How did you arrive at Christianity?

[Silmarien]

Simple, personal gods have influence over human life, they are involved.

Theologically speaking, "personal" refers more to the idea that God is in some sense a person, not a mindless, pantheistic life force. Relationality of some sort is probably entailed there, but interventionism certainly doesn't need to be.

Basic description of christianity to me:

Jesus was god
Jesus was crucified to relieve others of sin
Jesus rose from the dead
Jesus (god) must be believed to have a chance at salvation

Would you agree, to be considered a christian the above is required belief?

Actually, no. I agree that the Resurrection is a necessary belief (though interpretation may vary), and I would add the divinity of Christ for orthodox Christianity, but there's a lot more room for disagreement in theology concerning atonement and salvation. Eastern Orthodox atonement theology looks entirely different than the popular Western model, and both inclusivism and universalism exist, so unless you're going to deny the most historic branches of Christianity the label "Christian," half of that description does not work at all!

 

[bhsmte]

Theologically speaking, "personal" refers more to the idea that God is in some sense a person, not a mindless, pantheistic life force. Relationality of some sort is probably entailed there, but interventionism certainly doesn't need to be.



Actually, no. I agree that the Resurrection is a necessary belief (though interpretation may vary), and I would add the divinity of Christ for orthodox Christianity, but there's a lot more room for disagreement in theology concerning atonement and salvation. Eastern Orthodox atonement theology looks entirely different than the popular Western model, and both inclusivism and universalism exist, so unless you're going to deny the most historic br
anches of Christianity the label "Christian," half of that description does not work at all!

We are using different definitions of personal. To me, a 'personal' friendnis involved in my life and has influence and interaction. Dont christians claim god cares about them and can have influence over their life?

So, why dont you tell me, what the minimum belief would be, to be considered for a person to be considered a christian.

 

[Ed1wolf]

What kind of scientist are you? What is your education in science?

I am a biologist for the Dept. of Transportation. I have a masters degree in Wildlife Biology.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Your original statement was:

"Also, since personal beings exist in this universe then the cause of the universe must be a person because only persons can produce the personal"

I showed you an example where a non person directly produces a person. Which falsifies your original statement.

So are you attempting to try out a different statement?

No, there may be impersonal intermediate stages to produce the personal (that is why it is possible God used evolution to create humans) but ultimately the cause must be personal.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I didn't decide, God did and from His record and experience we can deduce that they are rare.

pos: 1) You haven't proved a god of any variety so 'god decided' is moot

My statement was not offered as evidence for God, I was just stating that I did not decide how many unusually Holy people there are, I determined it from what I believe is His communication to us and my experience.

pos; 2) Aren't all believers Holy ?

Yes, but from the context and the specific mentioning of these particular believers being Holy and being resurrected, points to an unusual holiness beyond the ordinary believer.

ed: I think it does.

pos: Of course you do, but still does not explain why such a miraculous event that 'amazed' many is only in one gospel.

1) The temple curtain was split in two, from top to bottom.
2) There was an earthquake powerful enough to split rocks
3) The tombs broke open
4) The bodies of many holy people were raised to life
5) They appeared to many people
6) It terrified professional soldiers and amazed them
7) Mary Magdalene, Mary saw it

Your conclusion (excuse)... Ahh hardly worth mentioning in other gospels really, many would have meant (insert my own menial number of people here)

I didn't say it was hardly worth mentioning, I said it was probably mentioned so often in the oral stories especially to the jews (Matthew was writing primarily to jews which is one reason why these were specifically mentioned since these were Jewish holy people not Christian holy people) that the other writers decided not to mention these events. His mentioning of the temple curtain being split also was directed specifically to the jews. The writers of the other Gospels were not specifically targeting jewish believers, that may be also why it was not mentioned. There are many very important statements made by Jesus that were only written down by John and not the other gospel writers and probably for the same reasons but as John got older he felt it was important to write these statements down though probably early Christians were very familiar with these statements because of their uniqueness and John's long oral ministry.

ed: Huh? I never claimed that science existed prior to the universe.

pos: I never claimed you did

That is what your statement appeared to say.

ed: Science has done very well predicting the causes of effects,and by studying the universe (which has all the characteristics of an effect)

pos: What are characteristics of effect?

