A question regarding ALL revealed scripture...answers please?

[Telstar]

Religion doesn’t have ANY ground where science does not also. Indeed, miracles rely on the sole fact that they VIOLATE the rules of science, and so enter the scientific realm, whether you like it or not.

Since God created all forms of science when He created the universe, science is not contrary to anyone believing in God. But, the Bible was never intended to be a book that explains everything in scientific detail. It’s meant to inform us that God exists, and teach us what He wants us to do and how He wants us to live, for our own salvation. It’s meant to be a guide to a spiritual way of life, that will lead us to God.

Also, hypocritically, if some scientific evidence were found that supported the Bible/Qur’an/Torah, you can bet a good sum of money that believers would trumpet the findings to the sky.

What’s that got to do with the price of apples in Poland?

Take your sport example- a book about sport might not EXPLICITLY mention parabolic trajectories or angles of deflection or any of the science behind that sport, but generally the writer will be aware of it.

What makes you think he would? How would the 10 year old that’s reading it be aware of it? Is it an inherent knowledge that we’re all born understanding? Would it matter, or even be necessary, for him to be aware of it?

The whole premise of the Bible is flawed in any case when it can’t even get basic facts of history, biology, physics right. Basing anything based upon that is like building a house on sand. That to me is suspect: a perfect God would NOT get these sorts of things wrong.

The Bible was never intended to teach us any of those things. It’s a spiritual guide to God, not a textbook about facts and figures. If you want to argue that the Bible is flawed, then you should be aiming your arrows at it’s spiritual teachings.

Problem is that for too many believers, the Bible is the answer and then it’s a case of finding the evidence to fit. Any sort of new findings are filtered through the Biblical lenses. As a result you get the likes Creationists, whose understanding of science is corrupt, or even more moderate believers who seem to have no problem believing in evolution, but can still accept that the sun danced in the sky by 70,000 people or that the moon was split in two by the Prophet Muhammad.

The Bible is not the only basis for Catholicism, even though it’s a very important part of it. If we preached “sola scriptura”, you might be able to make those kinds of arguments, but you’re on the wrong forum for that. I’ll leave those answers to those that follow the “Bible alone”.

We HAVE been given a universal revelation: science. Basic scientific understanding has been observed even in animals, and goes across from the most simple to the most cultured people. It’s also observed across all of history- some of the earliest writings are scientific texts.

Science is no better at explaining God, or anything else, than the Bible is. First of all, not everyone knows or understands all types of science. Second of all, most science is observed through scientific theory that must be proven, before it’s regarded as scientific fact. Global warming and evolution are both such theories. They’re still not proven fact, even though scientists have been trying to figure out those, and many other theories, for centuries.

When I look at the Bible, all I see is a vague collection of fables. You ask me to ‘find someone to help you understand it’- you only have to look at the 1000s of religions, and even within Christianity, the different sects, to see that this is a Sisyphean and pointless task.

How do children learn to read and write? Don’t all school teachers use stories and other tools to teach them when they’re in their early years of education? Why wouldn’t God use similar stories to give us examples of how we can live better lives?

 

[Kouyate42]

Since God created all forms of science when He created the universe, science is not contrary to anyone believing in God. But, the Bible was never intended to be a book that explains everything in scientific detail. It’s meant to inform us that God exists, and teach us what He wants us to do and how He wants us to live, for our own salvation. It’s meant to be a guide to a spiritual way of life, that will lead us to God.

As far as I can tell, much of the Bible’s supposed guidance is without any sort of rational justification.

What’s that got to do with the price of apples in Poland?

It proves most believers to be hypocrites of the highest level. You can’t say one minute ‘science can’t explain religion’ and then 5min later, say ‘science has proven the Bible/Torah/Qur’an true’ if some study proves a particular religious text to be correct. All the fuss over the Shroud of Turin at the moment is a prime example.

What makes you think he would? How would the 10 year old that’s reading it be aware of it? Is it an inherent knowledge that we’re all born understanding? Would it matter, or even be necessary, for him to be aware of it?

The 10 year old likely knows there’s some skill in the pitcher throwing that ball. It’s the reason that same 10-yr old goes to team practices, or even out into the yard to throw a ball with his dad.

The Bible was never intended to teach us any of those things. It’s a spiritual guide to God, not a textbook about facts and figures. If you want to argue that the Bible is flawed, then you should be aiming your arrows at it’s spiritual teachings.

It’s SUPPOSED to be rooted in proven history. I’m supposed to be convinced that in actual history, Moses came out of Egypt with the Israelites (as the Jewish religion teaches) and was given the Torah which still exists today in the form as it was given to him.

This means that it should be corroborated with a little thing us deists call evidence. So far nearly every history textbook disagrees with this story, and indeed any sort of common sense.

Similarly, if the Qur’an or Bible or the New Testament is going to make silly statements on matters of physics (such as the Qur’an teaching the world as being flat, or the even more ridiculous story in the Qur’an of sperm coming from the spine) then don’t expect non-believers to ignore this or not call believers out on it.

The Bible is not the only basis for Catholicism, even though it’s a very important part of it. If we preached “sola scriptura”, you might be able to make those kinds of arguments, but you’re on the wrong forum for that. I’ll leave those answers to those that follow the “Bible alone”.

The Bible is the basis for ANY Christian faith- it’s the source text for every word Jesus supposedly spoke, the history of the early Christians etc. Anything else is secondary. Same with Torah and Talmud- in the beit midrash, you study your source material first (Torah) and then the law (Talmud/Mishnah). Otherwise you can read and memorize all the laws and traditions you want, but without that primary text, it’s no use.

Science is no better at explaining God, or anything else, than the Bible is. First of all, not everyone knows or understands all types of science. Second of all, most science is observed through scientific theory that must be proven, before it’s regarded as scientific fact. Global warming and evolution are both such theories. They’re still not proven fact, even though scientists have been trying to figure out those, and many other theories, for centuries.

I think you misunderstand what science means by a theory, which generally refers to a framework of results from previous experiments which allow for the prediction of future results, as well as explanations of present issues and problems.

How do children learn to read and write? Don’t all school teachers use stories and other tools to teach them when they’re in their early years of education? Why wouldn’t God use similar stories to give us examples of how we can live better lives?

Read what I put again. Fact is that I could go to 10 different churches and ask them about the same bit of Bible passage, and I could guarantee I would get several different answers.

 

[Nine_Two]

Where does Richard Dawkins say that? I’ve never seen it in print/speech.

It’s the thesis of “The God Delusion”.

Way to ignore something you know to be true.

Miracles are part of religion and are also a crucial talking point in science, and so are relevant to be discussed.

They are a major part of religion, but they aren’t a part of revelation. However you seem to have ignored the rest of my point.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about the Bible, the Qur’an, the Torah or any other piece of supposedly divine revelation. There’s some passage in the Bible about all Scripture being ‘God-breathed’ and Muslims and Jewish believers believe their Scriptures are perfect and in the case of the Qur’an, God’s exact word given to the Prophet.

“Some passage”, yep, there is, however the bulk of Christianity does not believe that to believe the exact and infallible word of God. What Jews and Muslims believe is their own business.

Anything else, any ‘alternate readings’ or silly arguments about silly vowel points or miscopied documents is just plain denial of the simple truth.

What truth is that? That it was made up by man? You haven’t shown that.

I want some proof that Jesus even existed, that isn’t highly suspect of being a forgery (coughJosephuscough) or is simply too vague or pure hearsay.

My guess is you want to dismiss anything written by Christians, ok done, and of course anything written by those other sects which claimed to follow him, ok, done. Anything not written during or immediatly after his life, done.
Now we apply that criteria to every other historic figure in the history of mankind and… we have a civilization that sprouted up suddenly about 700 years ago, as no events happened (those involved in events can’t be counted), and few people ever lived (those who followed them don’t count, and everything has to have been written within their life or shortly after).
Mainstream historians accept that the man existed pretty much without question. Even my bitter atheist professor of a class on biblical history accepted it without question and presented it without question.

So if that’s the only thing you need to have proven, and you accept the word of modern academia, then it seems you believe.

I should point out I’m perfectly willing to change my mind as I find and take into account new evidence, on any position I hold.

While I don’t want to argue this point of yours, maybe it is true, many people say such things and most are quite set in their ways.

And is there anything wrong in saying ‘we don’t know why the universe was created’? Or is it that you need some major ‘purpose’ for what actually amounts to a rather insignificant existence on a small bit of rock in the middle of nowhere?

Well that’s what religion is. That is what distinguishes it from science. If you wish to say “we don’t know why” that’s fine. But don’t go pretending it is a question science can answer.

IN Hebrew, Latin and Greek, yes.

The entire thing, cover to cover, in all three languages?
Then where did you get the idea that it should be held up to the standards of modern science? You know the limitations of those languages. You know that just as language can be limited in its ability to explain God, it can be equally limited in its ability to explain science. You claimed science as a universal revelation prior, so go ahead, explain how a wind power plant works to me in Koine.

The diest position is equally unscientific. It seems to me its just a simple way around the normal atheist beliefs in autogenesis or perpetual motion, but which is ultimately just based on your own personal feelings, rather than any evidence.

I’m still curious what you have to say about this, and to clarify I’m trying to point out the inherent requirement of faith to hold any position.

 

[Nine_Two]

As far as I can tell, much of the Bible’s supposed guidance is without any sort of rational justification.

And? As far as I can tell most people go through their entire lives without much rational justification for most of what they do. Sure there are attempts at it quite often, but those tend to fall flat.

It proves most believers to be hypocrites of the highest level. You can’t say one minute ‘science can’t explain religion’ and then 5min later, say ‘science has proven the Bible/Torah/Qur’an true’ if some study proves a particular religious text to be correct. All the fuss over the Shroud of Turin at the moment is a prime example.

Except most people don’t hold those both those positions. Those who believe science can prove it aren’t saying “science can’t explain religion”, &c.
Of course this group that does say science can prove it are in a distinct minority. The vast majority of people I’ve met who believe that are atheists who consider themselves spiritual. i.e. not Christians.

The 10 year old likely knows there’s some skill in the pitcher throwing that ball. It’s the reason that same 10-yr old goes to team practices, or even out into the yard to throw a ball with his dad.

Yes, which is exactly how science is in the bible, a vague awareness. That doesn’t make it a textbook.
Funny how you watered down your initial statement until it matched the analogy, and now we agree. The bible is not a science textbook.

It’s SUPPOSED to be rooted in proven history. I’m supposed to be convinced that in actual history, Moses came out of Egypt with the Israelites (as the Jewish religion teaches) and was given the Torah which still exists today in the form as it was given to him.

This means that it should be corroborated with a little thing us deists call evidence. So far nearly every history textbook disagrees with this story, and indeed any sort of common sense.

They do? What do they consider to be the genesis of the Jewish people? I’ve never found a text book which says it absolutely did not happen. Certainly I’ve come across some that say there is no evidence (The Egyptians didn’t tend to record defeats, so that isn’t surprising), but nothing that contradicts it outright.

Similarly, if the Qur’an or Bible or the New Testament is going to make silly statements on matters of physics (such as the Qur’an teaching the world as being flat, or the even more ridiculous story in the Qur’an of sperm coming from the spine) then don’t expect non-believers to ignore this or not call believers out on it.

If you want to argue what the Qur’an says regarding science, you’re in the wrong place. Very few here will defend it, and those who will, will ignore your attacks on Christianity. Pick the group you’re arguing with.

The Bible is the basis for ANY Christian faith- it’s the source text for every word Jesus supposedly spoke, the history of the early Christians etc. Anything else is secondary. Same with Torah and Talmud- in the beit midrash, you study your source material first (Torah) and then the law (Talmud/Mishnah). Otherwise you can read and memorize all the laws and traditions you want, but without that primary text, it’s no use.

The Bible may be the basis for any Protestant faith, but that is certainly not true for Catholics or Orthodox. While I won’t speak for Catholics here, in the Orthodox faith the bible is on equal footing with the rest of Holy Tradition, and neither is understandable without the other.

Read what I put again. Fact is that I could go to 10 different churches and ask them about the same bit of Bible passage, and I could guarantee I would get several different answers.

Read a single Church father and that is often the case. Often there are multiple valid interpretations of a given passage.
That doesn’t mean every possible interpretation is correct, just that you might have multiple valid ones.

 

[Telstar]

As far as I can tell, much of the Bible’s supposed guidance is without any sort of rational justification.

Faith and spirituality are not always easily explained, rationally. At least, not by human standards. God is not subject to human standards of existence, science or logic. We’re incapable of understanding things the way He does. So, the Bible is written in a way that is simple enough for all people to be able to understand what it teaches, without having a myriad of PHDs hanging on our walls.

