Jesus was a Hindu Monk and Survived the Cross
-
so who created god then? in that order..
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
so who created god then? in that order..
Which begs the question, why do you think God is a created being? -
I gave an answer to that qn in the other thread already.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Yes, science is based on logic and reasoning, but why say i.e. atheists? Are all atheists logical in their reasoning? The answer is NO. Do atheists believe in absurd things? YES.
You said that science cannot explain religion and religion goes against the law of science, but which religions are you referring to? Because it certainly does NOT apply to Christianity, which was the worldview that gave rise to modern science. And you probably don't seem to be well acquainted with scientific literature which are littered with the word "believe".
Anyway, your last statement has already been proven wrong by history as I earlier alluded to. It was precisely because Science and Religion (i.e. Christianity) mix that we have modern science.
Hi everyone, hope you don't mind my joining in.
@BIC,
1. Yes there are nontheists taht believe in the absurd just as much as monotheists or polytheists. Belief of one form does not take away ones freedom of choice to believe in another belief (logical/ilogical/contradictory). Imagination affords us that luxury of vacationing from reality.
2. Lets look at a brief definition of the terms Science and Religion.
Science - (from wikipedia) (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic
enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and
predictions about the universe. An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found
for example in Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the
type that can be logically and rationally explained.
Religion - (from dictionary.reference.com) a set of beliefs concerning the cause,
nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation
of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual
observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human
affairs.
Note "testable explanations" is not included in the definition of Religion. Of course Aristotle's more malleable "logically and rationally explained" definition might be prefered by many of us to explain the un-testable.
3. The work of science is to explain how things work, figuring things out. Scientific knowledge is never complete and ever expanding. New discoveries or technological advances may promt re-writing of once central scientific principles. Everything in scientific knowledge is open for scrutiny and test. The seemingly endless knowledge discovered through science gives hope to many that science can in time solve the problems of humankind. However there is no moral code, to determine how that knowledge gets used. And there is no road map to salvation here or affirmation that it even exists(yet).
For religions, the purpose is to deliver salvation or point to it. For most religions, all the information needed for that purpose is contained in the sacred/revealed texts. The sacred word of religion cannot be doubted.
For most religions, I think true science is a threat. Recall the early scientists who fear death by being labelled heretics of the popular religion of the day. For true science never truly believes in a final word. But I do believe there are brilliant scientists who are also pious followers of a religion. In the simplest sense, to be a scientist is just an occupation and you don't have to stake your salvation over your job. A scientist also has this inside knowledge "science doesn't know everything (yet)" and may never solve the existential question of God in his lifetime. Fear is a great factor to make one decisive.
So do try to understand where we are coming from when those of us with a little general knowledge doubt those scientific literature that tires to marry science and whichever religion. For the true spirit of science and the prevailing spirit of most religions diverge, and will not converge untill humankind revalues the true worth of empirical knowlege.
-
Oh by the way, if you do a little research on the following, it becomes a little clearer:
1.Nicolas Notovitch, the original Russian author who claimed to have first discovered ancient Tibetan manuscripts that were translated from pali.
2.When/how his account claims the manuscripts were translated.
3.Existance of Tibetan manuscripts translated from pali during this period.
4.Whether Tibetans monks even had access to pali literature or the more popular sanskrit.
5. When he claims the monastery accuired them.
6. When the monastery was founded.
-
Originally posted by soemt:
Hi everyone, hope you don't mind my joining in.
@BIC,
1. Yes there are nontheists taht believe in the absurd just as much as monotheists or polytheists. Belief of one form does not take away ones freedom of choice to believe in another belief (logical/ilogical/contradictory). Imagination affords us that luxury of vacationing from reality.
2. Lets look at a brief definition of the terms Science and Religion.
Science - (from wikipedia) (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic
enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and
predictions about the universe. An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found
for example in Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the
type that can be logically and rationally explained.
Religion - (from dictionary.reference.com) a set of beliefs concerning the cause,
nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation
of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual
observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human
affairs.
Note "testable explanations" is not included in the definition of Religion. Of course Aristotle's more malleable "logically and rationally explained" definition might be prefered by many of us to explain the un-testable.
3. The work of science is to explain how things work, figuring things out. Scientific knowledge is never complete and ever expanding. New discoveries or technological advances may promt re-writing of once central scientific principles. Everything in scientific knowledge is open for scrutiny and test. The seemingly endless knowledge discovered through science gives hope to many that science can in time solve the problems of humankind. However there is no moral code, to determine how that knowledge gets used. And there is no road map to salvation here or affirmation that it even exists(yet).
