Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think the bible claims a lot of things that are not true.
You must realise that if you can make an argument for Christianity you can make an argument for every religion,
that's the price a faith must pay, if one is right they all are, if there was evidence for any one religion then there would be only one religion, faith is only needed in all religions because there is no evidence.
Using the Bible to make predictions isn't as impressive when you do it after science has already made the observations. Given how 'after the fact' it is, do you really consider the discovery of dark matter to be evidence supportive of the Bible?Dark matter completely concurs with God "philosophy". The Bible claims that Jesus holds the universe together. That there is a force that indeed holds the universe together supports that claim.
Is Christianity a faith?This is completely false in every instance. First, all religions are different and do not profess the same beliefs, thus if different thy can not all be right.
There is evidence for Christianity and in fact, it reflects what we see in the universe and is consistent within its own worldview.
"There is evidence for [religion] and in fact, it reflects what we see in the universe and is consistent within its own worldview" - Anon.This is completely false in every instance. First, all religions are different and do not profess the same beliefs, thus if different thy can not all be right.
There is evidence for Christianity and in fact, it reflects what we see in the universe and is consistent within its own worldview.
Using the Bible to make predictions isn't as impressive when you do it after science has already made the observations. Given how 'after the fact' it is, do you really consider the discovery of dark matter to be evidence supportive of the Bible?
More generally, of course, the Bible has been twisted and wrangled to support every idea and philosophy under the Sun. Flat Earth, round Earth, geocentrism, heliocentrism, stationary, rotating... black people are inferior, all races are equal, men are better than women, all sexes are equal, gays should be murdered on sight, celibate gays are OK, all sexualities are equal...
Is Christianity a faith?
Then I don't care because you are obviously out of it.I don't understand your question?
Then I don't care because you are obviously out of it.
That's not what I said. I said the prediction is after the fact, because people say "The Bible details dark matter, how prophetic!" only after dark matter has been discovered by science. Never once did people in the 1800s or early 1900s say "Gee, isn't it funny how the Bible talks about mysterious matter in deep space that has mass but doesn't interact with light!", only for such matter to then be discovered.It would be after the fact if the Bible was written after the discovery. It is humorous to claim that it is an after the fact situation when the Bible was written thousands of years ago and yet we are just finding out that it predicted it thousands of years before the discovery.
Yes, I'm well aware that this is a Victorian fantasy, and that the round Earth was known (and measured to surprising accuracy) in the Ancient Greek times, and I never claimed otherwise. My point is that there were those who interpret the Bible to support the idea of a Flat Earth (they still exist, y'know), even if they were a minority.It can be true of any type of material that spans thousands of years that interpretations can be different by different readers. However, the actual words are there for antiquity. For instance, the Bible and a flat earth. It seems that only those who wish to interpret as such do so.
During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent, despite fanciful depictions in art, such as the exterior of Hieronymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[3]According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[4] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[5]
Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution.[6] Russell claims "with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat", and credits histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving for popularizing the flat-earth myth.[7]
It is apparent even now people will claim that the Bible claims a flat earth while historically it has shown that not to be what the church claimed.
...Geocentrism and heliocentrism can both still be argued scientifically.
Really? The scripture in question is Genesis 9:20-27, the Curse of Ham. The standard interpretation for centuries was that this curse was black skin, and it was the core defence of the slave trade. Though the passages were reinterpreted when slavery ended, some white supremacists still interpret those passages in the racist way.I don't get the black people being more inferior. I don't know of any scripture that could be interpreted as such.
Gender issues must be taken within context.
Without diving into widely forbidden territory, the core passages can be either discarded (Leviticus laws don't apply any more) or retranslated ('arsenokoitai' etc are novel words with unknown meaning; 'homosexual' is only one possible translation). You can choose "Leviticus dietary laws don't count... but the anti-gay one does", or "Leviticus doesn't count, period", etc. Interpretation for all views, come one, come all!Homosexuality is not considered ok in the Bible and I don't know where you or others have determined it meant anything but that.
That site hurts my brain.However, there will always be interpretations that vary. That being said, there are things that are not interpretive. Such as this:
I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
Isaiah 45:12
We know the universe is expanding now. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. [Hebrews 11:3] [Emphasis Added] - See more at: Scientific Facts in The Bible
No, they don't.Scripture speaks of singing stars and now we know that they do "sing".
