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

 

[carltonchelsea]

How does one evaluate something using the same standards as scientific theory without first framing it as a scientific theory?

For it to become a “scientific theory”, it must go through the same processes as the other theories did.
At the moment, the existence of the god of Abraham, is barely a hypothesis.
I’m not sure anyone is qualified enough to attempt to go near it.
What was it that Degrasse Tyson said about it,
“The day that you stop looking - because you're content God did it - I don't need you in the lab. You're useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world”.

I also like his, “the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you”.

 

[Pessimistic]

I like those congregations which have a bar in the cellar of the church.

you know who you are

 

[Pessimistic]

For it to become a “scientific theory”, it must go through the same processes as the other theories did.
At the moment, the existence of the god of Abraham, is barely a hypothesis.
I’m not sure anyone is qualified enough to attempt to go near it.
What was it that Degrasse Tyson said about it,
“The day that you stop looking - because you're content God did it - I don't need you in the lab. You're useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world”.

I also like his, “the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you”.

I like ‘when you discover something of the world/cosmos, that thing you discovered is unchanged’

 

[indoistriku]

Well, that's honest. Can't ask for more than that.


The biggest one is evolution, pretty obviously. But then you've got pushback against the use of stem cell research on religious grounds as well.

I'm not looking to tell christians that they cannot hold theological positions on these things, but I'd appreciate it if they didn't allow those theological positions to interfere.


Just to be clear, this is something I'm pretty passionate about, so I'm just going to warn you about it before we move along.

Abstinence is not an adequate method of birth control or sexual education. It does not teach teenagers to be ready for their own biological changes, and it does not prepare them on issues of consent.

As I've said multiple times in here, I was raised Catholic, and went to a Catholic secondary college. We did no sex education. At all.

I really don't like the christian insistence that lust is a sin. It is the source of an awful lot of joy for an awful lot of people.
I would absolutely agree, but parents don't. They just don't have the conversation.

And someone has to do it. We outsource an awful lot of parenting to teachers already; why not add this as well?

I don't mind this as a compromise.

The only other thing I'd add would be that they need to get undiluted facts regarding condoms and how to put them on so they do not break. Condoms have tremendous efficacy at preventing sexually transmitted disease, and - as I'm sure you're aware - Chlamydia was at epidemic levels pre-covid.

When the bible contradicts itself. You've probably read it more recently than I have.

Well, I don’t particularly see any reason to dispute with you and your views on these issues, other than the last one regarding contradictions in the Bible. I don’t believe there are any. I’ve seen accusations of there being some, such as, for one example, different levels of detail in the description of the death of Judas, but I’ve not yet seen any parts of the Bible that actually ‘contradict’ one another. I’ve read it though once, and am currently reading it for the second and third time (one along with my wife, and at the same time I read it privately). All I can do is keep an eye out.

Regarding the sex-education issue, I again don’t see anything I immediately disagree with. Regarding condoms, my conscience is ‘torn’ (well, I don’t mean to be too dramatic. I have used contraception, but I’ve never felt 100% on board with it, and as I can consider Catholicism, or even traditional Lutheranism, I feel drawn away from utilising contraception). Admittedly, this is a personal moral opinion, formed by my religious beliefs. I suppose in my current moral formation, I wouldn’t outright oppose the teaching of correct condom usage in public schools (read: I won’t be marching down the streets in protest, though I feel morally uneasy about it, oscillating from one position to the other) but I would feel grossly uncomfortable with another man teaching my hypothetical son about such things. Oh, we will inevitably disagree about lust, naturally. Sexual desire is a wonderful source of joy, spiritually but also physically. I’m sure we all can agree on that. But my personal religious convictions lead me to firmly believe, as per the word of Christ, that the God given desire should be ordered toward the good of the other, namely one’s wife. Or husband, if you’re a woman. I think unrestrained sexual desire is very bad, moreover I think it is evil if it utilises the other for one’s pleasure to the other’s harm. I don’t think the only stipulation for morally acceptable sexual activity is consent between adults. I think there is much more too it than that; not only theologically, but also psychologically and physically.

 

[indoistriku]

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.

I remember going over this last year with you. I’m currently on my phone and can’t dig up the evidence that supports my position as i did last year. Consider this a placeholder post until I can.

 

[indoistriku]

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

Please see my above post. I will return to respond more thoroughly. At the least I can say that I agree Wikipedia is generally a reliable, if not totally fool-proof source of evidence.

 

[Rosscoe]

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.



No kidding.

YOUR SCIENCE, FACTS AND OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

 

[Gethelred]

Well, I don’t particularly see any reason to dispute with you and your views on these issues, other than the last one regarding contradictions in the Bible. I don’t believe there are any. I’ve seen accusations of there being some, such as, for one example, different levels of detail in the description of the death of Judas, but I’ve not yet seen any parts of the Bible that actually ‘contradict’ one another. I’ve read it though once, and am currently reading it for the second and third time (one along with my wife, and at the same time I read it privately). All I can do is keep an eye out.

Regarding the sex-education issue, I again don’t see anything I immediately disagree with. Regarding condoms, my conscience is ‘torn’ (well, I don’t mean to be too dramatic. I have used contraception, but I’ve never felt 100% on board with it, and as I can consider Catholicism, or even traditional Lutheranism, I feel drawn away from utilising contraception). Admittedly, this is a personal moral opinion, formed by my religious beliefs. I suppose in my current moral formation, I wouldn’t outright oppose the teaching of correct condom usage in public schools (read: I won’t be marching down the streets in protest, though I feel morally uneasy about it, oscillating from one position to the other) but I would feel grossly uncomfortable with another man teaching my hypothetical son about such things. Oh, we will inevitably disagree about lust, naturally. Sexual desire is a wonderful source of joy, spiritually but also physically. I’m sure we all can agree on that. But my personal religious convictions lead me to firmly believe, as per the word of Christ, that the God given desire should be ordered toward the good of the other, namely one’s wife. Or husband, if you’re a woman. I think unrestrained sexual desire is very bad, moreover I think it is evil if it utilises the other for one’s pleasure to the other’s harm. I don’t think the only stipulation for morally acceptable sexual activity is consent between adults. I think there is much more too it than that; not only theologically, but also psychologically and physically.

Insofar as we will never agree around the religious hangups around sex, that you don't actively disagree with me there is commendable.

My concern as far as condoms goes is rooted as much in STI's as pregancy; these are no mere artifacts of birth control, but an active means by which you can defend yourself from disease.

While I can certainly respect your desire to keep other adults from teaching your children about sex, I ask you this: would you not rather your son/daughter be defended from the very real possibility of having sex with someone who is HIV positive? I have nothing to do with you outside of this discussion; I don't know if you have kids or not, but I certainly think that we need to be able to defend both ourselves and those we love from disease.

You cannot control what they will do, but you can teach them the right way to do it, can't you?

 

[Rosscoe]

They didn't. That was just a literary invention to have Jesus fulfil 'prophecy'.

Christians wrote their Gospels with clear purposes in mind - one of which was that their Messiah (at that time one of many messiahs) would be seen as the true Messiah because he fulfilled OT prophecy. (Matthew 16:13-20, Mark 8:27–30 and Luke 9:18–20 )

Biblical 'prophecy' in general is often so vague, it can be interpreted in a number of ways. The interpreter can therefore find a meaning in the words that is true to them.

To give credibility to their new found religion, New Testament writers often distorted Old Testament scriptures or quoted them entirely out of context to shape them into "prophecies" that seemed to fit contemporary people and events they were writing about. For example the 'virgin' birth and the "prophecy" that Jesus was going to be a Nazarene. Another good example of this type is the "prophecy" by Micah, that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem.

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

The Gospel of Matthew (2:5-6) claims that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy. But this raises a couple of problems.

"Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but quite possibly refers to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the grandson of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (2 Chronicles:50-52, 4:4).

The Gospel of Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this to make the verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.

Lo and behold the "prophecy" is fulfilled.

View attachment 1291436

Christopher Hitchens once remarked about prophecy in the New Testament.

"If you pick up any of the four Gospels and read them at random, it will not be long before you learn that such and such an action or saying, attributed to Jesus, was done so that an ancient prophecy should come true. If it should seem odd that an action should be deliberately performed in order that a foretelling be vindicated, that is because it is odd. And it is necessarily odd because, just like the Old Testament, the "New" one is also a work of crude carpentry, hammered together long after its purported events, and full of improvised attempts to make things come out right."



They were done largely according to local customs.

Is it possible that Bethlehem can be a clan and a place at the same time?

