but you're wrong about the selection of the Gospels. They were selected according to criterion of date. I have a book with the excluded Gospels and I've read through many of them. They postdate Jesus by centuries. There is no way they could have been based on eyewitness testimony as the 4 canonical Gospels are.
    Matthew- end of first century so ~90A.D., extremely unlikely to contain first hand eye witness accounts

    Mark- ~70A.D., could contain eye witness accounts from people who were children at Jesus' time but unlikely

    Luke- ~70 to 100A.D., again unlikely.

    John- ~90A.D.

    None of the Gospels are likely to contain first hand eye witness accounts and if they do contain any, they are from people who were only children at the time. Pretty much everything in them was passed on by at least one generation.

    Mary Magdalene- ~120 to 180A.D

    Judas- Unknown time in the 2nd Century but definitely pre-180A.D.

    Both are written by probably one generation on from Matthew and John at most.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Jackobyte wrote: »
    Matthew- end of first century so ~90A.D., extremely unlikely to contain first hand eye witness accounts

    Mark- ~70A.D., could contain eye witness accounts from people who were children at Jesus' time but unlikely

    Luke- ~70 to 100A.D., again unlikely.

    John- ~90A.D.

    Where are you getting these dates from? - I've seen figures for Matthew and Mark at 60AD. Luke at around the same time, because Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles. If we take that Jesus was crucified at around 33AD it is very possible that there were still eyewitnesses. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians was written in 55AD as was his letter to the Galatians. Considering that he was a convert and he wrote much that was already in the Gospels before they were written we must conclude that this was what was preached in the Christian community before Paul wrote either.
    Jackobyte wrote: »
    None of the Gospels are likely to contain first hand eye witness accounts and if they do contain any, they are from people who were only children at the time. Pretty much everything in them was passed on by at least one generation.

    I've given you reason to believe otherwise.
    Jackobyte wrote: »
    Mary Magdalene- ~120 to 180A.D

    Judas- Unknown time in the 2nd Century but definitely pre-180A.D.

    Both are written by probably one generation on from Matthew and John at most.

    I have both the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Mary, both are incomplete and / or are missing a lot of fragments. Just get a copy of either and sit down and read them and you'll see why they aren't suitable for church use. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the most complete and the most consistent accounts that we have. Therefore they are used.

    It's rather simple. I do feel this is ignoring the most important question though. The real issues that many people have with Christianity aren't to do with intellectual reasons in the vast majority of cases. It is to do with ones desire to actually follow God. I can throw up reasonable responses to each one of your arguments, but it doesn't of necessity mean that you will believe.


  • Options
    #158
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    ohthebaby wrote: »
    I always took the creation story to be a metaphor for what actually happened over hundreds of thousands of years with evolution and stuff.

    Could be a metaphor for what actually happened.
    Could be a made up by a bunch of people in the Iron age who didn't know what actually happened.

    One of these two seems a bit more likely than the other, IMO.


  • Options
    #159
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Pygmalion wrote: »
    Could be a metaphor for what actually happened.
    Could be a made up by a bunch of people in the Iron age who didn't know what actually happened.

    One of these two seems a bit more likely than the other, IMO.

    The former? - Precisely because people wouldn't understand and that the Bible isn't intended to be a science book? :pac:


  • Options
    #160
    ohthebaby
    Registered Users Posts: 1,808 ✭✭✭ohthebaby


    Pygmalion wrote: »
    Could be a metaphor for what actually happened.
    Could be a made up by a bunch of people in the Iron age who didn't know what actually happened.

    One of these two seems a bit more likely than the other, IMO.

    Yeah originally made up by people that didn't know what happened. But then evolution was discovered or understood or whatever and it fits that too.


  • Options
    #161
    Jackobyte
    Registered Users Posts: 6,321 ✭✭✭Jackobyte


    philologos wrote: »
    Where are you getting these dates from? - I've seen figures for Matthew and Mark at 60AD. Luke at around the same time, because Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles. If we take that Jesus was crucified at around 33AD it is very possible that there were still eyewitnesses. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians was written in 55AD as was his letter to the Galatians. Considering that he was a convert and he wrote much that was already in the Gospels before they were written we must conclude that this was what was preached in the Christian community before Paul wrote either.



    I've given you reason to believe otherwise.