It proves most believers to be hypocrites of the highest level. You can’t say one minute ‘science can’t explain religion’ and then 5min later, say ‘science has proven the Bible/Torah/Qur’an true’ if some study proves a particular religious text to be correct. All the fuss over the Shroud of Turin at the moment is a prime example.

I’m just talking about the Catholic Bible, so the Torah and Qur’an are irrelevant. I won’t comment on them. I think science can be used to prove some things in the Bible, but I don’t think that’s a requirement for anyone to believe in what the Bible teaches about God, morality or faith.

The 10 year old likely knows there’s some skill in the pitcher throwing that ball. It’s the reason that same 10-yr old goes to team practices, or even out into the yard to throw a ball with his dad.

But, that doesn’t mean that he’s thinking about it in scientific terms. He’s just looking for ways to hit whatever the pitcher is throwing at him and get that ball into the outfield, and the pitcher just wants to fake out the batter and to get that ball past him and over the plate. Either way, the kid is just thinking about the ‘trick’ of doing it, without caring about how or why it works.

It’s SUPPOSED to be rooted in proven history. I’m supposed to be convinced that in actual history, Moses came out of Egypt with the Israelites (as the Jewish religion teaches) and was given the Torah which still exists today in the form as it was given to him.

Just because some historians disagree that it ever happened, doesn’t mean they’re correct in their assumptions. Other historians would certainly disagree with them. Most of the historical records of the time were part of oral tradition, and weren’t written down.

A lot of information in the Bible has already been proven, historically. Many of the places and events have been recorded in other sources, particularly those found in the New Testament. Christians were really thrown to the lions in the Colosseum for refusing to deny their faith. Why would any man go to his death for believing in Jesus, if He never existed?

This means that it should be corroborated with a little thing us deists call evidence. So far nearly every history textbook disagrees with this story, and indeed any sort of common sense.

Some historians that have a certain agenda might manipulate evidence to disprove what they don’t want to be true, or to make it fit with their own agenda. Not all historians are happy to just write about the actual facts.

Similarly, if the Qur’an or Bible or the New Testament is going to make silly statements on matters of physics (such as the Qur’an teaching the world as being flat, or the even more ridiculous story in the Qur’an of sperm coming from the spine) then don’t expect non-believers to ignore this or not call believers out on it.

If you’re going to quote ‘silly statements’ in the Qur’an or the Torah, I can’t comment on that. Personally, I really don’t care what any other ‘holy books’ say.

The Bible is the basis for ANY Christian faith- it’s the source text for every word Jesus supposedly spoke, the history of the early Christians etc. Anything else is secondary.

The Bible is an important part of Christianity, but it’s only one part of Catholicism. The Catholic Church actually put it all together in one book. It most certainly does not contain every word ever spoken by Jesus. It’s a synopsis of the most important events and teachings recorded concerning His public teachings, but it doesn’t even scratch the surface of all that He taught to the Apostles. Much of that was only conveyed verbally, especially in the Early Church, and was passed on to the rest of the followers through Holy Tradition.

I think you misunderstand what science means by a theory, which generally refers to a framework of results from previous experiments which allow for the prediction of future results, as well as explanations of present issues and problems.

I understand that some theories might never be proven, even though they are probably true. Scientists just haven’t been able to find a way to prove them. But, there are many others that will never be proven because they’re just plain wrong, no matter how many scientists want to believe they’re true. Scientists are subject to their own peculiar beliefs just like any religious man is also subject to his own beliefs. They just have a different focal point.

Read what I put again. Fact is that I could go to 10 different churches and ask them about the same bit of Bible passage, and I could guarantee I would get several different answers.

That’s why the Catholic Church has sole authority for interpreting the Bible, so there won’t be any confusion about things that have a definite meaning. There are many passages that might have several different meanings, but, not all of those possible meanings are correct. When people start trying to interpret it on their own, it’s fairly easy to come to the wrong conclusions about what it really means. So, Catholics usually leave the specific interpretations up to the theologians of the Church to figure out. They’re the ones that have that authority.

 

[Kouyate42]

snip

Surely you can talk about the Torah, given that the Christian faith is based on Old Testament prophecy?

But, that doesn’t mean that he’s thinking about it in scientific terms. He’s just looking for ways to hit whatever the pitcher is throwing at him and get that ball into the outfield, and the pitcher just wants to fake out the batter and to get that ball past him and over the plate. Either way, the kid is just thinking about the ‘trick’ of doing it, without caring about how or why it works.