Things that have beginnings and that change.

ed: we can predict that it was probably created by the Christian God.

pos: How? it does not imply anything we commonly call a god, much less the Christian god.

How does it not? You have not refuted a single one of my points.

ed: Then you can try to communicate with Him, which is what I did and He confirmed His existence to me by experience.

pos: You mean in 'your head', Other religious people from other religions make exactly the same claim and have provided at least as much (lack of) evidence as you.

No, the evidence for Christianity in the areas of science, history, and philosophy is greater than all other religions and worldviews.

ed: We can come to logical conclusions about what was the cause

pos: The only logical and honest conclusion is 'we don't know'

We don't know for certain, but we can come to the most likely logical conclusion, but of course most scientists are not going to admit this or acknowledge it because then they would be blacklisted as a crazy fundie.

ed: and if there was one and the evidence definitely points in the direction that there is one.

pos: We think it most likely there was a cause yes, but not a god.

See above why.

pos: By the way you claim to be a Scientist, care to share more? The reason I ask is that I'm familiar with how scientist speak, you don't sound like one I'm familiar with at at all.

I am a biologist. How are scientists supposed to speak?

 

[Silmarien]

We are using different definitions of personal. To me, a 'personal' friendnis involved in my life and has influence and interaction. Dont christians claim god cares about them and can have influence over their life?

Define "care" and define "influence." The sun rises on the evil and the good, after all. Christianity promises a world to come; there are no guarantees in this life... or at least no pleasant ones. I do believe that genuine theism involves influence and interaction, and also personal transformation, but I also believe that it entails a God who is continuously maintaining the universe in existence, so I don't really draw a sharp line between natural and supernatural causes. If theism is true, I see no reason why psychology cannot have a divine aspect to it and would actually expect that it does.

So, why dont you tell me, what the minimum belief would be, to be considered for a person to be considered a christian.

In the most broad sense, being a theist who rejects naturalistic explanations for the beginning of Christianity and has no prior commitment to a different religion's interpretation. I would prefer some real grappling with Atonement theology and belief in the uniqueness of the Christian revelation, but I'm not going to tell the pluralists that they're not Christian. I would also prefer it if someone were not out to discredit orthodox beliefs at every step, a la Spong, but if you call yourself Christian and don't start talking about Vishnu or Mohammad immediately after, I'm not going to complain too much.

That is pretty nebulous, but I distinguish between orthodox belief and broader Christian theism. The Nicene Creed is orthodoxy, and if you are within the bounds of historic interpretations of the religion, you are orthodox. If you're trying to pass off unorthodox ideas as orthodox or insisting upon narrower interpretations than the Church did historical, I will take issue, but I won't call you non-Christian.

 

[possibletarian]

No, there may be impersonal intermediate stages to produce the personal (that is why it is possible God used evolution to create humans) but ultimately the cause must be personal.

Why ?

 

[possibletarian]

My statement was not offered as evidence for God, I was just stating that I did not decide how many unusually Holy people there are, I determined it from what I believe is His communication to us and my experience.

And yet you started your sentence by saying...
I didn't decide, God did...
When making such opening statements, you should first present proof of god.

Yes, but from the context and the specific mentioning of these particular believers being Holy and being resurrected, points to an unusual holiness beyond the ordinary believer.

What is unusual holiness ?

I didn't say it was hardly worth mentioning, I said it was probably mentioned so often in the oral stories especially to the jews (Matthew was writing primarily to jews which is one reason why these were specifically mentioned since these were Jewish holy people not Christian holy people) that the other writers decided not to mention these events. His mentioning of the temple curtain being split also was directed specifically to the jews. The writers of the other Gospels were not specifically targeting jewish believers, that may be also why it was not mentioned. There are many very important statements made by Jesus that were only written down by John and not the other gospel writers and probably for the same reasons but as John got older he felt it was important to write these statements down though probably early Christians were very familiar with these statements because of their uniqueness and John's long oral ministry.

I would have thought that people being resurrected would be of utmost importance to Jew and non Jew alike given that the major attraction and selling point of the gospel is the resurrection and eternal life.

