Would Jesus Have known what Modern Science knows?

[wellwisher]

This question is mainly to Christians, but those of other faiths may share their thoughts to this. This question came up in another thread where I expressed my view while Jesus may be considered the Son of God to Christians, his knowledge of things that modern science knows would have been lacking for him, being a human being living 2000 years ago before modern science.

This caused great concern for one person of faith to consider that Jesus' knowledge of the natural world could possibly be limited to the understanding of those of his day. They seemed to believe Jesus would have had supernatural knowledge about all things, including whether or not evolution was valid scientifically. If this were true, then would Jesus have also known the earth orbits the sun, and the sun, not the earth, was the center of the solar system? Would Jesus have understood quantum mechanics? And so forth.

As a Christian, do you feel that Jesus, because he was a flesh and blood human being, that his knowledge of all things would have been limited as the rest of his fellows of his day? This isn't talking about spiritual insights, but technical information, such as how life evolved on this earth, such that he could be called upon as disagreeing with modern science because he spoke of the creation story instead, proving he proof he knew about evolution, but rejected it by referencing Genesis instead of talking about evolution.

As a Christian do you feel that saying Jesus' knowledge was limited to the knowledge of his day, is denegarating to him? If so, explain? Are you comfortable as a Christian to recognize that Jesus was a human being who didn't know everything magically or supernaturally?

Even if Jesus knew all the secrets of nature, there was no technology, in his day, to prove any of it to the skeptics. All the hardliners of his time would want proof, they can see with their eyes, like modern atheists. Jesus would not be able to show them a quark. How do you do that without particle accelerators and an audience with a lot of expert background to interpret the data? The layman of modern science would have to hand it off; reference, to others, who can better explain it with the expert data.

Jesus was there for the science of human nature. His knowledge was more advanced than modern science in that area. The people of the day were aware enough to understand this area of science, through self reflection. They could observe the inner sources of human impulses, as abstracted with collective human symbols.

The psychology of Carl Jung, who was the star pupil of Freud, was based on the premise of the archetypes of the collective unconscious. In modern lingo, this is like the genetic based firmware/software of the human brain, that defines our natural collective human propensities.

What Jung found, in his investigation, was that symbols of the collective unconscious; another name for the firmware, were similar all over the world. These symbols were most common in the world religions.This was sort of expected, since it comes from our collective human propensity, common to all humans, that evolved and was preserved via our DNA but is conscious on the software side.

Even if Jesus knew about DNA, without an electron microscope, the skeptics could not be able to see this to believe.They may not have the needed faith. Instead, the ancients learned about the software side of the brain, from the inside, based on meditation and self observation of induced phenomena; inner man. Jesus decided to take a software approach, instead of hardware approach, since this what others of his time could see, and woods see well into the future for centuries.

Maybe if Jesus had been more ego-centric, he may have tried to show off his advance knowledge skills, but that propensity for the ego to show off, came from lower aspects of human nature. His audience knew that, and would have thought less of him; just a mortal man trying to be a big shot. That is why Jesus said when you pray do in quietly to god and not like the Pharisees who like to pray loudly, so all can hear just how pious you are. Their ego were fragile and needed constant reinforcement from the outside.

 

[Five Solas]

I assure you that I have studied the NT's reports on the status of each of the five versions of Jesus it contains.

I find that each of them expressly denies being God and that none of them ever claims to be God.
Then I've overlooked something. Please cite the verse or verses where Jesus says, "I am God".
Please cite the verse or verses where Jesus says, "Worship me."
Let's see ─

Mark 2:10 But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins

Matthew 9:6 But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins.

John 20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven;
​

In the first two, Jesus is saying that God has empowered him to forgive sins.

In the third, Jesus is saying anyone can forgive sins.

Where does it say that only God can forgive sins?

You did not have an objective look at the gospel accounts. Look for example at the I am sayings and what it implies.

 

[Five Solas]

Even if Jesus knew all the secrets of nature, there was no technology, in his day, to prove any of it to the skeptics. All the hardliners of his time would want proof, they can see with their eyes, like modern atheists. Jesus would not be able to show them a quark. How do you do that without particle accelerators and an audience with a lot of expert background to interpret the data? The layman of modern science would have to hand it off; reference, to others, who can better explain it with the expert data.

Jesus was there for the science of human nature. His knowledge was more advanced than modern science in that area. The people of the day were aware enough to understand this area of science, through self reflection. They could observe the inner sources of human impulses, as abstracted with collective human symbols.

The psychology of Carl Jung, who was the star pupil of Freud, was based on the premise of the archetypes of the collective unconscious. In modern lingo, this is like the genetic based firmware/software of the human brain, that defines our natural collective human propensities.

What Jung found, in his investigation, was that symbols of the collective unconscious; another name for the firmware, were similar all over the world. These symbols were most common in the world religions.This was sort of expected, since it comes from our collective human propensity, common to all humans, that evolved and was preserved via our DNA but is conscious on the software side.

Even if Jesus knew about DNA, without an electron microscope, the skeptics could not be able to see this to believe.They may not have the needed faith. Instead, the ancients learned about the software side of the brain, from the inside, based on meditation and self observation of induced phenomena; inner man. Jesus decided to take a software approach, instead of hardware approach, since this what others of his time could see, and woods see well into the future for centuries.

Maybe if Jesus had been more ego-centric, he may have tried to show off his advance knowledge skills, but that propensity for the ego to show off, came from lower aspects of human nature. His audience knew that, and would have thought less of him; just a mortal man trying to be a big shot. That is why Jesus said when you pray do in quietly to god and not like the Pharisees who like to pray loudly, so all can hear just how pious you are. Their ego were fragile and needed constant reinforcement from the outside.

What you say is probably correct. However, Jesus was not born to display His superior knowledge, He came to die.

 

[Sheldon]

Jesus had no opinion on modern matters, because that was not the mission that Jehovah entrusted to him. Jesus Christ touched in his speeches and dialogues on issues related to the salvation of people, their relationship with their Father, how humans should fulfill the rule of loving their fellow men...

Jesus demonstrated with his miracles that the promises to eliminate diseases and the death that Jehovah gave (like Psal. 37:10,11) will be a reality when human governments cease to exist and it is God himself through Jesus as King in heaven who controls all human affairs and the planet.

Jesus used many discursive devices, but when he spoke of facts recorded in the Bible he was not metaphorical. Jesus considered ALL of God's inspired Scripture to be "the truth" (John 17:17)... Obviously anything that contradicts Scripture is part of the lie. For Jesus, as for his real followers, the truth about revealed matters IS NOT RELATIVE.

If Jesus really did exist, the biblical claims about what he said and did are still entirely unevidenced hearsay.

 

[Sheldon]

No science is going to give anyone eternal life... Science has nothing to do with the judgment that all humanity will face. In fact, many productions of some scientists have contributed to the ruin of the planet and the corruption of entire societies. The servants of God do not belong to this world…they wait for the next and live the life that really is life.

John 17:15 “I do not request that you take them out of the world, but that you watch over them because of the wicked one. 16 They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. 17 Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth. 18 Just as you sent me into the world, I also sent them into the world. 19 And I am sanctifying myself in their behalf, so that they also may be sanctified by means of truth.

1 Tim. 6:17 Instruct those who are rich in the present system of things not to be arrogant, and to place their hope, not on uncertain riches, but on God, who richly provides us with all the things we enjoy. 18 Tell them to work at good, to be rich in fine works, to be generous, ready to share, 19 safely treasuring up for themselves a fine foundation for the future, so that they may get a firm hold on the real life.

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world and universe through observation and experiment.

Challenging science to falsify people's unevidenced belief in invisible friends is asinine.

 

[blü 2]

You did not have an objective look at the gospel accounts. Look for example at the I am sayings and what it implies.

I set out passages from the NT in which Paul says Jesus is Lord but the Father is God; and in which each of the Jesus of Mark, the Jesus of Matthew, the Jesus of Luke and the Jesus of John denies out loud that he's God eg

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.

Luke 18:18 “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”.

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”​

and for many more, see my earlier citations.

In reply, no one, you included, has posted an NT quote of Jesus saying "I am God".

Jesus was a circumcised Jew, and he declared he was the envoy of the unitary Jewish God.

To assert that Jesus was instead God [him]self all the time is to assert that his entire ministry was founded on a Big and Repeated Lie, namely that he was NOT God.

If you know anything of the history of the Christian church then you know Jesus doesn't become a God until the 4th century CE, when the Trinity doctrine is invented. The Trinity doctrine is many things ─ a political result, a contradiction of the NT, and ─ as the churches surprisingly admit ─ incoherent. The incoherence would be removed if it was made plain that the doctrine in fact creates three gods (Father, Jesus, Ghost) rather than one. I acknowledge that this apparently has no appeal for believers. People are free to believe what they like, though I'd suggest it would help if they actually understood it ─ incoherence is no less incoherence for being official.

 

[rational experiences]

Father's man teaching.

Karma.

If man as a son of a human father ..theist scientist. Wanted not to be a man natural human. As thinker today used his penis on his body denoted as man should not exist.

Factual. His penis denoted the thinker.

In reality his nuclear burning image as proof emerged in cloud cooling. A penis image.

Yet it does. His God. His penis.

Reasoned he wanted to create as a human by his determined man status theist. Being penis terms.

Instead he built his penis machine as fake man. Why penis owner tried to convince humanity today we're part machine. As it's all just about man's the theist beginnings. Scientist.

Thinker today. Science abominated conscious biology was what he caused. Human mind.

Exact his fault. As witnessed before and in modern science.

His ever growing population need of men to act in women's role.

Secondary cause.

God earth not light not alight. Gods first position by man theist is dead. Fake use of words his evil.

The theist says as just a man thinking I will give God life. By bringing it out of cold death as fused. Mass of earths man's own science position.

Notice his thesis about mass is spirit gases natural light way above us. First. Where he lied first by word coercion.

So today he says I actually created the living god became the sink hole nothing God. His owned memory of man and God by scientists memory nothing...a hole.

Is exact self possessed Ai man mind.

God the earth ended in sin. Removed. By human men. A hole in mass.

My brother's scientific sin he states he raised gods mass from its dead tomb. Rock.

He burnt it out to nothing. Spirit gas entombed came alight.

Why today his mind agreed science began anew at nothing in science where his God of science began and ended. Sin. Sink hole.

It's why you can't convince him he's not God...he didn't invent God and he destroyed God. As he remembers his choice what he did to obtain gods power as just a man.

About his lived life is born...a human gave life to his fake God son all in his ego head. If you think you're God then so would your baby man be god. Only by your human terms memory mind of your type of head.

Fake.

Baby man life bodily blood cell states was flayed by burning gases inherited fallen spirit light that man of god science caused. Fallout. Science hierarchy of the temple ownership.

Confession said they caused it.

So he asks did I return from the dead?

No. Said to conscious man not the theist scientist. You use a different analogy. Man father is your heritage.

As O ovary mother gave you back baby life. Whereas living your father owner is of his own dead life is who you return to. As living begins again in his natural place. As man baby returned life human.

A completely different use of human thoughts.

What about a dust mass on the ground returned to a new dust...dust to dust as you began converting earths mass. Said the theist. I caused it his known confessions.

As dust can change into new chemical dust.

And it was a man's scientific confession. In reality.

Thesis using false words first was a man inferred thesis by volcanic mountain erection. Fake man god as planet earth theme. Then you keep false theorising as a man who changed creation.

Why possession by evil history man's memory was human studied. As it's real. Word use stated his coercion supported by numbers fake.

As natural mass of anything is not a number first.

As there is no bigger ego than a man destroyer. Seems like a man. Acts like a man. Thinks however to rip apart biologies life as a theist.

By nuclear blasting.

It's the scientist and rich man who said it's most agreeable.

Why criminality shifted by ideal not just historic.... rich man's fault ....man scientist included. Criminal said church establishment. Hypocrites as builders theme....yet applied legal rights moment.

For the people as the people.

Seems like the last upholders of the legal rights cause spirituality gave into human greed.

As they did go to war in our human past to stop rebuilding of the science temple. It was that important.

So why don't any of you utilise that human memory? Are your brain minds altered since. Historic dark ages?

Now one worse human choice states you go to war because of your science temple.

Congratulations inhumanity.

 

[rational experiences]

What you say is probably correct. However, Jesus was not born to display His superior knowledge, He came to die.

Men human all own human death. Natural life.

So did you come into life to die?

Yes says your mind.

Do you ask did you want to die?

Nope.

What about I want to believe I live an eternal life? Because I don't want to not just suddenly not exist?

A teaching as a living assesment which science never does.

Your thinking displaces the rights of any natural form to be relevant to its natural nature.

You theory about what you want it not to be...just natural first.

It's your type of mind thinking that gets life destroyed.

As you prove by your words you already agree.

By claiming Jesus just a baby human came to die.

A theist said if I can practice science and just the same human body die then I won't get hurt. By the read terms. How an evil mind thinks.

Liar.

Which means any new born now just born..the story terms should exact should die and be life sacrificed so I can practice nuclear sciences changing heavens light and gas body.

Knowing you sacrifice it's state stable.

As ice is first in science which is stable system meaning first ice does not support any converting earth mass themes.

Moses many had many images end in clouds proved DNA of man in many nations left. Turned into images. As cell health blood of humans sacrificed.

As a man in human life is our DNA human baby heritage.

Jesus terms put new image again of mans life lost into clouds. Seen emerge.

Bahuallah said the same as did shroud of Turin. Kept as proof as they knew how a theist human argued.

Russia event would have caused the same effect modern man life image put into clouds.

As first nuclear science cause of men's theiry updates attack.

As humans wisdom says my life is being abducted due to scientific giant nuclear cloud orbital visions. Lots of humans had the experience.

As it turns one image above giant from a lot of the same mass destroyed.

Evidence.

Science of old said clouds are present as part of life...as a support and knew it was. Protection of biology.

They never said life was a cloud first like some scientists claim today.

 

[Windwalker]

True in the sense of Adam and Eve being our first human parents.

Scientifically and biologically? Or symbolically or metaphorically, or "spiritually" which might be a better way to state it? If you mean scientifically, in the sense of biology, then you have a problem with the science.

While there is genetic evidence that we did came from a single male and a single female for our species, this "Adam" and "Eve" known scientifically as Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, this is due to a genetic bottleneck in the species, and this single female and single male lived anywhere from 180,000 to 530,000 years apart. This hardly can be validation that the Adam and Eve of the Genesis story are these biological, genetic parents of all modern humans.

If however, you don't read Genesis in scientific terms, then you have no problem. If you understand them as "spiritually" representative figures, that symbolically capture the nature of the whole of humanity, then Adam and Eve are meaningful figures biblically speaking. Theologically it all holds together. Scientifically it all falls apart.

Theologically they still represent the "sin" nature of humankind, and you have Jesus as the last Adam, symbolically. You have no problem understanding Jesus as "Adam", even though clearly he wasn't married to Eve. So you can likewise symbolically understanding the awakening early human, who first realized his isolated "sin nature" as Adam as well. He doesn't have to literally named Adam, just as Jesus wasn't named Adam either, but symbolically still is. Make sense? We just call them "Adam" as a point of reference to symbolize the human existential dilemma.

As I just said and I'll repeat again, Symbolically, or theologically, it all holds together. Scientifically or historically, it all falls apart. The Bible does not speak in scientific terms. Why make it a target for scientific critique then? That's to your own undoing.

If I believe it is true history then it automatically becomes a question of science and open for attack by those who want to do that.

I wouldn't say "attack", I would say critique scientifically. As I just said, if you make it historical and scientific, then you better be ready to have science critique and expose its non-scientific nature! That's on you. That's not on the Bible. It's on those who mistake the nature of what the scriptures are, which are symbolic language and figures to speak about existential human truths. They are not about teaching natural sciences and earth history. That's is an error of man that makes it that.

You don't need it to be scientifically and historically factual, to be symbolically true. Those truths are far more powerful than just mere history and factual scientific information. They point to something beyond those things. Why cheapen scripture like that, making it scientific?

I can't help that by believing it.
I certainly am not going to change my understanding just because science and sceptics might want to throw stones at it.

Science isn't throwing stones at it. If anything, it's throwing stones at those who mistake what the scriptures are and try to claim the Bible is true science! Of course you make yourself a target when you do that! And rightly so. Science's job is to establish scientific truths through intense examination and scrutiny and testings. That's it job. That's its function. So as I said, you only have yourself to blame if you invite science to measure the Bible's texts as scientifically accurate and valid! That's on you, not on science.

Even if I took it as myth with a message that would happen, and it would be just another step backwards.

I'm sorry, how? Why is that a step backward, and not forward? In reality though, maybe you do need to take a step backward to how those who wrote it and read it back then were approaching it. They were not approaching it scientifically! They were taking it all symbolically. They didn't evaluate it's truths in terms of scientific scrutiny. They didn't have modern science back then. So maybe going back to how they thought, might help you.

I don't see how the theological questions can be answered without the Genesis story being historically true.

I do. I think it works much better symbolically than making it historically and scientifically true. Symbolically, it makes much more sense. Scientifically, if fails. Don't kill it by claiming it is.

 

[rational experiences]

Science says it fails science today who wanted temple pyramid terms for collider theoried.

So you ask would men of old science understand your nuclear power plant model...all new machines technology,?

No. It wasn't invented then. So they only understood exact mechanics of technology of the past.

Today you would ask designer man why did machine inventions change?

Oh I lost my man's old mind consciousness out of biology

Oh so did Jesus of old man theism become modern man Jesus as awareness. In every machine you built you claim and here is Jesus the man's body.

Based on you using lifes oxygenated nature's microbial water holy life. To cool all Alchemy positions first dusts.

Man's life as part machine body? Just theories not fact.

Yes. You surely did thesis direct life lost past in water....new machine took biologies living position already.

Why you believe what you preach as you are the man thinker of all thoughts thought comparing advice of men.

Jesus is my machine he claimed.

Now a variable thought scientist egotist claim the mind of men before in science didn't know what we've learnt by using new machines today.

We know more than they did.

Total contradiction of you studying bible to get old man's wisdom...lying.

You use machines today to try to find it.

As science by model is mechanically exact none of your modern machine signals transmitting even own old temple transmitters.

You knew. And tried to increase earths evil transmitters relating nuclear only. In our heavens. At the ground mass.

As burning gases are involved in clouds returning cooled the place of Jesus you want. Above...not below. Cloud conditions.

So machine theists say my machine proves my machine science is not God owned.

It's man human owned. Your title is life's destroyer.

 

[Five Solas]

If Jesus really did exist, the biblical claims about what he said and did are still entirely unevidenced hearsay.

Sorry, too many witnesses.

 

[Five Solas]

Scientifically and biologically? Or symbolically or metaphorically, or "spiritually" which might be a better way to state it? If you mean scientifically, in the sense of biology, then you have a problem with the science.

While there is genetic evidence that we did came from a single male and a single female for our species, this "Adam" and "Eve" known scientifically as Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, this is due to a genetic bottleneck in the species, and this single female and single male lived anywhere from 180,000 to 530,000 years apart. This hardly can be validation that the Adam and Eve of the Genesis story are these biological, genetic parents of all modern humans.

If however, you don't read Genesis in scientific terms, then you have no problem. If you understand them as "spiritually" representative figures, that symbolically capture the nature of the whole of humanity, then Adam and Eve are meaningful figures biblically speaking. Theologically it all holds together. Scientifically it all falls apart.

Theologically they still represent the "sin" nature of humankind, and you have Jesus as the last Adam, symbolically. You have no problem understanding Jesus as "Adam", even though clearly he wasn't married to Eve. So you can likewise symbolically understanding the awakening early human, who first realized his isolated "sin nature" as Adam as well. He doesn't have to literally named Adam, just as Jesus wasn't named Adam either, but symbolically still is. Make sense? We just call them "Adam" as a point of reference to symbolize the human existential dilemma.

As I just said and I'll repeat again, Symbolically, or theologically, it all holds together. Scientifically or historically, it all falls apart. The Bible does not speak in scientific terms. Why make it a target for scientific critique then? That's to your own undoing.


I wouldn't say "attack", I would say critique scientifically. As I just said, if you make it historical and scientific, then you better be ready to have science critique and expose its non-scientific nature! That's on you. That's not on the Bible. It's on those who mistake the nature of what the scriptures are, which are symbolic language and figures to speak about existential human truths. They are not about teaching natural sciences and earth history. That's is an error of man that makes it that.

You don't need it to be scientifically and historically factual, to be symbolically true. Those truths are far more powerful than just mere history and factual scientific information. They point to something beyond those things. Why cheapen scripture like that, making it scientific?


Science isn't throwing stones at it. If anything, it's throwing stones at those who mistake what the scriptures are and try to claim the Bible is true science! Of course you make yourself a target when you do that! And rightly so. Science's job is to establish scientific truths through intense examination and scrutiny and testings. That's it job. That's its function. So as I said, you only have yourself to blame if you invite science to measure the Bible's texts as scientifically accurate and valid! That's on you, not on science.


I'm sorry, how? Why is that a step backward, and not forward? In reality though, maybe you do need to take a step backward to how those who wrote it and read it back then were approaching it. They were not approaching it scientifically! They were taking it all symbolically. They didn't evaluate it's truths in terms of scientific scrutiny. They didn't have modern science back then. So maybe going back to how they thought, might help you.


I do. I think it works much better symbolically than making it historically and scientifically true. Symbolically, it makes much more sense. Scientifically, if fails. Don't kill it by claiming it is.

The biggest issue that frustrates non-believers most is that they are confronted by a supernatural God doing supernatural things in supernatural ways leaving the science -god impotent.
A person that dies and supernaturally bocomes alive three days later, for example, cannot be scientifically explained.
There were too many witnesses to deny the historical accuracy.
Deal with it ...

 

[1213]

I'd say all of it. But DNA shows clear common ancestors and related trees. I can't imagine those markers would be there, if the species were created as separate silos. Humans show clear genetic relationships to primates, and other species to smaller degrees. We accept DNA testing with our 1st and 2nd cousins and 5th and 12th cousins when doing genealogical research, but we don't accept it if it shows another species is also related to us? ....

Interesting. I think that is poor reason to believe in the evolution theory. I think that would be the same as say, all cars are designed by the same person, because all of them have wheels.

 

[Five Solas]

Men human all own human death. Natural life.

So did you come into life to die?

Yes says your mind.

Do you ask did you want to die?

Nope.

What about I want to believe I live an eternal life? Because I don't want to not just suddenly not exist?

A teaching as a living assesment which science never does.

Your thinking displaces the rights of any natural form to be relevant to its natural nature.

You theory about what you want it not to be...just natural first.

It's your type of mind thinking that gets life destroyed.

As you prove by your words you already agree.

By claiming Jesus just a baby human came to die.

A theist said if I can practice science and just the same human body die then I won't get hurt. By the read terms. How an evil mind thinks.

Liar.

Which means any new born now just born..the story terms should exact should die and be life sacrificed so I can practice nuclear sciences changing heavens light and gas body.

Knowing you sacrifice it's state stable.

As ice is first in science which is stable system meaning first ice does not support any converting earth mass themes.

Moses many had many images end in clouds proved DNA of man in many nations left. Turned into images. As cell health blood of humans sacrificed.

As a man in human life is our DNA human baby heritage.

Jesus terms put new image again of mans life lost into clouds. Seen emerge.

Bahuallah said the same as did shroud of Turin. Kept as proof as they knew how a theist human argued.

Russia event would have caused the same effect modern man life image put into clouds.

As first nuclear science cause of men's theiry updates attack.

As humans wisdom says my life is being abducted due to scientific giant nuclear cloud orbital visions. Lots of humans had the experience.

As it turns one image above giant from a lot of the same mass destroyed.

Evidence.

Science of old said clouds are present as part of life...as a support and knew it was. Protection of biology.

They never said life was a cloud first like some scientists claim today.

I find it very hard to follow your argument.

 

[Windwalker]

The biggest issue that frustrates non-believers most is that they are confronted by a supernatural God doing supernatural things in supernatural ways leaving the science -god impotent.

I think the issue is more with believers who are unable to modify the ways in which they imagine God works in the world, and instead take on the world of science rather than reconsider how they believe certain things.

By contrast, there are plenty of believers in God, myself included, who do not see any theological reason to blindly challenge the validity of all the sciences when it challenges our assumptions about our beliefs. It is much easier to rethink our beliefs, than to deny credible science. As Jesus said to Saul on the road to Damascus, "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks".

Do you believe the earth is flat? Time was when people did. There are still people today who, because their belief in a flat earth is so stuck for them, they make excuses and deny all the sound evidence the earth is round.

It's really no different at all for those who deny evolution. It is not a "believe in God or believe in science" dichotomy. But it is a believe in God and accept science, or believe in God and refuse the science. God is not the common factor here.

Deal with it ...

Yes, indeed. Deal with the facts that science is not just fanciful atheist beliefs, but sound evidenced and verified facts. The earth is not flat. Evolution is real. Belief in God is not dependent upon denying facts. "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks".

There is no reason to not accept the science, and still be a believer in God. It just takes being willing to reconsider how you have imagined God. We should believe in God, not believe in our beliefs, right?

 

[Windwalker]

Interesting. I think that is poor reason to believe in the evolution theory. I think that would be the same as say, all cars are designed by the same person, because all of them have wheels.

I did clearly say that I believe all the evidence from all the different branches of science is more than compelling reasons to accept the science is sound and valid. I said that of those, I particularily like the genetic evidence.

Now, to say that is not valid, is invalid. Have you ever done a DNA test for doing geneaological research? It works! I'm on Ancestry.com, and sure enough, those who I know are my cousins, through all the evidences I have from records that I researched, all pointing to common ancestors, is 100% confirmed much later on by DNA results! Yep, she is a 2nd cousin, just like the records indicate. Yep, he is a 3rd cousin, just like the records indicate.

That is reliable. And when the records, fossil records, geological records, etc, all point to common ancestry, and then the DNA results validate and confirm it, then you can be more than confident is in a fact that we are related, not a guess.

So I really don't know what you are talking about if you imagine that is not a smoking gun. Do you think those hits on Ancestry were just made up by the testers, they somehow conspired to match us up to deceive us?

As I just said in the previous post to this one, quoting Jesus to Saul on the road to Damascus, "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks". All the evidence points to the facts, and to deny them is to torture your own mind and soul in the process.

 

[Five Solas]

I think the issue is more with believers who are unable to modify the ways in which they imagine God works in the world, and instead take on the world of science rather than reconsider how they believe certain things.

By contrast, there are plenty of believers in God, myself included, who do not see any theological reason to blindly challenge the validity of all the sciences when it challenges our assumptions about our beliefs. It is much easier to rethink our beliefs, than to deny credible science. As Jesus said to Saul on the road to Damascus, "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks".

Do you believe the earth is flat? Time was when people did. There are still people today who, because their belief in a flat earth is so stuck for them, they make excuses and deny all the sound evidence the earth is round.

It's really no different at all for those who deny evolution. It is not a "believe in God or believe in science" dichotomy. But it is a believe in God and accept science, or believe in God and refuse the science. God is not the common factor here.


Yes, indeed. Deal with the facts that science is not just fanciful atheist beliefs, but sound evidenced and verified facts. The earth is not flat. Evolution is real. Belief in God is not dependent upon denying facts. "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks".

There is no reason to not accept the science, and still be a believer in God. It just takes being willing to reconsider how you have imagined God. We should believe in God, not believe in our beliefs, right?

God is not part of the natural world and cannot be scientifically observed. The Bible is packed with supernatural events from beginning to end. Anything supernatural cannot be explained by science.
Science can only observe the natural world.

