Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Roylion]

But the connection between the monkey skulls and humans has not been made. Nothing has been proven.

Evolution is a scientific fact. I've explained to you before what a scientific fact and a scientific theory is. Genetics virtually confirms common descent. Every other piece of scientific evidence ever discovered (millions upon millions of items) supports the scientific fact of evolution. Not one piece of scientific evidence from the millions found has falsified the scientific fact of evolution. Not one. Ever.

Two chimpanzees can’t mate and produce anything other than chimpanzees. Any scientist would agree.

This has been explained to you before. Go back and do senior secondary biology. They cover the mechanics of evolution there.

 

[Opine]

You're a man of many questions, but few answers. You don't get the option to arbitrarily decide what's relevant here.

Neither do you

 

[Evolved1]

Neither do you

The difference being that I don't characterise myself as the arbitrator of relevance.

Since you're intent on filling the void here in place of our missing Christians, the very least you can do is answer questions on a thread titled 'Ask a Christian'.

 

[Total Power]

I doubt you are even married let alone the rest of the story.

You never have anything of value to add outside of having at go and abusing people. I keep pointing out holes in your arguments and you keep having a go at me. Please note adhoms are not an argument. It's an admission of defeat if anything.

Maybe you have realised i have exposed you? Or is it just the way you claim Christians 'love' people. Remember no god no love?

If you are an example of love and tolerance, aren't we better off without it? you certainly make a good case study.

Get well soon BT, you need help. My best wishes.

 

[Total Power]

That's a philosophical argument. Science doesn't purport to make that claim.


Why does this mean science is unable to develop an understanding of consciousness? Penrose has talked about experiments relating to consciousness at a quantum level in relation to microtubules.

I have mentioned Penrose several times in my posts in this thread. He stated consciousness 'does not compute'. In other words there is no way to assign a value to an intangible (basically arising from quantum fluctuations), which leads to IIT etc.

Is theoretical physics not science? theoretical physics also talks about dimensions, abstract plains of existence through string theory, things which are not visible but it doesn't mean they are not in existence. In other words object smaller than the Planck scale exists, but there is no way we can measure it with our current understanding.

For example: M-theory requires more than 5 dimensions because M-theory is basically a generalization of string theory which requires more than 5 dimensions. Doesn't mean M-theory is not science, although, we cannot see/feel/understand more than 4 dimensions, on a mathematical level it does exist.

There's a theory with even more dimensions called F theory with has 12 (including 2 timelike), which reduces to type IIB string theory on compactification of one spacelike and one timelike dimension on a torus. This is science, it purely exists on a mathematical level, but nevertheless it's still science. Imagine a mystic talking about dimensions will be met with 'you are talking bullshit'. But Feynman and Freeman Dyson spoke about higher dimension is met with 'wow he is clever' argument.

 

[Total Power]

Nothing has been resolved .. nothing has been found .
“ There is stuff (existence) and it is motion . That’s always been the cornerstone of spirituality . Humans get it what that entails and we got it along time ago.
We are spiritual beings ..we have come from nothing or we have come from infinite regression.

Don't talk about that, stick to your 'I am a Christian' indoctrination. Don't assign your understanding to this word, you will be doing gross injustice to it.

 

[Opine]

The difference being that I don't characterise myself as the arbitrator of relevance.

Since you're intent on filling the void here in place of our missing Christians, the very least you can do is answer questions on a thread titled 'Ask a Christian'.

You’re a self confessed bigot, a partisan of a group of bigots if I recall correctly. You squash Catholics/Christian’s like mosquitos I think you said, You don’t need any void filled, you’re it.

 

[Gethelred]

Boston tiger I hope you don’t mind my including you in this discussion. Gethelred has highlighted some important points in the post above. Surely you concede there’s been some massive failings and double standards in the church?

Just to be clear: I do not expect Boston tiger to reply; that particular poster isn't interested in discourse or an exchange of ideas.

CM9000 though might be a decent poster to tag here, as might indoistriku.