How does it not? You have not refuted a single one of my points.

That's just the point, you are the one claiming a god (one of many such made up claims claims in the world), you have to prove necessity of a god when making a leap between the two. So far you haven't, i don't need to refute a lack of evidence, it speaks for itself.

And do you ever wonder why mainstream science does not agree with your 'only logical solution' answers ?

No, the evidence for Christianity in the areas of science, history, and philosophy is greater than all other religions and worldviews.

Okay, the show me some credible evidence, that Christianity itself is responsible for the majority (or at least a greater share) of these things. In other words where the science is directly related to the uniqueness of the Christian faith.

I can certainly show you examples of where the church has opposed scientific progress on issues of dogma and faith claims.

We don't know for certain, but we can come to the most likely logical conclusion,

Which is, we don't know

but of course most scientists are not going to admit this or acknowledge it because then they would be blacklisted as a crazy fundie.

Well when people start claiming one of many gods. or gods at all did these things, all without any evidence whatsoever you can see their point I'm sure.

See above why.

And yet, mainstream science does not follow your reasoning.

I am a biologist. How are scientists supposed to speak?

With knowledge.

 

[possibletarian]

Theologically speaking, "personal" refers more to the idea that God is in some sense a person, not a mindless, pantheistic life force. Relationality of some sort is probably entailed there, but interventionism certainly doesn't need to be.

Hi there Silmarien,
Firstly let me say I have enjoyed your posts immensely it is wonderful to see one who can take the complex and make it simply understood, and you are one that can do it in few words, which is indeed a gift.

It is true that theologically speaking you could interpret a personal god as one who is a person.

In Christianity however when one talks of a personal god they almost always mean a relationship, indeed if asked what makes their faith the one to be in they will often tell you it's because they are the only ones in a relationship with their God.

There are many scriptures that portray that relationship as a very close interactive one with plenty of promises.

matthew 28:20
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”


John 14:13
12Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I am doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in My name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.…



Matthew 18:19
Again, I tell you truly that if two of you on the earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven.


James 5:15
14Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick. The Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power to prevail.…


John 14:20
19In a little while, the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you also will live. 20On that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you. 21Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him.”…

I think it's reasonable, given we are on a Christian forum to interpret 'personal' as in a relationship that carries promises of intervention.

 

[anonymous person]

Hi there Silmarien,
Firstly let me say I have enjoyed your posts immensely it is wonderful to see one who can take the complex and make it simply understood, and you are one that can do it in few words, which is indeed a gift.

It is true that theologically speaking you could interpret a personal god as one who is a person.

In Christianity however when one talks of a personal god they almost always mean a relationship, indeed if asked what makes their faith the one to be in they will often tell you it's because they are the only ones in a relationship with their God.

There are many scriptures that portray that relationship as a very close interactive one with plenty of promises.

matthew 28:20
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”


John 14:13
12Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I am doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in My name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.…



Matthew 18:19
Again, I tell you truly that if two of you on the earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven.


James 5:15
14Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick. The Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power to prevail.…


John 14:20
19In a little while, the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you also will live. 20On that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you. 21Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him.”…

I think it's reasonable, given we are on a Christian forum to interpret 'personal' as in a relationship that carries promises of intervention.

Yes, the relationship with God that I have is just as scripture records it is. It is personal, intimate, and immediate.

 

[Silmarien]

Hi there Silmarien,
Firstly let me say I have enjoyed your posts immensely it is wonderful to see one who can take the complex and make it simply understood, and you are one that can do it in few words, which is indeed a gift.

It is true that theologically speaking you could interpret a personal god as one who is a person.

In Christianity however when one talks of a personal god they almost always mean a relationship, indeed if asked what makes their faith the one to be in they will often tell you it's because they are the only ones in a relationship with their God.

There are many scriptures that portray that relationship as a very close interactive one with plenty of promises.

matthew 28:20
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”


John 14:13
12Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I am doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in My name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.…



Matthew 18:19
Again, I tell you truly that if two of you on the earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven.


James 5:15
14Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick. The Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power to prevail.…


John 14:20
19In a little while, the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you also will live. 20On that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you. 21Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him.”…

I think it's reasonable, given we are on a Christian forum to interpret 'personal' as in a relationship that carries promises of intervention.

