Can't put life in the dead

[Whyyyyy]

I don't know what the Quram is. I ask again, are you referring to the Quran?

Sorry but I'm not going to take time to go out searching for whatever it is you may be referring to when you barely know yourself. When you find it please feel free to let me know.

http://jaq.org/blog/2009/10/10/all-passages-about-jesus-in-the-quran/

19,19
19,33

 

[SkepticThinker]

http://jaq.org/blog/2009/10/10/all-passages-about-jesus-in-the-quran/

19,19
19,33

The Quran was written long after the Bible, correct? The Muslims are not worshiping the same god as the Jews and the Christians, correct? So, doesn't this just confuse things even more? Now we've got an extra god in there.

5:75 Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers
that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat
their (daily) food.

Does that reinforce the idea that Jesus was the Messiah?

 

[Twilight Hue]

No you just catch them before they're completely gone, Go down to the morgue and bring someone back who's been dead for a few days. And get it on youtube.

The dead are more alive than you think.

Get a microscope and view the abundance of life.

That's "you"

 

[Kemosloby]

Those are claims made in the Bible. There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus rising from the dead (not that eyewitness accounts are all that reliable anyway). So again I ask, what reason does anyone have to believe what the Bible says?

Well for one you have the eyewitness accounts, people who saw him die on the cross, then later saw him up and about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well for one you have the eyewitness accounts, people who saw him die on the cross, then later saw him up and about.

What eyewitness accounts??

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Science can't put life in the dead

I'll speak to her about this. Maybe she just hasn't tried yet. Hashtag Anthropomorphism.
Sometimes I wonder which has done more harm to the inaccurate public perception of the scientific endeavor: the myth of The Scientific Method or the personification of Science as a unity. I'm not opposed to metonymy in general, but here the usage seems to promote, promulgate, and reinforce a fundamental misconception (or even a set of misconceptions). The sciences are in general concerned with explanation, although many fields are concerned with the application of scientific theories and models to technological developments or are concerned with technological developments in and of themselves. Sociologists, chemists, and high-energy physicists don't concern themselves in general with issues like life vs. death or living systems. Questions about what it means for a system to be living is in general the concern of the life sciences, although other sciences and philosophy is relevant here. It means nothing to say that scientists can't "put life in the dead". Saying this is like saying "science can't put the space in spacetime" or "scientists can't compute uncomputable functions" or other irrelevant, tautologous nonsense. Without science, we can't even begin to differentiate living systems that have "died" from non-living systems more generally. A dead person has plenty of life in them in that multiple living systems continue to live within the dead after death.