No, they did not. Various passages were reinterpreted to insert things like dark matter. At no point did anyone before the discovery say "From the Bible, I predict space is filled with mass that doesn't interfere with light, that would account for discrepancies in galactic rotation velocities". Only after the discovery was the Bible suddenly replete with references to dark matter. You're retroactively reinterpreting passages to make it look like the Bible was prophetic all along (and maybe it was, but unless you can predict observations before they're made, it doesn't count. And no, the Bible's antiquity doesn't matter).The observation was made before the discovery. That is why it is impressive. The information was not available to those who wrote the Bible and thousands of years later we find that they predicted what we have found.
That's not what I said. I said the prediction is after the fact, because people say "The Bible details dark matter, how prophetic!" only after dark matter has been discovered by science. Never once did people in the 1800s or early 1900s say "Gee, isn't it funny how the Bible talks about mysterious matter in deep space that has mass but doesn't interact with light!", only for such matter to then be discovered.
Looking at the Bible after dark matter has been discovered and saying, "Oh, it was there all along" is not impressive, it's just reinterpreting nebulous passages after the facts have been discovered.
Yes, I'm well aware that this is a Victorian fantasy, and that the round Earth was known (and measured to surprising accuracy) in the Ancient Greek times, and I never claimed otherwise. My point is that there were those who interpret the Bible to support the idea of a Flat Earth (they still exist, y'know), even if they were a minority.
No, they really can't. Heliocentrism won hundreds of years ago, and every advance in gravitation just confirms this more. Geocentrism has gone the way of the flat Earth and the luminiferous aether.
Really? The scripture in question is Genesis 9:20-27, the Curse of Ham. The standard interpretation for centuries was that this curse was black skin, and it was the core defence of the slave trade. Though the passages were reinterpreted when slavery ended, some white supremacists still interpret those passages in the racist way.
Without diving into widely forbidden territory, the core passages can be either discarded (Leviticus laws don't apply any more) or retranslated ('arsenokoitai' etc are novel words with unknown meaning; 'homosexual' is only one possible translation). You can choose "Leviticus dietary laws don't count... but the anti-gay one does", or "Leviticus doesn't count, period", etc. Interpretation for all views, come one, come all!
That site hurts my brain.
No, they don't.
No, they did not. Various passages were reinterpreted to insert things like dark matter. At no point did anyone before the discovery say "From the Bible, I predict space is filled with mass that doesn't interfere with light, that would account for discrepancies in galactic rotation velocities". Only after the discovery was the Bible suddenly replete with references to dark matter. You're retroactively reinterpreting passages to make it look like the Bible was prophetic all along (and maybe it was, but unless you can predict observations before they're made, it doesn't count. And no, the Bible's antiquity doesn't matter).
Retroactive reinterpretation is not prediction.
To begin with the Bible is meant for many many generations of readers. The fact that these clearly predict what should be found in the universe is exactly what so many people claim never occurs and then when shown that it is a prediction the Bible makes you and other then turn and claim that it is "after" the fact. The Bible was written thousands of years prior to the discovery. If the Bible was used as a hypothesis and then science researched the passage, the discovery could have come from Bible. The same happened when Matthew Fontaine Maury found the path in the seas as was predicted in Psalms 8. He knew if it was in the Bible he should be able to fine them and he did. This was prediction of the Bible that was researched and discovered.
Why? The fact that thousands of years ago they predicted that the universe would have evidence of being held together by Jesus and we find that there is a force that holds the universe together that is even undetectable makes that prediction pretty impressive. Why would uneducated men thousands of years ago think that something was holding the universe together or there would even be a need for it?
OK.
...
...
I am not sure you are aware of the fact that scientists use both models in scientific research.
The irony is that after all the disputes over these different theories, neither one is necessarily correct. Einsteins Theory of Relativity upset both models. New evidence has also shown that the Solar Systems center of gravity is not the exact center of the Sun. This means that either model is acceptable regardless of the fundamental differences between the theories. Astronomers use both the heliocentric and geocentric models for research depending on which theory makes their calculations easier. It definitely seems as if some things are relative after all.
Read more: Difference Between Geocentric and Heliocentric
No, I had not ever heard of this. :o
Yes, we can forego this.
Oh, yes they do.
(Newser) NASA has discovered a group of massive red stars that are actually humming to themselves. The planet-hunting Kepler space telescope recently spotted sound waves emanating from the stars, the Wall Street Journal reports. NASA recorded the tune, and played it recently at a press conference in Denmark. It is a giant red concert, says the astronomer who made the recording. They have many different frequencies and overtones.
NASA Finds Singing Stars - Telescope spots sound waves traveling through space
I totally disagree.
Really? The scripture in question is Genesis 9:20-27, the Curse of Ham. The standard interpretation for centuries was that this curse was black skin, and it was the core defence of the slave trade. Though the passages were reinterpreted when slavery ended, some white supremacists still interpret those passages in the racist way.
After seeing flaws in Christianity itself I'm slowly leaving it, but I'm not really going into atheism...Darwin was an Agnostic, same for Einstein. That's why I changed my icon to "Seeker". I don't know what to believe anymore. I don't know much about evolution and the explosion, so if someone could explain it to me in a simple way.
And if someone could explain these:
1. How can nothing create the universe.
2. Since the magnetosphere of the Earth is very young, how could there even be advanced life, because the magnetosphere protects us from solar radiation?
3. The missing links?
And the evidence for your claims. Thank you.
Dark energy is here to stay. Thanks to the link that concurs with mainstream cosmology. You posted links that accept mainstream cosmology and none agree with your God did it philosophy. What's your point?
Like gravity, Dark Energy does not support or disprove God either. But then neither does the theory of evolution. It may disprove certain people's personal view of God, but we have known for ages that Noah's Ark was a myth and that caused very few people to become atheists if any. Evolution may have hurt quite a bit, since people can now see how life did not need God to get here. Still it does not disprove God, just the God of Genesis.What i posted doesn't support any side at the moment. Gravity is gravity and it doesn't prove or disprove God. Dark matter and energy are fairly unknown parts of the cosmos. It is still early days and some things they may never understand. The sites i linked were just talking out how they dont understand how it all works. They have put forward some hypothesis but thats it at the moment.
What I'm saying is that there are some unusual things happening out there that seem to break the normal behaviors of what we know about gravity. Some mysterious force is at play that makes up much of the universe. It maybe mysterious to scientists because it is unknown and they may find out something that fits in and all makes sense. But it also maybe mysterious because it is. If God has something to do with it and as we get closer to seeing into the very core of how things are made just as we are with the higgs boson then maybe we will see something that doesn't make sense and cannot be explained and only comes from God. Maybe that something will go beyond how we understand things according to how we see laws and physics.
What i posted doesn't support any side at the moment. Gravity is gravity and it doesn't prove or disprove God. Dark matter and energy are fairly unknown parts of the cosmos. It is still early days and some things they may never understand. The sites i linked were just talking out how they dont understand how it all works. They have put forward some hypothesis but thats it at the moment.
What I'm saying is that there are some unusual things happening out there that seem to break the normal behaviors of what we know about gravity. Some mysterious force is at play that makes up much of the universe. It maybe mysterious to scientists because it is unknown and they may find out something that fits in and all makes sense. But it also maybe mysterious because it is. If God has something to do with it and as we get closer to seeing into the very core of how things are made just as we are with the higgs boson then maybe we will see something that doesn't make sense and cannot be explained and only comes from God. Maybe that something will go beyond how we understand things according to how we see laws and physics.
The bible is the most quoted book in the history of mankind and many take every word as true, yet any objective analysis of how credible the book is, is completely off limits.
I compare to this to how many christians decide to try and discredit scientific evidence and discoveries. They work so hard to find any flaw they can hang their hat on, yet, when it comes to examining a book written thousands of years ago by unknown authors, decades after events supposedly took place, contains many errors, contradictions and later additions, their appetite to find any flaws changes dramatically.
This is the ultimate double standard, is is purely driven from the cognitive dissonance many believers experience.
Like gravity, Dark Energy does not support or disprove God either. But then neither does the theory of evolution. It may disprove certain people's personal view of God, but we have known for ages that Noah's Ark was a myth and that caused very few people to become atheists if any. Evolution may have hurt quite a bit, since people can now see how life did not need God to get here. Still it does not disprove God, just the God of Genesis.
Dark Energy seems to be fairly well supported by evidence. What is my evidence that it is correct? Well one very strong point in its favor is that juvenissum is against it
ETA: And putting God into science because you can match some vague verses to him is a mug's game. You might as well become a Muslim since they are past masters at that nonsense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?