YEC 2

[Januarymadness]

Right I am going to bite. I shouldnt have looked at the facebook but I did.

Mr Ruggles you have made some horrible accusations. You have claimed everyone who disagreed with you was an atheist who lacked logic and reasoning. You were wrong on ALL counts. Many people told you they were Christian or Theists, they just didn't agree with you. The thread was also full of valid scientific arguments which were well worded and full of logic and reasoning.

You have also accused us all of being bullies. Something I saw no evidence of. Not agreeing with someone is not bullying.

So please do feel free to justify your off board comments here as speaking behind peoples backs is really not on.

Please could someone link to the old thread. Thanks

I think the suggestion of mental illness was a genuine concern with a genuine suggestion that you seek some help or advice. Rather than your flippant quip.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree there.

Lizzy I have read some awful stuff on brain research, admitting types of brain scan in court evidence for example.

It means the same whether you refer to science or Christianity. It means that you are asserting something even though you can't state it as fact because you don't have all the info.

Scientists can't definitively prove anything. The most that any real scientist, anywhere, will say is that the evidence for something is very good and that the theory is likely to be true.

So a scientist might say 'yes I believe the evidence points towards theory X being correct, but I can't 100% prove it'. And Theory X is always up for debate, and if another scientist comes along with contradictory evidence, then that will be taken into consideration.

Christianity isn't like that. For it to exist at all requires belief (belief in the sense of faith) - not evidence. If it was Theory X, it would have no scientific credibility, because none exists.

Science is demonstrable and testable though. Religion isn't.

"LizzyDay and trust, well people trust the scientists...There has been some really bad 'science' over the years. Think of all the lobotomies carried out, mass sterilisations all considered good science in their day.*

This is why you have to be just as rigorous examining conscience with science as you do in religion."

Agree absolutely. I also think it demonstrates the dangers of having blind faith in anything, even scientists. Things should always be questioned, because power corrupts.

Biblical events are referred to in historical accounts you know (Josephus for example). Archaeologists have also being able to confirm some Biblical events.

Oh FFS the story of Jesus and the crucifixion is the same old agricultural allegory. It didn't happen. There are loads of versions of this basic story in loads of different myth systems; the core of it is the life cycle of plants which grow, are cut down, and them come up again. That's all it means and represents. The frills and different spins that were added in different times and places had more to do with the circumstances of the tribal leaders/shamanic class who invented them than any universal truth ie some would have more emphasis on betrayal, others on obedience and disobedience, and some on the importance of self-sacrifice at the end of an allotted time of indulgence. Other myths that get bundled in with the core myth, again, reflect the personality quirks and prejudices of the people who invented them; another common strand to the mythologies that ended up with the most power is that they all focus on ways for birth not to be under women's control. Because it's the one thing that men can't do and women can, so it has to be minimized and controlled and given to men in any way possible. So the 'special' people have to be born out of a male god's forehead, or found in a seashell, or the important factor in the birth is who's the daddy in some really really important way, honest...

This is an inherited belief. It is not the truth. The end.

Biblical events are referred to in historical accounts you know (Josephus for example). Archaeologists have also being able to confirm some Biblical events.

So because some things in the bible have been supported, by extension the whole thing is true? Sounds legit......

The agricultural allegory is yet another set of beliefs.

...now, if you don't mind I'm off to watch Emmerdale

I don't think anyone would deny that there will be pieces of historical truth in the bible: some of the people or places for example. It's whether it's the word of god and can be taken literally that's my sticking point. That's the blind faith.

LizzyDay Glad we agree on that. Although power can corrupt but doesn't have to.

Re. faith Jesus' message is good, loving. Surely this can only help.

This is an inherited belief. It is not the truth. The end.

So what's the truth then? That all the stories similar to the bible which predate it are not true and all the stories which came after the bible which are similar are copies, but the one right in the middle is the absolute truth (but not all of it cos some parts are metaphorical, but no one can actually agree which bits are which).

I'm no biblical scholar, but I don't there's anything in the Bible that would constitute scientific evidence that God exists.

I'd point you to EllieArroway's excellent thread below re evidence for Jesus's divinity, if you haven't already read it.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/philosophy_religion_spirituality/1699996-The-Great-Jesus-debate-Did-he-exist-at-all-and-if-he-did-what-reasons-do-we-have-to-believe-he-was-divine

So because some things in the bible have been supported, by extension the whole thing is true? Sounds legit......

So, by the same token then, are we to believe that because certain events recorded in the bible are 'unsupported' then the rest is necessarily untrue?

You can't have it both ways, Pedro.

So, by the same token then, are we to believe that because certain events recorded in the bible are 'unsupported' then the rest is necessarily untrue?

Did I ever suggest that? Wow you really come out with some crackers!

Re. faith Jesus' message is good, loving. Surely this can only help.

The trouble is that where gods are believed to exist, mere mortals can then claim to have a special relationship with the god(s) - and abuse their positions of trust.

Sabrina but you have to be able to understand enough of the word of God to be able to judge whether you are going to put your faith in it.

Like the assumptions and priors you decide whether you will take a risk on what you don't know fully in order to make an assertion or carry out an action.

In your opinion Jewcy. The existance of God, Jesus etc is not provable. Some parts of the Torah and the newer Christian bit have historical back up. But the religious bits dont. Because they are 'belief'.
So we can say, yup, there were a bunch of Canaanite tribespeople who became the jewish people and they were in x, y and z and built such and such a city and the Temple and here's some coins. There was a Roman Governor Called Pilate, A King called Herod etc. They had a religion. A man called Paul wrote some letters about a new religion based around a Jew called Yeshua. Historical fact backed up by historical evidence.
But none of it proves God or that the prophets of those 2 religions got divine messages or that Yeshua was divine etc.

The trouble is that where gods are believed to exist, mere mortals can then claim to have a special relationship with the god(s) - and abuse their positions of trust.

And then people end up having a special relationship with their priests instead.

YY Lizzy - also leading to ' my god is better than your god.' And the problems that causes...

In other words "It clearly doesn't make sense but I'm going to accept it anyway". Another example of what can only be described as blind faith. As I said to Best, one of the real tragedies of the Abrahamic religions in particular is that they teach people to be satisfied with that kind of thought process.

Oh, please! Are you trying to say that 'it clearly doesn't make sense but I'm going to accept it anyway' is the preserve of Abrahamic religions as a thought process? We are all of us 'satisfied' in this manner every bloody day!

Oh, please! Are you trying to say that 'it clearly doesn't make sense but I'm going to accept it anyway' is the preserve of Abrahamic religions as a thought process? We are all of us 'satisfied' in this manner every bloody day!

I'm not. I'm never satisfied if I don't understand something.

another common strand to the mythologies that ended up with the most power is that they all focus on ways for birth not to be under women's control. Because it's the one thing that men can't do and women can, so it has to be minimized and controlled and given to men in any way possible.

...and you think I'm mentally ill.

...and you think I'm mentally ill.

Show me a religion which gives women more power than men, or even equal would do.