• 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!

Christianity Is Only Popular Because Of Its Idle Threats

InChrist

Free4ever
Why do you think that there are emotions on our side? Do you think that you can give a rational argument for God? I doubt if you can do so. That appears to be beyond the ability of any theist.

And as you pointed out, the scriptures are wrong. Or your God is a liar. Which one is it? When it comes to emotion and an inability to reason yor failure at dealing with this fact is not a good sign for your beliefs.

The problem is that you are probably not educated enough to understand why this dichotomy is very real for yo. And you are probably to afraid to learn why this is a very real problem for creationists.

The question is are you brave enough?
The heavens declare the glory of God. Psalm 19:1

The very first opening sentence of the Bible starts...” In the beginning God...”. The belief in a Creator is treated as normal and foundation for all human beings. From the biblical perspective, denying the existence of a Creator is morally and intellectually perverse. The dominant question of the scriptures is not addressing “if” there is a Creator/God, rather it is answering the question “Who is God?”.
The NT continues along the same vein that the eternal power and divine nature of God are clearly observed and understood from the created order and an awareness that exists in our own conscience. Yet, some choose to suppress this awareness and deny the existence of God. So if an atheist is someone who denies God’s existence and/or professes not to believe in the existence of God, then atheism is a form of self-deception.

I am not afraid to hear (read) anything you have to say.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The heavens declare the glory of God. Psalm 19:1

The very first opening sentence of the Bible starts...” In the beginning God...”. The belief in a Creator is treated as normal and foundation for all human beings. From the biblical perspective, denying the existence of a Creator is morally and intellectually perverse. The dominant question of the scriptures is not addressing “if” there is a Creator/God, rather it is answering the question “Who is God?”.
The NT continues along the same vein that the eternal power and divine nature of God are clearly observed and understood from the created order and an awareness that exists in our own conscience. Yet, some choose to suppress this awareness and deny the existence of God. So if an atheist is someone who denies God’s existence and/or professes not to believe in the existence of God, then atheism is a form of self-deception.

I am not afraid to hear (read) anything you have to say.
If God made the world then either the stories of Adam and Even and Noah's Ark are children's stories to help them to understand God. In other words they never happened or God is a liar. Referring back to Psalm 19, the Earth declares that those stories never happened.

If you learned just a little bit of science you would understand that. In fact it was Christian scientists that first refuted the Noah's ark myth. They were not trying to "disprove God" They merely wanted to learn more about the Earth that we live on. That was at least fifty years before Darwin's time.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
If God made the world then either the stories of Adam and Even and Noah's Ark are children's stories to help them to understand God. In other words they never happened or God is a liar. Referring back to Psalm 19, the Earth declares that those stories never happened.

If you learned just a little bit of science you would understand that. In fact it was Christian scientists that first refuted the Noah's ark myth. They were not trying to "disprove God" They merely wanted to learn more about the Earth that we live on. That was at least fifty years before Darwin's time.
I disagree, the biblical accounts are not myths, nor children’s stories and God is not a liar. There are and have been plenty of scientists who have had no problem reconciling science with biblical accuracy. In fact the biblical worldview motivates scientific inquiry...
“modern science was invented by men who believed in divine creation.”

“Consider some examples:

Physics -- Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Joule
Chemistry - Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
Biology - Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
Geology - Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
Astronomy - Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
Mathematics - Pascal, Leibniz, Euler”


——————-
Recent examples...



“JOHN BAUMGARDNER

Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA, technical staff member in the theoretical division of Los Alamos National Laboratory, chief developer of the TERRA code, a 3-D finite element program for modeling the earth’s mantle and lithosphere

“Despite all the millions of pages of evolutionist publications--from journal articles to textbooks to popular magazine stories--which assume and imply that material processes are entirely adequate to accomplish macroevolutionary miracles, there is in reality no rational basis for such belief. It is utter fantasy. Coded language structures are non-material in nature and absolutely require a non-material explanation. Just as there has been glaring scientific fraud in things biological for the past century, there has been a similar fraud in things geological. The error, in a word, is uniformitarianism. ... Just as materialist biologists have erroneously assumed that material processes can give rise to life in all its diversity, materialist geologists have assumed that the present can fully account for the earth’s past. In so doing, they have been forced to ignore and suppress abundant contrary evidence that the planet has suffered major catastrophe on a global scale. ... As a Christian who is also a professional scientist, I exult in the reality that ‘in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth’ (Exod. 20:11). May He forever be praised” (In Six Days, pp. 230, 231, 239).”