The problem is that there is a modern theological divide within Christianity between two ways of conceiving God: the theistic personalism of Evangelical philosophers like William Craig Lane and Alvin Plantinga and the classical theism that you find amongst Catholic and Orthodox philosophers. These two groups have very different definitions of the word "personal," so it is certainly appropriate to discuss the various ways in which God is understood as personal within all of the various branches of Christian theology, not just the one people are most familiar with. Christianity is really quite big, and trying to isolate Scripture from the rest if the religion's intellectual history is specifically a Protestant project. (To the degree to which it is even a Protestant project at all.)

My concern is not specifically with a personal God being relational or even actively involved in the universe, though. I hope that both of these things are true and see no legitimate reason to discard either. I do not think that you can reconcile the Christian fascination with martyrdom with the idea that intervention entails material promises within this lifetime, though. Christianity's about carrying your cross and throwing your life away, not about getting wishes granted by your personal djinn, so I am very leery of simplistic approaches to the concept of God as personal. They tend to land us in Disney Land.

I do not deny that Christianity is super relational, though. It absolutely is. I've managed to get myself tangled into an admittedly somewhat rocky relationship with the Christian God, and I am kind of an agnostic!

 

[possibletarian]

The problem is that there is a modern theological divide within Christianity between two ways of conceiving God: the theistic personalism of Evangelical philosophers like William Craig Lane and Alvin Plantinga and the classical theism that you find amongst Catholic and Orthodox philosophers. These two groups have very different definitions of the word "personal," so it is certainly appropriate to discuss the various ways in which God is understood as personal within all of the various branches of Christian theology, not just the one people are most familiar with. Christianity is really quite big, and trying to isolate Scripture from the rest of the religion's intellectual history is specifically a Protestant project.

I would agree for the most part agree

My concern is not specifically with a personal God being relational or even actively involved in the universe, though. I hope that both of these things are true and see no legitimate reason to discard either. I do not think that you can reconcile the Christian fascination with martyrdom with the idea that intervention entails material promises within this lifetime, though. Christianity's about carrying your cross and throwing your life away, not about getting wishes granted by your personal djinn, so I am very leery of simplistic approaches to the concept of God as personal. They tend to land us in Disney Land.

Again I would agree it is hard to reconcile the biblical promise of a close relationship with reality. Being agnostic though it's not really a problem for me.

I do not deny that Christianity is super relational, though. It absolutely is. I've managed to get myself tangled into an admittedly somewhat rocky relationship with the Christian God, and I am kind of an agnostic!

I can identify with that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would for the most part agree



Again I would agree it is hard to reconcile the biblical promise of a close relationship with reality. Being agnostic though it's not really a problem for me.



I can identify with that.

Here's what I identify with, something that a lot of Christians seem to miss:

John 16:23-30 New King James Version (NKJV)

23 “And in that day you will ask Me nothing. Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you. 24 Until now you have asked nothing in My name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.

25 “These things [what things? those things in verses 23 and 24, by chance?] I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father. 26 In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I shall pray the Father for you; 27 for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God. 28 I came forth from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the Father.”

29 His disciples said to Him, “See, now You are speaking plainly, and using no figure of speech! 30 Now we are sure that You know all things, and have no need that anyone should question You. By this we believe that You came forth from God.”​

...somehow, I don't think I'll be literally asking for a Cadillac any time soon. Although, I am still under the impression that I can ask God to fill my life with His presence, and somehow, truly expect that manifestation to come to pass.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[anonymous person]

Here's what I identify with, something that a lot of Christians seem to miss:

John 16:23-30 New King James Version (NKJV)

23 “And in that day you will ask Me nothing. Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you. 24 Until now you have asked nothing in My name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.

25 “These things [what things? those things in verses 23 and 24, by chance?] I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father. 26 In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I shall pray the Father for you; 27 for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God. 28 I came forth from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the Father.”