Let me explain this way. I am a musician and yes, I know music theory. However this is something I’ve studied for myself and it is perfectly possible to know how to play an instrument without knowing a single word of it. HOWEVER if I were to play you (or indeed ANYONE, and I’m assuming you’re not musically inclined) two notes, such as A and Bb, which are two notes one after the other, chances are that unless you suffer from some rare form of tone-deafness, you’d be able to tell me there’s a difference between the two notes. You don’t need to know the note names, you don’t even need to know that there’s a half-step between those two notes, all you’d need to know is that there’s a difference and what effect this difference is.

Same with my example- the kid might not sit and calculate trajectory, but in his head he’s aware of all the different things which go into the toss- speed, height, his size etc.

Just because some historians disagree that it ever happened, doesn’t mean they’re correct in their assumptions. Other historians would certainly disagree with them. Most of the historical records of the time were part of oral tradition, and weren’t written down.

In the case of the Egypt narrative, it could NEVER have happened. There has so far never been ANY non-biased evidence for the Jews in Egypt (and you can't claim they wouldn't leave any trace given their numbers) and certainly not for their slave labour in Egypt, bearing in mind that farmers and other free people did work on the pyramids and the like and not slaves.

A lot of information in the Bible has already been proven, historically. Many of the places and events have been recorded in other sources, particularly those found in the New Testament. Christians were really thrown to the lions in the Colosseum for refusing to deny their faith. Why would any man go to his death for believing in Jesus, if He never existed?

There's also a lot of speculation and guesswork on the part of Biblical archaeologists. Some places have completely disappeared, there's disputes on the locations/names of others and other matters are subject to intense speculation.

And that last bit about the lions is completely ridiculous. Dying for a cause has no bearing on whether the actual cause is true or not, and people HAVE died for causes and ideas which are blatantly wrong. Try the Heaven’s Gate cult and Jonestown for some examples. Or even Islamic suicide bombers.

Some historians that have a certain agenda might manipulate evidence to disprove what they don’t want to be true, or to make it fit with their own agenda. Not all historians are happy to just write about the actual facts.

If this is the case, then that’s a major case of intellectual dishonesty at its highest. Either way it does not stop those who wish to uphold truth from doing so, and there are many who do this.

The Bible is an important part of Christianity, but it’s only one part of Catholicism. The Catholic Church actually put it all together in one book. It most certainly does not contain every word ever spoken by Jesus. It’s a synopsis of the most important events and teachings recorded concerning His public teachings, but it doesn’t even scratch the surface of all that He taught to the Apostles. Much of that was only conveyed verbally, especially in the Early Church, and was passed on to the rest of the followers through Holy Tradition.

I’ll ask you a question: how do I know that the Holy Traditions have been preserved in their original form? How do I know that these traditions are actually what Jesus said/did?

I understand that some theories might never be proven, even though they are probably true. Scientists just haven’t been able to find a way to prove them. But, there are many others that will never be proven because they’re just plain wrong, no matter how many scientists want to believe they’re true. Scientists are subject to their own peculiar beliefs just like any religious man is also subject to his own beliefs. They just have a different focal point.

There are limits to science, yes, but the major thing is that scientists aren’t scared to admit they don’t know, or that they’re wrong about an idea. And science has evidence which is empirically proven, and the hypotheses and theses are subject to change based upon this.
On the flipside, all you seem to get from the religious person is ‘this is a fixed matter and cannot be changed’ and if you challenge their beliefs, all you get is ‘God, God, God’

That’s why the Catholic Church has sole authority for interpreting the Bible, so there won’t be any confusion about things that have a definite meaning. There are many passages that might have several different meanings, but, not all of those possible meanings are correct. When people start trying to interpret it on their own, it’s fairly easy to come to the wrong conclusions about what it really means. So, Catholics usually leave the specific interpretations up to the theologians of the Church to figure out. They’re the ones that have that authority.

This to me seems a highly dangerous attitude. Theologians and indeed popes/priests are men like any other, and there is, in my eyes at least, a sheep-like mentality in just accepting what they say.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Even if this had actually happened, my point still remains. Human language in any way, shape or form is limited, fragile and ineffective. I will let Thomas Paine speak for himself here:
See my above Thomas Paine quote. I also think you miss a critical point: translating the divine into the mortal is impossible as it limits the limitless to the limited.

