Excerp: Science and Religion

According to the Bible, the Virgin Mary got pregnant without Joseph's sperm or genetic material. Egg fertilized by Spirit? An angel informed Mary's husband of the pregnancy. Can we believe angels exist as Billy Graham does or regard them as relics of Hebrew mythology, fabrications of man's fertile brain?

The star of Bethleham! Chances are it was a literary star with no counterpart in nature. Someone is always trying to prove it was a comet or planets lined up.

So much in the Bible is perceived as the fulfillment of prophecy. Can we take this stuff literally or view it as legends in the collective mind of ancient Middle Eastern tribes. With prophecy, we work backwards. We invent it after the fact.

Is there such a thing as sin? Sin does not exist in nature. A cat kills a mouse. No sin.

Billy Graham believes in demons. I am 60 years old and have never seen a demon or evidence of a demon. Nor have I seen a miracle. The Bible is a string of impossibilities. People might say these things do not happen today but happened back then. The notion is ludicrous. Why bend over backwards trying to force reality into a theological frame?

If Jesus is God, why does He not return now? Why not put things in order now? If the universe is 15 billion years old, will it take Him another 15 billion to do so?

Can we believe Jesus ascended into heaven? He floated into space? Have astronauts in the Shuttle orbited past Him? In film biographies of Jesus, he has the piercing blue eyes. The Anglo-Saxon Jesus! He reels off vague parables which are riddles to the modern world. The surest way to confuse is to use a parable, analogy, metaphor or simile. What is God? What is the Kingdom of God? Where is God and where did He come from? Is theology man's invention? Books, art and movies take things out of context. They distort reality into episodes with a hope of commercial success. Does the Bible do this? If not, why do we have to buy a Bible in a book store to read the word of God? Why do preachers preach until they are blue in the face and then ask for money? The bottom line is money.

Apart from imagination and art, how could Jesus have raised Lazarus from the dead? The supernatural does not exist in a natural universe. Faith can not make the impossible happen. Yet, Jesus said, "I am the Resurrection, and the Bible says all things are possible with God. Are those who speak of an empty tomb as evidence of the Resurrection not failing to distinguish between an actual tomb and a tomb of the mind?

Preachers wear suits and ties and give an appearance of being sane, rational people. When they speak of a rapture and physically rising through the atmosphere to leave behind the unredeemed, we realize something is amiss.

Evangelist Jimmy Swaggert extolled virtue while patronizing prostitutes. Morality is most plausible when it has a scientific foundation. It was not science that used nuclear energy for bombs. It was a clash between tax-funded military establishments which have traditionally embraced religion. If one gets paid to perpetuate ignorance, he will generally do it.

Mormons are on the cutting edge of Christianity. They claim Jesus came to western America to save Indians. If intelligent life is discovered in another part of the galaxy, a sect will arise claiming Jesus appeared to redeem lost aliens.

The age of theology lay between 3000 B.C. and 600 A.D. The age of science began 400 years ago. Carl Sagan, in his book, "The Demon-Haunted World," called science the candle in the dark.

Science is the way, evolution over creationism, observation over revelation, objectivity over subjectivity. Our eyes and ears tell us how things are. It is as we suspected when we were kids, before organized religion sapped our energy. Religion is flawed. We are physical, not spiritual. We are alive when we are alive. We are dead when we are dead. We are not dead when we are alive. We are not alive when we are dead.

We live in a natural universe. The supernatural does not exist apart from man's imagination and his tendency toward myth. Carl Sagan left us with these words, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Science is the candle, not mythology, not astrology, not religion.

This being said, I still subscribe to the ultimate message of the Gospels. If the Universe is 15 billion years old and middle age, Jesus Christ will return in another 15 billion years. His return will be in the nick of time to save believers at the brink of the universe's demise. He will save the souls of all believers in the cosmos. At that point, religion and science are the same. The 1% of truth in the Bible merges with the 1% of truth in science. Eternity becomes a conscious mist, 1% blissful, 99% flaming, heaven and hell.

I don't think the Bible is to be taken literally!!!

You say to me; how can the Bible be true?