 

[indoistriku]

What I would like is as follows:

- for the religious to be perfectly okay to say, "I don't know the answer, even if I believe that God does."
- for the religious not to try to push back on science when it infringes on their belief system.
- for religious schools to teach adequate sex education.
- for the inconsistencies in their religion to be acknowledged, instead of smoothed over.

And finally, what I want most of all: I want the religions who profess to be peaceful and merciful to practice what they preach, as opposed to dodging their responsibilities to the poor and those in need.

How a church started by the original Socialist wound up becoming the Vatican is mindblowing.

My 'o' and 'p' buttons are broken, so I've had to manually insert them into my writing via copy and paste where spellcheck hasn't picked it up. It's a pain in the arse - please forgive any obvious tyes involving these letters.

1. As regards the first bullet point, I would absolutely hope any sensical Christian would say such things. I'm sure there are Christians who don't, and who believe themselves to have every answer, and I would believe you if you told me you've interacted with such Christians. I'm not in the business of throwing my fellow Christians under the bus for the sake of pandering to any atheists, but I would also hope there would be none so arrogant as to claim to know all the things of God.

Actually, I think, it's not uncommon fr high-church, sacramental liturgicals to commonly admit that we can't answer everything, even if we believe God could t yu satisfaction. For example, I am under n illusions that I could combat the 'problem of evil' to your philosophical satisfaction. I believe that God works fr the good of those who love him, even if we don't know how (Romans 8:28). But that's just one example. Take this quote from the Book of Concord, the Lutheran Confessions f faith regarding Christ's descent into hell:

For it is sufficient that we know that Christ descended into hell, destroyed hell for all believers, and delivered them from the power of death and of the devil, from eternal condemnation and the jaws of hell. But how this occurred we should [not curiously investigate, but] reserve until the other world, where not only this point [mystery], but also still others will be revealed, which we here simply believe, and cannot comprehend with our blind reason.

I think that when we get caught u in the heat of the moment in a debate, we fear not having the answers, so as to look defeated, but I would hope most religious persons would admit there are things that we can not answer t the satisfaction of those who inquire.

2. Well, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'push back'. Could you please clarify, maybe by way of example?

3. This is an interesting point of discussion. I don't feel particularly qualified to pontificate as to which specific manner of sex education is best or could be defined as 'adequate'. I think it's sad that abstinence as a priority is frowned upon as being considered 'adequate'. I think Christian schools are uniquely equipped, spiritually speaking, to handle the teaching of sex (with parental consent) at an age-appropriate level due to the fact that Christians do not strip sex of its inherent spiritual component. Moreover, the overwhelming majority f Christians, across denominational lines, acknowledge, to some degree, original sin, and the concupiscent lust most young persons will struggle with. To be honest, I'm not convinced that sex education even belongs to the domain of the school in terms of teaching about intercourse. parents really should be teaching these things. I would consider 'adequate' sex education as teaching its theological value, teaching what it is for, biologically speaking (including pleasure), and what occurs, usually, as a result of undisturbed sex to completion. As regards things like menstruation, I see no New Testament stigma attached to such things, and I believe girls should be taught what it is, 'how to handle it', and I believe teachers should kee, at the least, tampons at school which can be accessed discreetly should an upper primary or high school student need one. puberty, and its usual developments, should also be taught as any reasonable person would teach them.

4. Again, it depends on what you mean by inconsistencies. Examples would be gd here, too.

 

[indoistriku]

Anyway, I logged in to say this: Christmas was not stolen from pagans. It was not originally Saturnalia. Jesus was probably born in late December or early January, which corresponds to when both western Christians (December 25th) celebrate our Lord's birth, and when eastern (January 6th) Christians do.

 

[Total Power]

Anyway, I logged in to say this: Christmas was not stolen from pagans. It was not originally Saturnalia. Jesus was probably born in late December or early January, which corresponds to when both western Christians (December 25th) celebrate our Lord's birth, and when eastern (January 6th) Christians do.

It is a bit more complicated than that. The early church started making feast days to coincide with "pagan" and other religious holidays. The reasons are complicated, but wikipedia is actually pretty good on christmas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas

The celebration of the sun god was around the winter solstice and became increasingly popular after the Roman emperor Aurelian made it an official Roman cult. the roman catholic church made the rules for a long time. But still wanted to keep the converted pagans happy so let them keep their traditions in the name of "christ" instead of their old gods.