You have to decide whom are you going to believe man or God? The problem is not God nor His revelations through His Son Jesus. The problem begins when man limited knowledge tries to reason out faith and God, which developes into a double minded man. When you let go of man’s hypothesis, theories and false human knowledge that relates reality only what is tangible, begins a religion of men. When faith is what every man seeks to fill the void of his/her soul. Jesus quenches this thirst of man. It begins first by believing in Jesus so that the Holy Spirit can reveal to you knowledge that God will upon you through His son Jesus Christ.

Jesus revealed the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus revealed all scripture revelation to (mind of His Church) One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church from the begginning and commissioned this Church to preach His gospel to every nation and people in every age until He returns finding His Church doing so, this the Catholic Church has obeyed Her King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Luke 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer* these things and enter into his glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures… While they were still speaking about this,r he stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 37 But they were startled and terrified and thought that they were seeing a ghost. 38 Then he said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do questions arise in your hearts? 39 Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have.” 40 And as he said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41 While they were still incredulous for joy and were amazed, he asked them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of baked fish;

43he took it and ate it in front of them. 44He said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures.

46* And he said to them, “Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day 47and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things.a 49And [behold] I am sending the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.*”

 

[Telstar]

Surely you can talk about the Torah, given that the Christian faith is based on Old Testament prophecy?

All I know about the Torah is what’s included in the Old Testament of the Bible. If you want me to comment on that, then I can give it a shot, but I’m much more familiar with the New Testament.

Let me explain this way. I am a musician and yes, I know music theory. However this is something I’ve studied for myself and it is perfectly possible to know how to play an instrument without knowing a single word of it. HOWEVER if I were to play you (or indeed ANYONE, and I’m assuming you’re not musically inclined) two notes, such as A and Bb, which are two notes one after the other, chances are that unless you suffer from some rare form of tone-deafness, you’d be able to tell me there’s a difference between the two notes. You don’t need to know the note names, you don’t even need to know that there’s a half-step between those two notes, all you’d need to know is that there’s a difference and what effect this difference is.

I wouldn’t call myself a ‘musician’, but I actually am musically inclined. I mostly just sing harmony, so I really don’t need to understand music theory to do that. I can follow written music, but not very well. I mostly just go ‘by ear’. My husband plays the guitar, but he can’t even read a note of music. Music ‘theory’ is not a big factor in our musical experience, but we still do OK without it.

Same with my example- the kid might not sit and calculate trajectory, but in his head he’s aware of all the different things which go into the toss- speed, height, his size etc.

In my experience, most kids just play baseball to have fun.

In the case of the Egypt narrative, it could NEVER have happened. There has so far never been ANY non-biased evidence for the Jews in Egypt (and you can’t claim they wouldn’t leave any trace given their numbers) and certainly not for their slave labour in Egypt, bearing in mind that farmers and other free people did work on the pyramids and the like and not slaves.

Scientists don’t even know for sure who really built the pyramids, or when. The amount of written records of that time period, are very few and far between. Most scientists can only speculate, at best. So, to say that there’s no “unbiased evidence”, is a paltry excuse to dismiss it all out of hand, just because you want to deny the truth of the Biblical account. The Egyptians would certainly never record such a horrendous defeat, especially coming from a God that they refused to believe in, that was defending their own slaves from them.

There’s also a lot of speculation and guesswork on the part of Biblical archaeologists. Some places have completely disappeared, there’s disputes on the locations/names of others and other matters are subject to intense speculation.

Archeologists have actually found lots of evidence that some of the places mentioned in the Bible, that they had denied ever existed for years, actually did exist, after all. Many places over time have had their names changed after being conquered by other people, but that doesn’t change the fact that they had existed under a different name, before that time.

And that last bit about the lions is completely ridiculous. Dying for a cause has no bearing on whether the actual cause is true or not, and people HAVE died for causes and ideas which are blatantly wrong. Try the Heaven’s Gate cult and Jonestown for some examples. Or even Islamic suicide bombers.

I guess I can’t argue with that kind of ‘logic’. But, you didn’t argue that it actually happened, either. All you did was give examples of the more lunatic fringe that show up in every society. I really don’t think any of those examples give a fair representation of the people that called themselves Christians, whose numbers grew into the Catholic Church of today, which still produces Saints that continue to perform miracles.
~continued~

 

[Telstar]

~continued, part deux~

If this is the case, then that’s a major case of intellectual dishonesty at its highest. Either way it does not stop those who wish to uphold truth from doing so, and there are many who do this.

