1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Poll: “Science has proven” and “God says”

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Jim, May 15, 2020.

?
  1. I see problems with “Science says ...” that I don’t see with “God says ...” (Please explain)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. I see problems with “God says ...” that I don’t see with “Science says ...” (Please explain)

    8 vote(s)
    44.4%
  3. I see most or all of the same problems with both ways of thinking

    6 vote(s)
    33.3%
  4. Other (Please explain)

    4 vote(s)
    22.2%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Jim

    Jim Nets of Wonder

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,169
    Ratings:
    +2,175
    Religion:
    personal development and community service, with love for nature
    My topic in this thread is not about the actual words in scriptures. It’s about what people say that their scriptures are saying, whenever they are not quoting the exact words.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    16,640
    Ratings:
    +7,920
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Over the millennia they have sort of done a lot rewriting, translation, editing, and various interpretations to make things fit what people want to believe. Square pegs do not fit round holes without leaving a lot splinters on the ground.

    The Bible is worth reading as well as all the scriptures and other writings of the religions and philosophies of the world. Both the actual scripture and the various interpretations are worthwhile studying they represent the evolving spiritual and philosophical heritage of humanity..
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,339
    Ratings:
    +571
    Religion:
    None
    Science is about corporate proofs of physical things.
    Religious is about private proofs of spiritual things.
    The two exist in different realms.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  4. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    16,640
    Ratings:
    +7,920
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Science does not prove anything, and there is little or no corporate funding for evolution and abiogenesis.

    There is no proof of spiritual things.


    True, science is based the falsification of objective verifiable evidence. Religions are based on the belief of subjective things.
     
  5. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,339
    Ratings:
    +571
    Religion:
    None
    There are some fallacies with this argument. The main one being that the scripture
    has been changed to fit beliefs. I don't see that, particularly with the New Testament.
    Certainly the Jewish Old Testament was condemning of the Jewish people - they didn't
    change this scripture, just worked around it.
    Saying the bible is "no different" is a kind of moral equivalence. Picking out how the bible
    resembles other books doesn't do it justice - it's where it differs that says a lot more.
     
  6. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,339
    Ratings:
    +571
    Religion:
    None
    By "corporate" I mean "a company or group"
    Science must be proven at this level.
    Religion is about private experience and inner reflection.

    As a side note - says everywhere in the bible that if you
    just believe in God because others do then you haven't
    learned anything and your faith is vain. You have to prove
    it for yourself.
     
  7. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    59,265
    Ratings:
    +17,160
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    One example that pops into my mind:

    The Southern Baptist Convention, who are now so anti-choice that many of its members are single-issue voters specifically about abortion, was pro-choice until 1979:

    When Southern Baptists Were Pro-Choice | BillMoyers.com
     
  8. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    16,640
    Ratings:
    +7,920
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Corporate is not defined as above.

    No science does not prove anything.

    This would not prove anything, It only leads to circular reasoning to justify what one believes is true.

    . . . again circular reasoning to prove something for yourself.
     
  9. Altfish

    Altfish Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    11,828
    Ratings:
    +9,377
    Religion:
    Humanist
    Wow, a religion going backwards !!!
     
  10. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,425
    Ratings:
    +5,018
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Excuse me, but all the New Testament writing do, is trying to justify a new religion by reinterpreting the Old Testament passages (signs, prophecies), as well as adapting foreign religious beliefs.

    The Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth, a mortal woman conceiving a child via a god, and giving birth to a demigod, is a foreign concept, not found anywhere in the Old Testament.

    Gilgamesh being the son of Lugalbanda and goddess Ninsun, Heracles (Hercules) was the son of Zeus and Alcmene, were just some of examples of demigods.

    Matthew 1:22-23 reinterpreted Isaiah’s sign as the sign of messiah, except that when you read the whole chapter, the child to be born, Immanuel, has nothing to do with messiah, because Isaiah 7:14 was never messianic prophecy, not unless Tiglath-pileser III was the messiah?

    Matthew 1:23 left out the rest of the sign 7:14-17.

    The sign had nothing to do with virgin birth or the messiah, but had everything to with the Ahaz’s war with Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram, and with Tiglath-pileser’s intervention.

    The sign was about Assyria coming to Ahaz’s aid.

    A similar sign is given in Isaiah 8:3-4, and given the similarities of the two signs in relation to Assyria, it is revealed that the pregnant woman was Isaiah’s own wife, and that Immanuel is Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

    The sign had nothing to do Mary and Jesus, but the author of Matthew wanted the readers to view it that way.
     
  11. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,339
    Ratings:
    +571
    Religion:
    None
    The men who gave up their livelihoods, their homes and families and ultimately even their own lives
    to preach the Gospel saw in Jesus the fulfillment of scripture - particularly Isaiah (but also Jacob, Moses
    David, Malachi, Zechariah etc..)
    But what Isaiah said is of note.
    A “sign” would be given through a special child born. To “us” a son is “given” – he will belong to the Jewish
    people but his glory would be to the Gentiles. He will be the “mighty God” and “Counselor.” His “judgment” and
    “justice” was “forever.”
    He would be a “tender shoot… in a dry ground.” A “great light” to Galilee of the Gentiles. God gave Him no
    attractiveness and no children of His own. He would be the healer to “the eyes of the blind” and “the ears of the
    deaf” and even to restore the dead to life.
    Yet He would be “despised and rejected” and a “man of sorrows.” He would be taken from prison and judgment
    and like a lamb He would be “pierced” and “crushed.” Yet He will see life again and be “satisfied” for “suffering of
    His soul.”
     
  12. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,425
    Ratings:
    +5,018
    Religion:
    Pi π
    You are cherry-picking Isaiah’s sign, ignoring the whole sign, just as the author to the gospel of Matthew have done.

    The sign isn’t about the birth of the boy, but when Assyria one to Ahaz in the war against Israel and Aram. When the boy reach a certain, Assyria will attack Aram and Israel.

    Did you even bother to read verses 14 to 17?

    A similar sign is given in Isaiah 8:3-4, which was also the Assyrian intervention in the war.

    In fact, the name Immanuel reappeared in chapter 8, again in association with Assyria:

    That’s the complete sign.

    Matthew’s interpretation is nothing more than a propaganda, where only verse 14 is quoted. Any Jew reading would noticed that the gospel author omitted the complete signs.

    Try reading the whole 2 chapters - Isaiah 7 and Isaiah 8 - from the first verse to the last, without this biased Christian preconceptions.

    Did you know one of the reason why I became agnostic in the 1st place, back in 2000?

    It is because of Matthew 1:22-23 have dishonestly quoted Isaiah’s original sign (Isaiah 7:14-17) with reinterpretation that didn’t match the original; the 3 missing verses (7:15, 16, 17) that gospel didn’t use, was meant to be read together with verse 14 as 1 sign.

    I came to realisation that NT authors to be not trustworthy and reliable.

    The other signs (about Bethlehem and Egypt) used in Matthew 2 were also misused and mangled by this NT author.
     
Loading...