There was a very interesting development around the topic of religion a couple of weeks before the 4th of July payout and the massive influx of users onto the steemit platform.
It began with @danthemans post this was followed up by a rebuttal from his father @stan. Due to the popularity and discussion created around these two posts a lot of very interesting and mostly respectful posts ensued with the topic of religion and philosophy as their main element. Very uncharacteristically to what we are very used to on the web (that discussions involving religion or politics quickly descend into chaos and suffer an often heated and unpleasant demise) these resulted in robust but very respectful debates.
Due to the respectful nature of things I even ventured to mention some of my religious persuasions in my introduction
In that intro I hinted at perhaps sharing some of my mental gymnastics in future posts.
The Sunday night post
As Sunday is my Sabbath…
I’m going to experiment with taking a break from my usual everyday posts featuring authors to focus on something a little different.
I love complex problems and sometimes getting science and religious beliefs to “play nice” can be pretty intriguing and mind bending.
How I mix science and religion.
First up I want to examine some of the claims made by Jesus Christ to see if they hold any water from a scientific perspective.
Claim 1: Jesus Christ had power over death
Jesus, while yet alive and during his mortal ministry, claimed that he had power over life and death. “No man taketh it from me,"he said" but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.”
This is an extraordinary claim and so we would need to see some pretty extraordinary evidence.
That evidence was manifested in his raising a number from the dead during his ministry and from His resurrection three days after the crucifixion. There seem to be many claimed eyewitness accounts that these events indeed happened. These may be disputed or accepted depending from individual to individual.
Whether this resurrection did or did not take place is not the purpose of this post.
We cannot examine these claims on whether these event took place as documented for ourselves.
They occur in a time, place and culture far removed from or own. What we can examine is the veracity of the web of claims surrounding this central claim to see if they stack up scientifically.
We have learned a lot from science since Darwin to Modern studies in genetics. We now know quite a bit about heritability and inheritance. For all of us death is a certainty… we inherit that from our parents.
If Christ had claimed power over death without claiming some sort of special parentage that would be very inconsistent with what we understand regarding inheritance.
But indeed Christ did claim special parentage.
Claim 2: Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.
This second claim backs up the first from an inheritance perspective.
From his mother (a mortal) he inherited the ability to die.
From his Father (God, an immortal) he inherited the ability to live forever.
Claim 1 and Claim 2 are therefore consistent
But, some will protest, there is nothing extraordinary about this. The culture that Jesus was born to had been farming for millennia. It doesn’t take rocket science or even modern science to figure out inheritance when you are breeding plants and animals for a livelihood.
Good Point
Also, surrounding cultures had many myths of gods impregnating mortals to produce demigods and hero’s. So once again nothing very unique there in those two claims.
Good Point
So all we establish is consistency. Not uniqueness. We need more claims…
Claim 3: Jesus as Savior
Christ claims to save.
Save from what we ask?
Save from sin...
What is sin? Science does not have this concept.
So we give science a simple definition of sin. Sin is transgression of Law.
What Law the scientist asks?
In its simplest form that many are familiar with, “the ten commandment”
OK now we have something we can evaluate. If we evaluate the Ten Commandments we see that at least more than half of them are devoted to preventing some sort of societal disorder.
Disorder, Order. Now we have something to work with from a scientific perspective.
Evaluating Christ's teachings as a whole we see that sin is often about breaking down order and inviting disorder into our lives.
So if Christ saves from sin then he saves us from disorder and chaos.
By moving into the realms of order, disorder and chaos we start to open a huge can of worms in the form of order vs entropy and the laws of thermodynamics.
This post is getting long, so hopefully this is enough to spark a conversation. Based on that I will explore Jesus Christ and the laws of thermodynamics next week.
Thermodynamics is stuff, that unlike inheritance, the ancients would have been less privy too.
Science recuses itself from having an opinion on anything that is not testable and repeatable. So rare interventions from God are going to be beyond its realm.
However, many things that wind up in court concern one-time events that we cannot go back and repeat.
Yet our courts do not hesitate to reach conclusions based on the credibility of one or more eyewitnesses.
Some interventions from god should be testable. The biblical flood, for instance. If it really happened, it would have left a mark on our planet.
Eyewitness accounts are considered the most unreliable form of evidence, by the way. People get things wrong all the time. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
Yep. I have already stipulated that there is no intention to give your incontestable proof. But those eyewitness accounts have been enough for a billion or so people already.
I agree that the Flood would certainly leave a mark ...if God wanted it to. But since it was clearly a supernatural event (where did all that extra water come from anyway?), it is just as likely that the scientific proof disappeared with the excess water.
It's a delicate balancing act... leaving just enough evidence to satisfy those who are looking for Him but not enough for those who require iron clad proof.
Those who require iron clad proof require said proof because they are looking for him. They just don't want to make a mistake. Examining facts before claiming something is true is what advanced science to where it is today.
The best way of thinking of this is your doctor says you have an infection and need a shot of antibiotics or you'll die. It's a good idea, maybe, to get a second opinion but holding out for iron clad proof is a good way to end up dead.
The difference is that doctors usually have a history of being correct in their diagnoses and there's plenty of scientific proof showing that antibiotics will help get rid of the infection. There's nothing like that when it comes to christianity.
Actually, no. George Washington died because his doctors bled him to death with leeches. The history of medicine is much worse than the history of Christianity. You pick a doctor carefully, you should pick a pastor carefully. Both can do you a lot of good or a lot of harm.
But you missed my point. In the case of your particular chosen doctor, you rely on the fact that he has studied hard and trained well and therefore your decision to accept what he prescribes does not involve going back and reviewing whether there is absolute proof available. You don't demand such evidence to save your physical life, why do you demand it to save your eternal life?
Eyewitnesses relate things from their perspective. There are always multiple perspectives. This needs to be born in mind when reviewing these types of accounts.
True. That's part of the credibility is the slight differences you find between the various accounts. But there are plenty of them and there was lots of communication between the early churches and the eyewitnesses were well known personally among most of them. So any falsehoods would have been quickly challenged by all the others in the early churches who had also witnessed these things.
Flood myths are very common in religion, it's been argued many times that there was a large flood but that it was in just the Middle East or a certain area of the middle east. I'm not sure how much work has been done on it recently, but it's certainly a common enough theory. These people didn't go very far, so it wouldn't take much to engulf their whole world.
That's right! :-)
As nicely explained here:
Modern courts do not just refer to testimony of "reliable" witnesses. They also take to account all physical evidence from investigation and ask for opinion of experts in the field.
True. But court's only weigh the evidence that is available. They don't fail to render a ruling because they don't have as much physical evidence or credible expert opinions as they would like..
That's why it is so common that courts make unjust sentences or false statements! They often have to rely on witness testimonies and little scientific evidence. Judges are also subject to personal bias.
Science does not care about someone's personal bias or opinion.
Alas, science has its self-imposed limits.
Don't get me wrong. I soak up all the scientific results I can find. Love it!
But where science declares it cannot go, I use whatever else I can find to learn things.
The only way to know what lies beyond the reach of Science is if Someone out there reveals it to me. I'm not closing my mind to that revelation because it doesn't come through science. Science is only a tool. It is not the only way to know something.
Interesting perspective, enjoyed reading your post.
I won't call any of this scientific though. There's no empirical basis to your arguments. For example, thermodynamics are related to heat and temperature, not sins and resurrections. I understand I may come off as pedantic about semantics, but the point is - scientific study done on an empirical basis simply does not apply to theological or philosophical quandaries.
All that said, it does make for interesting analogies. :) I welcome them as thought experiments.
Personally, I don't think it's possible to reconcile science with Christianity.
I plan to develop this in more detail next week... look forward to you feedback on the "though experiments" then.
One of the biggest issues that people need to decide on is whether the bible is fact, fiction, or a bit of both. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics (obviously not a reliable source, but a brief overview of what it is). Regardless of the stance and position you believe in, the book I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist is a very interesting read. Hope that is helpful for your further posts
@liberosist and @gavvet, I wanted to comment, but then the comment became too long for the comment section. Please have a look at my argument in the post Does the Teleological argument prove the existence of God
Well that's a much nicer way than I put it.
I wholeheartedly agree with your post and have thought about posting about some of the things christians believe/disbelieve. I think steemit is one of the few places that religion and other polarizing debates can be held without hatred. It's not up to you to force someone into believing anything, but to simply lay out what you believe and why and others are free to accept or refute this. Along with all religions, a select few can ruin the whole name for everyone. A group like the westboro baptist church that preaches hate towards soldiers and homosexuals does not practice the Love that Jesus preached about. Just because you may not agree on those issues doesn't mean you can't respect those with opposing beliefs. The same can be said of Isis or other Muslim affiliated groups shaming the many positive friendly Muslims throughout the US and world. The most controversial groups receive the most attention from the media and that is how people tend to perceive the stated group as a whole. Thank you for bringing this up in a place where everyone has the chance to make meaningful comments and those who post hate or are disrespectful can be silenced by the community as a whole.
That's what it was like last time... lets see how it goes this time around... not much downvoting was required because the importance of reputation led to restraint and demonstrations of respect even where strong feelings were involved. I hope things haven't changed too much...
I'm not religious myself but I respect people's opinions on religion
While I respect your right to believe however you choose I differ with you tagging this in the Science category. Basing something as having scientific proof or value by saying it is in the Bible just doesn't pass muster. Its the same thing as saying because something is in a Superman comic it must be true.
There are many different religious, historical and scientific texts that were written thousands of years ago. Some are true, partly true or not true at all. I think using the Bible as a basis for scientific argument is a losing one.
If you want to discuss Jesus and faith. Go for it! If you have other scientific evidence to base you arguments on please go forth. But using the Bible as a book of science is not such a good idea. There are way too many scientific holes in the text.
That said I appreciate your post and point of view. It has obviously stimulated a conversation.
Agreed. This shouldn't be under the science category.
I'm evaluating its claims against well known scientific priciples for consistency... Just laying the groundwork so far perhaps you will find more science to your liking next week.
I understand where you are coming from. I saw it as an invitation to debate. When you are offering such an invitation would you not offer it to those you would like to debate with? In such a case it would be appropriate for science. Religion is typically a HANDS OFF topic because people can be irrational, and emotional and it can get pretty hostile. He seems to be approaching it from a fairly respectful and civil perspective.
Since the reply was directed at my comment, I believe I was civil and respectful. But I've always thought there were certain topics you should discuss on your home turf and religion is one of them. Nobody wants to go to a stripper club and have some evangelist ruin the fun by telling everybody they are going to hell if they don't repent and see the error of their ways.