In western/northern Europe, Christmas was placed over the pagan festival of Yule and took on a lot of the traditions of the pagan festival such as decorating trees, mistletoe and feasting. That's why in scandinavia, they still call it Jul/Yule.

As the early church moved into new areas, they would take facets of a local holiday and tie it to something the church believed to make it more appealing to the locals. There have been lots of articles, documentaries, etc on the subject with often very differing interpretations on how the church settled on December 25th.

The celebration of the winter solstice was a very natural thing for all cultures since the shortest day of the year meant the days were going to begin getting longer and the weather nicer from then on.

Winter solstice - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Roylion]

Anyway, I logged in to say this: Christmas was not stolen from pagans. It was not originally Saturnalia. Jesus was probably born in late December or early January, which corresponds to when both western Christians (December 25th) celebrate our Lord's birth, and when eastern (January 6th) Christians do.

The date Jesus would have been born on was almost certainly not December 25th.

It is generally accepted that the dating to late December was made up to match existing midwinter celebrations, with probably a desire by the Romans to match Saturnalia and possibly other events around the winter Solstice.

Jesus would have most likely been born during the summer, as the brightest object in the night sky that decade would have been a conjunction of Venus and Jupiter on June 17th 2 BC, (summer) visible over Bethlehem and easily mistaken for a star.

The Nativity stories in Luke and Matthew don't give a specific date or even a season, so the date of Christmas relies on non-Biblical traditions. If you believe the Nativity stories, which are contradicted by each other and other historical records, but are the only documents that go close to mentioning the birth, there are various pieces of evidence making a spring or summer birth far more likely than winter: the shepherds were in their fields not sheltering indoors which suggests spring; censuses tended to occur in summer when travel was easier; it would have been harder for Mary and Joseph to travel to Bethlehem in winter.

The spring equinox was placed March 25 in the old Roman calendar. So Jesus' birth was likely sometime between March and July. "Christmas in July" is probably a truer portrayal of "Christmas", if you truly intend to celebrate the birth of Jesus.

None of the evidence is conclusive, but what Matthew and Luke say certainly points away from winter.

 

[Pessimistic]

The date Jesus would have been born on was almost certainly not December 25th.

It is generally accepted that the dating to late December was made up to match existing midwinter celebrations, with probably a desire by the Romans to match Saturnalia and possibly other events around the winter Solstice.

Jesus would have most likely been born during the summer, as the brightest object in the night sky that decade would have been a conjunction of Venus and Jupiter on June 17th 2 BC, (summer) visible over Bethlehem and easily mistaken for a star.

The Nativity stories in Luke and Matthew don't give a specific date or even a season, so the date of Christmas relies on non-Biblical traditions. If you believe the Nativity stories, which are contradicted by each other and other historical records, but are the only documents that go close to mentioning the birth, there are various pieces of evidence making a spring or summer birth far more likely than winter: the shepherds were in their fields not sheltering indoors which suggests spring; censuses tended to occur in summer when travel was easier; it would have been harder for Mary and Joseph to travel to Bethlehem in winter.

The spring equinox was placed March 25 in the old Roman calendar. So Jesus' birth was likely sometime between March and July. "Christmas in July" is probably a truer portrayal of "Christmas", if you truly intend to celebrate the birth of Jesus.

None of the evidence is conclusive, but what Matthew and Luke say certainly points away from winter.

Theres not even much evidence of the 'census' which gets trotted out in childrens plays in churches every year. Though im not claiming expertise, I have a little chuckle each time I hear it

 

[Pessimistic]

I’m not giving you a hard time, here’s the but, most people (in modern society) don‘t seem to be able
to discern between the natural + supernatural.

No matter how far you go out into the cosmos you will always be in the natural, that which exists
in the the natural plane.
Angels + heaven were never the other side of the clouds.

They are by definition supernatural, that is above or over or outside the natural. It is a different realm.
There is an up + a down in the spiritual, which is why those terms are used.