“Jerry Bergman

Ph.D. in human biology from Columbia Pacific University and Ph.D. in measurement and evaluation from Wayne State University, with a 4.0 grade average in both doctorates; has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology at Northwest State College

“I became involved in the atheism movement and soon knew (and counted as friends) many of the leading atheists of the day, including Gordon Stein, PhD; Gary DeYoung, PhD; and of course, Madalyn Murray O’Hair. I have also published scores of articles in their various magazines. ...

“I reviewed many books on Darwinism and from them outlined the chief evidence for evolution, which included vestigial organs, homology, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, beneficial mutations, evidence of poor design, the fossil record, atavisms, nascent organs, the argument from imperfect, natural selection, microevolution versus macroevolution, shared genetic errors, the backward retina, junk DNA, and other topics. ... Slowly, but surely, I was able to eliminate all of the main arguments used to support evolutionism by researching secular literature only. At some point I crossed the line, realizing the case against evolutionism was overwhelming and conversely, so was the case in favor of the alternative, creationism.

“Another factor that moved me to the creationist side was the underhanded, often totally unethical techniques that evolutionists typically used to suppress dissonant ideas, primarily creationism. Rarely did they carefully and objectively examine the facts, but usually focused on suppression of creationists, denial of their degrees, denial of their tenure, ad hominem attacks, and in general, irrational attacks on their person. In short, their response in general was totally unscientific and one that reeks of intolerance, even hatred” (Persuaded by the Evidence, edited by Doug Sharp and Jerry Bergman, chapter 4).”







Testimonies of Scientists Who Believe the Bible
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Did you write the Skeptics Annotated Bible yourself? If not, you can’t really claim that these observations are what you get from reading scripture, and these annotations hardly appear unbiased. In my opinion, when reading any work of literature it’s best to start with an open mind, and ask what the text means to you.

It can be a challenge interpreting honestly, a text loaded with historical and cultural associations, but to get the most out of any work of literature it’s best to approach it without an obvious agenda. Some knowledge of context is of course important, and guidance from reputable sources can be valuable; reputable in this instance generally implies impartial. Your source clearly isn’t that.

Allow me to recommend The Oxford University Press edition of the Authorised KJV. There are no annotations to the text, in keeping with the decision of the 17th Century translators not to include any, but there are erudite and well researched notes on every book, at the back of the edition. The preface and introduction sets out the approach the editors take to the literary, textual, historical and theological issues involved in addressing what to them is first, last, and always, a work of literature.


From historical studies I know Matthew is a creative reinterpretation of Mark. But I posted this summary from SkepticsAnnontatedBible because this is the exact feel I get from it. These ridiculous statements stand out.
The preface gets into historical issues? Does it mention the Synoptic Problem? The Hellenistic influence?
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
From historical studies I know Matthew is a creative reinterpretation of Mark. But I posted this summary from SkepticsAnnontatedBible because this is the exact feel I get from it. These ridiculous statements stand out.
The preface gets into historical issues? Does it mention the Synoptic Problem? The Hellenistic influence?


The introduction, and the notes to each book in both old and new testaments, are meticulous, comprehensive, and undertaken in a spirit of respectful but conscientious criticism. The first paragraph of the preface sets the tone;

"Bibles are, by their very nature, partisan. As that plural suggests, there are many bibles, even in English, and each is the product of a particular interest group - whether religious, commercial, or, increasingly nowadays, both. This edition is no exception. The editors of this Oxford World's Classics version have chosen as their text the 1611, King James translation...not because of any assumed impartiality, but because historically it has had greater influence on the development of the cultures and literatures of the English speaking world than any other translation. As the introduction should make clear, however, that version itself represents not merely a particular historical compromise, but has a quite specific and polemical bias of it's own."
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
The introduction, and the notes to each book in both old and new testaments, are meticulous, comprehensive, and undertaken in a spirit of respectful but conscientious criticism. The first paragraph of the preface sets the tone;

"Bibles are, by their very nature, partisan. As that plural suggests, there are many bibles, even in English, and each is the product of a particular interest group - whether religious, commercial, or, increasingly nowadays, both. This edition is no exception. The editors of this Oxford World's Classics version have chosen as their text the 1611, King James translation...not because of any assumed impartiality, but because historically it has had greater influence on the development of the cultures and literatures of the English speaking world than any other translation. As the introduction should make clear, however, that version itself represents not merely a particular historical compromise, but has a quite specific and polemical bias of it's own."

So no mention of Jesus as a Jewish version of the Hellenistic resurrecting savior demigod?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Most churches claim love God = love church.

Real help comes through secular avenues - education, non-ajenda properly trained LPC.

Churchgoers spend more on fancy cloths and great and spacious buildings than on anything real. Waste time preaching, rationalizing, justifying their imagined heaven than doing anything of value.

I used to feel the way you do. I currently am a member of a church that gives 50% of all its income to missions, including help for the poor, rescuing children and youth from sexual slavery overseas, etc.

I used to feel the way you do. Then I read the Bible's statements on what a church or synagogue is meant to be, a shining example of activism.

Great works like the Red CROSS, the SALVATION army, PENITENTiaries instead of only corporal or capital punishment, slavery abolition, etc. -- all were Christian initiatives.

May I ask what religion you are now? RF is a place for people to discuss religious desires.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I disagree, the biblical accounts are not myths, nor children’s stories and God is not a liar. There are and have been plenty of scientists who have had no problem reconciling science with biblical accuracy. In fact the biblical worldview motivates scientific inquiry...
“modern science was invented by men who believed in divine creation.”

“Consider some examples:

Physics -- Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Joule
Chemistry - Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
Biology - Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
Geology - Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
Astronomy - Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
Mathematics - Pascal, Leibniz, Euler”

Most of your sources are worthless for this particular argument. The almost all are before the theory of evolution. Newton for example He was a great scientist, but he was pre-geology. And definitely pre-evolution As a result he cannot even technically be a creationist. If you knew the origins of that word you would understand.

And worst of all you have Lord Kelvin on there. He had some early opposition to evolution but eventually accepted it, but with the twist that "God did it". Partially that was caused by his major error in dating the age of the Earth. And that of course was partly due to his ignorance of some physics discovered after his time. He did not know of radioactivity so his error was understandable.

Kelvin Was Not a Creationist | National Center for Science Education

None of those people, most of which could not even be called "creationists" help your argument one iota.

——————-
Recent examples...



“JOHN BAUMGARDNER

Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA, technical staff member in the theoretical division of Los Alamos National Laboratory, chief developer of the TERRA code, a 3-D finite element program for modeling the earth’s mantle and lithosphere

“Despite all the millions of pages of evolutionist publications--from journal articles to textbooks to popular magazine stories--which assume and imply that material processes are entirely adequate to accomplish macroevolutionary miracles, there is in reality no rational basis for such belief. It is utter fantasy. Coded language structures are non-material in nature and absolutely require a non-material explanation. Just as there has been glaring scientific fraud in things biological for the past century, there has been a similar fraud in things geological. The error, in a word, is uniformitarianism. ... Just as materialist biologists have erroneously assumed that material processes can give rise to life in all its diversity, materialist geologists have assumed that the present can fully account for the earth’s past. In so doing, they have been forced to ignore and suppress abundant contrary evidence that the planet has suffered major catastrophe on a global scale. ... As a Christian who is also a professional scientist, I exult in the reality that ‘in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth’ (Exod. 20:11). May He forever be praised” (In Six Days, pp. 230, 231, 239).”

So what? Do you ask a podiatrist to fix a cavity in your teeth? This again is an appear to false authority. He is far outside his area of expertise. He demonstrated that he has no clue in that very argument. He was arguing against abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution deals with the change in life once it exists. And there has been only two frauds that I can think of in evolution. It is incredibly stupid for creationists to ever use the "there have been frauds" argument. Do you know how many frauds there have been in Christianity? There have been thousands. You need to keep constant standards because by that poor standard your beliefs have been blown out of the water far more times than any incorrect scientific idea has been shown to be mildly wrong.

“Jerry Bergman

Ph.D. in human biology from Columbia Pacific University and Ph.D. in measurement and evaluation from Wayne State University, with a 4.0 grade average in both doctorates; has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology at Northwest State College

“I became involved in the atheism movement and soon knew (and counted as friends) many of the leading atheists of the day, including Gordon Stein, PhD; Gary DeYoung, PhD; and of course, Madalyn Murray O’Hair. I have also published scores of articles in their various magazines. ...

“I reviewed many books on Darwinism and from them outlined the chief evidence for evolution, which included vestigial organs, homology, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, beneficial mutations, evidence of poor design, the fossil record, atavisms, nascent organs, the argument from imperfect, natural selection, microevolution versus macroevolution, shared genetic errors, the backward retina, junk DNA, and other topics. ... Slowly, but surely, I was able to eliminate all of the main arguments used to support evolutionism by researching secular literature only. At some point I crossed the line, realizing the case against evolutionism was overwhelming and conversely, so was the case in favor of the alternative, creationism.

“Another factor that moved me to the creationist side was the underhanded, often totally unethical techniques that evolutionists typically used to suppress dissonant ideas, primarily creationism. Rarely did they carefully and objectively examine the facts, but usually focused on suppression of creationists, denial of their degrees, denial of their tenure, ad hominem attacks, and in general, irrational attacks on their person. In short, their response in general was totally unscientific and one that reeks of intolerance, even hatred” (Persuaded by the Evidence, edited by Doug Sharp and Jerry Bergman, chapter 4).”







Testimonies of Scientists Who Believe the Bible

And the last one just makes my laugh. Jerry Bergman is a known liar. You can read about him here:

Jerry Bergman

A little excerpt for you:

"One of Bergman’s favorite tactics is to redefine words. For instance, Bergman claims that he has scientifically proven that there is no such thing as vestigial organs, therefore evolution is false. He accomplished this by redefining “vestigial” to mean “having no function at all”; thus, all he had to do was to demonstrate that alleged vestigial organs did or potentially did anything whatsoever.[8] Of course, this is not the definition of “vestigial”. That did not prevent Bergman from writing a book about it (with George Howe)."

Bergman had to know that his definition was incorrect and yet he used it anyway. By the way, a vestigial organ is one which has largely lost its ability to function as it did in its ancestors. A vestigial organ may develop a new purpose too. That does not stop it from being vestigial.

And what happened to what appeared to be a promise to try to learn?

"I am not afraid to hear (read) anything you have to say."

Were you being disingenuous there? Instead you went to a lying source that found some of the worst arguments possible against evolution. You might as well try to argue against relativity because Newton did not accept it.

You need to start with learning what science is. How it is done. And why it works. That we can communicate with each other as we are is incredibly strong evidence that the scientific method works. The scientific method allows us to understand the world that we live in. The good news for you is that science does not refute God. It does not even try to. It merely shows that your interpretations of the Bible cannot be factual. At least when it comes to Genesis. That should not worry you. Most Christians accept reality when it comes to evolution. and yet they are still Christians.

And going back to your failed list, did you know that the creationist biologist , Linnaeus (pre-Darwin so not really a creationist, but he believed the Adam and Eve myth) the man that invented the genus/species classification system, knew that people were apes?
 

InChrist

Free4ever
Most of your sources are worthless for this particular argument. The almost all are before the theory of evolution. Newton for example He was a great scientist, but he was pre-geology. And definitely pre-evolution As a result he cannot even technically be a creationist. If you knew the origins of that word you would understand.

And worst of all you have Lord Kelvin on there. He had some early opposition to evolution but eventually accepted it, but with the twist that "God did it". Partially that was caused by his major error in dating the age of the Earth. And that of course was partly due to his ignorance of some physics discovered after his time. He did not know of radioactivity so his error was understandable.

Kelvin Was Not a Creationist | National Center for Science Education

None of those people, most of which could not even be called "creationists" help your argument one iota.



So what? Do you ask a podiatrist to fix a cavity in your teeth? This again is an appear to false authority. He is far outside his area of expertise. He demonstrated that he has no clue in that very argument. He was arguing against abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution deals with the change in life once it exists. And there has been only two frauds that I can think of in evolution. It is incredibly stupid for creationists to ever use the "there have been frauds" argument. Do you know how many frauds there have been in Christianity? There have been thousands. You need to keep constant standards because by that poor standard your beliefs have been blown out of the water far more times than any incorrect scientific idea has been shown to be mildly wrong.



And the last one just makes my laugh. Jerry Bergman is a known liar. You can read about him here:

Jerry Bergman

A little excerpt for you:

"One of Bergman’s favorite tactics is to redefine words. For instance, Bergman claims that he has scientifically proven that there is no such thing as vestigial organs, therefore evolution is false. He accomplished this by redefining “vestigial” to mean “having no function at all”; thus, all he had to do was to demonstrate that alleged vestigial organs did or potentially did anything whatsoever.[8] Of course, this is not the definition of “vestigial”. That did not prevent Bergman from writing a book about it (with George Howe)."

Bergman had to know that his definition was incorrect and yet he used it anyway. By the way, a vestigial organ is one which has largely lost its ability to function as it did in its ancestors. A vestigial organ may develop a new purpose too. That does not stop it from being vestigial.

And what happened to what appeared to be a promise to try to learn?

"I am not afraid to hear (read) anything you have to say."

Were you being disingenuous there? Instead you went to a lying source that found some of the worst arguments possible against evolution. You might as well try to argue against relativity because Newton did not accept it.

You need to start with learning what science is. How it is done. And why it works. That we can communicate with each other as we are is incredibly strong evidence that the scientific method works. The scientific method allows us to understand the world that we live in. The good news for you is that science does not refute God. It does not even try to. It merely shows that your interpretations of the Bible cannot be factual. At least when it comes to Genesis. That should not worry you. Most Christians accept reality when it comes to evolution. and yet they are still Christians.

And going back to your failed list, did you know that the creationist biologist , Linnaeus (pre-Darwin so not really a creationist, but he believed the Adam and Eve myth) the man that invented the genus/species classification system, knew that people were apes?
My post was not actually addressing evolution or creationism, specifically. I was simply addressing “belief in God or belief in a Creator” ( that is the subject we were originally discussing) and pointing out that there have always been scientists who believe in a Creator God and the Bible, who do not discount the biblical accounts as myths.

Linnaeus may been the first to have classified humans in the animal kingdom, yet he still felt humans were at a distinctive level above apes. Nevertheless, just because he came to certain conclusions does not mean he was correct. He had some other weird, false ideas, including some which contributed to scientific racism.

“For although Man ranks first among the animals, he should in fact be considered to excel all other living beings which were created by God to Man’s delight and benefit.’[1] In another letter to the St Petersburg naturalist Johann Georg Gmelin some 12 years after the first publication of Systema naturae, Linnaeus mentioned the persistent irritation expressed by scholars, yet he challenged Gmelin and the rest of the world to name a generic difference between man and ape, based on the principles of natural history.[2]”

“The result of this expansion of the classification of man was the 1758 10th edition of Systema naturae, which became the basis for scientific racism. To the four continents and the four varieties of humans, Linnaeus added the four temperaments, or humours. According to medieval medical doctrine, which still had currency in the 18th century, the four humours were thought to be sanguine (blood), choleric (yellow bile), melancholic (black bile), and phlegmatic (phlegm). Their composition within the body was considered to determine a patient's personality and health concerns. By adding these, and other moral attributes, he departed from the purely geographic and environmental factors.”

Linnaeus and Race | The Linnean Society


You may have a point that Jerry Bergman has some issues. I have not researched him enough to outright call him a liar like you do.
But again, my point is that there are scientists who believe in God and the biblical accounts; scientists who are not atheists, nor deny the existence of a Creator.
 

idea

Question Everything
I used to feel the way you do. I currently am a member of a church that gives 50% of all its income to missions, including help for the poor, rescuing children and youth from sexual slavery overseas, etc.

I used to feel the way you do. Then I read the Bible's statements on what a church or synagogue is meant to be, a shining example of activism.

Great works like the Red CROSS, the SALVATION army, PENITENTiaries instead of only corporal or capital punishment, slavery abolition, etc. -- all were Christian initiatives.

May I ask what religion you are now? RF is a place for people to discuss religious desires.

I do not consider missionary work to be charitable, but agree the salvation army seems to be a good group. I am non-affiliated, non-denominational. It saddens me that what could be uplifting turns into power struggles, triablism, group-think, authoritarian hierarchies. I do see quite a lot of hypocrisy within organized religious groups who believe they have more truth than others, or authority over others, or the only path to salvation. Anyone who believes their group is the only doorway to salvation is wrong in my opinion.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
My post was not actually addressing evolution or creationism, specifically. I was simply addressing “belief in God or belief in a Creator” ( that is the subject we were originally discussing) and pointing out that there have always been scientists who believe in a Creator God and the Bible, who do not discount the biblical accounts as myths.

Linnaeus may been the first to have classified humans in the animal kingdom, yet he still felt humans were at a distinctive level above apes. Nevertheless, just because he came to certain conclusions does not mean he was correct. He had some other weird, false ideas, including some which contributed to scientific racism.

“For although Man ranks first among the animals, he should in fact be considered to excel all other living beings which were created by God to Man’s delight and benefit.’[1] In another letter to the St Petersburg naturalist Johann Georg Gmelin some 12 years after the first publication of Systema naturae, Linnaeus mentioned the persistent irritation expressed by scholars, yet he challenged Gmelin and the rest of the world to name a generic difference between man and ape, based on the principles of natural history.[2]”

“The result of this expansion of the classification of man was the 1758 10th edition of Systema naturae, which became the basis for scientific racism. To the four continents and the four varieties of humans, Linnaeus added the four temperaments, or humours. According to medieval medical doctrine, which still had currency in the 18th century, the four humours were thought to be sanguine (blood), choleric (yellow bile), melancholic (black bile), and phlegmatic (phlegm). Their composition within the body was considered to determine a patient's personality and health concerns. By adding these, and other moral attributes, he departed from the purely geographic and environmental factors.”

Linnaeus and Race | The Linnean Society


You may have a point that Jerry Bergman has some issues. I have not researched him enough to outright call him a liar like you do.
But again, my point is that there are scientists who believe in God and the biblical accounts; scientists who are not atheists, nor deny the existence of a Creator.

You did not understand your source correctly. The group that started "Scientific racism" were Christian creationists. They abused the work of Linnaeus, who was another creationist, but he recognized that men were apes, and used it to justify their beliefs. This occurred long before Darwin's work.

Luckily abusing an idea does not refute it. As to scientists that believe the myths of the Bible, there are only a handful of them. And it is all but impossible to find a scientist that is a creationist (there is no such thing as "creation science" and I will ask you a question that proves that there is no such thing at the end) who is not a liar. If a person understands science well enough and tries to write for several of the creationists rags they are going to say things that they know are false.

Are you willing to learn? We could start with the scientific method. That applies to all of the sciences.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
You did not understand your source correctly. The group that started "Scientific racism" were Christian creationists. They abused the work of Linnaeus, who was another creationist, but he recognized that men were apes, and used it to justify their beliefs. This occurred long before Darwin's work.

Luckily abusing an idea does not refute it. As to scientists that believe the myths of the Bible, there are only a handful of them. And it is all but impossible to find a scientist that is a creationist (there is no such thing as "creation science" and I will ask you a question that proves that there is no such thing at the end) who is not a liar. If a person understands science well enough and tries to write for several of the creationists rags they are going to say things that they know are false.

Are you willing to learn? We could start with the scientific method. That applies to all of the sciences.
I don’t think those who truly believe and understand biblical creation and have submitted their lives to Christ can be racist. According to the scriptures God created Adam & Eve, the first humans, in His image and all other humans descended from them. This means there is only one human race which allows no excuse for racism or for anyone to feel superior to others.

After doing a little more research, I don’t think Linnaeus, as a creationist and believer in God was at all implying that humans are related to apes or shared common ancestry. That was Darwin’s theory. Linnaeus was simply grouping
animals, plants, and minerals into categories of similar appearance.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori...entury_before_darwin_biologist_carl_linnaeus/



From my understanding scientific racism is tied to the acceptance of evolution and natural selection.

https://www.olli-dc.org/uploads/PDF...cksonandweidman-originsofscientificracism.pdf


Timeline of Scientific Racism - Haunted Files | A/P/A | NYU


What do you want me to learn about the scientific method?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I don’t think those who truly believe and understand biblical creation and have submitted their lives to Christ can be racist. According to the scriptures God created Adam & Eve, the first humans, in His image and all other humans descended from them. This means there is only one human race which allows no excuse for racism or for anyone to feel superior to others.

After doing a little more research, I don’t think Linnaeus, as a creationist and believer in God was at all implying that humans are related to apes or shared common ancestry. That was Darwin’s theory. Linnaeus was simply grouping
animals, plants, and minerals into categories of similar appearance.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori...entury_before_darwin_biologist_carl_linnaeus/



From my understanding scientific racism is tied to the acceptance of evolution and natural selection.

https://www.olli-dc.org/uploads/PDF...cksonandweidman-originsofscientificracism.pdf


Timeline of Scientific Racism - Haunted Files | A/P/A | NYU


What do you want me to learn about the scientific method?
Sorry, but that is a No True Scotsman Fallacy. Are you claiming that Christianity is a rather minor religion, perhaps only one tenth its now claimed size? Like it or not they were Christians. The same sort of Christian that supports Trump today.

Just because someone does not share the same false beliefs that you have does not mean that they are not Christians. After all, you believe that God is a liar.

Okay on to the scientific method. There is no one single scientific method they all do have one very important thing in common, they are all based upon the concept of the testable hypothesis. In other words a scientist explains what he believes and why, and provides at least one test that could possibly show that it is wrong. This test would involve his idea only. It would not be dependent upon the beliefs of someone else.

It takes a lot of courage to provide a test that could show one to be wrong.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Which Hellenistic resurrecting saviour demigod is that?
There were many, Hellenism is the origin of savior demigods who through a resurrection get followers salvation, or entry into an afterlife.

"
Christian and Hellenistic ideas of redemption cannot be sharply separated.

The deity's resurrection from the dead gives to the initiates, who see their own destiny prefigured in his adventures, hope of a life after death.
….. the soul, conscious of its divine origin, strives for redemption from its foreign and unrelated companion, the body. It seeks deliverance from things sinful, material, and mortal. But the fundamental motive in these various representations is the same; it is longing for elevation above the earthly world and its ruling powers, i.e., for deification. The end of redemption is a life of eternal blessedness. The redeemer is the deity to whose service one devotes his whole life in order to obtain his help and favor.
But notions and expressions akin to Hellenistic mysticism are already present in, the Pauline doctrine of redemption. Sin is traced back to the flesh and to the natural man. According to Rom. 8:19-22 perishable, degenerate creation looks for deliverance from transitoriness and for the revelation of the sons of God. As the apostle fervently longed for freedom from the body of death (Rom. 7:24), so also redemption is for him deliverance from aiv e'VeCrd, (Gal. 1:4). This leaning toward a "physical" and cosmic extension of redemption is an approach to Hellenistic conceptions. Paul's representa- tion of the believer as living and suffering in Christ, as crucified, buried, and raised with him, recalls the similar way in which the Hellenistic mystery-religions relate the believer to the dead and risen god (Attis, Osiris, Adonis). Thus Paul actually appears to be indebted to Hellenistic mysticism for certain suggestions. As Plato used Orphism, so Paul appropriated forms of expression for his faith from the mysticism of the world to which he preached the gospel.

The relationship of Christianity to Hellenism appears closer in the Ephesian letter. Here Christ is the supreme power of the entire spirit-world, exalting believers above the bondage of the inferior spirits into his upper kingdom (1: 18-22). Christians must struggle with these spirits, among whom the sKoopoipdrope6 (astral spirits) are named. In like manner from the second century on Christ is more frequently extolled as a deliverer from the power of fate.' When Ignatius regards Christ's work as the communication of ryv^oaR and &0c9apria, and the Eucharist as food of immortality, he, like the author of the Fourth Gospel, shows the influence of Greek mysticism. Irenaeus' realistic doctrine of redemption also has, in common with Greek mysticism, the fundamental notions of deification, abolition of death, imperishability, and gnosis.



HELLENISTIC IDEAS OF SALVATION IN THE LIGHT OF ANCIENT ANTHROPOLOGY

PAUL WENDLAND
University of Gattingen, Germany

The general trends from Hellenism began sweeping through the region changing most of the religions to what are now called mystery religions. all went through these changes. Judaism was the last. A few other elements of Christianity are from the Persian myths.

https://wwwc.com/topic/Hellenistic-religion/Beliefs-practices-and-institutions

-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.

-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.

-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.


-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme

-The temples and cult institutions of the various Hellenistic religions were repositories of the knowledge and techniques necessary for salvation and were the agents of the public worship of a particular deity. In addition, they served an important sociological role. In the new, cosmopolitan ideology that followed Alexander’s conquests, the old nationalistic and ethnic boundaries had broken down and the problem of religious and social identity had become acute.

-Most of these groups had regular meetings for a communal meal that served the dual role of sacramental participation (referring to the use of material elements believed to convey spiritual benefits among the members and with their deity)

-Hellenistic philosophy (Stoicism, Cynicism, Neo-Aristotelianism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and Neoplatonism) provided key formulations for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophy, theology, and mysticism through the 18th century

- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.

-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.

-Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)

-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)

- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—whose preaching corresponded to the activities of various Greek and Roman philosophic missionaries
 

InChrist

Free4ever
Sorry, but that is a No True Scotsman Fallacy. Are you claiming that Christianity is a rather minor religion, perhaps only one tenth its now claimed size? Like it or not they were Christians. The same sort of Christian that supports Trump today.

Just because someone does not share the same false beliefs that you have does not mean that they are not Christians. After all, you believe that God is a liar.

Okay on to the scientific method. There is no one single scientific method they all do have one very important thing in common, they are all based upon the concept of the testable hypothesis. In other words a scientist explains what he believes and why, and provides at least one test that could possibly show that it is wrong. This test would involve his idea only. It would not be dependent upon the beliefs of someone else.

It takes a lot of courage to provide a test that could show one to be wrong.
God is not a liar. Those are your words. I am asking you to please stop saying that I believe that. You know you are being disingenuous and making a slanderous accusation about me or “my” thoughts.

I am not saying Christianity isn’t a huge religion. I am saying that if someone is a Christian or claims to be a Christian, then they should believe God’s words of the scriptures from which their faith understanding is derived from, words which Jesus also believed. Again, back to the point; many scientists do not deny the existence of God. They believe in a Creator because it is reasonable, not due to threats or fear, as implied by the OP.

Thank you. I do understand that the scientific method is based on the concept of testable hypothesis.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
God is not a liar. Those are your words. I am asking you to please stop saying that I believe that. You know you are being disingenuous and making a slanderous accusation about me or “my” thoughts.

I am not saying Christianity isn’t a huge religion. I am saying that if someone is a Christian or claims to be a Christian, then they should believe God’s words of the scriptures from which their faith understanding is derived from, words which Jesus also believed. Again, back to the point; many scientists do not deny the existence of God. They believe in a Creator because it is reasonable, not due to threats or fear, as implied by the OP.

Thank you. I do understand that the scientific method is based on the concept of testable hypothesis.
You are not listening to me. I never claimed that God is a liar. That is what YOU do when you try to claim that Genesis is literal and not allegory.

Why can't creationists understand this? If anyone is calling God a liar it is creationists. I don' t think that you have been following along in the converstaion.

Okay, So God is not a lair. Therefore Genesis is not literal. It is allegory. Or a morality tale. It does not talk about events that actually happened.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Lol, seriously? It's been the dominant religion though out history because it offers hope, not because of hell. Eliminate hell and replace it with annihilation, if you want. Both can be derived from scripture. It'll still be the most popular because it's a religion that offers healing and hope to the hopeless.
It's been the dominant religion for a couple of thousand years (give or take) because it was primarily spread by force and threats.

The OP is spot on for my Dad. He died believing he was going to suffer in hell separated from the rest of his family for eternity, because he thought we'd be in Heaven. He wasn't a particularly bad person either. He was just told he was by members of my Uncle's church. He didn't experience this great healing and "hope for the hopeless" that you describe.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Slavery was and always has been a sinful practice invented by sinful humans. God does not condone it, nor many of the other sinful behaviors humans practice.
God condones it in the Bible. Yep, he does.
Weird how you seem to know that slavery is immoral but the God you worship doesn't seem to ever realize that.
 
Top