Religions, Evolution and related Sciences

[Josh P]

I'll go you one better, there is better written evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Alexander the great, but Alex beats Jesus numismatically.

But really, the question of historical Jesus is pretty much a clear "yes" except for people really radically opposed to Christianity.

No serious and honest scholar will argue that Jesus never walked the earth. Believing what he said is another story.

 

[RLD]

No serious and honest scholar will argue that Jesus never walked the earth. Believing what he said is another story.

Two completely separate questions.

But you would be surprised by the number of people and publications that argue Jesus never existed.

 

[Josh P]

Two completely separate questions.

But you would be surprised by the number of people and publications that argue Jesus never existed.

They are indeed two separate questions. I could have stated that better.

I’m not surprised. That’s why said serious and honest scholar!

 

[cwpayton]

I think the Four Horsemen went farther than that. Much farther.

Titling your book "The God Delusion" is not an argument in favour of reason in the examination of religion, it was an assault on the idea of god and an insult to people of faith. Of course Dawkins (not Hawkins) was profoundly dishonest in his argument, including his intentional selective quoting of the founding fathers, was called out for it and pretty much abandoned by serious intellectuals after his comments about pedophillia not being so bad. Of the horsemen I would suggest the only one who really brought honest analysis to the subject was Dennett. The other three were profoundly dishonest in their approaches, particularly Dawkins.

BTW, as a amateur enthusiast of evolutionary biology I loved much of Dawkins work on evolution but once he published God Delusion he seemed to completely go off the rails.

Belief in Christianity and Judaism, I would also argue has an archeological and historical basis. Many of the events, people and chronologies in the Bible can be researched historically or archeologically. There is a study of Jesus, for instance, as a historic individual, as opposed to a religious figure. One can examine the evidence as to whether or not he existed. He can be better understood in his historical context which comes from a multiplicity of sources outside of the bible.

Historical evidence can also confirm or work against religious faith. For instance for many years there was no historical or archeological evidence for Pontius Pilot and many people who disbelieved Christianity argued this was proof that this part of the bible was inaccurate. Then a stone tablet from the period was found in 1961 confirming Pilot as prefect of Judea. This, both for people of faith with a rational bent and for people who had denied Pilot's very existence was an important piece of evidence.

Biblical Archeology Review, I believe remains in publication.

So the Abrahamic religions do have an important historical and archeological aspect that impacts how they understand the world and their own faith.

While it is true that the questions of the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus, etc so far remain beyond evidentiary tests, many aspects of the Judeo-Christian worldview are shaped by rational review of text and evidence. And that is without even getting into how the bible can be analysed for authorship, etc.

INDEED the magazine is still published but the last copy I saw ,the old guard were complaining it had gone woke or liberal if you will. So ?

 

[cwpayton]

What absolutely frustrates me is the perception that religion, absolute belief in a creator, somehow can not also be of the mind and the intellect as well as the heart.

Yes I think I miss spoke , I believe the soul and mind are the same ( heart) , it is the spirit that would be defined separately.

 

[Ridge Runner]

Yes I think I miss spoke , I believe the soul and mind are the same ( heart) , it is the spirit that would be defined separately.

I have to defer: as all 3 are separate.

Very narrative explanation,

As being a Christian and having been exposed to many (religious) faiths, by my own choosing.

What I have experienced in the Christian faiths is all believe:

The heart: is emotional and is the emotion of mankind. (good and evil)

The mind: is comprehension and the { pro and con} to the intellect of mankind

The sole: is that which is rendered to the almighty and either accepted or condemned. The soles is that which is of the whole being.

'The road to Hell is paved by good intentions.'

 

[Ray B]

I think it is SOUL, not SOLE, unless you are talking about shoes or the last or only one.

 

[tarbe]

One of my favorite pastors to listen to was a Calvinist. Calvinists are alright. Even if they’re wrong on some things

I was a committed Arminian (regarding Soteriology) until a 6-year deep dive in the scriptures convinced me I was wrong.

We have to be willing to let the Word and the Spirit renew our minds.

 

[Ridge Runner]

I think it is SOUL, not SOLE, unless you are talking about shoes or the last or only one.

Yes. Soul not sole . Damn AI autocorrect.

