• 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!

There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

joelr

Well-Known Member
Yeah, ok. It was likely a poetic description. Have a good one! :)
P.S. Scientists are realizing the earth was all water on the surface for quite a while.
It came together as rocks and dust. The gravity and impacts kept the rock molten. It took billions of years of impacts to deliver water to make oceans. It was never covered, early Earth had large volcanic activity, which would create land in any water. There was also siezmic activity, moving plates creating mountains.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Maybe you think scientists will eventually duplicate the process, making DNA from RNA and chemically produce RNA???



Researchers may have taken the first step toward solving this mystery. They’ve shown that RNA molecules can grow short proteins called peptides all by themselves—no ribosome required. What’s more, this chemistry works under conditions likely present on early Earth.


“It’s an important advance,” says Claudia Bonfio, an origin of life chemist at the University of Strasbourg who was not involved in the work. The study, she says, provides scientists a new way of thinking about how peptides were built.

But to give rise to modern life, RNA would have had to somehow “learn” to make proteins, and eventually ribosomes.


Now, Carell’s team reports that a pair of noncanonical RNA bases can do just that. They started with pairs of RNA strands, each made up of strings of RNA bases linked together in a chain. These pairs of strands were complementary, enabling them to recognize and bind to each other. At one end of the first strand—called the “donor” strand—they included a noncanonical RNA base, called a t6A, which is able to bind an amino acid. On the end of the second RNA strand—called the “acceptor” strand—they added another noncanonical RNA base, called mnm5U.


Carell’s team found that when the complementary donor and acceptor RNA strands bound together, the mnm5U grabbed ahold of the amino acid on the t6A. With the addition of just a bit of heat, t6A let go and passed its amino acid over to mnm5U, and the complementary strands disassociated and drifted apart.


But the process could repeat. A second donor strand carrying another amino acid could then bind to the acceptor strand, and pass over its amino acid, which was linked to the first. The process could create peptide chains up to 15 amino acids long, the team reports today in Nature.


Now, Carell’s team reports that a pair of noncanonical RNA bases can do just that. They started with pairs of RNA strands, each made up of strings of RNA bases linked together in a chain. These pairs of strands were complementary, enabling them to recognize and bind to each other. At one end of the first strand—called the “donor” strand—they included a noncanonical RNA base, called a t6A, which is able to bind an amino acid. On the end of the second RNA strand—called the “acceptor” strand—they added another noncanonical RNA base, called mnm5U.


Carell’s team found that when the complementary donor and acceptor RNA strands bound together, the mnm5U grabbed ahold of the amino acid on the t6A. With the addition of just a bit of heat, t6A let go and passed its amino acid over to mnm5U, and the complementary strands disassociated and drifted apart.


But the process could repeat. A second donor strand carrying another amino acid could then bind to the acceptor strand, and pass over its amino acid, which was linked to the first. The process could create peptide chains up to 15 amino acids long, the team reports today in Nature.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
You have that entirely wrong about what the Bible says regarding hell, and it's sad that so many people misunderstand. I suggest you do a little research on what religions may believe about hell.
There is no hell in the OT. No devil either.
It's a Persian, Greek and Roman myth adopted into Christianity.

In the NT there is eternal torture in a lake of fire.


Mary Boyce:

Hell


The concept of hell, a place of torment presided over by Angra Mainyu, seems to be Zoroaster's own, shaped by his deep sense of the need for justice. • Those few souls 'whose false (things) and what are just balance' (Y 33. I) go to the 'Place of the Mixed Ones', Misvan Gatu, where, as in . the old underworld kingdom of the dead, they lead a grey existence, lacking both joy and sorrow.


Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowings by Judaism, Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence, since Zoroaster insisted both on the goodness of the material creation, and hence of the physical body, and on the unwavering impartiality of divine justice. According to him, - salvation for the individual depended on the sum of his thoughts, words and deeds, and there could be no intervention, whether compassionate or capricious, by any divine Being to alter this. With such a doctrine, belief in the Day of Judgment had its full awful significance, with each man having to bear the responsibility for the fate of his own soul, as well as sharing in responsibility for the fate of the world. Zoroaster's gospel was thus a noble and strenuous one, which called for both courage and resolution on the part of those willing to receive n.



Persia occupied Judea during the 2nd Temple Period. This and Greco-Roman theology is in the NT.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but again I'm not sure where you're getting the (mis)information about hell and the future.
I'm talking about the Jehovas Witness. They expect the Rapture to happen soon.

Pretty good lecture about Hell from a Canadian Pastor/Historian:


The Invention of Hell




7:30


Aristotle was recovered and his ideas taken and put into Christian philosophy/theology. Ultimately Aquinas philosophy/theology are a synthesis of Plato, Aristotle and Christianity.

11:15

Ptolemaic Cosmology

Cosmology of Dante, Aquinas. 7 heavens, earth in center, Hell in center of earth.


Paradise LOST BY JOHN MILTON, HEAVEN EXPELS LUFIFER PRIOR TO GENESIS STORY.


Misreading of Rev 12:7-13 not happens in preexistence but is a future event.


Devil in Gospels

Tempted Jesus

Jesus casts out devils

Jesus talks about Satans kingdom

Jesus visits hell after crucifixion and before resurrection for salvation


In OT the devil and hell are absent.


Genesis, - not Milton’s pre-existent Lucifer


- serpent in story is much later interpreted to be Satan, here it’s a snake


- character does not recur to temp Cain and Able or any other temptation

In Job Satan is one of the sons of God.

Satan wagers with God that Job is righteous because he’s blessed, God allows Satan to torture Job

Isaiah 14 is taunting the King of Babylon who has compared himself to one of the Gods.

Morning Star son of the dawn is talking about a man, a king of Babylon who compared himself to Venus.

Isaiah is the source of much imagery, cast down from heaven to hell, attempted to rival God in heaven.

37:04
Serpent, The Satan, Lucifer (king of Babylon), not the devil


39:50 No heaven or developed concept of afterlife. Abraham is promised to be the father of many nations not eternal life. Then sleeps with ancestors in Sheol.


41:35


4th century
- Jesus, Israelites went to a developed theory of afterlife.


2nd Temple Judaism had an established idea of hell/devil but dropped it, Christianity kept it.


44:20

Greek Hellenism/2nd Temple Judaism/Persian ideas

48:12



Dualism is from Persian religion - heaven/hell, God/devil and from Greek religion

Abraham was happy with prosperity, not an afterlife

1:00:30


Christian hell is a hybrid of Greek and Persian influence.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
What do Jehovah’s Witnesses say about hell?

Do you know I believe that my Dad’s in hell? And he was a decent individual.

I believe that most all of Jehovah’s Witnesses who’ve died, are in hell / Sheol / hades.

That’s what the Bible states. (Ecclesiastes 9:10) Even Jesus was in hell, for 3 days. — Psalm 16:11, Catholic Douay…
Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; nor wilt then give thy holy one to see corruption.” Peter confirmed this was about Jesus @ Acts 2:25,27…. “For David saith concerning him:…Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell: nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.”

When a particular topic is being discussed, it would be best that you find out how JW’s explain these subjects from the Scriptures, before you lump us all together.

You’ll find our understanding is usually quite different than most of Christendom’s dogma.
The scriptures are mythological tales all rewriting Mark using Persian, Greek and some Roman myth in a Jewish context.
We can get into the scholarship of this, it's consensus.

But a simple overview by a Pastor /historian covers the basics:


The Invention of Hell




7:30


Aristotle was recovered and his ideas taken and put into Christian philosophy/theology. Ultimately Aquinas philosophy/theology are a synthesis of Plato, Aristotle and Christianity.


11:15


Ptolemaic Cosmology


Cosmology of Dante, Aquinas. 7 heavens, earth in center, Hell in center of earth.

Paradise LOST BY JOHN MILTON, HEAVEN EXPELS LUFIFER PRIOR TO GENESIS STORY.


Misreading of Rev 12:7-13 not happens in preexistence but is a future event.

Devil in Gospels

Tempted Jesus

Jesus casts out devils

Jesus talks about Satans kingdom

Jesus visits hell after crucifixion and before resurrection for salvation

In OT the devil and hell are absent.

Genesis, - not Milton’s pre-existent Lucifer


- serpent in story is much later interpreted to be Satan, here it’s a snake


- character does not recur to temp Cain and Able or any other temptation

In Job Satan is one of the sons of God.

Satan wagers with God that Job is righteous because he’s blessed, God allows Satan to torture Job

Isaiah 14 is taunting the King of Babylon who has compared himself to one of the Gods.


Morning Star son of the dawn is talking about a man, a king of Babylon who compared himself to Venus.

Isaiah is the source of much imagery, cast down from heaven to hell, attempted to rival God in heaven.

37:04 Serpent, The Satan, Lucifer (king of Babylon), not the devil

39:50 No heaven or developed concept of afterlife. Abraham is promised to be the father of many nations not eternal life. Then sleeps with ancestors in Sheol.

41:35
4th century - Jesus, Israelites went to a developed theory of afterlife.


2nd Temple Judaism had an established idea of hell/devil but dropped it, Christianity kept it.

44:20
Greek Hellenism/2nd Temple Judaism/Persian ideas

48:12
Dualism is from Persian religion - heaven/hell, God/devil and from Greek religion


Abraham was happy with prosperity, not an afterlife

1:00:30
Christian hell is a hybrid of Greek and Persian influence.



From Mary Boyce the expert on the ancient Iranian religion:

Hell


The concept of hell, a place of torment presided over by Angra Mainyu, seems to be Zoroaster's own, shaped by his deep sense of the need for justice. • Those few souls 'whose false (things) and what are just balance' (Y 33. I) go to the 'Place of the Mixed Ones', Misvan Gatu, where, as in . the old underworld kingdom of the dead, they lead a grey existence, lacking both joy and sorrow.



Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowings by Judaism, Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence, since Zoroaster insisted both on the goodness of the material creation, and hence of the physical body, and on the unwavering impartiality of divine justice. According to him, - salvation for the individual depended on the sum of his thoughts, words and deeds, and there could be no intervention, whether compassionate or capricious, by any divine Being to alter this. With such a doctrine, belief in the Day of Judgment had its full awful significance, with each man having to bear the responsibility for the fate of his own soul, as well as sharing in responsibility for the fate of the world. Zoroaster's gospel was thus a noble and strenuous one, which called for both courage and resolution on the part of those willing to receive .

Zoroastrians occupied Israel from 600 BC to around 200 BC.

The end times myth also comes from Persian mythology:


Revelation

but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.


Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it. Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead. As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which


there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07).



Apocalypticism is the religious belief that the end of the world is imminent, even within one's own lifetime.[1] This belief is usually accompanied by the idea that civilization will soon come to a tumultuous end due to some sort of catastrophic global event.[1] Apocalypticism is one aspect of eschatology in certain religions—the part of theology concerned with the final events of world history, or the ultimate destiny of humanity (societal collapse, human extinction, etc.).[2]


The religious versions of these views and movements often focus on cryptic revelations about a sudden, dramatic, and cataclysmic intervention of God in history; the judgment of humanity; the salvation of the faithful elect; and the eventual rule of the elect with God in a renewed heaven and earth.[3] Arising initially in Zoroastrianism, apocalypticism was developed more fully in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic eschatological speculation

According to legend, the final savior of the world, known as the Saoshyant, will be born to a virgin impregnated by the seed of Zoroaster while bathing in a lake. The Saoshyant will raise the dead—including those in all afterworlds—for final judgment, returning the wicked to hell to be purged of bodily sin.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
How does faith constitute evidence? What is faith evidence of?

Hebrews 11​
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.​
2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.​
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.​

Faith is only what is hoped for, evidence is facts or information that can be seen and evaluated.
Through faith we cannot know that the worlds were framed by the word of God. We could only know that if there was evidence.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search
Faith is choosing to act on our hope. And actions produce results. Those results are the "evidence of our faith".
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
It's just as pointless to try and discuss man's relationship to "truth" with a true believer in scientism as it is to try and discuss it with a true believer in the inerrant Bible. And for the exact same reasons. Neither is capable of conceiving the idea that what they believe may not be as true as they believe it to be. This idea is just incomprehensible to them. Impossible for them to even imagine. I guess because they really need to believe that they can know the truth. That they can know what's right and what's wrong.

I wonder why it's that important to these folks? It's not that important to me.
Your computer working good huh? Your strawman was communicated just fine, thanks scientific method.

Never said it was the truth. Said it's our best approximation. Science and skepticism always try to debunk themselves to find holes in the argument. It's how I know religion is made up. Every test fails.
It's important to know true things. You have no problem reaping the benefits of science.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Not having every answer doesn't mean Allah created people. Or Zeus. Or Yahweh. But evidence we do have. More is coming. Every year the gap is closing. Religious folks can disagree as much as they want. The truth isn't impacted by that.
There are over 10,000 children deaths every day from starvation. Every day. Suffering on these large scales shows there is no theism. Probabilities with illness rates playing out exactly as predicted show no deity is healing people.
Science denial in the name of a deity always ends up being wrong. Doing science with a result in mind is the worst way to find truth.
We don't know. We are starting to get a picture of early life. Self replicating chemicals, peptides, amino acids, have been demonstrated, DNA coming from simpler RNA has evidence.
RNA evolving also has evidence. More will be found.



Evidence for RNA origins




The RNA-world hypothesis proposes that today's DNA-based life forms evolved from earlier ones that were based on much simpler RNA molecules...

biochemist Michael Yarus marshals the theoretical considerations and lab experiments that lend support to this notion for the origin of life.



Chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested this at the University of Chicago in 1952 in their 'primordial soup experiments' that created amino acids from methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water when the mixture was exposed to an electrical discharge.


Other recent discoveries have revealed the existence of small RNAs, including microRNAs, that are intimately involved in controlling gene expression and translating messenger RNA. But the fact that RNA can adopt this vast catalogue of forms is insufficient evidence for a precursor RNA world.


More compelling is the ability of RNA to evolve under selection pressure, as demonstrated in the elegant SELEX experiments done in Larry Gold's lab at the University of Colorado, Boulder. This evolutionary adaptability may be why it is the nucleic acid of choice for the genome of some of the most difficult and changeable pathogens, such as the influenza viruses. It is a key part of the argument that it was RNA that generated subsequent life forms, and that RNAs were a primitive system for making short chains of amino acids — a system that evolved to produce the protein-based structural and metabolic machinery found in organisms today.


Further proof for the primitive RNA world could come from next-generation sequencing platforms that allow deep sampling of nucleic-acid populations from microorganisms in exotic locations, such as in deep-sea volcanic vents.



The Origins of the RNA World



There is now strong evidence indicating that an RNA World did indeed exist on the early Earth. The smoking gun is seen in the structure of the contemporary ribosome (Ban et al. 2000; Wimberly et al. 2000; Yusupov et al. 2001). The active site for peptide-bond formation lies deep within a central core of RNA, whereas proteins decorate the outside of this RNA core and insert narrow fingers into it. No amino acid side chain comes within 18 Å of the active site (Nissen et al. 2000). Clearly, the ribosome is a ribozyme (Steitz and Moore 2003), and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that, as suggested by Crick, “the primitive ribosome could have been made entirely of RNA” (1968).





Researchers may have taken the first step toward solving this mystery. They’ve shown that RNA molecules can grow short proteins called peptides all by themselves—no ribosome required. What’s more, this chemistry works under conditions likely present on early Earth.


“It’s an important advance,” says Claudia Bonfio, an origin of life chemist at the University of Strasbourg who was not involved in the work. The study, she says, provides scientists a new way of thinking about how peptides were built.





But to give rise to modern life, RNA would have had to somehow “learn” to make proteins, and eventually ribosomes.


Now, Carell’s team reports that a pair of noncanonical RNA bases can do just that. They started with pairs of RNA strands, each made up of strings of RNA bases linked together in a chain. These pairs of strands were complementary, enabling them to recognize and bind to each other. At one end of the first strand—called the “donor” strand—they included a noncanonical RNA base, called a t6A, which is able to bind an amino acid. On the end of the second RNA strand—called the “acceptor” strand—they added another noncanonical RNA base, called mnm5U.


Carell’s team found that when the complementary donor and acceptor RNA strands bound together, the mnm5U grabbed ahold of the amino acid on the t6A. With the addition of just a bit of heat, t6A let go and passed its amino acid over to mnm5U, and the complementary strands disassociated and drifted apart.


But the process could repeat. A second donor strand carrying another amino acid could then bind to the acceptor strand, and pass over its amino acid, which was linked to the first. The process could create peptide chains up to 15 amino acids long, the team reports today in Nature.


Now, Carell’s team reports that a pair of noncanonical RNA bases can do just that. They started with pairs of RNA strands, each made up of strings of RNA bases linked together in a chain. These pairs of strands were complementary, enabling them to recognize and bind to each other. At one end of the first strand—called the “donor” strand—they included a noncanonical RNA base, called a t6A, which is able to bind an amino acid. On the end of the second RNA strand—called the “acceptor” strand—they added another noncanonical RNA base, called mnm5U.


Carell’s team found that when the complementary donor and acceptor RNA strands bound together, the mnm5U grabbed ahold of the amino acid on the t6A. With the addition of just a bit of heat, t6A let go and passed its amino acid over to mnm5U, and the complementary strands disassociated and drifted apart.


But the process could repeat. A second donor strand carrying another amino acid could then bind to the acceptor strand, and pass over its amino acid, which was linked to the first. The process could create peptide chains up to 15 amino acids long, the team reports today in Nature.




The design of self-replicating helical peptides​

Abstract​

The self-assembly of helical peptides and information transfer through autocatalysis and cross-catalysis are the foundation of peptide-based molecular evolution models. Many fundamental properties of living systems, such as environmental sensitivity, chiroselectivity, cross-catalysis, dynamic error correction and conditional selection, are exhibited by various self-replicating peptide systems. Recently, advances have been made in the design of peptide systems with autocatalytic and cross-catalytic properties.
I have no problem with the scientific evidence... I am talking about what is driving it and the complexity thereof.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
If we look back at the faith of which Paul spoke, faith is based on something of substance…on evidence of something real but that isn't seen.

No, faith is evidence of something you bought into and now think is real. Mormons think you are wrong. JW think you are wrong and you have the wrong faith. But your group says you are all correct. Any position can be taken on this faith, any religion.
Islam uses the same faith. The only thing real is a concept in your mind you believe.




He repeatedly equated faith with promises received by those who possessed the faith in question, indicating that the promise of the thing constituted the faith, and that the promise was a thing of substance—the evidence of the reality of the thing promised—because the giver of the promise could be trusted to deliver (see verse 11).
Thousands of Christians leave the faith. I was Christian. It's just confirmation bias. My Hindu GF also swore she was having a personal relationship with Krishna. He spoke to her through her heart and she knew in her soul he was real because she felt his presence and trusted his words.
Still not true.









Does that clarify why I assert that real faith is never blind? Real faith can't be. It's based on something substantial and evidential, not mere hope or belief.
No it's based on a story that tells you it's something real and substantial. Yet you cannot communicate and receive evidence, every religion has people convinced they have a faith based on something real, yet it's still a story.
These are all faith apologetics.

"The material world is sometimes referred to as the "Land of Doubt", while the spiritual world, "The Land of Faith". Thus it should be no surprise that the process of returning to the land of divine faith, should be the development of increasingly greater faith or shradda.

Firm faith is described by Lord Chaitanya in the 22 chapter vs 62 of the Chaitanya Charitamrta Madhya lila thus:

"Sraddha is confident, firm faith that by rendering transcendental loving service to Krishna one automatically performs all subsidiary activities. Such faith is favorable to the discharge of devotional service."

Here is Rupa Gosvami's delineation of how faith develops in Krishna consciousness:

"In the beginning one must have a preliminary desire for self-realization. This will bring one to the stage of trying to associate with persons who are spiritually elevated. In the next stage one becomes initiated by an elevated spiritual master, and under his instruction the neophyte devotee begins the process of devotional service. By execution of devotional service under the guidance of the spiritual master, one becomes free from all material attachment, attains steadiness in self-realization, and acquires a taste for hearing about the Absolute Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna. This taste leads one further forward to attachment for Krishna consciousness, which is matured in bhava, or the preliminary stage of transcendental love of God. Real love for God is called prema, the highest perfectional stage of life."

Prabhupada comments on this verse in Bhagavad-gita 4.10. In the prema stage there is constant engagement in the transcendental loving service of the Lord. So, by the slow process of devotional service, under the guidance of the bona fide spiritual master, one can attain the highest stage, being freed from all material attachment, from the fearfulness of one's individual spiritual personality, and from the frustrations that result in void philosophy. Then one can ultimately attain to the abode of the Supreme Lord. (I highly recommend the beginning of the purport as well.)"







"In order to get off the mental fence we have to have faith. Faith then, although often maligned by by scientists or atheists, is required for taking action. They may use a different name for being committed to a particular endeavor, but it is really faith. According to the Bhagavad-gita 17 chapter, we all are our faith, whether in goodness, passion, or ignorance. Everyone is a combination of these mental states, yet we are encouraged to situate ourself as much as possible in goodness, and purify our other tenancies by using them in Krishna's service."





Every religion wants to sell this bill of goods about faith and convince people it's actually a good thing. Meanwhile billions over here are Muslim and billions here are hundreds of different sects of Christian, many thinking the other is doomed. This is not how truth works.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
If I may add something, @nPeace … since you and I “speak in agreement (1 Corinthians 1:10)”:

@an anarchist , you seem to be a thinking & reasonable person.

What did Jesus say would identify his disciples? You’ll see, if you read John 13:34-35….

It’s love. Without any stipulations.

Regardless what race you are, what ethnicity you are, what nationality you are, what caste you are / where you fit in society.

If conflict arises between two or more countries, “those serving God” would be very distinct from “those who don’t.”

How can one be showing Christ-like love, and yet be supporting a conflict that takes lives?

Unfortunately, we see Christendom get involved in worldly hostilities all the time, don’t we?

But Jesus said to his followers, “If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, for this reason the world hates you.”

See John 17:16.


So there is a big difference between those serving God and those who don’t.

Take care, my cousin.

"To provide a good overview of the majority scholarly opinion about the Gospels, the Oxford Annotated Bible (a compilation of multiple scholars summarizing dominant scholarly trends for the last 150 years) states (p. 1744):


"Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings."


Unfortunately, much of the general public is not familiar with scholarly resources like the one quoted above; instead, Christian apologists often put out a lot of material, such as The Case For Christ, targeted toward lay audiences, who are not familiar with scholarly methods, in order to argue that the Gospels are the eyewitness testimonies of either Jesus’ disciples or their attendants. The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant lands, after a substantial gap of time, by unknown persons, compiling, redacting, and inventing various traditions, in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure—Jesus Christ—to confirm the faith of their communities.


And about the authorship of 1 John (p. 2137):

The anonymous voice of 1 John was identified with the author of the Fourth Gospel by the end of the second century CE … Since the Gospel was attributed to the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, early Christians concluded that he had composed 1 John near the end of his long life … Modern scholars have a more complex view of the development of the Johannine community and its writings. The opening verses of 1 John employ a first person plural “we” … That “we” probably refers to a circle of teachers faithful to the apostolic testimony of the Beloved Disciple and evangelist. A prominent member of that group composed this introduction.


As scholarly sources like the Oxford Annotated Bible note, the Gospels are not historical works (even if they contain some historical kernels). I have discussed elsewhere some of the reasons why scholars recognize that the Gospels are not historical in their genre, purpose, or character in my article “Ancient Historical Writing Compared to the Gospels of the New Testament.” However, I will now also lay out a resource here explaining why many scholars likewise doubt the traditional authorial attributions of the Gospels.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I have no problem with the scientific evidence... I am talking about what is driving it and the complexity thereof.
Amino acids and even proteins are found in space. Self replicating nucleobase have been discovered in a lab. Many small parts of the puzzle can be shown to happen naturally. The early planet has water, sun, lightning and trillions of experiments happening for billions of years.

The underlying reality is probabilistic meaning that if something as even a tiny bit probable it will eventually happen. This explains that particular complexity. Same reason super-structures and things happen in space. Coast lines, plants, all have fractal patterns and certain mathematical principles involved.

Why this universe is probabilistic, we don't know. It could be an infinity of universes, it could be how reality evolves, it could involve a deistic being? It could be natural creative forces. Probably isn't Zeus, Yahweh or Inana but that doesn't rule out some kind of deism.
Or a meta-physics that explains everything?
There could be a reason for spacetime being probabilistic that a deeper understanding of physics will reveal? Don't know. The more we learn about natural process the more it looks like unconscious forces are at work.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Amino acids and even proteins are found in space. Self replicating nucleobase have been discovered in a lab. Many small parts of the puzzle can be shown to happen naturally. The early planet has water, sun, lightning and trillions of experiments happening for billions of years.

The underlying reality is probabilistic meaning that if something as even a tiny bit probable it will eventually happen. This explains that particular complexity. Same reason super-structures and things happen in space. Coast lines, plants, all have fractal patterns and certain mathematical principles involved.

Why this universe is probabilistic, we don't know. It could be an infinity of universes, it could be how reality evolves, it could involve a deistic being? It could be natural creative forces. Probably isn't Zeus, Yahweh or Inana but that doesn't rule out some kind of deism.
Or a meta-physics that explains everything?
There could be a reason for spacetime being probabilistic that a deeper understanding of physics will reveal? Don't know. The more we learn about natural process the more it looks like unconscious forces are at work.

Yes, we have to define it as "probable, we don't know, could be, or, and don't know"...

The more we learn about natural processes, the more it looks like a conscious being's force is at work IMV. It is definitely amazing as far as what we see along what appears to be an ever-expanding universe. Our push to discover is hardwired in us!

EXB
·God is honored for what he keeps secret [L It is the glory of God to hide a matter/things; Deut. 29:29]. ·Kings are honored for what they can discover [L It is the glory of kings to examine them].
 
Last edited:

Brian2

Veteran Member
Provide evidence. Otherwise it's the same as belief in the Quran. Blind faith.

No it isn't. There is no need for me to provide evidence to you in order to justify my faith. Well actually I probably have provided evidence but all that was good for is for you to use your faith in your scholars to try to demonstrate that my faith is wrong and my evidence is wrong.

No, I don't care. I WANT to know what is true. If beliefs in a myth are not blind then provide something beyond anecdotal evidence.

It is good to have anecdotal evidence from those who are said to be witnesses.
But I do provide something beyond that and all you can say is your faith claim that your scholars are right and the prophecies came after the events they prophesied etc.

Also it's CLEARLY borrowed from Greek religion and a Jewish version was made, BY A GREEK WRITTEN IN GREEK, FROM THE GREEK SCHOOL??????
You cannot get more obvious here.

Luke was an educated Greek and I imagine that educated Greeks were the ones who wrote down that stories or translated them.
You can't get more obvious if you believe the Bible. And for you with your faith it is obvious that the stories were made up by Greeks.

No, it's because evidence for God is NOT scientific, not rational, not evidenced, not logical. It's not my fault no one told you this and you bought a story and used psychology to convince yourself it's evidence and a rational belief. It isn't.

Evidence for God is not scientific, but it is rational and logical.

There is no position that cannot be supported with anecdotal evidence so it's the worst way to know true things.

The truth of the Bible it seems cannot be supported with anecdotal evidence it seems.
Get rid of the anecdotal evidence by saying it is lies and atheists and skeptics have a field day making up their own Biblical history.
That sort of opinion history is not a good way to know what really happened.
But with your faith, all you have is that opinion history by your scholars.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
No one who studies in a historical setting disagrees. No one. The only disagreement comes from non-historical apologists who just use denial.

So you use your faith to call anyone who disagrees liars.
But don't your scholars use denial, denial of the Bible and replacing it with their own opinions of what happened.

Evidence, good evidence isn't faith. Now you are just telling lies.

We know that you say that people who disagree with the opinions of your scholars are liars. (maybe you get that from other skeptics)
But yes, good evidence is not faith, it is evidence. But we aren't talking about the evidence, we are talking about the interpretations of the evidence, the opinions of your scholars,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which have become your opinions.

Please explain to me how every single theology in the NT coming from Hellenism is not syncretic.

Savior gods, fallen souls go to heaven, Yahweh goes from national to suprene, eucharist, baptism, passion, death , resurrection, ascension, all Greek.
Explain how it isn't syncretic.

Even the

Encyclopaedia Biblica said it in a roundabout way, demonstrating you are either telling a lie or in serious denial.

Simple, it comes from the Old Testament and Jewish practices, not Hellenism.
That it comes from Hellenism is your faith and trust in the opinions of your skeptic/atheist scholars. That is comes from the OT is my faith.
And OK you have all the evidence about the Bible and those who believe it are believing lies and are themselves liars.
So that is out of the way and you don't have to reply to this and say that.
I know I have had enough.
Thanks for the chat. :)
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I disagree...

When you say "RNA" naturally evolved... what evidenced do you have that it was natural? Who told RNA to develop a DNA? When was the first time that it happened? Or was it purpose driven! Just because a person said "it was natural" doesn't mean that it was.

I like the way these people said it!


 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I am interested in learning why people believe what they believe.

So far all I have really seen is people making bold empty claim after bold empty claim with nothing to back up their bold empty claim but more bold empty claims.

So I suspect it will take a while to learn the why behind the beliefs.

I for one have posted many whys of my beliefs and find it to be time wasting for me to keep repeating these things to usually skeptics and atheists who only want to say that they are rubbish and that I have actually no reasons to believe what I do.
So many people these days, especially modern atheists, not only don't see that they have faith but do not like to think that they have faith and also want to say that the evidence I accept is not real evidence because it does not conform to evidence that science can use and work with to conduct tests on.
I hope you enjoy being here and find what you are after.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The scriptures are mythological tales all rewriting Mark using Persian, Greek and some Roman myth in a Jewish context.
We can get into the scholarship of this, it's consensus.

But a simple overview by a Pastor /historian covers the basics:


The Invention of Hell




7:30


Aristotle was recovered and his ideas taken and put into Christian philosophy/theology. Ultimately Aquinas philosophy/theology are a synthesis of Plato, Aristotle and Christianity.


11:15


Ptolemaic Cosmology


Cosmology of Dante, Aquinas. 7 heavens, earth in center, Hell in center of earth.

Paradise LOST BY JOHN MILTON, HEAVEN EXPELS LUFIFER PRIOR TO GENESIS STORY.


Misreading of Rev 12:7-13 not happens in preexistence but is a future event.

Devil in Gospels

Tempted Jesus

Jesus casts out devils

Jesus talks about Satans kingdom

Jesus visits hell after crucifixion and before resurrection for salvation

In OT the devil and hell are absent.

Genesis, - not Milton’s pre-existent Lucifer


- serpent in story is much later interpreted to be Satan, here it’s a snake


- character does not recur to temp Cain and Able or any other temptation

In Job Satan is one of the sons of God.

Satan wagers with God that Job is righteous because he’s blessed, God allows Satan to torture Job

Isaiah 14 is taunting the King of Babylon who has compared himself to one of the Gods.


Morning Star son of the dawn is talking about a man, a king of Babylon who compared himself to Venus.

Isaiah is the source of much imagery, cast down from heaven to hell, attempted to rival God in heaven.

37:04 Serpent, The Satan, Lucifer (king of Babylon), not the devil

39:50 No heaven or developed concept of afterlife. Abraham is promised to be the father of many nations not eternal life. Then sleeps with ancestors in Sheol.

41:35
4th century - Jesus, Israelites went to a developed theory of afterlife.


2nd Temple Judaism had an established idea of hell/devil but dropped it, Christianity kept it.

44:20
Greek Hellenism/2nd Temple Judaism/Persian ideas

48:12
Dualism is from Persian religion - heaven/hell, God/devil and from Greek religion


Abraham was happy with prosperity, not an afterlife

1:00:30
Christian hell is a hybrid of Greek and Persian influence.



From Mary Boyce the expert on the ancient Iranian religion:

Hell


The concept of hell, a place of torment presided over by Angra Mainyu, seems to be Zoroaster's own, shaped by his deep sense of the need for justice. • Those few souls 'whose false (things) and what are just balance' (Y 33. I) go to the 'Place of the Mixed Ones', Misvan Gatu, where, as in . the old underworld kingdom of the dead, they lead a grey existence, lacking both joy and sorrow.



Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowings by Judaism, Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence, since Zoroaster insisted both on the goodness of the material creation, and hence of the physical body, and on the unwavering impartiality of divine justice. According to him, - salvation for the individual depended on the sum of his thoughts, words and deeds, and there could be no intervention, whether compassionate or capricious, by any divine Being to alter this. With such a doctrine, belief in the Day of Judgment had its full awful significance, with each man having to bear the responsibility for the fate of his own soul, as well as sharing in responsibility for the fate of the world. Zoroaster's gospel was thus a noble and strenuous one, which called for both courage and resolution on the part of those willing to receive .

Zoroastrians occupied Israel from 600 BC to around 200 BC.

The end times myth also comes from Persian mythology:


Revelation

but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.


Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it. Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead. As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which


there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07).



Apocalypticism is the religious belief that the end of the world is imminent, even within one's own lifetime.[1] This belief is usually accompanied by the idea that civilization will soon come to a tumultuous end due to some sort of catastrophic global event.[1] Apocalypticism is one aspect of eschatology in certain religions—the part of theology concerned with the final events of world history, or the ultimate destiny of humanity (societal collapse, human extinction, etc.).[2]


The religious versions of these views and movements often focus on cryptic revelations about a sudden, dramatic, and cataclysmic intervention of God in history; the judgment of humanity; the salvation of the faithful elect; and the eventual rule of the elect with God in a renewed heaven and earth.[3] Arising initially in Zoroastrianism, apocalypticism was developed more fully in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic eschatological speculation

According to legend, the final savior of the world, known as the Saoshyant, will be born to a virgin impregnated by the seed of Zoroaster while bathing in a lake. The Saoshyant will raise the dead—including those in all afterworlds—for final judgment, returning the wicked to hell to be purged of bodily sin.
In other words, you just repeat things you like that may bolster up your false ideas but don't know for yourself. OK, have a good one. By the way, you have the "rapture" wrong, but people (like you) will say whatever they want, even if it's not true. Have a good one!
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Yes, we have to define it as "probable, we don't know, could be, or, and don't know"...

The more we learn about natural processes, the more it looks like a conscious being's force is at work IMV. It is definitely amazing as far as what we see along what appears to be an ever-expanding universe. Our push to discover is hardwired in us!

EXB
·God is honored for what he keeps secret [L It is the glory of God to hide a matter/things; Deut. 29:29]. ·Kings are honored for what they can discover [L It is the glory of kings to examine them].
You're right. and I respect that.
A lot of time is wasted by intelligent people trying to figure out how it all started. Yet the world is in ruins and they do not want to spend their time trying to fix it but rather postulate DNA, RNA and how it MAYBE POSSIBLY started. The more I look at it, the more it confirms they really do not know what they're talking about. (Many will deny that -- as if they're wearing earplugs --) From my conversations here it actually confirms the events in Genesis as to the proceedings, the unfolding of happenings. The Earth is special and God made it so. Whether they realize it or not science actually CONFIRMS the sequence of events as outlined in Genesis.
Matthew 11:25 - "At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children."
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I for one have posted many whys of my beliefs and find it to be time wasting for me to keep repeating these things to usually skeptics and atheists who only want to say that they are rubbish and that I have actually no reasons to believe what I do.
So many people these days, especially modern atheists, not only don't see that they have faith but do not like to think that they have faith and also want to say that the evidence I accept is not real evidence because it does not conform to evidence that science can use and work with to conduct tests on.
I hope you enjoy being here and find what you are after.
For many years I did not 'believe' in God. Where was he, I wondered? Why do we die? Why do we suffer? Evolution did not have the answers for me. I did MY OWN THING.
But still I wanted to be happy. Now here's what I found for myself but prompted by a preacher--NO ONE CAN HAVE FAITH UNLESS GOD GIVES IT TO HIM. And I still didn't understand that because I HAD NO FAITH. But things changed soon thereafter -- and I won't go into detail because each person has to find out for himself. SEEK AND YOU SHALL FIND. Matthew 11:26 - "All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one fully knows the Son except the Father; neither does anyone fully know the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son is willing to reveal him."
 
Top