How so? Science and bible say the same thing. You want me to believe earth is flat? What is this site? Facepalm
If you study science the moon produces a tiny bit of light and it reflects light. And bible just says the moon is a lesser light. Which it is. It only gives a little light and reflects the rest. This is science.
But you're also making it seems like science has all the answers. It doesn't. It's constantly learning and making a different hypothesis and being mind blown. For example, NASA and other planets as it looks for goldilocks planets in other galaxies. It had certain things down and was like ok seems it is true for all planets so far until they found a new planet which crushed their theory into nothing.
Fair enough if you do not wish to understand things like the beginnings of democracies and thoughts relevant about our Greaco/Roman world that is your choice. However be aware that when you make statements like "I sure haven't found one semi semi semi as close" that is an admission of your own education not on the quality of the bible!
The incredible arrogance of remarks like this never cease to amaze me, not only do you claim to know there is a god, but what that god tells us to do. Not only do you ignore all the other gods you dare to pontificate on what others do with their lives and why they do it! Sorry if I do not cower because some goat herder says you cannot eat fish on Fridays or that it is wrong to have sex unless you are married!
I’m often intrigued by how much vitriol unbelievers show when a Christian speaks boldly about not only knowing great truths about God, but challenging them in their own ways and beliefs. I think it speaks of levels of insecurity more so than just about egos. In other words, many try too hard to act like they got it all together. But how could they when they know nothing of the eternal for certain? Yet we claim we do know for certain and that rankles them. Actually, your comment was not all that filled with indignation of the kind I am referring to, but it reminded me of it. PS – I am not claiming there are not great mysteries that cannot be known, nor am I judging the worth or fate of anybody, believer or unbeliever.
The proper word is "regret with a large does of disgust". Disliking something so much that you want to wipe that thing out of existence committing mass murder in the process is not something one does when "disappointed". Is hating something so much that you want to kill a daily part of your life ? Regardless, even though the word "disappointed" is clearly the wrong word, using this word does not change the central premise that God is depicted as having made a mistake. The new covenant was made between the God of Abraham and Abraham. Jesus does not mention any new covenant. New covenant theology is relatively new (couple of hundred years ago). It is a man made construct that is not mentioned in the Bible. The Trinity concept has nothing to do with any transition or new covenant. It was a way to settle the debate over the nature of the divinity of Jesus. Early Christians and the early church Fathers did not use the term Trinity and did not believe that Jesus and God were one. The nature of the divinity of Jesus was a subject of considerable debate within the Church for the first 3 centuries. In order to settle this infighting Emperor Constantine demanded that the Trinity be made official doctrine around 325 AD at the council of Nicea. Emperor Constantine wanted "one religion" and wanted to be head of that religion - "Pontifex Maximus" and so he created the "Universal Church" (Catholic means Universal). Even after this decree - the Church continued to fight over the Trinity for many more centuries. The reason for all this fighting is because the "Trinity" is not what Jesus believed, not what the Bible depicts (in fact Jesus refers to God as someone other than himself many many times) and it is not what early Christians or the early Church fathers believed. The Trinity is a man made construct which is a desperate attempt to settle debate over an unknown in the Church - "the nature of the divinity of Christ". Without going into the various differences in ideas in relation to the nature of Christs divinity, what I will do is discuss one of the main passages that is used as evidence for the Trinity. This is a deliberate and willful mistranslation. The Bible contains numerous changes, edits, interpolation (pious fraud), additions, and omission. This was done on the basis of some over zealous translator using artistic license to try to make the word better conform to the man made dogma of the day. The Greek word used in John 1 is "Logos". While it is true that one of the definitions for the word "Logos" is "word", when used in a religious context this term had a very specific and well known meaning that dates back to at least as early as Plato in 400 BC. John was trying to make Christianity appeal to a broad Greek speaking audience and so the use of the term "Logos" was astute. Every Greek knew what the meaning of "Logos" was in a religious context. To the Greeks the term Logos meant - The emissary between Man and God. Jesus then was "The Logos". Jesus represented the word of God. The words of Jesus came directly from God via the holy spirit. While it is true that the Logos can be viewed as a kind of demigod, and a representation of God/Gods Word, this does not make Jesus God. Another problem with the "Jesus was God - God of Abraham" claim is that it contradicts the depiction of Jesus given in Mark and Matt (the two books, Mark in particular) - the only canonical scripture prior to 100AD. (John is written roughly 100-120AD) Jesus prays to God (not to himself). Jesus asks God "take this cup from my hand" -allow him to avoid being a human sacrifice/crucifixion. Jesus then claims that God has forsaken him while hanging on the cross ( the idea that Jesus was calling out to himself on the cross would be to make God into a delusional crazy person) Jesus says there are things that God knows that he doesn't. In every other place in Mark and Matt where Jesus refers to God ... he is referring to God in the third person - someone other than himself. Even in John this is done.
Nothing to do with atoms and neurons etc. Job is just another exposition in the theme why do the righteous suffer.And it wasn't the first. An earlier one was recorded. This was by a 'tradesman' in Sumerian literature. Many people have asked the same or similar questions in history.
Round is not a sphere in the Bible. Circular and round are as drawing a line round a central point. Early Jews were not monotheistic. Just look at the Bible and Archaeology. Monotheism came into being while they were in Babylon, when Ezekiel saw the future Jewish nation as being ruled by the priesthood. It had future kings, but the Priests were really the rulers. I didn't say you said the ancients. I was reminding you that your spacemen were modern - there were no 'ancient' spacemen. Your understanding of the English way of speaking is lacking.
Today, America in general has some pretty strong negative feelings toward Islam, for example. Yet few understand even the most basic precepts of Islam. We get significant cultural and formal education in the value and ideas of Christianity. A significant number of Americans are brought up with Christianity even if the family isn't all that oriented to following it as a religion. It's no wonder that most Americans are more comfortable with that. Besides the issue of making an uninformed personal choice of which of the many religions to consider, there is also the importance of understanding those who share this planet with us.
Not only do different religions contradict each other .... most contradict each other internally. Christianity and Islam are prime examples.
I've often contemplated if there actually are any Christians, if you ask most Christians they will say other Christians aren't really Christians and only they or their brand is. And if you ask the non-Christian they will say the Christian is not Christian....it gets confusing. At least they don't kill other Christians for praying wrong to Allah of whatever God they decide on.
I think this comes from the fact that it's incredibly hard for religion to have a decision making process. In science, we get to gather evidence, test hypotheses, review results and at some point cast out what proves false. Religion just doesn't have anything similar to that. So, when there are differences, the population simply divides, believing the other side is wrong in some critically important way. In the end, the number of denominations of the Abrahamic faiths is a count of the number of ways that they believe that others of the Abrahamic faiths are WRONG on issues so critical that they have to worship separately! It's massive global confusion even leading to violence, with NO possible resolution (discounting genocide for the moment).
When did I say I'm against science? I almost majored in science but decided math was more fun lol I don't understand you people.
My view came from observation. Once again. When was I ever against science? I feel I'm on repeat mode. And the semi close was regarding goat herders for who knows what reason they were even brought up. The entire bible wasn't even written by goat herders but whatever.
Yes, Islam has negative feelings towards it. I, myself, do as well but try to treat it as another opinion of a group of people whether it may be wrong or right. And true, but I don't try to bother the rest of the world since we all should live peacefully amongst each other despite all things. I'm actually pretty introverted in life so that helps.
Not lacking, just confused why this topic is still going. But if a sphere isn't round that I really don't know English. Are you talking about the times the Israelites were punished by a monothestic God for worshipping other idols/gods? That's just them leaving a monotheistic God or religion which they got punished for. But Judaism as Christianity has one God. Whether they observe their religion is another matter.
When a parent says she in disappointed in the behavior of her child at school. She NEVER means she made a mistake giving birth to the kid. God didn't make a mistake making people. He was just upset at the violence people started doing. Jesus is New Testament. New Testament is another word for New Covenant. I said nothing about trinity being a new covenant. All I said was Jesus was the transition from old testament to new. He taught not the old testament but the new testament. No longer eye for an eye that old testament was and so on. I don't agree with Catholicism so have nothing further to add on this. They're just a destructive money making business in my opinion. Incorrect. Apostle Thomas even referred to Jesus as God and Jesus didn't correct him. Are versea needed? I can next time just need to sleep so trying to keep it brief. I disagree of course since bible mentions the Godhead/Trinity. Trinity parts do refer to each other like that. God the Father refered to Jesus as God in Hebrews. And in Genesis God speaks of Himself in 3rd person to reference Trinity. Words like "we" and "us" and "our" was used by God when talking about Himself and those are plural not singular. So, obviously I'm still going with Trinity here. We can do verses sure if needed.
I do not suggest you are against science anywhere so why you state that is simply beyond me. Goat Herders was a metaphor (admittedly slightly derogatory) for the agrarian and largely illiterate society that produced the Jesus god myth and bible myth.
The Trinity idea was nothing new. Zoroaster around 650 BCE. Once upon a time, an ineffable God named Ahura Mazda existed in “uncreated form”. In other words, Ahura Mazda was eternally divine. As worshipers of Ahura Mazda started to elaborate on how fantastic their deity was (circa 375 BCE), they realized there must be a trinity of goodness which emanated from him, so Mithra and Apam Napat were invented to fulfill this trinity. Interestingly, Mithra held a judicial role (sounds like “he will come again to judge the living and the dead”), and was emanated from the sun. In a later Gnostic sect, called the Manicheans, Mithra assumed the role of the “living spirit”. Ahura Mazda, being the infinitely good, wonderfully fantastic, (nearly) all-powerful God he was, created angel-like spirits to assist him in all his good-doings. These angels were called yazatas. By the time the material realm was created, Ahura Mazda was not the only supernatural being who exerted influence over it; he had an adversary named Angra Mainyu. Like Ahura Mazda, Angra Mainyu emanated his own spirits, and predictably, Angra’s spirits were evil and absolutely unworthy of worship or any other reverence. To the Zoroastrians, Angra Mainyu’s existence gave rise to all sin and misery in the universe. As a result of the subsequent dualism which was fueled by the ongoing cosmic struggle between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu, the material realm became characterized by imperfection. Some humans even aided Angra Mainyu’s quest for cosmic supremacy; those humans who provided this aid were entirely unrighteous, and as a result of their crimes, would be destroyed. The parallels between Christianity and its predecessor, Zoroastrianism are quite clear – the trinity, the dualism between good and evil, the evil spirits which the good God couldn’t quite get rid of, and the prophet who was revealed Gnosis (Jesus, then Paul). Like in Gnostic religions, Zoroastrianism even had humans who would never qualify for Gnosis, perhaps because they were descendants of the evil Cain, as opposed to the wonderful Seth (that is how the Gnostics would have seen it, anyway). Excerpts from https://timsteppingout.wordpress.com/2016/06/20/the-zoroastrian-influence-on-christianity/