I say, yes how can it be true. But sometimes; in order to get people to understand; that is of course if you understand how people work, there becomes a problem between what you feel and how you express that feeling. Yes, I don't believe in evil either. But, if I were to follow the Bible, putting aside the reasons for why hope works, why faith is necessary, etc. and just acted in the way it wants us to e.g. the ten commandments, then we would have a better society; no doubt.

Of course its deeper than this because we have other religions; like Muslim. But, if we ask deeper, and knowing Jesus was not perfect (I'll challenge anyone on this-a perfect being would not show emotion), we have to look to the feelings Jesus really had. I guess its like a poem. A writer writes a poem and the reader reads it. Now when the reader can get beyond the words and understanding their meaning, which best correlates to what the author meant, we have a kind of accurate correlation.

Some stop at why the Bible is so obviously wrong and are angered by how stupid their peers are in not agreeing with them. They are just as bad a 'person' as the others its just that they are more intelligent. Challenge it for sure-but dont make this the only thing to do. Lets not stop there lets dig as to why and understand everything-including the motive.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Well lets find the extraordinary evidence. Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence; but I only like challenges. the ordinary is only ordinary if you are used to it. Its like saying I'm English; I want to understand English culture before I go to Spain. The thing is; to better understand English culture; you need something to compare it against anyway.

About this statements: 1) But, if we ask deeper, and knowing Jesus was not perfect (I'll challenge anyone on this-a perfect being would not show emotion), we have to look to the feelings Jesus really had. I guess its like a poem. A writer writes a poem and the reader reads it.

quote:

---

http://www.captaincynic.com/thread/66334/me_myself_and_god.htm#66335
I finished this comment then going onto here and I think, I could have used that here?

---

2) Now when the reader can get beyond the words and understanding their meaning, which best correlates to what the author meant, we have a kind of accurate correlation. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
http://www.captaincynic.com/thread/66295/science_and_religion.htm
Yes, indeed I would agree "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." But is "1) But, if we ask deeper, and knowing Jesus was not perfect (I'll challenge anyone on this-a perfect being would not show emotion)," we have to look to the feeling or what we define as perfect?

quote:

---

Preachers wear suits and ties and give an appearance of being sane, rational people. When they speak of a rapture and physically rising through the atmosphere to leave behind the unredeemed, we realize something is amiss.

---

Hmm . . .Science states some really strange things would happen if you should approach the speed of light? So did Jesus rise into the air or did His physical body functions increase in harmonic frequency till He (His physical form accelerated) passed through into another dimensional matrix? Myth, superstition or science?

lack of emotion would not be perfection, as it owuld just lead to a society where everything would be done to help the majority while the minority suffered. it is compassion that means we have things set up to help disabled people even when the cost to instal them may never be reclaimed in custom gained from them. if there was no compassion and it did not make financial sense to instal the lifts etc we would leave them to suffer. chances are there would also be involuntary euthanasia, if someone is to ill to be any use, they would be put down.

Christianity states "god is love" therefore how can he be perfect without emotion as love is an emotion, love is not a reasoned judgement. god and jesus may get angry but despite the power they have, they have only wiped the slate clean once (see noahs ark). if we repent they will show mercy. pure logic however would suggest that it was a bad idea to leve you enemies, and those disobedient to you alive.

God cannot have emotion because if God is all then to make 'him' have emotion would mean another 'being' would have to exist, seperate of God, who could alter his character. Or, to think of it another way, if God had emotions, he would be biased, or could have a lessening of chartacter, which is plain silly.

I believe that we come to God through understanding, I believe that considering the absolute unlikelihood of me being here by preceding events; I have to believe in determinism. This makes sense because it gives us soemthing to aim for; understanding why. If God was at all biased; then God would not be a unit; he would not be immortal; he would be like us; finite. Sure, emotions may be necessary for us; but who says love is an emotion? Who says we actually know what love is. Who says we know what peace is?

Perhaps I'm just arguing philsophically or spititually here.

Did Jesus 'ascend' into heaven. Who says heaven is in the stars? That just comes from the old theory that the earth is centre of the Universe. Remember Copernicus and his problems?

Could Jesus talk about heaven as perhaps the quantum soup of a 'mind' that we are all one of but seperate at the same time; and that evil and good are perceptions of it that we have due to our limited physiological and psychological abilities? Christ was born in 0AD. He was limited by the thinking of that day. It doesn't mean he didnt understand human nature; perhaps he just didn't understand that most of us can be understood by the laws of electromagnetic behaviour!

quote:

---

God cannot have emotion because if God is all then to make 'him' have emotion would mean another 'being' would have to exist, seperate of God, who could alter his character. Or, to think of it another way, if God had emotions, he would be biased, or could have a lessening of chartacter, which is plain silly. Sure, emotions may be necessary for us; but who says love is an emotion? Who says we actually know what love is. Who says we know what peace is?

---

Nice may be that is the why of. . .Trinity aspect of GOD?

quote:

---

Did Jesus 'ascend' into heaven. Who says heaven is in the stars? That just comes from the old theory that the earth is centre of the Universe. Remember Copernicus and his problems?

---

We seem to be in accord as in the case of the speed of light. Consider if 1 dimension is flattened then which one of the three? Ah, if 1 exist relative to the others then they are related so all three are changed? So would like in the old startrek would the ship elongate as it flashed away at warp or would it relatively grow smaller & therefore apparently seem to move away from the observers?

quote:

---

I believe that we come to God through understanding, I believe that considering the absolute unlikelihood of me being here by preceding events; I have to believe in determinism. This makes sense because it gives us soemthing to aim for; understanding why. If God was at all biased; then God would not be a unit; he would not be immortal; he would be like us; finite.

---

Then again, I not sure of what you are extending here . . . can you restate it?

Hey cturtle, long time no see *hug*

Anyways, this whole argument hinges on one facet, the belief that there is only one God.

[quote]Anyways, this whole argument hinges on one facet, the belief that there is only one God. this is true but is it logical . . . considerations of our investigations in the construct of our physical being, evolved the 'atomos' principle => universal construct of basic particles so we tend to think of this construct as applied to the spiritual {non physical being (s)} as well?
That all existence is reduced to a singular source (entity), so then we ascribe the concept of intelligent agency which is called GOD (by various tongues => languages of distinct people) so they given attributes & conceive them as different God's? Can we justifiably ascribe intellect as an attribute of GOD?
Does knowing mean an intellectual action or activity or does it denote the capacity {ability}?
{ex: people fly airplaces but birds actually fly.}

quote:

---

Nice may be that is the why of. . .Trinity aspect of GOD?

---

The farther, son, and the holy spirit is just that; two are finite; one is not.

quote:

---

We seem to be in accord as in the case of the speed of light. Consider if 1 dimension is flattened then which one of the three? Ah, if 1 exist relative to the others then they are related so all three are changed? So would like in the old startrek would the ship elongate as it flashed away at warp or would it relatively grow smaller & therefore apparently seem to move away from the observers?

---

I don't understand; please elaborate

quote:

---

I believe that we come to God through understanding, I believe that considering the absolute unlikelihood of me being here by preceding events; I have to believe in determinism. This makes sense because it gives us soemthing to aim for; understanding why. If God was at all biased; then God would not be a unit; he would not be immortal; he would be like us; finite.

---

God = Nature

Nature 'fore' bore us and will continue after as Nature = God forebore us and will continue after as God.

In order to progress into the future; we have to remember the past and learn from now. So, we must understand everything that has happened and has happened to understand what will happen. Unfortunately we're not given so much scope...but unravelling bits of the past and present canm help us move on in a direction which we think we have changed, but in reaity has already been determined. Nonethless, we become closer to God by having greater understanding (of anything) but in particular of the precision of thought seprated from illusion.

Both of these exist in Nature:

1) The force of attraction between two bodies is inversely proprtional to the square of the distance between them

2) The sky is grey

One is simply better than the other; one is universal; teh other tangigble. It is the former we must try to become more aquainted with. It comes from a higher understanding of the forces of nature than just accepting the surface of things.

Secondly, IrishPagan; How can there be anything but one God?

Not to lead away from the topic but rather a reflection of pior thread.

quote:

---

I don't understand; please elaborate

---

Science proving the bible . . . Jesus (various patriarch of OT shone withlight or glowed from being in the presence of GOD) was reputed to rise in the air ascending into heaven, if the quickening of the spirit relates to the frequency of our basic structural composition then the theory of light extends a logical explanation to those reputed events. Just a minor musing thoughts provoked by your statements.