Universal Body

[james bond]

I have read Bible and Qur'an and some from other religions too. I wonder how people can put their faith in these dumb and ludicrous stories?

Sorry for not replying in a timely manner. I just went over my notifications.

What parts of the Bible do you consider dumb and ludicrous? Does it have to do with your book and beliefs? What does your book or beliefs say?

 

[james bond]

Bible theory or rampant imagination? They were not talking of the universe but of the Earth that it is flat. As for the shape of universe, we do not know. In 'Manifold' (many dimensions), it can have any shape. Hindus saw it as an egg, Brahmanda (anda being egg).
Manifold - Wikipedia, manifolds - Google Search:

Bible theory as based by creation scientists. Let me address this in more detail. The Earth is described as a circle in the Bible, but it is not flat. From high above, it looks like a circle but isn't flat. It could be spherical.

“I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth." Revelation 7:1

John is using an idiom in describing people coming from all parts of the world. The Book of Revelation (prophecies; describing the future) uses non-literal and symbolic language.

"He stretches out the north over the void
and hangs the earth on nothing." Job 26:7

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in." Isaiah 40:22

This alludes the Earth is spherical, but not definitive. The Bible does not teach a flat Earth, but doesn't teach a spherical one either, but describes it.

The shape of the universe is flat. It is described in the Bible as that of a canopy like tent that is stretched out in all directions.

Since we discovered the CMB, we see the universe as such in this 4-D model. If you look at the ends, then you can see the universe is flat.

I think the secular or atheist scientists are going to state that the universe is circular, but the Bible describes that of a canopy like tent and that like a scroll which curves at the edges (middle). What do you think?

 

[exchemist]

Om Ah Hum Vajra Guru Padma Siddhi Hum

Eh?

To me, Vajra is the name of a producer of excellent, and reasonably priced, Langhe Nebbiolo - the poor man's Barolo.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What parts of the Bible do you consider dumb and ludicrous? Does it have to do with your book and beliefs? What does your book or beliefs say?

Virgin birth for example or resurrection. I do not go by books, I go by science. My books also say a thousand things.

"He stretches out the north over the void
and hangs the earth on nothing." Job 26:7

Give us a shred of evidence.

 

[Howard Is]

To me, Vajra is the name of a producer of excellent, and reasonably priced, Langhe Nebbiolo - the poor man's Barolo.

Mmm. I haven’t tried it. Sounds nice. I’ll add it to the must try list.

 

[james bond]

Virgin birth for example or resurrection. I do not go by books, I go by science. My books also say a thousand things.Give us a shred of evidence.

You should go by the Bible or at least read it. I compared evolution (which I believed at first) and then the Bible starting in 2012. I believe the Bible is more scientific and true.

That said, Jesus was born through the Holy Spirit. Mary didn't remain a virgin afterward as she made love with her husband Joseph.

The resurrection has physical evidence of the giant stone in front of Jesus' tomb being moved. The body was gone. We had people who knew Jesus when he was human and alive and they got to see his wounds and blood stains. The Bible states he had new flesh and bone, but no blood.

There is plenty of evidence for the Bible. For example, we are here. We have science back up the Bible such as bent rocks that form a young Earth. The fossil record shows a majority of marine life to back a global flood. Even the supernatural in Genesis is explained by life cannot be reproduced or created outside the cell. Only living can produce life.

You also have to realize atheism is a religion. They believe in no God. They do not have any evidence, but formulate their science based on the theory God and the supernatural does not exist. Thus, we get silly ideas such as the universe from nothing, an invisible particle full of the universe, and faster than light travel in microseconds after. No law of nature or law of physics can back this up. Stephen Hawking died without being able to present his theory of everything. Physics broke down his quantum physics.

ETA: I just realized we are in the RD forum. Will cut down on the science talk.

 

[Howard Is]

I believe the Bible is more scientific

Then you do not understand the definition of science.

You also have to realize atheism is a religion. They believe in no God.

That is wrong on both counts.
Atheism is not a religion.
The definition of atheism is ‘absence of a belief in God’.
A-theistic simply means ‘not-theistic’
.
You are trying to redefine everything to suit yourself. You claim the Bible is scientific, which completely subverts the meaning of the word.
Science is a process. Observation, hypothesis and testing, leading to theory.
There is no science in the Bible.
And there is no religion called atheism.
You can’t redefine language to suit yourself.
Well, you can, but if you persist it will render you an ignoramus.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You should go by the Bible or at least read it.
ETA: I just realized we are in the RD forum. Will cut down on the science talk.

I do not go even by my own books which are a hundred times better, the Upanishads. So, what to talk of other books, which of course, I have read.
You think since and religion are two separate things? Then you have neither understood religion nor science.

 

[james bond]

I do not go even by my own books which are a hundred times better, the Upanishads. So, what to talk of other books, which of course, I have read.
You think since and religion are two separate things? Then you have neither understood religion nor science.

I think science and religion are intertwined, but there are subjects that fall under science and those which fall under religion. For example, the Bible is not a science book, but science backs up the Bible. They are both search for knowledge and the truth. I don't think you claimed science backs up the religious books that you've read (I will make exception for the Bible).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, I do claim that science backs my belief to the fullest extent - 100%. There is nothing in religion which is outside the scope of science. And there should be nothing in religion which conflicts with science.

 

[james bond]

Yes, I do claim that science backs my belief to the fullest extent - 100%. There is nothing in religion which is outside the scope of science. And there should be nothing in religion which conflicts with science.

So you believe in the global flood? Like I said, science backs up the Bible.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You said that. I did not say that science backs Bible. The universal flood story is infantile in any religion. There was this ice-age around 18,000 years ago. When the ice melted (around 12,000 BP in Eurasia; in North America it happened later than that), it formed large basin in higher latitudes of Northern hemisphere before rivers drained these basins.

 

[syo]

Does the universe have a physical body and/or form?

What do you mean?

 

[Fool]

What do you mean?

is there anything physical about the universe?

 

[syo]

is there anything physical about the universe?

Yup, all of it. Every part of the universe is physical. From the tiniest to the biggest.