    I have both the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Mary, both are incomplete and / or are missing a lot of fragments. Just get a copy of either and sit down and read them and you'll see why they aren't suitable for church use. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the most complete and the most consistent accounts that we have. Therefore they are used.

    It's rather simple. I do feel this is ignoring the most important question though. The real issues that many people have with Christianity aren't to do with intellectual reasons in the vast majority of cases. It is to do with ones desire to actually follow God. I can throw up reasonable responses to each one of your arguments, but it doesn't of necessity mean that you will believe.
    All thoses dates are from wikipedia.

    Yes, it is quite possible that there were eyewitness accounts (I was getting confused and counting from 0AD as when Jesus died) but I still don't believe in any supernatural occurrences mentioned in the Bible. Neither of us are going to change our opinions so I'm just going to step away and go have my dinner. :pac:

    I'll leave you with this.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8kOQ2zvBfU

    /blasphemy


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    ohthebaby wrote: »
    Yeah originally made up by people that didn't know what happened. But then evolution was discovered or understood or whatever and it fits that too.

    I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this.
    It was made up by people who didn't know what happened, but if you interpret it fairly liberally and don't want too much detail it roughly fits what happened as a metaphor?

    Just not sure the significance of this.


  • Options
    #163
    ohthebaby
    Registered Users Posts: 1,808 ✭✭✭ohthebaby


    Pygmalion wrote: »
    I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this.
    It was made up by people who didn't know what happened, but if you interpret it fairly liberally and don't want too much detail it roughly fits what happened as a metaphor?

    Just not sure the significance of this.

    I don't know where I was going with that either. I just woke up from a nap and have no memory whatsoever of writing that. :confused: With regards your question of the metaphor, looking at it now not all sleepily stupid, I would of course say it's a metaphor that covers what happened. Whatever your option was.


  • Options
    #164
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Pygmalion wrote: »
    Just not sure the significance of this.

    It depends on what you expect the Bible to be. If you expect it to be a science book it has no significance, because the Bible asks why, what is the ultimate meaning, purpose and truth behind things here. If you read it with this in mind it has an abundance of meaning or at least it potentially has an abundance of meaning if we are willing to open our minds and listen to what it has to say.


  • Options
    #165
    SarahBeep!
    Registered Users Posts: 5,965 ✭✭✭SarahBeep!


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    I wouldn't necessarily agree with that...

    Why?



    On the Gospels thing, there were probably hundreds if not thousands Gospels written and all but four were disregarded. To me, this is dodgy.


  • Options
    #166
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    SarahBeep! wrote: »
    On the Gospels thing, there were probably hundreds if not thousands Gospels written and all but four were disregarded. To me, this is dodgy.

    There aren't hundreds or thousands. A few have been found certainly. The Nag Hammadi find was the most significant. The problem is we can't be sure how many existed before the compiling of the Bible, and we can be sure that none of them existed during the first century and as such weren't contemporary to Christ. Many of them are incomplete also.

    It would have been dodgy if these were accepted. You should really read them yourself. I'm sure you can find them online, I have them in a book (The Other Bible - Willis Barnstone). I also have a volume with the Gospel of Judas which I got roughly at the time it was found in 2006.


  • Options
    #167
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    SarahBeep! wrote: »
    Why?
    Science is the study of the natural world, isn't it? Naturally enough, theists believe that the world around us (Existence if you will) came to being through God. Either of them complements the other. The study of science to a theist is the study of the creation of God.


  • Options
    #168
    SarahBeep!
    Registered Users Posts: 5,965 ✭✭✭SarahBeep!


    philologos wrote: »
    There aren't hundreds or thousands.

    How do you know this?
    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Science is the study of the natural world, isn't it?

    That's only one part of science.
    Naturally enough, theists believe that the world around us (Existence if you will) came to being through God. Either of them complements the other. The study of science to a theist is the study of the creation of God.

    But how do they compliment each other??


  • Options
    #169
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    SarahBeep! wrote: »
    That's only one part of science.
    That's the only part of science. There is no other part.
    But how do they compliment each other??
    Did you read the section of my post that you quoted?

    A theist believes that the world is a product of God. To study the world (I.e. to study science) is to study the work of God hence the nature of God himself.


  • Options
    #170
    SarahBeep!
    Registered Users Posts: 5,965 ✭✭✭SarahBeep!