It’s a fact that it still happens, today. Just look at modern journalism. There was a time when news reporters just reported the facts, but now, many of them slant their reporting of the news to fit their own personal agendas.

I’ll ask you a question: how do I know that the Holy Traditions have been preserved in their original form? How do I know that these traditions are actually what Jesus said/did?

I have no idea how you would know, but I believe that the Catholic Church holds the true representation of everything that Jesus taught to the Apostles, and is guided by the Holy Spirit to protect all of those teachings from error, until the end of time, when Jesus returns to Judge mankind. Jesus promised that He would be with us, always, so I tend to believe Him.

There are limits to science, yes, but the major thing is that scientists aren’t scared to admit they don’t know, or that they’re wrong about an idea. And science has evidence which is empirically proven, and the hypotheses and theses are subject to change based upon this.
On the flipside, all you seem to get from the religious person is ‘this is a fixed matter and cannot be changed’ and if you challenge their beliefs, all you get is ‘God, God, God’

What makes you think scientists are the only ones capable of admitting when they’re wrong (which really doesn’t happen very often with most scientists)? Scientists aren’t the only ones that have empirical evidence in their favor. That’s a mighty broad brush you’re using to paint a hypothetical “religious person”. Can you give any actual examples of what you’re referring to by your remark?

This to me seems a highly dangerous attitude. Theologians and indeed popes/priests are men like any other, and there is, in my eyes at least, a sheep-like mentality in just accepting what they say.

Dangerous how? The Church doesn’t just proclaim things willy-nilly, at the drop of a hat, nor do any individuals have the power to do it, either. The Magisterium is made up of many individuals that work together to define interpretations of Scripture, or to further develop our understanding of established doctrine. Even the Pope bases his encyclicals and proclamations on what has already been established as truth, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They don’t just make stuff up. They can’t create any new doctrines. They can only explain the ones we have in further detail. As I said, Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide His Church. So, I really don’t mind being a ‘sheep’ in the fold of the Good Shepherd, at all.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I find it amazing how secular authors and those who read the scriptures as if it were letters on a page describing events, subjects that surpass human understanding, who would conclude and pass these biblical books as something other than God’s Word revealed to man. Due mainly to lack of “faith”.

What is more amazing is that these same secular minds and readers of the biblical text pretend to interpret the sacred scriptures from their carnal understandings and knowledge of visible things. Who can interpret God?

Not even the Catholic Church to whom the Word of God was revealed does not attempt to interpret God. She does what God has commissioned her to do from the witness of divine revelation eyewitnessed and written handed down both orally and practiced from Sacred Trandition.

Yet today’s secular minds decieve themselves into thinking they can read the scriptures and interpret God from His Word as not being divinely inspired of God? When they lack or reject the revelation of God which begins with faith.

God is not the one on trial here; Mans faith in God is what is on trial here and God’s revelation through His only begotten Son Jesus Christ who raised the dead, and rose from the dead. Without this faith in the risen Christ, man thirst for his creator will never be quenched, while man seeks his creator only in the visible world.

Test the spirits is what needs to be addressed here, because the evil powers and principalities decieve man from cunningness in order to draw him away from God.

1John 4:27 Those who keep his commandments remain in him, and he in them, and the way we know that he remains in us is from the Spirit that he gave us. 4:1 Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can know the Spirit of God; every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This spirit is of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world.

The Word of God does not error, man is decieved into believing God error’s, just as man was decieved from the beginning.

 

[Bezant]

And is there anything wrong in saying ‘we don’t know why the universe was created’? Or is it that you need some major ‘purpose’ for what actually amounts to a rather insignificant existence on a small bit of rock in the middle of nowhere?

Not to be rude, but which makes a better story? It’s not that there’s anything wrong with science, that it doesn’t answer “why” we’re here. But once you’ve found an answer (granted, after great effort) the alternatives are usually a thing of the past, whereas we can keep discussing different answers to the thread’s question for ages and ages and ages. What we cannot prove is definitely more interesting stuff, I’d say.