 

[Field28]

My humble opinion, anyone who can spend time in nature and deny that there is a higher power is arrogant to the point of stupidity.

Some of the most beautiful words ever spoken were the words of Jesus! Remove the spin of priests and preachers, the words are beautiful! If we'd all just "try" to live by those words every day, the world would be a much better place!

 

[rookhawk]

I was a committed Arminian (regarding Soteriology) until a 6-year deep dive in the scriptures convinced me I was wrong.

We have to be willing to let the Word and the Spirit renew our minds.

The problematic riddle of scripture is that both a Calvanist and Arminus viewpoint are present. Both have supporting scripture.

Calvanism is absurd for me in that it is just "God's puppet show" where free will means nothing. It's just a world on autopilot subject to His will of who lives or dies, burns in eternity or goes to heaven.

Nonetheless, there are reasonable passages that allude to some of Calvin's interpretations.

I think its a lot easier to wrestle with this theological conundrum today as we understand things the ancients did not. We understand monte carlo simulations. We understand quantum computing.

God can see all possible outcomes. All potentials. Infinite free possibilities, all at once. And God can choose to intercede as He wishes, while mankind can individually accept or reject with free agency.

Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism could understand the complexity of God and that two apparent contradictions could be equally true. Today we have enough scientific examples of such paradoxes that it isn't unfathomable to a modern mind.

 

[tarbe]

The problematic riddle of scripture is that both a Calvanist and Arminus viewpoint are present. Both have supporting scripture.

Calvanism is absurd for me in that it is just "God's puppet show" where free will means nothing. It's just a world on autopilot subject to His will of who lives or dies, burns in eternity or goes to heaven.

Nonetheless, there are reasonable passages that allude to some of Calvin's interpretations.

I think its a lot easier to wrestle with this theological conundrum today as we understand things the ancients did not. We understand monte carlo simulations. We understand quantum computing.

God can see all possible outcomes. All potentials. Infinite free possibilities, all at once. And God can choose to intercede as He wishes, while mankind can individually accept or reject with free agency.

Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism could understand the complexity of God and that two apparent contradictions could be equally true. Today we have enough scientific examples of such paradoxes that it isn't unfathomable to a modern mind.

You are correct that no man-devised systematic theology could ever fully and completely explain God.

We do the best we can, with what we have been given...always asking for grace,mercy and wisdom.

He knows that we are but dust.

 

[Shooter375]

Hugh Ross is my go to expert on these questions.

Reasons to Believe

Reasons to Believe opens people to the gospel by revealing God in science. Discover how scientific research and clear thinking consistently affirm the truth of the Bible and of the Good News it reveals.

reasons.org

Below is an interesting discussion by Christian leaders on the age of Earth. Well worth the watch!

 

[cwpayton]

No serious and honest scholar will argue that Jesus never walked the earth. Believing what he said is another story.

Alexander the great was referred to in Daniel 8. verse 5-8., according to the scholars as was Roman leader Antiochus in verse 8. According to scholars of old testament history.

 

[cwpayton]

Hugh Ross is my go to expert on these questions.

Reasons to Believe

Reasons to Believe opens people to the gospel by revealing God in science. Discover how scientific research and clear thinking consistently affirm the truth of the Bible and of the Good News it reveals.

reasons.org

Below is an interesting discussion by Christian leaders on the age of Earth. Well worth the watch!

A well framed discussion, on limited time so I didnt watch all, but 12.00 ,19.00 21.00and 31.00 stand out.

 

[cwpayton]

The problematic riddle of scripture is that both a Calvanist and Arminus viewpoint are present. Both have supporting scripture.

Calvanism is absurd for me in that it is just "God's puppet show" where free will means nothing. It's just a world on autopilot subject to His will of who lives or dies, burns in eternity or goes to heaven.

Nonetheless, there are reasonable passages that allude to some of Calvin's interpretations.

I think its a lot easier to wrestle with this theological conundrum today as we understand things the ancients did not. We understand monte carlo simulations. We understand quantum computing.

God can see all possible outcomes. All potentials. Infinite free possibilities, all at once. And God can choose to intercede as He wishes, while mankind can individually accept or reject with free agency.

Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism could understand the complexity of God and that two apparent contradictions could be equally true. Today we have enough scientific examples of such paradoxes that it isn't unfathomable to a modern mind.