 

[Windwalker]

God is not part of the natural world and cannot be scientifically observed.

While I agree God cannot be scientifically observed, I cannot agree that God is not in the natural world. For instance,

"Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29 yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God doth so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?"​

"The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice b goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.
It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is deprived of its warmth.
​

There is of course far more that speak of God in the natural world, not in supernatural ways, but in everyday observable nature. But what cannot be claimed is that God is separate from creation. If God were separate from creation, then God would be an object that could be measured and studied, I suppose. But within all that is, all you can measure really is all that is. So in a sense, as we study nature, we are seeing God, in a sense. Just like the above verses show, or Paul saying, "Through the creation the invisible things of God are clearly seen and made known, even his eternal power and godhead".

Aside from that, do you believe God is Infinite? If so, then how can He be outside Creation? There would need to be a gap, a hole like a block of Swiss cheese, or an edge, a boundary to God. In which case then, God would be a finite being, a creature, not Creator, right? Infinite means everywhere, in all things, through all things, to all things, etc. There can be no gaps in Infinity, else it's not Infinite at all.

Science can only observe the natural world.

Exactly. So when certain particular Christians out of the rest of Christianity choose to say the the Genesis story is telling us the natural world, it opens up the Bible to scrutiny by science, as its job is to discover the truths of the natural world. If we read it instead as a story, an allegory, a symbol that speaks the truth of humanity symbolically, then this is not something science can critique. It's a spiritual question, and that is up to something beyond the sciences.

 

[rational experiences]

Natural law about life holiness continuance is first stated as the churches legal human new branch.

Life of human living on God earth in God heavens as the human. Position is only about and via a human.

In the beginning a human thesis theory was about why the immaculate body clear and non burning first highest earth heavens was set alight by incoming sun mass.

The body mass that ground alighted into sin holes was the suns mass body.

Burning and cooling fought to get the Sacrificed day as light.

Holy light.

No human whatsoever is in the discussion to theory about earths God natural history position. Light gas or clear cold gas as two separate topics but are life balances and not separate topics.

If science reactivated origin God themselves as I pretend what's existing naturally. But now I want to control by machine status by one humans position....we'll all be burnt to death is quite plain rational advice.

Man's science machine position evil is exact.

As use of human mechanics is human bio movement by human choices. Physical human doing mechanics.

By machine conditions I abstract remove cells by and for the machine position myself.

The position now just cell no human real body is the man with machine. The exact advice is no human alive by his DNA terms. As he's human in full form living. Not necessary says man of science anymore the other body type....living human.

Is how an evil human thinks.

Is an assessment of the bio mechanics movement choices of a physical human being theorising. As whole human body destruction by machine owned conditions. Abstraction of. One whole human.

In reality.

Hence father said in abstract thinking men of science with women of science is likened to the baby man scientists first life position now but abstract.

As if two scientists now with machine by agreement can have life destroyed as his possession is now exact in consciousness.

As if mother human never the scientist theist man's only god theory position only now agrees totally.

Is the warning as men theirselves as God sciences only was the exact teaching. By man not woman. Man no longer being woman by ovary terms had converted into father's only man's body.

So in abstract a man spiritual and a woman spiritual argues together for lifes sanctity.

If a man who man u all y took God mass. Destroys it first. To get a machine his mind physical activity is involved as a human. Not a God.

As if a man put our beginning biology in his manipulated dust melt place he gets God machine from historic we'd be dead instantly. How he gains the machine.

Is the important thesis. We must assess his dual unnatural position whilst he assesses just our natural life position. He's with evil. Machine man.

So science of men proved men with machine had in fact encoded the attack conversion on earths animal and natural human biology himself.

By using a machine.

The heavens mass however created the attack. Science can never claim I own natural mass.

That abstract conscious awareness he uses to claim he's innocent as a scientist man and God was guilty.

 

[Brian2]

If Jesus really did exist, the biblical claims about what he said and did are still entirely unevidenced hearsay.

The stories of Jesus come from witnesses and those who were there at the start. It is not someone hearing that Jesus did and said those things.