The OP said he was going to get whoop out some science but all he did was quote some Bible on us. Boring. That's not being hostile, it's just wasting time our time.
Please use #Jesus #Religion #Bible #Christianity, etc. When somebody tags #puppies in their post and the post I end up reading is about quantum physics it is a disservice to puppies and physics.
Yeah. I do like to persuade people. Often you encounter such things. Yet you never persuade someone if you don't make the attempt. :) I like to be persuaded too. It happens sometimes. Not so much with religion it is hard for me to look at written religions and not shake my head. Some of the things people can believe and still claim to know science. A big one for me... I loved Noah's Ark as a story as a child. Was probably my favorite bible story, and I had toys of it, and coloring books, and all of that jazz. Then I get older learn science, learn about gene pools, how many friggin animals exist, and the fact that two of anything is insufficient for a gene pool to survive, let alone the space would need to be far more massive than that design. I kind of look at everything that way now. Religions feel like human simplistic writing to me now. The ideas feel simple, and not very well thought out. Of course it is hard to even start thinking that way until I stopped listening to appeals to authority. "Why is XYZ?" "You need to have faith", or "God wants it that way" just don't work once you no longer have an appeal to authority and you view asking questions as a positive thing.
So I get it... I do. I am willing to talk to people, and I do realize some people are not. That is fine and a choice each person should be able to make.
The Bibble
@gavvet how i mix science and faith or religion? faith is the truth while science is the living proof. So theyre basically in bond. Great article though.
"Without Proof" is literally in the definition of faith.
That's an interesting take I don't think I have heard before! What is your belief about the bible/christ if I may ask?
as it says in the Bible, God is within us
I think those looking for physical proof of something that happened about 2 thousand years ago will surely be disappointed. The problem with such "proof" is that it can be interpreted in any way that suits the observer. What do they want? DNA evidence? Most people looking for proof have only a limited understanding of what they are even looking for.
No, the Bible isn't a history book, and is full of parables. As Galileo said, (I paraphrase) "The Bible tells us HOW to get to Heaven, not how the Heavens were made." The Bible doesn't prove God exists, neither does Science prove God doesn't exist. (I am planning a post about this.)
The proof is in the lives of people who try to do good in this world. I have seen enough miracles this past year to see clearly God's hand in my life.
Atheists look up at the night sky and see emptiness; I see the soul of God.
God is dead and we killed him.
Science is about disproving a null hypothesis using objective data.
This is bullshit.
Here, educate yourself.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GNhlNSLQAFE
Here's the inverse discussion
https://steemit.com/science/@business/is-there-a-religious-basis-for-science
A group of scientists were chatting with God and said to him (we dont need you anymore, we can grow our own organs, clone humans, cure diseases there is nothing we cant do" God said ok make me a human being from sand, to which the scientists agreed with great enthusiasm, so God picked up a handful of sand as so did the scientist .....Hold on said God....what now said the scientists, to which God replied....you need to make your own sand first! :) Jesus is the savour no matter how people may try to disprove the fact.
Well Said @mrgrey.. Love this post!!!
How can you make any kind of comparison if you are basing yourself in a book that has "versions"?
Ffs jesus basically deflowered his mother.
This may answer your question a bit http://bib.irr.org/has-bible-been-translated-reliably and for those who do believe, the critical non-negotiable parts are the same in all. Minor changes in tense or verbs etc is going to happen, but I agree that it seems confusing and if people solely look at verses out of context they seem to contradict themselves often. It is quite an interesting discussion in my opinion.
It doesn't really answer anything since I literaly hate that book, it's simply words that people believe and offers all them fucking churches control.
Understood. I would like to ask if you have been harmed/mistreated by Christians and what makes you hate the book? Many Christians are hypocritical, so I understand your sentiment if that is the case.
I've never been really harmed by religion itself, I believed till about the age of 13 but when I started to see what has been done in the name of religion I started feeling a huge disgust for it, also the way they paint the things, sounds just too damn good for me.
Christians that are hypocritical doesn't do much for me, it's in the way of being and prolly not because they are Christians, just use religion as an excuse (like the papal state or the Orthodox patriarhies).
The book was made thousands of years ago offering a real convenient theory about life and everything, for some, people was then very propense at believing in deities by then and it has been this way till not so long ago just think at all it retarded our scientific advances, religion has been keeping the world at war since ever and I see no other use for it than calming/controling people.
Hope I didn't missexpressed myself :).
I think that firs part of Zeitgeist The Movie completle explain all about Jesus
I share about my faith in Jesus Christ in my book Conspire To Inspire free exclusively on #steemit .
I find it difficult to believe in any religion written down by man. It becomes an appeal to authority. This is a form of logical fallacy.
We see how 60,000+ denomination of Christianity in the U.S. alone exist and each of them is slightly different and believe they are correct. Extrapolate this back thousands of years.
(you don't have to do this just with Christianity, it is simply the one I grew up with and am most familiar with)
Now go back far enough in history and you'll encounter the Council of Nicea. They compiled what we know of today as the bible. They decided what stories/tales/histories should go into this book. They decided which should not. This can be viewed as editing, it can also be viewed as censorship. This is partially why the dead sea scrolls are a big deal. Christians of antiquity (and again this applies to other religions) were fond of destroying that which did not fit with their world view. Witness one of the worst losses of information in history, the burning of the Library of Alexandria. What little we know about Plato are from small collections of works that survived that disaster. In modern days that was like handing everyone a bible, destroying the libraries and the internet, and saying "this is all you need."
Yet at that time the Gutenberg Press had not been created so the common people largely had not read the bible. Many of them could not read. They had to trust what another man told them was the word and will of God. We have seen historically how wrong this can go (not just Christianity).
So let's talk Jesus... I think the Sermon on the Mount is pretty great stuff. I have some things that pop into my head when I think of Jesus.
I may make a post instead. I would like to illicit some responses and civil discussion, and I had nothing else I was planning to post today.
It wasn't so much editing as at the time the Council was formed all those books were known amongst the various Churches. Historically, the different Churches had various books that were used in worship. The Council attempted to find the common ground between all the Churches at the time, i.e. it was an attempt to determine what "mainstream" Christianity was based on how the Church had evolved over the course of 300 years.
Now, I'm not sure when the various dead sea scrolls, the gnostic gospels, etc. were lost in antiquity (and subsequently found), but I can assure you that with this 'editing' of various books out of the (New American) Bible (not the KJV, as Luther edited books that did not appeal to his particular world view), that the early Church was only attempting to find consensus amongst all the factions.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the decade after WW-II and dated by secular archeologists to a couple hundred years before Christ. There significance is they said the same thing as the Bible on your grandma's coffee table. No changes in over 2000 years!
So this puts to rest the idea that Scriptures must have been corrupted over time "because that's how humans always screw up". Clearly that didn't happen with the Bible.
Don't think of it as an appeal to authority, think of it as a large number of credible eyewitness wrote down what they witnessed over a long term association with Jesus. Those accounts have been valued and preserved for your consideration.
The Truth of Christianity is in those accounts in their original languages. The existence of many denominations merely means humans disagree on how to view them. Some are further off than others. I never object to any viewpoint that can be explained with an honest attempt to understand the original texts.
The Council of Nicea called together hundreds of Christian leaders from around the Mediterranean to compare notes about what they had been teaching for several generations. How else do you recommend sorting out what properly traces back to the apostles vs. what got inserted falsely after the fact? This process actually continued for 500 years before universal agreement was achieved. The criterion applied was: "Show us proof that this document is traceable back to an original apostle or one of his assistants." That's not censorship, that's due diligence.
Pointing out things like the burning of the library of Alexandria happened are irrelevant. Lots of bad things happened in history. This says nothing about the truth of any specific instance.
It is true that the Roman church suppressed availability of the Scriptures for 1000 years until the printing press and the Protestant Reformation went back to the original Bible as authoritative. There are 5600 manuscripts dating back to the first few generations and these all agree. So claims of corruption and bad behavior by others after that time are irrelevant. We know with a high degree of certainty what the original eyewitnesses wrote.
They have not been preserved though. The history is there showing they are edited, and even censored by men. It does not matter HOW MANY people you have that is still an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. Does quantity of people dictate whether gravity is true or not? Any appeal to authority regardless of the source is a logical fallacy.
And have you gone back further? Have you for example studied the Hindu Krishna which predates Christianity? Have you studied the Egyptians and the life story of Horus?
If not... give it a look. I think you'll be surprised.
And PLEASE don't take my word for it. Look for yourself. That is all I have done. I have a lot of bibles, and not one of them is exactly the same. :) In this instance I am referring to Christian based bibles.
But yes everything you stated in the beginning still qualifies as an appeal to authority. "credible eyewitnesses". A common example of an appeal to authority is "I am a doctor, you can trust me."
You should never believe something simply because someone else tells you that you should. You can CHOOSE to believe them, but it should not because they told you to, or because they have been given some label like LEADER, WISEMAN, PRIEST, GENIUS, SCIENTIST, or CREDIBLE. :)
Actually, no. The oldest manuscripts have not been edited.
Here's the sequence I find sufficient for me:
Anyhow, that's what works for me. You may have a different process.
In this thread, all I'm saying is that God is NOT going to give you perfect proof for good and sufficient reasons. You'll just have to get over that if you want the shot of life-giving antibiotics He is offering you. Do you apply your same skepticism when your doctor says you need a shot? Will you refuse that shot because taking it would be an appeal to authority? Do you require the AMA to show up a brief you on all the evidence that the shot is necessary, safe and effective? If not, why not?
An Appeal to Authority does not mean you should not listen. It simply is NOT logical proof of anything. You cannot say because SO AND SO said this it must be true.
What someone says does not prove anything other than they said words and that they MAY believe what they said. People lie, so it can't even be proven that they meant it.
So an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY by no means is telling you the person is wrong. It simply means that because they said it does not make it TRUE.
You still have to use some common sense, quickly analyze probabilities (instinctively) based upon the knowledge you have an make a decision.
There is older scripture than that by the way. How far back have you gone?
EDIT: And I did up vote you. This is not intended as an attack of any kind. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I've actually had people tell me those exact things in verbal discussions with priests. Yes, I am friends with priests. Lutheran, Presbyterrian, Catholic. I was Director of IT at a Hospice and I'd sit and chat with those three priests daily at lunch. They were some of my closest friends there.
That's good to hear.
My point has been I'm not trying to prove anything.
In fact, God does not intend to offer proof to anyone except a few chosen witnesses.
Because he specifically wants to leave room for people to walk away.
If he wanted there to be proof he would move planets around to different orbits every day or give the Chicago Cubs a World Series or something else that violates the laws of physics like that.
Interesting perspective. I agree that it is tough to trust any religion written by men, but the fact is that is all we have. All of the major world religions have been passed down by the written word of men. I choose to focus more on what I feel like the intent of religion is for us all. And that is to LOVE one another. Love your enemies just as you love your family. Love all people and all of God's creations. Even if you don't believe, or are not sure you believe in God. If you walk through life with love in your heart, you will be following in Gods path.
If god wants us to love each other, why was he so cruel in the bible?
These are not mutually exclusive. He does not need to lead by example, as a father does not need to lead by example for his offspring to listen ( that actually is somewhere in the Bible).
I disagree. I think that Jesus did lead by example, and we should do our best to do the same.
Well, in my opinion this is where the "written by men" part comes into play. I don't think God is a vindictive God. The Old Testament is full of pretty awful sounding stuff. I believe that regardless of how the word of God has been twisted by men. It's true intention is best learned through the teachings of Jesus. And Jesus taught Love and Respect for all people and creatures.
I always look at the phrase "God is love" sideways because of verses like these. You either can say this God changed or we have to accept some disagreement between father and son and if you don't have direct ancestry with the ancient Isrealites then you'd best not count on him.
Given the miracles He performed and the documentation given by the inspired authors of the Gospels, I'm betting that any apparent discrepancies in ancestry are on the human side. :o)
It is all we have is no reason to take it in hook line and sinker. We can read things without having to believe them fully. You and I could debate for example and you may say something I hadn't thought of before. I will then incorporate what you taught me in the exchange into my own world view. That does not mean I took EVERYTHING you said and incorporated it. We must be willing to look at all information for potential value, but we should never take EVERYTHING without thinking about it and making our own informed decision. The path I walk very likely would not work for you as well as it does me, so why would I want you to follow my path? Your path might go further than mine.
Yeah that is kind of weird... look at those things like something you'd find in a fortune cookie.
We know a lot that those that came before us do not know. There is evidence we have also lost some knowledge. When it really starts to become questionable though is when you really spread out and research a lot of religions. You'll find pretty much every story (including all of those about Jesus) had a historical figure in other religions that did those same things, before his existence. Sometimes thousands of years. It is almost like each new version of religion building up would incorporate the stories from the past, change some names, and write it as though it was happening then. In particular study the Egyptian Religion (particularly that of Horus) and the Hindu religion (Krishna).
You will find startling similarities that predate Christ by very large amounts of time.
I am not saying there is no value. I am just saying we should not blindly believe everything we read just because we were told we had to.
I absolutely don't take everything printed in any book to be 100% true. And, I understand your view and would say we have a very similar view of the subject of religion. I question almost all of it. But though I question I still believe.
Nothing wrong with believing in something. We just must ALWAYS question ourselves and our own beliefs. If we don't we might miss the truth (even small ones) if they occur in front of us. :) I constantly question and change my mind too. I am sure I'd have some pretty heated arguments with the me from a decade ago.
Cool... that's part of the experiment... seeing if the audience is still mature enough to "resurrect" the religion tag... there were some really thought provoking posts and discussions a couple of weeks back.
I think that the term "relion" is far too broad. Many people say they are religious, but only mean they go to church, or have parents who are christians or catholic or other denominations. I believe in a personal relationship, and I guess while people consider that "religious" I like to separate from that tag. I'm excited to see where this goes as well as people weigh in.
I am up for debating ANYTHING as long as people are civil and respectful to each other. I have posted an initial response... it's going to take me a bit to talk about this. You are welcome to chime in on anything I said.
https://steemit.com/religion/@dwinblood/civil-response-inspired-by-gavvet-post-concerning-science-and-jesus-christ
why do people put images of Christ as if he was european?
Um, because the renaissance artists were European?
My two cents on the matter.
LOL
Hehe :D
gotta catch 'em all!
haha :D
@gavvet - here is my 2nd response... I actually answer your specific question I believe this time unlike my previous ramble which I consider a preamble.
https://steemit.com/religion/@dwinblood/part-two-gavvet-reply-a-hypothesis-is-not-proof-in-science-jesus-science-debate-civil-and-invited
Regardless , Science or Not the best way to judge this is by living with a clear conscience. No conflict just understanding. Not Love but kindness. Not War just peace..
I agree and disagree with you @rhyankulets - LOVE is the way. Kindness is good and all, but the true path to God is through the Love of him and expressing that love to all people and Gods creations. It is not enough just to be kind.
How do you love something you can't see, hear or feel?
Some people can, some can't. The bottom line is to love all the people of the world. Even those that would cause you harm. That doesnt mean to submit to them, but everything you do should be with love of people and everything in our world. Nature, plants, animals, insects, etc. Treat everything with love. Thats the beauty of it. You dont have to "belive". But if you love all of Gods creatures, you love God.
Some interesting points made and I can see a good debate coming here. I wanted to comment, but then the comment became too long for the comment section. Please have a look at my argument in the post: Does the Teleological argument prove the existence of God
Hello @gavvet This mental gymnastic was extremely interesting for multiply reasons. However anybody depend on the background would like to support their own view. Me as a Christian myself, as a scientist myself I do believe in Jezus. I am looking forward for more mental gymnastics coming from you :)
click here to ENLARGE the picture ¯_(ツ)_/¯
actually according to wikipedia, it's not the same but a bit more interesting:
"Horus was born to the goddess Isis after she retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her murdered husband Osiris, except his penis which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by a catfish,[7][8] or sometimes by a crab, and according to Plutarch's account (see Osiris) used her magic powers to resurrect Osiris and fashion a golden phallus[9] to conceive her son (older Egyptian accounts have the penis of Osiris surviving).
Once Isis knew she was pregnant with Horus, she fled to the Nile Delta marshlands to hide from her brother Set who jealously killed Osiris and who she knew would want to kill their son.[10] There Isis bore a divine son, Horus."
So there you go pregnancy by "golden phallus". source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus
The Bible does not mention anything about a golden phallus. So clearly this infographic is wrong.
Every single point on that image is wrong. Every last one. I just replied meaning to correct one or two and realize not a single one was right.
should be time for a sequel, no?
nice :D
Horus/Jesus isn't that close? Half the things in that image are totally made up. Gerald Massey has a lot to answer for.
Off the top of my head:
Ok so every single point in your image was wrong, I didn't realize when I started. Mithras/Jesus is a better comparison.
Very thought-provoking concept of looking for a scientific basis for Christ as you have done. I think it will be an interesting discussion. However in my opinion a witness of Christ is found not only in the mind but in the heart as well. If it is true that we are here on earth to be tested and to learn and progress through our experiences, being handed a pure knowledge of Christ's divinity would be akin to cheating on the test. : ) Faith, or believing in something that is unseen but which is true is the other half of the equation. Now maybe some day science will catch up with that.
Very interesting post. Thanks for posting about it!!
Here is more more about Christ as amyth. There is a lot of evidence that he has never existed!
"Are the New Testament gospels history? Where's the proof? | Acharya S | D.M. Murdock" (Scientific Evaluation)
And some other interesting information in this documentary !
I guess I have to follow you around everywhere you post this and post my response:
You can't prove a negative so there is NOT overwhelming evidence that Jesus never existed.
All of the direct evidence that exists has been collected for you in one library called the Bible. After contemporaries have done all that work for you it is disingenuous to say that there is nothing else except what was collected and preserved.
The burden of proof does not lie with those making extraordinary claims. They are there for you to accept or reject as you will. Jesus made it clear that He had no intention (deliberately) to give you unassailable proof. He provided enough evidence for those who want to find Him and not enough evidence for those who don't. It's a filter and filters are designed to let some things get through and keep others out.
I laugh (sadly) at those who sit on the outside demanding that Jesus do even more than die for them. They want to be spoon fed while keeping their mouths firmly shut - just like a 2 year old rejecting a big spoonful of coconut cream pie!
I will just repeat. Bible is not an evidence of God, as it has little verification in actual historical events and little basis in science.
It is clearly explained in the video, why Bible is not an evidence.
Bible IS NOT and evidence of existence of Christ, same as Marvel comic book is not an evidence of Spider-Man.
I should not even reply to your comments as it is typical nonsensical response by someonee who clearly lack capacity for logical reasoning and understand logical fallacies . Typically, you have just used a logical fallacy called Circular Reasoning - god exists because the Bible says god exists and, since god wrote the Bible, it must be true.
Ah, telling a rocket scientist he is incapable of logical reasoning. Very good.
Have it your way. Eyewitness accounts respected, collected, preserved and distributed by thousands of their contemporaries don't count as evidence.
It is true that those eyewitnesses did testify that "all Scripture is inspired by God" and therefore, if you choose to believe them you can proceed to infer that God wrote the Bible. But it is not required that you believe that until you decide what to do about those pesky eyewitness accounts.
Other holy books have eyewitness accounts as well. What makes the bible more trustworthy than the others?
I think we should use eye-witness accounts for evidence of things in the universe and place them above all other forms of evidence. Instruments that can see more of the electromagnetic spectrum and experiments that provide continued reliability at providing effective results should be placed lower than eye-witness testimony. This way, the electron doesn't exist, along with every element on the periodic table! : )
Now you just used another logical fallacy when you mentioned that you are "rocket scientist"
It is called "appeal to authority".
If I tell you a story and ask you to keep it safe and tell the people of the world, how long would it be before that story was changed by the people you told it to? a word added here and there, a passage or two removed because they didn't fit in with what someone else thought of the story.
We are Human and we have many weaknesses two of them are not having amazing memories and not being very trustworthy when it comes to the power over people that religion can provide.
Combine the two and you get multiple religious beliefs and armies of people that will kill over them.
Thousands of their contemporaries?
There were four writers and their writings are at least 60 years after the fact.
There were lots of contemporaries who were still alive when the various books of the New Testament were written, cherished, preserved, and distributed. For example:
and
and then you go through counting up all the specific people who were part of the early church and widely known, for example, the last chapter of the book of Romans mentions these specific individuals that Paul greeted. It's a bit long, but that's my point - there were plenty of people in all the early churches who knew and accepted Paul.
You say God exist from microscopic view, the quartz change depending the watcher , and the way of view of every watcher, not same all the time, how explain that atom, where 90% is nothing, give consistency of matter to things
That's why my premise is to review its claims...for consistency with scientifically understood principles.
All truth should be consistent not so?
Let me ask you something: why, exactly, would people not want to find Jesus? It's not that atheists don't want to find god. It's that they looked for god and saw nothing. They got no answers to their prayers, saw no evidence that was compelling enough for them to become believers. Trust me, many atheists would LOVE to believe in a kind god and an afterlife.
The generally understood reason for folks not wanting to find Jesus is that you would have to give up your own sovereignty first.
Try starting over. Jesus is not going to provide you the kind of proof you are seeking. He is simply standing outside your door and knocking. You can choose to open the door or you can keep demanding he show you more forms of ID. :o)
I don't think most people would mind giving up their sovereignty if it meant eternal life. The ''atheists just don't want to be saved'' explanation is what they give you at church, but it's completely incorrect. Many have tried opening the door.
I am an atheist because it is plain to see that stories, although based around some possible truth's are just that... stories.
A belief in an almighty being is nothing more than a comfort blanket to keep us safe from the harsh realities of this short life.
But if anyone can tell me which of the estimated 4200 religions and spiritual traditions are the correct ones to follow to bring me salvation, i'll gladly take a look into it not because of my need to find a god, but for the need to understand why after thousands of years we still tear ourselves apart because someone believes differently than someone else.
You need to separate out the truth of the Scriptures found in the original Greek and Hebrew from all the false teachings and bad behaviors you mention. They have nothing to do with each other.
There. I have told you. No more excuses. :)
I hear you... a valid point... Its taken me many years for some aspects that I will be covering in the series
Prove to me there is not a teapot orbiting mars.
Therefore there is a teapot orbiting mars.
I thought it is a teacup orbiting Mars! :)
You can't prove to me Jesus never existed, therefore Jesus must have existed. Stan's argument from ignorance fallacy.
It's like saying "You can't proved I don't have 500 bitcoins right now, therefore it's true that I have 500 bitcoin"
Never said that. Merely refuted that there was "overwhelming proof that he didn't exist."
I'm only saying there are credible eyewitness accounts that he did. Make of that whatever you will.
There are also books that's being made mix with history in the past and unrealistic events. That's what the bible had.
No. The books of the Bible did not appear in a vacuum. They were cherished, preserved, distributed and used all around the Mediterranean from the very years in which they were written. There are 5600 chains of custody for the various documents and they all match.
having records of Christ 30-40 years after his death is actually really really good for ancient sourcing. I'm fine with you saying he never existed, but I have a list of about 200 historical figures who you also have to say never existed by this logic.
The "Christ was a myth" argument is kind of ill-informed, you will find very very few - secular and religious - biblical history scholars who support it. Those who do are often kind of fringe figures. I mean this as no insult to you, but Christ existing is pretty much solid. It's his divinity that's in question (and that question is a lot more interesting)
Please give me a list of these so called 200 figures, and explain why would they be considered as non exisiting.
I'll get the book down and give you a "greatest hits" cut and put the ISBN - because there's a lot of obscure figures you probably won't know.
As for what I mean by "not existing" is that basically it's because we have much less evidence for them, much further away from their life. What we have of Christ states that not long after his death, he had gained a following of people in the Roman Empire. There's emperors who we have just one passing mention of about 200 years later in a run down of other emperors but nothing else. Yet no one questions these emperors, just Christ - because most people questioning Christ don't understand how ancient sources work.
I would say that Jesus is a real person.
However he was rather a magician than a son of god, what have made him very popular.
i could answer Zeitgeist, all that mention there are Christified and all are symbolic in all culture ( like Sumerian tablets) and december 25 is the begining of the sun movement , december 20 is the finish of the past calendar , julian calendar, now we are in gregorian calendar.
This post is great. Not because I am overly interested in the content or because I choose sides in the narrative.
But because it's showing the potential of the Steemit network as a place to discuss and debate, not just vote on the post and leave a snappy 2-liner or a beg for a backvote.
And that's worth a lot in social media.
Sadly such debates are very uncommon on Steemit. Majority of conversations and comments are about bullshit. Steemit is mostly a place for rich to get richer
Yup. The majority of comments are spambots begging for upvotes or people giving each other empty compliments in hopes of getting noticed. This is the first legitimate conversation I've seen here.
I respect your belief on this topic and as I often do, I tend to look at both sides of the argument. I think Richard Dawkins is incredibly intelligent even though I disagree with his beliefs. Here is something you can take into consideration too. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/
Thanks for reply but you missed the point by saying "I respect your belief", as my view of world is not based on any belief. I do not BELIEVE in ANYTHING. I CONSIDER the most probable POSSIBILITIES by trying to take into account all facts, I have been lucky to be aware of, that science has discovered so far :-)
To me that is your belief, but I understand we see it differently. Im excited to see where this takes us as more posts unfold.
Zeitgeist is a really really bad documentary. It cites no sources and literally makes things up (like saying Christ was based on Horus, news to the thousands of secular and religious Jesus scholars).
Here's a really good debunking:
http://crossexamined.org/whats-wrong-with-the-zeitgeist-movie/ (A christian site, but the debunking is original from a skeptical site that has since gone bust and that was the only place that still had it)
EDIT Skeptic Project has a much better point by point rebuttal, I thought people would appreciate a more scientific host: http://skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/
This one I think is the best, but difficult to get a believer to commit 10 minutes of their life to the actual origin of their mythology. Super interesting stuff though. After I watched it, even my unconscious fears of religion melted away. Watch it, what could you lose?
It is certainly true that Satan has done his best to sew false and confusing myths throughout history to minimize and hide the truth. Like flares and chaff to distract missiles from finding the real aircraft.
But Christians have Jesus Christ in person, spending years with ordinary but highly credible people who in turn spent decades sharing their experiences with startup churches all around the Mediterranean Sea.
This is the basis of Christianity and the primary reason why people believe the narrative about Him. Not vague story telling around campfires over the preceding millennia.
Jesus specifically stated that the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. "Moses and the Prophets") were true and should be believed: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
So our faith has solid grounding in real people at a real place and time and is not derived from other ancient myths.
Assuming that the myths described in this video are not the products of the authors imagination stated in a way to maximize the correlation with Jesus' story, I can think of a combination of several ways they may have occurred.
So I stay grounded in specific eyewitness accounts of what Jesus did and said and what his followers learned from Him - in person and through his promised guidance by the Holy Spirit.
It is a fascinating video however. It just gets its causes and effects mixed up.
The most appropriate gif for this topic! Up Vote!
More Steemit Gifs Here
This is were Jesus was baptized, in Jordan
Faith - an important component of human integrity , which stands next to such concepts as love and hope. Faith - an integral part of man that needs no proof , needs no scientific facts , needs no explanation - it just is , and it does not hide , it is like the air and sunlight rays .
Hi Gavvet! I made a post in response of yours and dan's post. Have a read here: https://steemit.com/religion/@princewahaj/jesus-christ-never-claimed-that-he-is-god-instead-it-is-mentioned-in-several-places-of-bible-to-worship-only-one-god-and-why
I enjoyed reading your post!
Upvote from me!
Shot you an Upvote :)
this is deep
No emoticon, not sure if this is sarcasm or genuine :)
I'm looking forward to the next instalment.
I hope I don't disappoint...
Sciene and religious are far from each others . but do you believe in ghost ? If you believe in ghost why cant you believe in jesus?
No, I don't believe in the boogy-man, ghosts, spirits, vampires, demons, Frankenstein, tooth-fairies, unicorns, or Santa clause, but.... If you were to provide me with enough evidence(as in continued reliability of providing effective results) then I will believe in the existence of any of these things.
Most atheists do not believe in ghosts.
As long as we are good human beings, and respect, help and care about others, you can believe in whatever you want. This is what I answer to people when I'm asked in what I believe.
There are scientists engaged in this. This Oleg Maltsev
I am not a fan of Religion, but i like the question. Im torn what to do? UPvote or novice?
After reading your article I actually do not find anything scientific in your logic. I don't like debates and discussion and much rather have a dialog with you. To me religion makes no sense and feels like simple abuse and slavery by getting people to submit pretty much to a lie. From your article i gather that you believe in god and the christian religion in specifically. I wonder why? Can you explain why you believe ? I'd like to understand your point of view.
Rather then science history has a different story to tell, I might do a piece on this as we are now finding more about the history of the time, I studied Theology till I got kicked out of class for being atheist but that's another story.
Really? I studied theology and biblical history and two of my three tutors were atheists. That's insane. Where was this?
In those days, anything that was superhuman could be done with advanced technologies. More advanced that even what we have today, whether it is walking on water or replicating fish and bread. There is evidence in ancient artwork that angels and such were otherworldly, meaning not from this world. There is a whole strain of thought that the story contained within the Bible (and other ancient scripts) suggests that we have been visited in the past by other world beings, in the sense of novels such as "Dune." As our technology grows, and we are able to levitate and create food from air (like in Star Trek) or even resurrect from death (in some medical cases, we already do), will more people begin to believe another story? Hard to say, given that faith still has persisted even throughout this last technologically advancing century.
here do you have some answers to your questions
https://steemit.com/jesus/@miguel12/the-biological-father-of-jesus
Gospel is 100% symbolic, not history, is a book write by initiated and for initiated.
You do realize that according to the bible jesus christ would have been from the middle east and look nothing like the picture. Furthermore the king james version was written by the kings clergy meant to rule over his people. Every country has a story to tell, every religion, every race, every tribe.
They say jesus died on Friday... It took 3 days for him to resurrect... Place you hand out and count from Friday....you get 1. Saturday 2. Sunday. 3. Monday? But everyone goes to church on Sunday, The story's so tangled I know its not true.
Actually, no.
All 12 predictions of his 3 days and 3 nights start with his betrayal and end with his resurrection. Thursday to Sunday.
"Saying, the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day." (Luke 9:22)
"Jesus said unto them, the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of man; and they shall kill Him, and the third day He shall be raised again." (Matthew 17:22)
"and they shall mock Him, and shall scourge Him, and shall spit upon Him, and shall kill Him, and the third day He shall rise again." (Mark 10:34)
Link to all 12 Scriptures
NO WHERE does it only say, "The Son of man must die and the third day rise again" without listing the full sequence, including suffering. (there is one scripture which is a quote of what the Pharisees said, but of course, they had it wrong.)
lol, What dos three days originate from may be the better question.
Jewish days begin at sunset...
Day 1 Crucified about 3pm Friday afternoon
Day 2 Saturday the Jewish Sabbath begins at sundown Friday evening
Day 3 Begins at Sundown Saturday therefore rising on Sunday morning is the third day
Christians change Jewish Sabbath from Last day of the week (Saturday commemorating day of rest in creation) to first day Sunday to commemorate resurrection
Is there a scientific basis for a man having the ability to subvert the basic laws of reality?
No, not really.
Feel that I may have to write a post tomorrow to share different thoughts of so called "Jesus" / Yeshua / Christ / the son / the sun ...