LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksOK now you should pull out your straw man from where you stuck it a week or so ago and give it a long, tender hug.Originally Posted by nichomach
OK now you should pull out your straw man from where you stuck it a week or so ago and give it a long, tender hug.
Wondered when you'd show up; when you can appreciate an analogy as opposed to an attempt to draw moral equivalence between a compromise on the issue of adoption and mass murder, do pop back.
Just because one part of the bible happens to be accurate doesn't mean the whole thing is. If the movie of 'Saving Private Ryan' was the only historical 'evidence' of a war between Germany and the USA, then your analogy would make sense.
If more christians took the attitude that 'Jesus is Private Ryan, a fictional charactor who lived some time ago, and here are the important messages...', again, no problem.
But christians seem to be determined that the bible is true, from jesus to creation, word for word, despite a total lack of supporting evidence and proof to the contrary. This is what scientists have a problem with. Blind allegiance to religious doctrine without questioning anything.
Religion should be about lifestyle choice. A code for how some groups live their lives. It has no bearing on science or historical fact.
Last edited by TeePee; 28-02-2007 at 09:23 PM.
Well, that IS a straw man, or at least a massively sweeping generalisation; the position of probably a significant majority of Christians is that parts of the Bible are allegorical (mostly parts of the Old Testament) and that parts are literal truth. I'm a Christian, as is my wife and a lot of our friends, and I don't know ANY literal fundamentalists of the sort you describe. Conversely, we do most certainly believe that Jesus was literally real. Look, TeePee, I know what Dawkins would have you believe most Christians are like, but it's just not true. Sorry. Admittedly, our position would be more like "Adam and Eve are like Private Ryan, fictional characters designed to convey a spiritual truth through allegory, rather than a literal truth through historical record", but to assert that all Christians are literal Creationists is frankly a ludicrous mischaracterisation.
As far as the "sole versus multiple record" thing, you're overlooking the fact that the Bible is not one single work from beginning to end written at the same time by the same person. It is a compendium of books written many centuries apart by different people, and it's quite proper to regard one book as allegory while another may be regarded as a literal record. The accounts of the life of Christ are written in multiple books also.
Last edited by nichomach; 28-02-2007 at 09:36 PM.
It's a compendium of SELECTED books, with many contradictions.
The accounts of the life of Jesus are in no way separate. The gospel of Matthew, for example, has only 370 unique verses of 1071. The best theory is that Matthew and Luke are works based on Mark and another source.
Of course, Jesus does not appear in any secular sources.
Once more we just have a case of someone else who is labelling an entire group just on the basis of a minority. Have any of the Christians on this thread given you this idea that we believe creation word for word?
Once more we have someone labelling scientists with something generic.
Let me re-iterate. I am a scientist and a Christian. On your statement that is impossible - either you, or I will have to change how we define 'Christian' and 'scientist'. As I am actively both I do feel I might be more qualified to be confident in my own labelling of myself, however, if you wish to have your own different opinion of what a Christian or a scientist is then by all means please do, however, out of courtesy and respect for Christians and scientists who do not fall into your category, I would be very grateful if you made it clear that you were referring to a subset of Christians and that you accept it's not representative, at the very least of the Christians responding on this forum
We can debate what we each think a Christian is, but that might be better done else where.
Last edited by kalniel; 28-02-2007 at 10:28 PM.
Actually he does. Josephus(?) and some other Roman historians mention him.
He appears in Josephus, and before you trot out the "Josephus is a fake" stuff, you might with advantage read http://josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/whealey2000.pdf.
While the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the
early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars and while in the same period Jews outside the church uniformly denounced the text’s authenticity, the twentieth century controversies over the text have been marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question. In general, the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together, with a greater tendency among scholars of all religious backgrounds to see the text as largely authentic.
According to books and things, there (very probably) was a Jesus, an historical Jesus, so I've no problem with that part.First person in any culture to say 'OMFG I'm the son of God and divine!!'? No. Most successful though.
But there were many who tried to claim they were the Son of God, so why did they fail and not Jesus?According to books and things, there (very probably) was a Jesus, an historical Jesus, so I've no problem with that part.
Well, from my point of view he did fail. I don't accept that he was the son of God, or divine, because the claim is ludicrous.
For the exact reasons why he became what he did in the Christian religion, you'd have to ask an historian. (Who accepts he existed, I’m sure plenty do not)
Why did Hitler become who he did, with a following so powerful he conquered most of Europe and dragged the entire globe into war? Plenty of right wing, Jew hating nutters throughout history, but why him?
Didn't Hitler once claim divine inspiration, God talking to him or something?
There's more than one example of an individual suddenly attaining world changing power, you do not need to be the son of God to get it.
Maybe he was a good showman.
Josephus is fake.
Other references to christians appear, mentions of their beliefs, but Jesus is totally absent from the historical reference. If he were real, he wouldn't be.
As I have explained, Science and the supernatural are incompatible. There are ways to fit christianity around that. As I suggested, christianity without god but as a chosen 'moral code' would do that. God as a natural entity bound by natural laws would do that. A superntural god is incompatible with scientific thinking.
The ATF.But there were many who tried to claim they were the Son of God, so why did they fail and not Jesus?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh
I prefer the term spiritual, but I wouldn't say they are incompatible, more incomparable, just as Classical physics and Quantum physics are. It's two completely different ways of looking at things - assuming that one way of looking at things can explain everything is rather narrow sighted.
Science does not, and cannot, try to explain God, and Religion does not, and cannot, try to explain science. They are two, seperate things. But likewise, because they do not even talk in the same terms, Religion cannot disprove Science scientifically, and Science cannot disprove God religiously.
But that does not mean that one can't understand Science scientifically and God religiously - they're not mutually exclusive, just different languages as it were.
Last edited by kalniel; 01-03-2007 at 12:15 AM.
...and I've already dealt with the Josephus assertion.
No you haven't. The single paragraph about Jesus in Josephus work (he writes more about John The Baptist!) is widely accepted to be forged, both by Christian and non-Christian scholors.
Science does try to explain god. Or let's just say 'The Supernatural'. The purpose of science is to define the natural laws which govern the world around us. If something happens which does not fit with those laws, then the laws are wrong, and we must find better ones that do explain the phenomena. In this way, science does not allow for the supernatural. Everything must have an explanation, and the object of science is to try to find it. There are many things we will never know for sure, but science will always look for that best fit.
As such, the concept of the supernatural, something which exists outside of all laws, and not just those we know about, is incompatible with scienitfic thought.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
