Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That is true. Religion and science are like two wings of a bird, opposite to each other.
-
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!
Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence
- Thread starter loverofhumanity
- Start date
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
There is evidence but some people just don't like it.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I'd be interested to know what that evidence is.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
Someone I knew in my former Christian/survivors of childhood abuse support group used to say that rejecting your Christian faith was like taking the red pill and awakening to reality. It meant admitting to yourself and accepting that there isn't a loving and merciful God to watch over you and help you deal with life, as well as accepting that you are truly on your own and must learn to care for yourself and your loved ones. He said that taking the red pill and facing reality, no matter how bad it is, requires a lot of courage and self-determination in order to survive despite the turmoil that we've been through.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I could tell you but I can almost guarantee you won't like it....
If you liked it you'd get the door prize since you'd be the first atheist who ever liked my evidence.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Silly me, I did not know what the red pill and blue pill were. I thought the blue pill was Viagra and in a certain sense it is the blue pill whereas the red pill is awakening to the reality of the sexual situation.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
Silly me, I did not know what the red pill and blue pill were. I thought the blue pill was Viagra and in a certain sense it is the blue pill whereas the red pill is awakening to the reality of the sexual situation.
Lol. Not quite. It is a reference to a scene from the film The Matrix.
Bad analogy, because a bird with a broken wing can't fly, and will soon be killed.
You flatterer you!None. I gotta be careful as I can see I am agreeing with all the atheists and none of the believers.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Yeah I know because I Googled it.... I was just being a smarty-pants.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That's excellent, I am glad you realize that. Science and religion are like two wings of a bird and humanity cannot fly with only one wing.
“Bahá’ís reject the notion that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion, a notion that became prevalent in intellectual discourse at a time when the very conception of each system of knowledge was far from adequate. The harmony of science and religion is one of the fundamental principles of the Bahá’í Faith, which teaches that religion, without science, soon degenerates into superstition and fanaticism, while science without religion becomes merely the instrument of crude materialism.”
From: Science and Religion
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I cannot tell a lie and I cannot help it if I agree with the atheists rather than the believers, it must be my logical bent.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
Yeah I know because I Googled it.... I was just being a smarty-pants.
Lol. I should have known.
Edit: looked up the meaning of "materialism".
Google defines it as;
a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.
"they hated the sinful materialism of the wicked city"
PHILOSOPHY
the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.- the theory or belief that consciousness and will are whollydue to material agency.'
- the theory or belief that consciousness and will are whollydue to material agency.'
If Abdul-Baha meant the first then it would seem to me that allegedly "divinely revealed" religion is unnecessary to prevent it as man's evolved sense of reason seems adequate to prevent it.
If Abdul-Baha meant the later I believe he was just labelling it without explaining why it is wrong.
In my opinion
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
I put ZERO faith in scholars. I put faith in EVIDENCE. Dr Baden is drawing from about 400 (literally) years of Old Testament scholarship.
400 years ago the Jewish scholarship was just starting to go "ok, so maybe Moses didn't write ALL 5 books. Maybe the part after Moses died, maybe that wasn't Moses. And maybe, the part about him being the most humble and modest man who ever lived, maybe that wasn't him because the most humble and modest man probably would not say that about himself...."
You are saying this to me while being completely ignorant of all of their reasoning, evidence, archaeology, and haven't even likely listened to one single series of lectures. You are not at all interested in truth but only interested in confirming what you want to be true.
You have an ideology that is 100% dedicated to a truth you have decided you already have and think hand waving off a man who spent his entire adult life studying all the historical and scriptural knowledge of the Pentatuch, and all his peers, favoring amateur fundamentalists. While you know full well that apologists in Islam, Mormonism, Jehovas Witness are completely wrong. But somehow the apologists you follow are correct. Yet you cannot demonstrate it.
Then you find it appropriate to tell ME I put too much faith in scholars??? How many times have I asked for evidence? You say it like I'm saying "Joel Baden says....." He has actual evidence.
AND.......I have ZERO FAITH. Please show me where I have faith. Every book by Baden and historical scholars has to pass a peer-review. Then there are debates and lectures among the field, and. then even debates with apologists. Carrier debated Mike Licona 3 times.
I listened to all 3. I hear Mike. And Sheffields debates and so on. They do not have good evidence.
What exactly is the key to truth? You mentioned the "key to truth". Ok, and what is the key? You tell me, I'm listening.
Sounds to me like you know Baden is far removed from what you believe to be true and you are just employing a defensive mechanism of cognitive dissonance to not get tripped up on why would all historical scholarship find this to be historical mythology. Or do you have reasonable evidence against the Yale Divinity lectures and NT historians?
Do apologists hold the key? Do pastors writing history on AnswersinGenesis hold the key? I am fully perplexed.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Thanks really, I'm glad you find them useful!! Some don't....
nPeace
Veteran Member
The writers of the Bible hold the key. Would you like me to quote mine them, and fill posts with quotes, like you do?
Do you know why the hold the key?
nPeace
Veteran Member
Or an undercover thing.I cannot tell a lie and I cannot help it if I agree with the atheists rather than the believers, it must be my logical bent.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Nice response. I might have said, Well there are birds, so go figure.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Everything I post can be traced back to evidence that is true.
I don't post critiques of the Bible from 2000 years ago that cannot be sourced or demonstrated to be true.
The writers of the Bible? First there is massive evidence, accepted by all historical scholarship that Matthew and Luke sourced Mark and changed things as they saw fit.
By all means, tell me where the mistake is in these arguments
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org
Any serious discussion of the Synoptic Gospels must, sooner or later, involve a discussion of the literary interrelationships among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This is essential in order to see how an author used his sources (both for reliability’s sake as well as for redactional criticism), as...
John is a separate issue, probably also sourced Mark but that community was definitely far removed and there is excellent evidence of John sourcing Mark.
Next Mark is complete Hellenistic Greek-school fiction. Ring structure, chiasmus, Markan sandwiches and more , can be demonstrated.
Jesus scoring 20 out of 22 on the Rank Ragalin mythotype scale, can be demonstrated.
Mark using the OT and the Epistles can be demonstrated.
This is using all PhD historical scholarship on Mark -
The Gospels as Allegorical Myth, Part I of 4: Mark
Previously, I’ve written about the historicity of Jesus, and mentioned how the most recent analysis, in Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus (the first comprehensive, academica…
lagevondissen.wordpress.com
The gospel names were added in late 2nd century. The internal and external evidence is a short book (I can post) and can be fact checked.
The theology can be shown to be the same as earlier Hellenistic deities and Persian apocalyiptic/messianic myths.
All of thsi evidence is solid and unrefutible. Yes I source what I say and turning it around as if it's a bad thing is just more obvious lousy attempts at debating.
If I didn't back it up you would just say I'm making things up. Then when I show it's consensus in a field you call it quote mining, as if I can't see through that.
Now, when a Muslim comes at you and says "all the evidence I need is the Quran", or a Hindu says "all I need to show you is The Bhagavad Gita ", that holds the key to the TRUTH.....
Or even a Jehova's Witness or Mormon can say "the updates given to Joe Smith are the key and the truth", "the new messages revealed to Jehova" are the key..........what would you do? The evidence is the same. A claim of a revelation from God. The Quran is a revelation. No different than Paul and the gospel claims of what Jesus did. Yet suddenly that argument isn't so great is it?
But you get to use special pleading, your magical scrolls are the real magic.
Well, they don't look to be. And endless evidence can demonstrate they are not. You have NEVER responded or countered any of this evidence. You just got to a point where you decided to call it "quote mining".
It's actually called learning. Something apologists don't do because their mind is closed down. They only accept information that confirms what they want to be true.
I would like you to provide actual evidence. You can post scripture. But then you have to accept the Quran and all other claims as well or you are special pleading. Islam and Christianity are getting close in numbers. They say the Quran is the key, the truth, a perfect book, you can never debunk it or duplicate it, and so on. Doesn't make it real. Doesn't make the NT real.
But the NT is very obvious Greek, Persian and Roman mythology.
No devil in the OT. No Heaven. Dead went to Sheol, the grave.
It's not just savior deities, baptism, eucharist, Logos, devils, Revelation that is Pagan, it's everything, remember -
During the period of the Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[51] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[51] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[52][53] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[53] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is thought to be derived from Persian cosmology,[53] although the later claim has been recently questioned.[54] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[53] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[51] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323–31 BC).[44] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[44]
Sanders, Wright Hundley, good scholars. Taken from source material found in Greek archaeological sites, literature preserved (historians, Josephus...) It can be demonstrated to be pre-Christian beliefs if you read through to the sources.
The gospel writers can also be shown to be writing in the Greek historical-fiction style. Romulus and other Greek writings use the same devices. Homer does as well. Scholar Dennis McDonald (and many others) have papers and monographs available showing Mark used Homer as well as a basic guide to create a story.
Dennis Ronald MacDonald (born 1946) is the John Wesley Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at the Claremont School of Theology in California.
In this groundbreaking book, Dennis R. MacDonald offers an entirely new view of the New Testament gospel of Mark. The author of the earliest gospel was not writing history, nor was he merely recording tradition, MacDonald argues. Close reading and careful analysis show that Mark borrowed extensively from the Odyssey and the Iliad andthat he wanted his readers to recognize the Homeric antecedents in Mark’s story of Jesus. Mark was composing a prose anti-epic, MacDonald says, presenting Jesus as a suffering hero modeled after but far superior to traditional Greek heroes.
The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark: Dennis R. MacDonald: 9780300172614: Amazon.com: Books
The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark [Dennis R. MacDonald] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark
www.amazon.com
So, yeah, it's fiction. It holds the key to writing good mythology. The evidence is vast. McDonald's work is not consensus, I'll point that out.
Oh David Litwa has a new work on demonstrating Jesus' deification was modeled after widely recognized traits of Mediterranean deities. Again, a work of fiction. This work is not contested at all by scholars. This is pretty much consensus in history.
What does it mean for Jesus to be deified in early Christian literature? Early Christians did not simply assert Jesus divinity; in their literature, they depicted Jesus with the specific and widely recognized traits of Mediterranean deities.Relying on the methods of the history of religions and ranging judiciously across Hellenistic literature, M. David Litwa shows that at each stage in their depiction of Jesus life and ministry, early Christian writings from the beginning relied on categories drawn not from Judaism alone, but on a wide, pan-Mediterranean understanding of deity.
Last edited: