Religion Ask a Christian

(Log in to remove this ad.)

skilts

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 14, 2002
17,674
6,227
South-West Gippsland
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Lexton, Northcote Park
I've got a live one here :p
I think to an able-minded person they could look past their irrationality and see that these scientists did actually write about their areas of study.
As for speaking for the dead - I don't have to. I have these wonderful inventions called books.
Not something of which you've ever been accused.

Theology is not the area of study in which scientists have any claim to privileged understanding. Their understanding of philosophy, if it exists at all, is strictly limited to their area of study.

It would seem that you attribute a disproportionate importance to black squiggles on a white page. This is an especially useless pursuit if the reading of these squiggles extends to only one tome. You really should broaden your horizons. The Nullabor is splendid at this time of year.

Scientists' only claim to fame is their attempts to render things larger, or alternatively, smaller. Oh, and they occasionally indulge in a bit of ratiocination.

Your argument, such as it is, should not be directed at scientists. They are not your real enemy. I am.

On second thoughts, go back to your feeble attacks on the scientists, You'll find them easier prey.
 

Present Not Past

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 3, 2010
6,501
4,369
Sydney
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Chicago Cubs
Not something of which you've ever been accused.

Theology is not the area of study in which scientists have any claim to privileged understanding. Their understanding of philosophy, if it exists at all, is strictly limited to their area of study.

It would seem that you attribute a disproportionate importance to black squiggles on a white page. This is an especially useless pursuit if the reading of these squiggles extends to only one tome. You really should broaden your horizons. The Nullabor is splendid at this time of year.

Scientists' only claim to fame is their attempts to render things larger, or alternatively, smaller. Oh, and they occasionally indulge in a bit of ratiocination.

Your argument, such as it is, should not be directed at scientists. They are not your real enemy. I am.

On second thoughts, go back to your feeble attacks on the scientists, You'll find them easier prey.
Your ignorance is astounding, but not altogether surprising given how dried and shrivelled up your concept of intellectual pursuit is.
 

skilts

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 14, 2002
17,674
6,227
South-West Gippsland
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Lexton, Northcote Park
Your ignorance is astounding, but not altogether surprising given how dried and shrivelled up your concept of intellectual pursuit is.
You've got no idea how much this post offends me. Had I the energy, I'd report it.

Your lack of any detail whatsoever to support your assertion of my ignorance is in no way astounding. Quite typical, in fact.

Do you believe (for the sake of argument, let's assume that matters at all) there exists a world other than this one?
 

Present Not Past

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 3, 2010
6,501
4,369
Sydney
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Chicago Cubs
You've got no idea how much this post offends me. Had I the energy, I'd report it.

Your lack of any detail whatsoever to support your assertion of my ignorance is in no way astounding. Quite typical, in fact.

Do you believe (for the sake of argument, let's assume that matters at all) there exists a world other than this one?
It's quite simple really. I'll dumb it right down for you then. How do you support your assertion that a scientist (of any discipline) doesn't also have an education and an understanding in theology?
 

Present Not Past

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 3, 2010
6,501
4,369
Sydney
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Chicago Cubs
You've got no idea how much this post offends me. Had I the energy, I'd report it.

Your lack of any detail whatsoever to support your assertion of my ignorance is in no way astounding. Quite typical, in fact.

Do you believe (for the sake of argument, let's assume that matters at all) there exists a world other than this one?
Well you'd know given your scientific background? that the jury is still out how 1. we understand this world that we perceive and 2. depending on how you conceptualise 1, whether others exist.
 

skilts

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 14, 2002
17,674
6,227
South-West Gippsland
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Lexton, Northcote Park
Well you'd know given your scientific background? that the jury is still out how 1. we understand this world that we perceive and 2. depending on how you conceptualise 1, whether others exist.
As with all other matters, you have NFI. At least you're consistent.

BTW, this post is pure, unadulterated gibberish.
 

skilts

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 14, 2002
17,674
6,227
South-West Gippsland
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Lexton, Northcote Park
It's quite simple really. I'll dumb it right down for you then. How do you support your assertion that a scientist (of any discipline) doesn't also have an education and an understanding in theology?
How do you support the preposterous posit that one should go to a scientist for any discussion about theology? It is not their area of expertise. I suppose you're of that type which employs a carpenter to do plumbing jobs. It's hardly a surprise your mind is such a vacuous shambles.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Cooldude

Hall of Famer
Dec 12, 2003
44,554
22,238
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Bombers/Liverpool FC
There have been many great Scientists who were devoutly religious and pursued their quest for knowledge in the name of God.
I think they certainly would have been very unhappy to be associated with what we find today - a Godless vision of Science:
They are:
Nicholas Copernicus
Francis Bacon
Johannes Kepler
Rene Descartes
Pascal
Isaac Newton
Robert Boyle
Michael Faraday
Gregor Mendel
Max Planck
Has it ever occurred that if they don't say they do it "in the name of god", then they would not only be stopped from their research but also brutally killed? Many brilliant minds were cut short by murderous Christians back in the day who didn't fall in line
 

Present Not Past

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 3, 2010
6,501
4,369
Sydney
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Chicago Cubs
How do you support the preposterous posit that one should go to a scientist for any discussion about theology? It is not their area of expertise. I suppose you're of that type which employs a carpenter to do plumbing jobs. It's hardly a surprise your mind is such a vacuous shambles.
Well then why don't you quote me where I said that then Sh**lock.
 