29 His disciples said to Him, “See, now You are speaking plainly, and using no figure of speech! 30 Now we are sure that You know all things, and have no need that anyone should question You. By this we believe that You came forth from God.”​

...somehow, I don't think I'll be literally asking for a Cadillac any time soon. Although, I am still under the impression that I can ask God to fill my life with His presence, and somehow, truly expect that manifestation to come to pass.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Indeed, for it is His delight to give us good things, but above all, to give even Himself.

 

[possibletarian]

...somehow, I don't think I'll be literally asking for a Cadillac any time soon. Although, I am still under the impression that I can ask God to fill my life with His presence, and somehow, truly expect that manifestation to come to pass.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Indeed, for it is His delight to give us good things, but above all, to give even Himself.

Would basic things like food, shelter and health be part of that ?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Would basic things like food, shelter and health be part of that ?

Food, shelter and health could be a part of God's providence to some extent, but I don't think that when we pray according to the Lord's Prayer, we'll be saying (or expecting) anything like: " ...and give us this day our daily Sumptuous, Three Meal Plan, preferably with IHOP for breakfast, Red Lobster for lunch, and Tony's Marvelous Bistro for dinner (with a drink plan, of course tucked in there somewhere)."

But seriously, nothing on the material plane is guaranteed by the simple fact that we have a relationship with God. One could get his daily bread for quite a while, and still get martyred, or fall sick, or face the whirlwind, or whatever other fate may befall a faithful person, even after years of apparent providence from God in other sectors of life.

Look at Stephen in the books of Acts, for instance, as but one example. If Jesus is saying that our faith will provide sustenance, shielding and longevity without fail, then as we look at Stephen, we have to ask, "Where were you God when Stephen needed shelter?" If we look at how Saul decimated and scattered the earliest church, with some being imprisoned, probably ill-treated, hungry, made poor, we have to ask, "Where were you God when Saul persecuted the Church?" And so on, and so on.

When we ask God to provide, as in "give us this day our daily bread," we're not asking with the full confidence that our bellies will be indeed be filled with bread on a daily basis. No, we as Christians are asking God that, if He sees fit, to provide us some bread. We don't assume that it will just be there regardless. I don't anyway, although I do know some churches that will gladly tell you otherwise.

God doesn't have to; but He often does provide.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Food, shelter and health could be a part of God's providence to some extent, but I don't think that when we pray according to the Lord's Prayer, we'll be saying (or expecting) anything like: " ...and give us this day our daily Sumptuous, Three Meal Plan, preferably with IHOP for breakfast, Red Lobster for lunch, and Tony's Marvelous Bistro for dinner (with a drink plan, of course tucked in there somewhere)."

But seriously, nothing on the material plane is guaranteed by the simple fact that we have a relationship with God. One could get their daily bread for quite a while, and still get martyred, or fall sick, or face the whirlwind, or whatever other fate may befall a faithful person, even after years of apparent providence from God in other sectors of life.

Look at Stephen, for instance, in the books of Acts as but one example. If Jesus is saying that our faith with provide sustenance without fail, then as we look at Stephen, we have to ask, "Where were you God when Stephen needed shelter?" If we look at how Saul decimated and scattered the earliest church, with some being imprisoned, probably ill-treated, hungry, made poor, we have to ask, "Where were you God when Saul persecuted the Church?" And so on, and so on.

When we ask God to provide, as in "give us this day our daily bread," we're not asking with the full confidence that our bellies will be indeed be filled with bread on a daily basis. No, we as Christians are asking God that, if He sees fit, to provide us some bread. We don't assume that it will just be there regardless. I don't anyway, although I do know some churches that will gladly tell you otherwise.

God doesn't have to; but He often does provide.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

The 'daily' in 'our daily bread' is anyway an unique word to the Gospels - it is a hapax legomenon found in no other hellenistic texts.
It is not the normal word 'daily' but Epiousios. This bears an implication of substance ousios, with a prefix for 'to be'.
This means it can be interpreted in a Eucharistic manner, asking for the Bread of Life, while still being a more quotidian request for aid. It can also be interpreted as asking for bread 'for tomorrow' or for what is necessary for existence. It is really well written.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
See my previous post.No, it operates according to natural laws, otherwise science would be impossible. That is why Christians invented modern science because the bible teaches that God maintains those laws,

pos: Islam makes exactly the same claim, for the same reasons.

I have read large sections of the Koran and don't recall it every saying that the universe operates according to laws. But even if it does, it was probably borrowed from the Bible like it borrows several other things.

pos: To say that Christians invented modern science is a bit of a stretch, They built on ancient and pre Christian concepts such as mathematics from the Greeks, ancient Egypt and the middle east. Some methods are actually dated back over 9,000 years (before the bible says the universe even began, if taken literally).

Back to your claim though, the so called developed world had become Christian at this point. The people with the money and resources to further experimental science were Christians by default they didn't invent science.

Only Christians utilizing the Christian worldview that teaches an orderly universe that objectively exists invented the self correcting, systematic ongoing study of the universe. Other religions like the Greeks believed that gods often turned into animals and objects, thereby making science impossible. Also, their aristocracy never did experimentation because believed working with their hands was beneath them and only slaves did such work. Hindus never developed science because they believed that the material world was an illusion and that everything is a spiritual manifestation of God. The great historian of science Loren Eisely acknowledged that modern science could only have emerged from the Christian worldview.

 

[Silmarien]

Only Christians utilizing the Christian worldview that teaches an orderly universe that objectively exists invented the self correcting, systematic ongoing study of the universe. Other religions like the Greeks believed that gods often turned into animals and objects, thereby making science impossible. Also, their aristocracy never did experimentation because believed working with their hands was beneath them and only slaves did such work.

I have to point out the monotheism of much of Greek philosophy and some of its later religion (e.g., Neoplatonism). I do agree that modern science has its roots in Christian theology, but it's certainly worth examining the question of to what degree this is due to Greek rather than Judaic influences upon Christianity (assuming the two can even be separated at all). You cannot overlook the role played by Aristotle's observational based approach to science.

 

[possibletarian]

I have read large sections of the Koran and don't recall it every saying that the universe operates according to laws. But even if it does, it was probably borrowed from the Bible like it borrows several other things.

Yes but the writer of that particular verse had already observed that the sun rose in the morning, that if you dropped something it would always fall down, that the stars seemed to move in a certain way. They simply attributed them to a god, pretty much like they did with everything.

Observation of the stars, Math, and the foundation blocks of science came from many cultures. As for the other creation stories here is a whole book of them for you, from all over the world.

Creation stories from range of major religions

It's a free downloadable book and great fun to read. One of the Hindu stories is particular interesting, it has creation, a serpent, creation of the earth, water and skies... you get the idea.

I treat the Genesis creation myth with the same amount of fun, it's great story.
I was going to say i treat the genesis myth with scepticism, but not really I'm at peace with it as a story.

Only Christians utilizing the Christian worldview that teaches an orderly universe that objectively exists invented the self correcting, systematic ongoing study of the universe.

What worldview, you mean like the Greek one below ?

Other religions like the Greeks believed that gods often turned into animals and objects, thereby making science impossible.

The Greeks though science impossible ? They had acknowledged the universe had predictable laws long before Christianity was even on the scene
Ancient Greek Science

During the 26th Dynasty of Egypt (c. 685–525 BCE), the ports of the Nile were opened for the first time to Greek trade. Important Greek figures such as Thales and Pythagoras visited Egypt, and brought with them new skills and knowledge. Ionia, in addition to Egyptian influence, was exposed to the culture and ideas of Mesopotamia through its neighbour, the kingdom of Lydia.


According to Greek tradition, the process of replacing the notion of supernatural explanation with the concept of a universe that is governed by laws of nature begins in Ionia. Thales of Miletus, about 600 BCE first developed the idea that the world can be explained without resorting to supernatural explanations. It is high likely that the astronomical knowledge that Thales got from Egyptian and Babylonian astronomy allowed him to predict a solar eclipse which took place in May 28th 585 BCE.

Also, their aristocracy never did experimentation because believed working with their hands was beneath them

And yet they were leaping ahead with science along with other culture.

and only slaves did such work. Hindus never developed science because they believed that the material world was an illusion and that everything is a spiritual manifestation of God.

So does the universe exist apart from your god ?

The great historian of science Loren Eisely acknowledged that modern science could only have emerged from the Christian worldview.

Good for him