Any christian mathematicians or physicists?

[juvenissun]

I agree that the vast majority of religions have their realistic sides, but not at the core. At the core they are based on the existence of a deity, and the whims of that deity matter the most. Since I know of no evidence that shows any religion or god to be real, I can only go with the other options available, which to me is the humanistic ones.

So you pretend not seeing the realistic side of religion. That is not very good.

Do you know anything about Buddhism monk? Are their life happy (and good)?

 

[juvenissun]

Nope. Jesus still rise from the dead in the NT. Nothing that happens in Genesis, taken allegorically, is problematic for the gospel.

Not the facts. But the theology will bust.

 

[juvenissun]

When it comes to religion, it is usually the one that suits the individuals needs the best. Hence, all the various denominations of Christianity.

Christian denominations are for the needs?
You do have a long way to go in understanding.

 

[ebia]

Genesis 1 and 2 are NOT myth. If they were, it WOULD debunk Christianity.

That's clearly not the case when many people read them non-literally and remain Christian

 

[juvenissun]

That's clearly not the case when many people read them non-literally and remain Christian

Anyone can be a Christian without even read Gen. 1 and 2.
But if so, there are some faith questions they can not answer.
If that is fine with them, I have no problem.

A good question, for example, is: why should God love me?

 

[ebia]

Anyone can be a Christian without even read Gen. 1 and 2. But if so, there are some faith questions they can not answer.

But we aren't talking about someone who hasn't read them, but someone who recognises them as true (though not mundanely factual).

If that is fine with them, I have no problem. A good question, for example, is: why should God love me?

Should?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Genesis 1 and 2 are NOT myth. If they were, it WOULD debunk Christianity.

Oh, how I wish it were that easy to debunk Christianity.

 

[Sayre]

Not the facts. But the theology will bust.

Genesis 1 and 2 are NOT myth. If they were, it WOULD debunk Christianity.

Which theology will bust?

 

[juvenissun]

Oh, how I wish it were that easy to debunk Christianity.

AiG's "Back to Genesis" campaign does a pretty good job on this.

 

[juvenissun]

But we aren't talking about someone who hasn't read them, but someone who recognises them as true (though not mundanely factual).


Should?

Based on the degree of love God gives to human, yes, "should" is a better word than "would" or "does" in the question: Why should God love me?

If you do not agree, then we "should" go back to Genesis 1 and 2 to talk about this issue. Because that is where all these begin.

 

[juvenissun]

Which theology will bust?

Christian theology.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hi there,

My question will be short: `How did you come to believe in the existence of God and to become a christian?'

Thank you.

Because I was once an evolutionist, and realized the claimed facts was never supported by the actual data. I am a 3D modeler and design bridges, tunnels, dams and drilling rigs to actually work in the real world, so math and science is definitely a prerequisite. Not that I claim to be a mathematician or physicist, but I understand enough to keep bridges and dams from collapsing due to the forces and stresses involved.

 

[lesliedellow]

Thanks. I'll check him out.

Maybe you would like a few more:

Antony Hewish
Charles H Townes
George Coyne
Freeman Dyson
Christopher Isham
George Ellis
John D Barrow
Rodney Holder
J Richard Gott
John Wheeler

 

[ebia]

Based on the degree of love God gives to human, yes, "should" is a better word than "would" or "does" in the question: Why should God love me? If you do not agree, then we "should" go back to Genesis 1 and 2 to talk about this issue. Because that is where all these begin.

"Should" implies god is subject to an external imperative. Do you really want to go there?

 

[ebia]

Christian theology.

Well it doesn't, so you've been disproved.

Without Genesis at all one might get a somewhat different theology (or one might conclude the same set of truths that are taught by Genesis anyway). But none of the essential theological truths of Genesis depend on it being a mundanely factual account of what you'd have seen if you'd been there; for the most part they come out all the stronger for concentrating on the theological meaning.

 

[Mr Clean]

So you pretend not seeing the realistic side of religion. That is not very good.

What part of my statement "I agree that the vast majority of religions have their realistic sides" did you not understand?

Do you know anything about Buddhism monk? Are their life happy (and good)?

"Happy" and "good" are human concepts and are purely subjective standards. Anyway, we were talking about human governance. How does the happiness of a Buddhist monk fit into that discussion???

 

[Mr Clean]

Christian denominations are for the needs?
You do have a long way to go in understanding.

From your point of view maybe. From a psychological standpoint denominations are quite predictable. People use mental crutches in different ways and for different reasons, and it only stands to reason that people are going to modify that crutch to fit them as comfortably as possible...

 

[juvenissun]

What part of my statement "I agree that the vast majority of religions have their realistic sides" did you not understand?

"Happy" and "good" are human concepts and are purely subjective standards. Anyway, we were talking about human governance. How does the happiness of a Buddhist monk fit into that discussion???

We were talking about a "better" human governance. That was how it started.

 

[juvenissun]

Well it doesn't, so you've been disproved.

Without Genesis at all one might get a somewhat different theology (or one might conclude the same set of truths that are taught by Genesis anyway). But none of the essential theological truths of Genesis depend on it being a mundanely factual account of what you'd have seen if you'd been there; for the most part they come out all the stronger for concentrating on the theological meaning.

I think that is not true at all.
If we interpret Genesis 1 and 2 allegorically, "for the most part", it leads to some kind of cult. There will be no control in any allegorical interpretation on anything. Basically, anything goes in that case, just like humanism. For example, the sun could be taken as fire, or as flower.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think that is not true at all.
If we interpret Genesis 1 and 2 allegorically, "for the most part", it leads to some kind of cult. There will be no control in any allegorical interpretation on anything. Basically, anything goes in that case, just like humanism. For example, the sun could be taken as fire, or as flower.

What is the difference between Christianity and any other cult?