Boston tiger

Premiership Player
May 10, 2010
4,965
3,519
Where it all began
AFL Club
Richmond
They claim they did. Why do you believe claims of the supernatural made 2,000 yeara ago, at a time when there was widespread belief in visitations by angels, gods and spirits, possession by demons, the transmigration of souls as well as magic, sorcery and witchcraft?



Why should it? You still havent answered the question.



I can only ask again. Why is the resurrection the best explanation of the "facts'? (i.e the "evidence")



I've certainly presented the arguments that the Jesus of the Gospels is possibly not a historical figure. And that was to emphasise the point that the evidence for the Jesus of the Gospels is very flimsy in the first place. If the evidence for his actual existance is so poor then the evidence for the miracles he is claimed to have performed in his lifetime followed by his physical resurrection from the dead and ascension to heaven is non-existant.

As for the quoting of Gospels as fact I've made the point several times that the Gospels are not history and the "facts" presented in them are biased and unreliable in many respects. However apologists cling to them as "fact" so let's find some common ground and argue a different conclusion using some shared "facts".



Did what for me? Whether the tomb was empty or not, it's still not a piece of evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Actually I'm fortunate to have been to both the Garden Tomb and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.



Really? A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Is our existence a miracle?



I look forward to seeing that. Somehow I don't think I'm going to though.



....no matter how unlikely is still more plausible as an explanation of the "facts" than a supernatural events such as physical resurrection from the dead. I still look forward to an explanation as to why a resurrection from the dead is the best explanation of the "facts' (unreliable as they are) presented in the Gospels.
Roy why are you providing unlikely scenarios to disprove Jesus’s resurrection?

I think it’s epiphany time for you .
 

Evolved1

Team Captain
Jun 14, 2013
453
414
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Not so sure it's laughable. The human mind or condition wonders about the world around them and requires answers. The answers take many forms including science and religion. Just because to many religion has answers that to many would be considered ridiculous, science if furthered by in some ways by the same search for the truth.
Scientific knowledge has far surpassed religion in any objective measure of 'truth', as can be clearly seen in the relative benefits of each to society.

When you're sick, do you go to the church or a doctor for help? The bible says to go to church elders for prayer.

I can understand why the bible was relevant in 200 AD. In 2019, not so much. The main issue is that people prefer absurd answers to having no definitive answers.
 

Boston tiger

Premiership Player
May 10, 2010
4,965
3,519
Where it all began
AFL Club
Richmond
Scientific knowledge has far surpassed religion in any objective measure of 'truth', as can be clearly seen in the relative benefits of each to society.

When you're sick, do you go to the church or a doctor for help? The bible says to go to church elders for prayer.

I can understand why the bible was relevant in 200 AD. In 2019, not so much. The main issue is that people prefer absurd answers to having no definitive answers.
Why was Christianity relevant in 200AD but not now?
 

Sainteric

Club Legend
Aug 5, 2016
2,607
1,409
AFL Club
St Kilda
Scientific knowledge has far surpassed religion in any objective measure of 'truth', as can be clearly seen in the relative benefits of each to society.

When you're sick, do you go to the church or a doctor for help? The bible says to go to church elders for prayer.

I can understand why the bible was relevant in 200 AD. In 2019, not so much. The main issue is that people prefer absurd answers to having no definitive answers.
No they need meaning and in some cases in say Islam and Christianity rewards, theoretical physics doesn't give you that.
 

jason pm

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 31, 2015
16,391
30,153
By the Gabba.
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Valleys. Chelsea.
Roy why are you providing unlikely scenarios to disprove Jesus’s resurrection?

I think it’s epiphany time for you .
Mmmm, so resurrection is a likely scenario BT? :think:

Personally I'd believe the alien playing tricks theory before the omnipresent, omniscient deity theory.
Why was Christianity relevant in 200AD but not now?
We know more now re previously unknown natural phenomena thanks to science so the gap for god to fit in is growing ever narrower.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
13,171
8,803
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Roy why are you providing unlikely scenarios to disprove Jesus’s resurrection?
Why do you avoid answering my question?

I'll ask again.

Why is a supernatural explanation is the best explanation of the "facts", when there are more probable and plausible natural explanations of those same "facts"?
 

Boston tiger

Premiership Player
May 10, 2010
4,965
3,519
Where it all began
AFL Club
Richmond
Why do you avoid answering my question?

I'll ask again.

Why is a supernatural explanation is the best explanation of the "facts", when there are more probable and plausible natural explanations of those same "facts"?

You can have very strong evidence for a resurrected Jesus but to convince someone like yourself that hasn’t experienced God... then they have no choice but to look for other reasons no matter how unlikely they seem.. otherwise you’d be a Christian.

I’m sorry I haven’t taken you seriously but what are the facts ?
 
Top Bottom