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    That's the only part of science. There is no other part.


    Did you read the section of my post that you quoted?

    A theist believes that the world is a product of God. To study the world (I.e. to study science) is to study the work of God hence the nature of God himself.


    That is only one part of science.

    But that is only ASSUMING that the world was produced by (a) God.


  • Options
    #171
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    SarahBeep! wrote: »
    How do you know this?

    Do a bit of research and see how many have been found. I find many of the texts intriguing, but they were rejected for very clear and logical reasons. They weren't used or written in the first century. The other texts had been used during the first century.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,886 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    A theist believes that the world is a product of God. To study the world (I.e. to study science) is to study the work of God hence the nature of God himself.
    SarahBeep! wrote: »
    But that is only ASSUMING that the world was produced by (a) God.

    Obviously...


  • Options
    #173
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    SarahBeep! - Why do you think we are here and why do you think there is something rather than nothing?


  • Options
    #174
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    SarahBeep! wrote: »
    That is only one part of science.
    Do you understand the meaning of science? If you do then I cannot understand why you keep saying that the study of the natural world is only one part of science. Science is the systematic study of the physical and natural world. That's all it ever was, all it is and all it ever will be.

    But that is only ASSUMING that the world was produced by (a) God.
    And that's why I said
    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    A theist believes that the world is a product of God. To study the world (I.e. to study science) is to study the work of God hence the nature of God himself.


  • Options
    #175
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Science is the study of the natural world, isn't it?

    First definition I find is:
    The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

    The "observation and experiment" part is the part most people object to when people claim that religion and science aren't mutually exclusive.

    Not to say that all religion, by definition, is incompatible with science, but all major, theistic religions seem to require either:
    a) Accepting things about the physical/natural world that cannot be observed or verified.
    b) Accepting things about the physical/natural world that directly contradict what we can observe and verify.

    The first one I'd argue isn't necessarily incompatible with science.
    You could believe that a God exists, created the universe and the rules that govern it, but didn't interfere with it in any way.
    I don't really see how that would interfere with science, as described above, of course I also don't see why someone would believe in such a being.

    The second one is incompatible with science pretty much by definition.
    It's saying "Scientific experiments have shown this to be false in repeatable, verifiable experiments, but I know better".

    Believing that a god sent his son down and that miracles were performed is the second type.


  • Options
    #176
    SarahBeep!
    Registered Users Posts: 5,965 ✭✭✭SarahBeep!


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Do you understand the meaning of science? If you do then I cannot understand why you keep saying that the study of the natural world is only one part of science. Science is the systematic study of the physical and natural world. That's all it ever was, all it is and all it ever will be.



    And that's why I said


    You're talking to a science teacher...


  • Options
    #177
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    Pygmalion wrote: »

    Believing that a god sent his son down and that miracles were performed is the second type.
    Why is it? If God is the source of existence, the creator of this natural world that is all that we can study in science, why is it assumed that he can be restrained by his creation?

    A musician who composed and arranged a song is still able to re-arrange it or modify it. If it's not above a musician to break the "rules" if you will with regard to their creation how is it above God to break the rules of his creation?


  • Options
    #178
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Why is it? If God is the source of existence, the creator of this natural world that is all that we can study in science, why is it assumed that he can be restrained by his creation?

    A musician who composed and arranged a song is still able to re-arrange it or modify it. If it's not above a musician to break the "rules" if you will with regard to their creation how is it above God to break the rules of his creation?

    So you're saying that all results of scientific experiments should be disregarded in situations where religion is involved.
    i.e. Science is incompatible with religion.


  • Options
    #179
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    SarahBeep! wrote: »
    You're talking to a science teacher...
    Your point?

    If an English teacher told me the correct way to spell "Hey guys" is "Hai Guyz" I wouldn't agree with them.

    I defined science as being:
    The systematic study of the physical and natural world.

    Then you said "That's only one part of science"

    What other part of science is there? I wouldn't want to miss out on it.


  • Options
    #180
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    Pygmalion wrote: »
    So you're saying that the results of science should be disregarded in these situations.
    i.e. Science is incompatible with religion.
    No that's not what i'm saying at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    No that's not what i'm saying at all.

    It kinda is.
    You can't say that Science and Religion are compatible, then completely ignore one of them when the other contradicts it, while still claiming they're compatible.


Advertisement