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

 

[skilts]

What don't you understand about literature?

I understand that it has many facets, among them is fantasy, your favoured area of interest.

 

[Present Not Past]

I understand that it has many facets, among them is fantasy, your favoured area of interest.

Good on you, so you've read more than the one book then. Congratulations.

 

[skilts]

I've got a live one here
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.

 

[skilts]

Good on you, so you've read more than the one book then. Congratulations.

Not something of which you've been accused. I have a vague recollection of having written something like that elsewhere.

 

[Present Not Past]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[M Malice]

Roylion is THE fact based expert on all things religious on Big Footy, nobody can hold a candle to his logic and studied knowledge of the subject.

 

[Cooldude]

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]

Roylion is THE fact based expert on all things religious on Big Footy, nobody can hold a candle to his logic and studied knowledge of the subject.

Well that killed the discussion dead now didn't

 

[Present Not Past]

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

Which ones?

 

[Present Not Past]

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.

 

[skilts]

Well, you've certainly shown yourself to be outstandingly dumb. I recommend you read what you write before hitting, 'Post reply'.

 

[Boston tiger]

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]

Roy why are you providing unlikely scenarios to disprove Jesus’s resurrection?

I think it’s epiphany time for you .

Are you a Poe?

 

[Evolved1]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Present Not Past]

Well, you've certainly shown yourself to be outstandingly dumb. I recommend you read what you write before hitting, 'Post reply'.

So you can't, just as I thought.
I was right all along when I thought I was dealing with an intellectual lightweight.

 

[M Malice]

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?

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]

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]

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 ?