When the bible talks of the grave or Sheol it is down in the spirit. The dead aren’t in caves buried in the earth.
This is all part of the spiritual dimension, which is all around us.

Nothing needs to be resolved and as far as I’m concerned no questions remain to be answered.

This does not mean that Christians have to jump to attention any time somebody is trying to be clever.

Help me out then. What are dreams? Natural or supernatural? Animals have them (mammals anyway) What are instincts? why is man afraid of spiders almost universally?
Dreams seem to have a lot of mentions in holy books. how come there seems to be similarity in dream concepts across contintnets and religions?
How does something so complex get passed down on genes which is just a bunch of chemicals

 

[Boston tiger]

Boston tiger I hope you don’t mind my including you in this discussion. Gethelred has highlighted some important points in the post above. Surely you concede there’s been some massive failings and double standards in the church?

You seem to be going alright . I’m not going to get involved with school curriculum questions.

As for double standards ..not so sure about that …the Church is pretty consistent on sinners and forgiveness.
Massive failing in protecting their parishioners and harbouring evil ..absolutely agree.

 

[Rosscoe]

Don't-cha-know....the other 1.2% comes from belief.
But its not like that belief in God thing that isn't supported by science, this is fair dinkum belief albeit not supported by science.

Thanks bro…maybe I think

 

[Rosscoe]

Evolution is a scientific fact. I've explained to you before what a scientific fact and a scientific theory is. Genetics virtually confirms common descent. Every other piece of scientific evidence ever discovered (millions upon millions of items) supports the scientific fact of evolution. Not one piece of scientific evidence from the millions found has falsified the scientific fact of evolution. Not one. Ever.



This has been explained to you before. Go back and do senior secondary biology. They cover the mechanics of evolution there.

Correct this; if it is not what you believe.

We are one monkey skull away from our common dna with the primate family. But we did not evolve from Neanderthals anyway; we just share dna .

The Dna; us and our common ancestors come from is most likely an orchid.

 

[Roylion]

Theres not even much evidence of the 'census' which gets trotted out in childrens plays in churches every year. Though im not claiming expertise, I have a little chuckle each time I hear it

It is true that the Emperor Augustus authorized three censuses during his reign. The three censuses are listed in the Acts of Augustus, a list of what Augustus thought were the 35 greatest achievements of his reign. He was so proud of the censuses that he ranked them eighth on the list.

The three censuses were in 28 BC, 8 BC, and AD 14, but they appear to not be empire wide and there were questions whether they would have included the territories of Herod the Great. it is possinle the one in 8 BC is the one mentioned in the Gospel of Luke.

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was Imperial Legate (Governor) of Syria from AD 6 - 12 and while he did carry out a tax census of the province of Judea in AD 6, no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee, which was outside the province of Judea.

There are major difficulties in accepting Luke's account of the birth of Jesus. Both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke link the birth of Jesus to the reign of Herod the Great, but the census took place in AD 6, nine-ten years after Herod's death in 4 BC.

 

[Roylion]

Correct this; if it is not what you believe.

Evolution is a scientific fact supported by overwhelming scientific evidence.

There is no serious debate in science whether or not common descent (i.e. evolution) happened. It did. Therefore evolution is scientific fact.

A scientific FACT is something that has been tested and/or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples.

Evolution is so firmly supported by the millions of pieces of collected observable (empirical) evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true. That's across a range of scientific fields including biochemisty, comparative anatomy, bio-geography, geology, genetics, comparative embryology, molecular biology, palaeontology and radioisotope dating, amongst others.

Not one piece of evidence has ever been found that falsifies evolution.

The empirical evidence that supports homo sapiens evolutionary origin from other older species of hominids continues to mount.

But we did not evolve from Neanderthals anyway; we just share dna .

No kidding.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

In light of what you’ve said above, what do you want to happen? for religion to be banned? for constitutional change precluding a person of religious belkef from holding public office? for those of religious belief to be deported somewhere? or worse perhaps? WTF do you want?

I don't want religion banned - I'm a secularist. That means you should be able to believe in whatever you want - as I mentioned I honestly don't care what you believe. What I want is religion to have no impact on how I live my life - and that should be a fundamental right for everyone around the world. If Islam became the prominent religion in Australia, would you want to live by Islamic law? I sure as hell wouldn't. I want religions to be treated like every other money-making enterprise - they should abide by the same rules of employment, they should pay tax on their earnings, there should be no special privilege for those who profess to be religious.

There is this strange undercurrent that criticism of organised religion is somehow discriminatory. It's not.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

Cherry picking hypocrites.
Never known atheists to fill the streets in protest.
Have a look at the 20th century, 100s millions dead + still counting.

When you use an argument against another group, try using against any group you belong to
+ see how it works out.

Talk about missing the point. What I said was I've never seen atheists getting upset because someone criticises atheism. In face, most of us have a good laugh at it.

I know where you're going - it's the old Communists are atheists and Communism killed millions of people therefore atheists support the killing of millions of people. No. I'll call out atrocities regardless of who commits them. Most atheists/secularists I know believe in liberal democracy. In many ways, your religious freedom is more secure with us because we won't favour one religion over another.

In my view, communism is a dogmatic system of government - Christopher Hitchens once pointed out that North Korea was one of the most religious countries he has visited.

 

[Total Power]

I don't want religion banned - I'm a secularist. That means you should be able to believe in whatever you want - as I mentioned I honestly don't care what you believe. What I want is religion to have no impact on how I live my life - and that should be a fundamental right for everyone around the world. If Islam became the prominent religion in Australia, would you want to live by Islamic law? I sure as hell wouldn't. I want religions to be treated like every other money-making enterprise - they should abide by the same rules of employment, they should pay tax on their earnings, there should be no special privilege for those who profess to be religious.

There is this strange undercurrent that criticism of organised religion is somehow discriminatory. It's not.

Organised religion will eventually die out, Christianity is on a free fall in Europe/Australia and US. It's not much better for Islam. Most people are afraid to speak out in the middle east and North Africa cause of apostasy laws. But it's moving in the right direction.

 

[Pessimistic]

It is true that the Emperor Augustus authorized three censuses during his reign. The three censuses are listed in the Acts of Augustus, a list of what Augustus thought were the 35 greatest achievements of his reign. He was so proud of the censuses that he ranked them eighth on the list.

The three censuses were in 28 BC, 8 BC, and AD 14, but they appear to not be empire wide and there were questions whether they would have included the territories of Herod the Great. it is possinle the one in 8 BC is the one mentioned in the Gospel of Luke.

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was Imperial Legate (Governor) of Syria from AD 6 - 12 and while he did carry out a tax census of the province of Judea in AD 6, no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee, which was outside the province of Judea.

There are major difficulties in accepting Luke's account of the birth of Jesus. Both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke link the birth of Jesus to the reign of Herod the Great, but the census took place in AD 6, nine-ten years after Herod's death in 4 BC.

Wow those actual census would be great historical references. sadly we cant see them. Destroyed on purpose/didnt survive/never existed?

 

[Pessimistic]

Organised religion will eventually die out, Christianity is on a free fall in Europe/Australia and US. It's not much better for Islam. Most people are afraid to speak out in the middle east and North Africa cause of apostasy laws. But it's moving in the right direction.

View attachment 1291410

Yes whatever else we think "god" is a legal construct - many many times over "In god we trust"

 

[Pessimistic]

Talk about missing the point. What I said was I've never seen atheists getting upset because someone criticises atheism. In face, most of us have a good laugh at it.

I know where you're going - it's the old Communists are atheists and Communism killed millions of people therefore atheists support the killing of millions of people. No. I'll call out atrocities regardless of who commits them. Most atheists/secularists I know believe in liberal democracy. In many ways, your religious freedom is more secure with us because we won't favour one religion over another.

In my view, communism is a dogmatic system of government - Christopher Hitchens once pointed out that North Korea was one of the most religious countries he has visited.

communist regimes rarely last but what about the Inqusistion? 5 centuries apparently.Many dictatorship regimes never twigged that a god element is more effective. maybe because communism etc cant give false hope about the afterlife