I would like to tell you a bit more about God

[pajarito 0]

Quote

1. How do you know JC actually said that?

All you have is one written account. Not much go on.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul all confirm what Jesus said.

Quote

2. If God can show himself to Moses, why can't he show himself to us today?

He didn’t. No mortal person can see the face of God and live. He is too holy. God shielded Moses in the cleft of a rock and let his glory pass by him. Even that took quite a toll on Moses.

Quote

3. If God can do anything then why can't he take on physical form?

So many questions with no answers.

He did in the person of Jesus Christ.

[beowulf 1]

Then who was Jesus praying to??

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Then who was Jesus praying to??

God

[beowulf 1]

Ok
Then he was praying to himself.

[beowulf 1]

And you believe these stories? They sound farfetched and have no evidence to back them. Anyone can write anything they want. It doesn't make it fact.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Ok
Then he was praying to himself.

In a sense but not really. This requires an understanding of the Trinity. There is only one God who has shown himself to exist in three distinct persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

[pajarito 0]

Quote

And you believe these stories? They sound farfetched and have no evidence to back them.

Yes. I believe these accounts and there is evidence to back them.

Quote

Anyone can write anything they want. It doesn't make it fact.

I agree. But that does not apply in this case.

[beowulf 1]

What evidence is there available? As far as I know the only thing you have is the Bible which only proves that someone wrote a book.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Ok
Then he was praying to himself.

In a sense but not really. This requires an understanding of the Trinity. There is only one God who has shown himself to exist in three distinct persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

Now there is a concept that someone pulled out of their ass. Three people in one. That really doesn't make and sense.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

What evidence is there available? As far as I know the only thing you have is the Bible which only proves that someone wrote a book.

Who do you think wrote the Bible?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Now there is a concept that someone pulled out of their ass. Three people in one. That really doesn't make and sense.

It doesn't to those who are perishing in their own sin.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

What evidence is there available? As far as I know the only thing you have is the Bible which only proves that someone wrote a book.

Who do you think wrote the Bible?

A group of Rabbi's took and put together a bunch of stories and writings and made the Old Testament then the Catholic Church added the New Testament.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What evidence is there available? As far as I know the only thing you have is the Bible which only proves that someone wrote a book.

Who do you think wrote the Bible?

A group of Rabbi's took and put together a bunch of stories and writings and made the Old Testament then the Catholic Church added the New Testament.

What exactly did they supposedly change and where is your evidence for that?

[beowulf 1]

What do mean change? I just told you who I thought created the Bible.

[beowulf 1]

Who wrote the Bible really doesn't matter, because it was written by humans and which humans specifically wrote it won't help it's credibility as far as the supernatural claims it makes.

[philh 0]

"Obvious there is more than one way to look at biblical interpretation, just as there are more than one way to look at the cause of psychiatric conditions. For that matter there is more than one way to look at the cause of global warmig.
The reason I follow the exegetical mode that says the biblical writer writes to his generation, but because it was "inspired" by God implies eternal truths is because it makes the most sense to me."

Yes but issue of pyschiatric conditions and global warmimg can be setlled through evidece. Indeed those debates are going on right now and for example in the GW debate the evidence is more and more conclusive that ideas suh as the heat island effect are wrong and co2 emmisions are corret. The same is not true with theological debate. Can you imagine someone saying at a global warming conference that its caused by the heat island effect "because it makes sense to me" they would be laughed at. However if they said Ive got emperical evidence to show its the heat island effet they would be taken seriously Can you not see the difference?
Another point, you say the bible is inspired by god and therefore implies eternal truths, exactly what does this mean? are you suggesting everything in the bible is true ? If not which bits are not true and how do you decide? Also what evidecen do you have that the authors were inspired by god; we dont even know who they were let alone who they took their inspriation from.

[philh 0]

"I'm vaguely aware of the psychological studies that map the brain in regards to love. Since I'm centered on therapy and not research I don't tend to read a lot of those studies. My research and reading tend to be on new ideas of therapy. However, I'm also aware that there has also been studies that map a "god" gene. So what does that prove? "

Well what it demosntrates is that your analogy that we cant prove god and we cant prove love is a false one. (I wouldnt use the word proof myself more show evidence of ) .We do have evidence that love exists, we do not have evidence that god exists. As fas as the god gene goes that helps your case even less. The god gene hypothesis is that some people have a gene which causes them to increase their production of a neurotransmitter called monoamines which has a tendeny to make people interpret events in a more super natural way than others. If this hypothesis is correct it shows that peoples personal eperience of god whilst it may be convincing to them does not necessarily represent an external reality. It would explain why people have the experience of god without implyiing there is a god.

"but rather God, by his very nature, is not something that can be reproduced or studied in a laboratory. "

it appears to me you dont understand the scientific process.Science is not just about experiments in a lab. Ive heard a lot of creationsts describe science in that way and they are eqaully wrong. Sceince is about verifying hypothesis with evidence. Even a social science can sometimes do that. The monetarist crtique of the Phillips curve (that inflation and unmeployment were inverse ) was verified with evidence that inflation and unemployment were going up at the same time. An example of a scientific conclusion that had nothing to do with a lab. No one is asking to have god present in a lab for testing. What we are asking for is some evidence that is objective and not based upon "I feel it ".

"If the biblical God is correct, He is the catalyst that began creation. "

but since the evidence shows the biblical account of creation is incorrect your "if" is a giant assumption with not just no evidence to support it but with loads of evidence to counter it.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Can you imagine someone saying at a global warming conference that its caused by the heat island effect "because it makes sense to me" they would be laughed at. However if they said Ive got emperical evidence to show its the heat island effet they would be taken seriously Can you not see the difference?

What I see are scientist who clam science answers everything coming up with two very different scenarios based on the "facts" they study. Are their "facts" the same? Maybe, I don't know. Are their facts different? Possibly, again I don't know. But either way each makes a claim they have scientific evidence of their "theory."

My point is not to argue science. I'm no fool. I know I'm the weak one in that debate. My point is to challenge your statemnet that because people have different views about the interpretation of the Bible doesn't mean the Bible is not correct in it's intent.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Sceince is about verifying hypothesis with evidence.

But it doesn't bother you that two scientist can look at the same "evidence" and come up with two hypothesis?

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

"If the biblical God is correct, He is the catalyst that began creation. "

but since the evidence shows the biblical account of creation is incorrect your "if" is a giant assumption with not just no evidence to support it but with loads of evidence to counter it.

Hardly. I'm not a creationist, and I do not believe Genesis is either a historical or scientific account for the beginning of the world. It is in my view, a story that helps explain man's relationship with God, and perhaps the early oral history of the Jewish people.

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

Sceince is about verifying hypothesis with evidence.

But it doesn't bother you that two scientist can look at the same "evidence" and come up with two hypothesis?

I don't know about Phil but it bothers me, hence my profession. But to quote Albert Einstein: "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

Science is a self correcting discipline for the most part because a theory that doesn't fit the facts is wrong and must be revised. Unlike religion where if the theory doesn't fit the facts, they change the facts.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Hey, I'm a scientist too. And I believe in God.

But I don't use science to do the job of religion, and I don't use religion to do the job of science.

That's why I don't use one as a yardstick to judge the validity of the other. They've got two different jobs to do.

I don't use a hammer to cut wood, and I don't use a saw to drive a nail.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[JackC 0]

Quote

Hey, I'm a scientist too. And I believe in God.

But I don't use science to do the job of religion, and I don't use religion to do the job of science.

That's why I don't use one as a yardstick to judge the validity of the other. They've got two different jobs to do.

Why not? The scientific method is a damn good way of telling fact from fiction. Can you give me a good reason why you refuse point blank to use the best tool you've got in order to test the truth of something so important?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Science is a self correcting discipline for the most part because a theory that doesn't fit the facts is wrong and must be revised. Unlike religion where if the theory doesn't fit the facts, they change the facts.

That is not necessarily true. The change of theology at times is based on a different interpretation of information provided. But higher criticism was a new direction in theology based on a change in facts.

steveOrino

[billvon 3,070]

>But it doesn't bother you that two scientist can look at the
>same "evidence" and come up with two hypothesis?

Not at all! A hypothesis is a guess. That's how the process works.

Phenomena is observed. An intelligent guess is made as to what causes it, or how it operates. This is called a hypothesis. The hypothesis is then tested. If it checks out, then it becomes a working theory. If not, then it is rejected and some other hypothesis is proposed.

This is somewhat contrary to how religion works. In religion, intelligent assumptions are made about god. They are then defended to the death. If physical evidence is discovered that contradicts that assumption, the physical evidence is ignored until it becomes overwhelming - at which point the assumption is claimed to not be that important and subsequently ignored. That's sort of the opposite. Doesn't mean it's inherently bad, but it is a very different way of doing things.