 

[Kouyate42]

Not to be rude, but which makes a better story? It’s not that there’s anything wrong with science, that it doesn’t answer “why” we’re here. But once you’ve found an answer (granted, after great effort) the alternatives are usually a thing of the past, whereas we can keep discussing different answers to the thread’s question for ages and ages and ages. What we cannot prove is definitely more interesting stuff, I’d say.

You make an assumption that there even IS a purpose. Yes, you may BELIEVE that there’s some purpose to the universe (as I do also), but this is an act of faith and not evidence.

 

[Whadyamean]

You make an assumption that there even IS a purpose. Yes, you may BELIEVE that there’s some purpose to the universe (as I do also), but this is an act of faith and not evidence.

Amen. We make the Universe in our own image and likeness until we go beyond the mind.

 

[SteveVH]

This is a question which has really got me both puzzled about any religion which bases itself on revealed texts (in short, nearly all major religion).

Language itself is imperfect. The same word can have different meanings, or can even shift meaning as time passes by. Similarly, language is culturally specific in some instances, and includes nuances of language specific to that time and place. Any translator will tell you that translating from one language to another invariably loses much of these nuances and subtleties of language.

Moreover, language itself is limited. Some things are inexpressible in human terms, whilst other things can be described in terms which invariably limit it to the meanings understood by that word.

With this in mind, how on earth can any God then give His scripture to humans with the limitations of human language this then brings? How can the majesty of the Creator be expressed in what amount to pitiful language?

I think you are absolutely correct in questioning how one derives truth from human language, expecially considering the span of time involved and the various authors of the books that make up the Bible, not to mention the ancient cultures and the traditions peculiar to them and the varrious genres of writing and idioms used at a particular time. This is why it is absolutelty necessary that God put in place an authority, guided by His own Holy Spirit, who would interpret the words which were committed to writing and why private interpretation of these words has led to the incredible division in Christianity.

 

[Kouyate42]

I think you are absolutely correct in questioning how one derives truth from human language, expecially considering the span of time involved and the various authors of the books that make up the Bible, not to mention the ancient cultures and the traditions peculiar to them and the varrious genres of writing and idioms used at a particular time. This is why it is absolutelty necessary that God put in place an authority, guided by His own Holy Spirit, who would interpret the words which were committed to writing and why private interpretation of these words has led to the incredible division in Christianity.

How do we know when the Holy Spirit is guiding interpretation of Scripture?

 

[Bezant]

You make an assumption that there even IS a purpose. Yes, you may BELIEVE that there’s some purpose to the universe (as I do also), but this is an act of faith and not evidence.

My point is not evidence supporting that purpose’s existence, but it’s a reason to look to a religion for answers.

 

[Kouyate42]

My point is not evidence supporting that purpose’s existence, but it’s a reason to look to a religion for answers.

Why a religion? Why not science? Or history? Or philosophy? Why does,when it comes to matters such as this, does religion have a near-monopoly?

 

[Whadyamean]

Why a religion? Why not science? Or history? Or philosophy? Why does,when it comes to matters such as this, does religion have a near-monopoly?

Yes. Why not epistemology? The plethora of books about why people do stupid things, are foolish, make bad decisions, misunderstand each other, etc, etc, in the last analysis claim that people simply have no clue as to how they themselves work. So, whether or not a religion or non-religion is “true” or not is almost irrelevant, as the person deciding about it usually has no clue as to what they are using to decide with, though they convince themselves that they do in all of the above cases.

 

[Stephen168]

I think you are absolutely correct in questioning how one derives truth from human language, expecially considering the span of time involved and the various authors of the books that make up the Bible, not to mention the ancient cultures and the traditions peculiar to them and the varrious genres of writing and idioms used at a particular time. This is why it is absolutelty necessary that God put in place an authority, guided by His own Holy Spirit, who would interpret the words which were committed to writing and why private interpretation of these words has led to the incredible division in Christianity.

Yes, not only does the Church protect the meaning of our scriptures, but having them written in a dead language helps, too.

 

[Stephen168]

Now this is where the problem lies for me. I am a deist and for me, the Bible and other Scriptures are limited and outdated both in their visions of God and also their understanding and knowledge of the world. What we know about the world through science has, to my mind at least, surpassed and gone beyond wat the Bible knows. We are limited in our scientific knowledge only by time and technology, which is .ore and more sophisticated every day.

Why a religion? Why not science? Or history? Or philosophy? Why does,when it comes to matters such as this, does religion have a near-monopoly?