I think you can have both ways, maybe because I DONT understand or try to understand Quantum computing , But simply to the subject, God chooses certain ones, but will they answer "yes." Pharoh didn't ,Caiaphas the high priest didn't , but apostle Paul did , as well as Peter the zealot,[assasin.] did. The rich young Jewish ruler received a direct call to follow Christ but refused, this is not to say God did not already know the outcome . IN Acts 17;30 it says God commands all people everywhere to repent, but in 18-6 ,the jews opposed and reviled Paul. Humans without a doubt have a will to chose, other wise Adam And Eve would not have brought down the entire human race. the only other scenario I can think of is those who become hardened , apostate of heart as in Romans 1-20-23. especially ver. 25. and acts 7- 51-53 hard heart ,not good soil, apostate.
As to aliens and Extra terrestrials I think Ephesians 6-12 speaks directly to the subject and tells us exactly what to do about it' May God help us if we depend on Trump or the C I A or whom ever else in the gov. to know what to do . also Revelation 12-12 may very well speak of these dark powers.

 

[Red Leg]

The problematic riddle of scripture is that both a Calvanist and Arminus viewpoint are present. Both have supporting scripture.

Calvanism is absurd for me in that it is just "God's puppet show" where free will means nothing. It's just a world on autopilot subject to His will of who lives or dies, burns in eternity or goes to heaven.

Nonetheless, there are reasonable passages that allude to some of Calvin's interpretations.

I think its a lot easier to wrestle with this theological conundrum today as we understand things the ancients did not. We understand monte carlo simulations. We understand quantum computing.

God can see all possible outcomes. All potentials. Infinite free possibilities, all at once. And God can choose to intercede as He wishes, while mankind can individually accept or reject with free agency.

Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism could understand the complexity of God and that two apparent contradictions could be equally true. Today we have enough scientific examples of such paradoxes that it isn't unfathomable to a modern mind.

On the contrary I think the real issue is that non-Calvinists are unable to wrap their heads around the complexity of the concept that a truly omniscient God (check that definition again) can absolutely allow free choice and simultaneously know the choices a person will select. Limit God's omniscient character in any form, and he is no longer God. We are merely trying to fit him into our limited horizons of knowledge. That is the true complexity or paradox which is seemingly unfathomable to the those who do not understand Calvinism. Yet is so simple.

 

[Safari Dave]

There is much less evidence that Socrates ever existed than Jesus.

 

[gcbailey]

On the contrary I think the real issue is that non-Calvinists are unable to wrap their heads around the complexity of the concept that a truly omniscient God (check that definition again) can absolutely allow free choice and simultaneously know the choices a person will select. Limit God's omniscient character in any form, and he is no longer God. We are merely trying to fit him into our limited horizons of knowledge. That is the true complexity or paradox which is seemingly unfathomable to the those who do not understand Calvinism. Yet is so simple.

As a Presbyterian (thereby Calvinist?) I struggled with how it can be both. I understand it now, and watch my young kids as they try to understand the concept as well. It's difficult to find a synonymous example to help them understand it.

 

[mark-hunter]

Back to aliens.
As per below report, framed in our understanding of conventional physics, the distances across the universe are so vast, that there is no way of storing the fuel on space craft to travel those distances.
The travel would be so long from one habitable planet to another, that even the civilization can disappear before the space craft returns to home planet, as it can take thousands of years for return trip. How much our civilasation evolved and changed in last 2000 years, only?
In that case such travel would be pointless.

On the other hand:
Aliens, (aka UFO), arrive to our planet regularly in hundreds of cases, in fact on daily basis.

If this all is true of UFO regular visiting schedule, then the question is where from do they come from, if it is not from other galaxy, under presumption of time, speed and fuel limitation ?

Inhabiting the earth, but where are they? Oceans?
Inhabiting the earth, but coming from the future? Time travel?
Or do they have a different way of space travel? Stargates? Black holes?
Or do they have a different way of travel, much faster then speed of light, which in our conventional science we consider not possible?

When travelling the speed of light, the mass becomes indefinite.
For bigger mass, you need more fuel.
Is this indication of why all these UFO are small in size? Or they just need "small vehicles" to travel locally?

Something to think about: