Jesus-myth or "copycat savior" myth refuted.

[Copper Scroll]

Khalou,

I can appreciate much of what you wrote in that post. But, clearly, there have been religious people who have hold the same attitude you hold and had the same understanding you possess without abandoning their religiosity or spirituality. Their openness and compassion and humility and wisdom didn't place them above religion. By all indications, these were the fruit of their religion and they drew these people closer to God.

I guess what you're saying is that you enjoy the fruit of religion without having to practice religion. I can dig that. But without relationship with God--that eternal and intentional and purposeful power--how strong can your openness and compassion and humility and wisdom possibly be?

Meaning--you change your mind all the time, you act on a whim here and deliberately there, you have successes and failures, you are prone to error but may get some things right by chance, you (like me) are a complete flake and a goof who only has brief moments of positive brilliance. You can decide tomorrow that you will not be compassionate or humble... and no one can stop you from changing. What happened to your compassion and humility? God was not there to ground these for you. You didn't have the relationship with One who is eternal and who loves you, which you needed to reinforce these qualities. This is what the faithful have that atheists lack.

[khalou]

b

Okay, I give up. My responses will be in blue-

it's not that hard once you understand the science behind it

Good one!

If you think it would be a waste of time speak on scientific issues, then why are we conversing?

just trying to help you understand why hardly anyone here would be interested in trying to "prove God" using science.

Could have fooled me.

Actually, it can't take us very far at all. Who told you that?

Are you saying that science has no practical use?

How do you get from "Science can't take us very far" to "Science is of no practical use"?

I was quoting you who said it can't take us very far. You had resposponded to my comment that it could take us far in this world.

Do you remember it yet?

Gloves are off from here on in. I can't believe that you can get yourself up in the morning if you can't see how ridiculous what you just said would be to a hammock. I'm thinking that you're either drunk or insane.

You need to think about what I'm saying. Science can't take us very far in this world. It can't. How could it? It is a discipline that requires that nothing is certain, and only things that always work even get to be called theories. Science explains a very small percentage of all possible knowledge.

You're serious? I don't know where to start!

well I can see that!??!

Nice retort, but I suppose you are afraid to actually reply to what followed.

People believed the earth was flat because they didn't have any evidence to suggest otherwise until SCIENCE started looking at the subject.

Oh c'mon....are you trying to say that no people who considered themselves scientists ever thought the world was flat?

There was more than a Pope upset with Galileo and Copernicus

Do yourself a favor and read what the other person writes. Scientists used to think that bleeding was a good thing for cryin' out loud. Like I said, science knows very little. Karl Popper did science a great favor my introducing falsification. That didn't happen very long ago, but it is absolutely scientific methodology nowadays. If you want to know what science is (which would help you greatly in debating about it) why don't you study what science might be these days? If you don't, then why are you talking about something that you know nothing about? Does it make you happy to sound so desperately ignorant?

Science showed that the earth was a sphere LONG before the Church ever did.

The Vatican? Yes. Hard to argue that so I won't.

I don't recognize the Vatican as any kind of authority or "voice" for all believers. It is a political entity for running the Roman Catholic empire.

I'm not surprised.

But as you mentioned here :

It's in the Bible that the earth was the circular disk with the stars and planets and the moon tracking across the dome of the sky that all of the ancient world thought it was.

Isaiah mentioned the sphere of the Earth centuries before the birth of Yeshua.

Isaiah? Isaiah said that the earth was a disk which is exactly what every other person of the day thought.

Then how can you say that science is dismissive about anything that points to God?

because it is outside the realm of science

It is outside of the scope of science, yes. If I have a microscope, then I can't be expected to look at a building through it, can I? Am I being dismissive? or practical? And if I don't say that the building doesn't exist just because I can't see it through my microscope, why do you say that I do?

I don't think there is any science that shows evidence of God. Matter of fact, something like that would be impossible. Either the creator God has made sure of this, or there is no God- either way could be true.

He has said that only those who seek Him with their whole heart will find Him.

Yea...He's tricky that way

Okay.

Sorry. I got carried away. For all I know, the truth of evolution wouldn't be a deal-breaker for your faith. After all, it shouldn't be.

the order of Creation is supported by scientific claims. For Moses to have gotten the order right is of infantecimal odds.

I have these discussions with christians all the time. "Yom" is rendered as "day" in the Bible but is not a specific length of time (such as 24 hours). It can be .06 nanoseconds or it can be 60 trillion years. Each Yom (day) of the Creation story can be of a different length using the original languages instead of an english translation.

However, evolution is called a "theory" for a reason. So far evolutionists have never been able to show where one species turned into a another species anywhere on the evolutionary chain. And if you throw a fish on the shore a billion times a day for a billion years it isn't going to grow legs and lungs.

You are only going to have a lot of dead fish.

I think you need to stop arguing about evolution because you aren't willing to read what it's all about.

When there is a Triassic fossil found in a Jurassic layer, then evolution will cease to be even a theory. It isn't all that difficult to disprove evolution. There is only one way that what I'm saying isn't true and that would be if all of the scientists of the world, no matter what their religious or political or whatever affiliation, had decided to agree to fool the entire world and, no matter what is discovered, in whatever discipline of science, evolution would be supported no matter what.

Thousands of scientists all over the world of different backgrounds and different religions would have had to agree to this secret pact. All of the discoveries, which include the discovery and study of DNA and RNA, would have to have agreed to make sure that evolution was supported by everything they discovered.

What are the odds of that?

k

Edited October 13, 2006 by khalou

[ayin jade]

I only have a few minutes, but how about one entry I found for fossilized pollen found in precambrian shale. There is one of your later fossils being found in an earlier rock. There are other examples too. I will get them and post them later. Yet each one of these examples tend to be written off by the science community because they dont fit their pet theory, and Ive seen this done.

[khalou]

Khalou,

I can appreciate much of what you wrote in that post. But, clearly, there have been religious people who have hold the same attitude you hold and had the same understanding you possess without abandoning their religiosity or spirituality. Their openness and compassion and humility and wisdom didn't place them above religion. By all indications, these were the fruit of their religion and they drew these people closer to God.

I guess what you're saying is that you enjoy the fruit of religion without having to practice religion. I can dig that. But without relationship with God--that eternal and intentional and purposeful power--how strong can your openness and compassion and humility and wisdom possibly be?

You are a breath of fresh air, my friend. And how would you know that I don't have that relationship? How do you know that the wisdom of human religions isn't the essence of what God's purpose for us might be? How do you know that Islam and Judaism and paganism and Buddhism and Hinduism aren't human interpretations of the truth, but also include cultural miscues that make them worldly?

Meaning--you change your mind all the time, you act on a whim here and deliberately there, you have successes and failures, you are prone to error but may get some things right by chance, you (like me) are a complete flake and a goof who only has brief moments of positive brilliance. You can decide tomorrow that you will not be compassionate or humble... and no one can stop you from changing. What happened to your compassion and humility? God was not there to ground these for you. You didn't have the relationship with One who is eternal and who loves you, which you needed to reinforce these qualities. This is what the faithful have that atheists lack.

I respectfully disagree, but thank you profoundly for your words because they help me to make my point, if I have one.

It has been said that God created all of us with His sense of morality in our hearts. Some listen to this, and some don't so much. There have been absolutely transcendental examples of morality in people of all religions, and even of those without one. Selfless devotion to justice and righteousness aren't the sole property of any one religion, but selfish injustice also has examples in all religions.

A high school football star who was destined for greatness in the NFL decided to join the military because he wanted to sacrifice what would easily have been millions of dollars doing something he loved in order to serve his country. This Tillman fellow was a devout atheist, but he had this moral sense. It might seem ridiculous to Christians that an atheist would do such a thing, but it isn't ridiculous to me at all. Believe me, theists don't corner the market on morality no matter what Hollywood likes to say.

Morality is a human construction, and, believe it or not, the introduction of a religion actually stifles its absolute impact. I might decide to give money to an institution that fights the disease of AIDS and has the greatest success rate of any other, but I might also find that they support the morning after pill. Suddenly, my morality isn't based on AIDS or the terrible things that happen to children and all sorts of people and the global epidemic that is spread largely because of misinformation. Suddenly, my opinion is all about what my religion tells me, and I will withhold my support because of religious reasons.

I might have a favorite aunt who is suffering from a spinal chord injury, but I might see embryonic stem cell research as being wrong because of my flavor of religion and my aunt will never walk again. Meanwhile, those embryos will be unceremoniously burned in the furnace in back of the medical building. No fanfare, no funeral, no help for my aunt.

I might decide, while being a Muslim in Palestine, that there is no reason to kill innocent people in Israel.

I might decide that the people who took me to a prison in another country to be tortured because it isn't illegal there are representing the great Satan, or I could reason that they don't know what they're doing.

I could love my homosexual neighbor and allow that he find happiness, or I could tell him regularly that he will burn in a hell that isn't even alluded to in the Old Testament.

In other words, I might believe in a God that at least smarter than I am, and is certainly smarter than the God's I've checked out.

k

[khalou]

I only have a few minutes, but how about one entry I found for fossilized pollen found in precambrian shale. There is one of your later fossils being found in an earlier rock. There are other examples too. I will get them and post them later. Yet each one of these examples tend to be written off by the science community because they dont fit their pet theory, and Ive seen this done.

That would be interesting, to say the least. It would mean that those pollens actually survived from one period to another.

k

[khalou]

Know what I get to do as an atheist? I get to love the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, the Hindus, the pagans, the other atheists, the whole of humanity! I get to love my neighbor as myself, I get to love my enemies, I get to render unto Caesar what is Cesar's, I get to judge not, I get to not be proud, but humble, I get to see myself as imperfect, yet love myself, I get to insure as best as I can that everyone gets a fair say in things, I get to investigate the most incredible claims, and give them all the credibility that any new idea deserves, and I get to say that they are wrong because of their merits, not because of my own confidence in some dogma.

You GET to do this as an atheist? Under the influence of whom? God! Such a silly statement in the face of the truth that I have to laugh tonight!

Confidence in dogma is not what I have---I have confidence in the person of Jesus Christ, whose Word by His Spirit has given us all these wonderful attributes listed above! It is knowing Christ that we love others and follow after Him in obedience. It doesn't come naturally...if you disbelieve in God, then why do you follow after His Word? It is impossible to do and be all these things without the Holy Spirit's guidance and power in us.

It doesn't come naturally? Then why is love your enemy such an ancient concept? If the guidance of the Holy Spirit is such a requirement, then how did these concepts occur before Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to humans?

k

[khalou]

Know what I get to do as an atheist? I get to love the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, the Hindus, the pagans, the other atheists, the whole of humanity! I get to love my neighbor as myself, I get to love my enemies, I get to render unto Caesar what is Cesar's, I get to judge not, I get to not be proud, but humble, I get to see myself as imperfect, yet love myself, I get to insure as best as I can that everyone gets a fair say in things, I get to investigate the most incredible claims, and give them all the credibility that any new idea deserves, and I get to say that they are wrong because of their merits, not because of my own confidence in some dogma.

You GET to do this as an atheist? Under the influence of whom? God! Such a silly statement in the face of the truth that I have to laugh tonight!

Confidence in dogma is not what I have---I have confidence in the person of Jesus Christ, whose Word by His Spirit has given us all these wonderful attributes listed above! It is knowing Christ that we love others and follow after Him in obedience. It doesn't come naturally...if you disbelieve in God, then why do you follow after His Word? It is impossible to do and be all these things without the Holy Spirit's guidance and power in us.

By the way, under atheism, I get to appreciate the beauty of Islam. Can you say that?

k

[ayin jade]

I only have a few minutes, but how about one entry I found for fossilized pollen found in precambrian shale. There is one of your later fossils being found in an earlier rock. There are other examples too. I will get them and post them later. Yet each one of these examples tend to be written off by the science community because they dont fit their pet theory, and Ive seen this done.

That would be interesting, to say the least. It would mean that those pollens actually survived from one period to another.

k

There was no pollen in precambrian times. So the pollen couldnt have been in that shale to begin with. You wanted an example of a later fossil found in earlier rock, and I gave you one.

[ayin jade]

Know what I get to do as an atheist? I get to love the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, the Hindus, the pagans, the other atheists, the whole of humanity! I get to love my neighbor as myself, I get to love my enemies, I get to render unto Caesar what is Cesar's, I get to judge not, I get to not be proud, but humble, I get to see myself as imperfect, yet love myself, I get to insure as best as I can that everyone gets a fair say in things, I get to investigate the most incredible claims, and give them all the credibility that any new idea deserves, and I get to say that they are wrong because of their merits, not because of my own confidence in some dogma.

You GET to do this as an atheist? Under the influence of whom? God! Such a silly statement in the face of the truth that I have to laugh tonight!

Confidence in dogma is not what I have---I have confidence in the person of Jesus Christ, whose Word by His Spirit has given us all these wonderful attributes listed above! It is knowing Christ that we love others and follow after Him in obedience. It doesn't come naturally...if you disbelieve in God, then why do you follow after His Word? It is impossible to do and be all these things without the Holy Spirit's guidance and power in us.

By the way, under atheism, I get to appreciate the beauty of Islam. Can you say that?

k

The beauty of islam? Like when my muslim sister in law told me she was raising my neice and 2 nephews to be human shields? Yep thats a really nice image.

[Copper Scroll]

And how would you know that I don't have that relationship?

I thought you said that you were an atheist. If you do not believe that God exists, how can you have a relationship with Him and how can you ever become closer to Him?

How do you know that the wisdom of human religions isn't the essence of what God's purpose for us might be? How do you know that Islam and Judaism and paganism and Buddhism and Hinduism aren't human interpretations of the truth, but also include cultural miscues that make them worldly?

I believe that the essence of human religions is relationship with God. If we build upon this relationship and become closer to God, we stand a better chance at knowing what His purpose for us is--and we each very well may have our own... So I won't pass judgement on any pagans, Hindus, or Jews.

Selfless devotion to justice and righteousness aren't the sole property of any one religion, but selfish injustice also has examples in all religions.

True, and very unfortunate.

Believe me, theists don't corner the market on morality no matter what Hollywood likes to say.

What does Hollywood have to say about it? But, yes, I agree that anyone can be moral at times.

Morality is a human construction, and, believe it or not, the introduction of a religion actually stifles its absolute impact.

Well, I have no way of proving this given the pervasive influence of religion throughout the world, but socially and culturally, religion has made morality important for us. Morality is not just another consideration but (at least ideally) the first consideration precisely because most of us (currently and historically) do not consider it a human construct.

I might decide to give money to an institution that fights the disease of AIDS and has the greatest success rate of any other, but I might also find that they support the morning after pill. Suddenly, my morality isn't based on AIDS or the terrible things that happen to children and all sorts of people and the global epidemic that is spread largely because of misinformation. Suddenly, my opinion is all about what my religion tells me, and I will withhold my support because of religious reasons.

I might have a favorite aunt who is suffering from a spinal chord injury, but I might see embryonic stem cell research as being wrong because of my flavor of religion and my aunt will never walk again. Meanwhile, those embryos will be unceremoniously burned in the furnace in back of the medical building. No fanfare, no funeral, no help for my aunt.

For many people, many of these situations present great moral dilemmas. The presence of these dilemmas and the fact that different people have different senses of what is moral and what is not might suggest that morality is a human construct... or it might suggest that the world is difficult to navigate morally and this is the reason why most people are morally confused much of the time.

In the situations you describe above, you implicitly take the position that the morning-after pill and embryonic stem cell research are not immoral and offer reasons (based on the circumstances) for why they are not immoral--the position that true morality is relative. Because, for you, true morality is relative and the morality presented in a certain religion is absolute, you see that religion as stifling morality in some situations (like these). But you are just as morally confused as anyone else, so it would be wrong for you to assume that that is the case. You (rightfully) remind Christians not to pass judgement on others, but you implicitly pass judgement on someone who refuses to support the morning after pill or stem cell research on moral grounds.