 

[carltonchelsea]

YOUR SCIENCE, FACTS AND OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

This is satire right?

 

[carltonchelsea]

Is it possible that Bethlehem can be a clan and a place at the same time?

Well that would be rather convenient wouldn’t it, or is this more satire?

 

[Rosscoe]

This is satire right?

Well that would be rather convenient wouldn’t it, or is this more satire?

Is that your opinion of an opinion or is this more satire.?

 

[Number37]

For it to become a “scientific theory”, it must go through the same processes as the other theories did.
At the moment, the existence of the god of Abraham, is barely a hypothesis.
I’m not sure anyone is qualified enough to attempt to go near it.
What was it that Degrasse Tyson said about it,
“The day that you stop looking - because you're content God did it - I don't need you in the lab. You're useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world”.

Take it up with your man Dawkins, he is the one making this shit up.

I also like his, “the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you”.

Hallelujah.
Can the Atheists please stop pretending that they know how the world makes sense.

 

[Pessimistic]

Surely religions ‘objection’ to birth control is a desire to out breed other religions? Let’s just drop the pretence it’s something else

 

[carltonchelsea]

Is that your opinion of an opinion or is this more satire.?

Lol, if you want people in this thread to acknowledge your clearly undeveloped intellect, continue in the manner that your last two posts have.
It’s a big target on such a small area, please continue.

 

[carltonchelsea]

Take it up with your man Dawkins, he is the one making this sh*t up.




Hallelujah.
Can the Atheists please stop pretending that they know how the world makes sense.

Dawkins isn’t my man for staters, although I do greatly admire him for his actual lifes work, as an evolutionary biologist and author of scientific books enabling lay folk a window into that work.
The god delusion was terrible, the problem Richard has, is that when you discuss a topic so much and it may not necessarily be your expertise, you can find ways to very easily send out mixed messages.
He’s no Christopher Hitchens, that’s for sure, Hitch never butchered a sentence, let alone a valuable idea.

Um, I’m not sure you actually understand the meaning behind the Tyson quote I posted?
If that’s what you glean from it…..?

 

[Rosscoe]

Lol, if you want people in this thread to acknowledge your clearly undeveloped intellect, continue in the manner that your last two posts have.
It’s a big target on such a small area, please continue.

LMAO in your idiotic opinion when did the city of Bethlehem start? and when did Micah the old century prophet write his book?

 

[Roylion]

YOUR SCIENCE, FACTS AND OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Yep. There is no evidence for the existence of "god".

 

[Rosscoe]

Yep. There is no evidence for the existence of "god".

There is no evidence that he doesn’t.

 

[Roylion]

There is no evidence that he doesn’t.

I see no reason why I should believe your claim that 'god' exists.

 

[Rosscoe]

I see no reason why I should believe your claim that 'god' exists.

I am not trying to convert you.

 

[Roylion]

I am not trying to convert you.

You're making a claim that 'god' exists.

 

[carltonchelsea]

LMAO in your idiotic opinion when did the city of Bethlehem start? and when did Micah the old century prophet write his book?

Ask Roylion, he’s the site’s historian.
I’ve never heard the site of Bethlehem being anything other than a place, you’re the one conflating place and tribal identification grouping.
Micah the 8th century BCE prophet?
Ask Roy mate, asking me is like asking an accountant to look under the hood of your car to find out what is the problem with your solar panels on your roof.
You’re making that target larger with every post.
You’re either, not very bright or trolling.

 

[carltonchelsea]

There is no evidence that he doesn’t.

There is no evidence that Santa doesn’t exist.
Your statement breaks the law of contradiction, along with many logical fallacies I could pile on top of it.

 

[Total Power]

Ask Roylion, he’s the site’s historian.
I’ve never heard the site of Bethlehem being anything other than a place, you’re the one conflating place and tribal identification grouping.
Micah the 8th century BCE prophet?
Ask Roy mate, asking me is like asking an accountant to look under the hood of your car to find out what is the problem with your solar panels on your roof.
You’re making that target larger with every post.
You’re either, not very bright or trolling.

The usual reply to Roy's enlightening posts about history is usually 'you are an idiot' or 'save it for someone else' , without addressing the points made in the post. The only one who managed to debate in a constructive manner was indoistriku . Must respect to him(although i don't agree with him) but staying on subject and playing the ball.