For religions, the purpose is to deliver salvation or point to it. For most religions, all the information needed for that purpose is contained in the sacred/revealed texts. The sacred word of religion cannot be doubted.
For most religions, I think true science is a threat. Recall the early scientists who fear death by being labelled heretics of the popular religion of the day. For true science never truly believes in a final word. But I do believe there are brilliant scientists who are also pious followers of a religion. In the simplest sense, to be a scientist is just an occupation and you don't have to stake your salvation over your job. A scientist also has this inside knowledge "science doesn't know everything (yet)" and may never solve the existential question of God in his lifetime. Fear is a great factor to make one decisive.
So do try to understand where we are coming from when those of us with a little general knowledge doubt those scientific literature that tires to marry science and whichever religion. For the true spirit of science and the prevailing spirit of most religions diverge, and will not converge untill humankind revalues the true worth of empirical knowlege.
I welcome your comments. Just to add some of mine. You rightly noted that science basically means knowledge. In its original word it has no connotations of being a wholly naturalistic endeavour. Neither did the fathers of modern science (who were mostly Christians) pursued their interests devoid of God. While science may be a threat to religions in general, it is NEVER a threat to Christianity in particular, for reasons already alluded to earlier. Most nonbelievers tend to promote the science vs religion dichotomy, where science is just about facts and religion is about values/faith/morals. But I submit to you that insofar as Christianity is concerned this dichotomy does not hold water.
-
Originally posted by soemt:
Oh by the way, if you do a little research on the following, it becomes a little clearer:
1.Nicolas Notovitch, the original Russian author who claimed to have first discovered ancient Tibetan manuscripts that were translated from pali.
2.When/how his account claims the manuscripts were translated.
3.Existance of Tibetan manuscripts translated from pali during this period.
4.Whether Tibetans monks even had access to pali literature or the more popular sanskrit.
5. When he claims the monastery accuired them.
6. When the monastery was founded.
I am quite familiar with this "Jesus in India" notion, but I think it rests on flimsy and flaky beliefs and circumstantial and questionable "evidences". I think we should let the Bible speak to us. In Luke 4:16 it is written, "He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. As usual, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up to read." This brief statement gives us a good idea of where Jesus was between 12-30 years, don't you think?
-
to believe in a supernatural being that claimed to created humankind and the universe, you need to go see a psychiatrist and have your brain checked. I lol when I read that the earth was created in 6,000 years for the size of a planet like earth. oh I almost forgot that it was written in the bible. so there lies the figment of the bible imagination. ya sure god is as real as superman exists in DC comics and movies and cartoons. ya smurf must also exists I must say
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
to believe in a supernatural being that claimed to created humankind and the universe, you need to go see a psychiatrist and have your brain checked. I lol when I read that the earth was created in 6,000 years for the size of a planet like earth. oh I almost forgot that it was written in the bible. so there lies the figment of the bible imagination. ya sure god is as real as superman exists in DC comics and movies and cartoons. ya smurf must also exists I must say
Jacky,
You believe that the universe created itself from nothing. You need to see a psychiatrist more than I do, and hopefully a Christian one!
-
Originally posted by soemt:
Hi everyone, hope you don't mind my joining in.
@BIC,
1. Yes there are nontheists taht believe in the absurd just as much as monotheists or polytheists. Belief of one form does not take away ones freedom of choice to believe in another belief (logical/ilogical/contradictory). Imagination affords us that luxury of vacationing from reality.
2. Lets look at a brief definition of the terms Science and Religion.
Science - (from wikipedia) (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic
enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and
predictions about the universe. An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found
for example in Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the
type that can be logically and rationally explained.
Religion - (from dictionary.reference.com) a set of beliefs concerning the cause,
nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation
of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual
observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human
affairs.
Note "testable explanations" is not included in the definition of Religion. Of course Aristotle's more malleable "logically and rationally explained" definition might be prefered by many of us to explain the un-testable.
3. The work of science is to explain how things work, figuring things out. Scientific knowledge is never complete and ever expanding. New discoveries or technological advances may promt re-writing of once central scientific principles. Everything in scientific knowledge is open for scrutiny and test. The seemingly endless knowledge discovered through science gives hope to many that science can in time solve the problems of humankind. However there is no moral code, to determine how that knowledge gets used. And there is no road map to salvation here or affirmation that it even exists(yet).
For religions, the purpose is to deliver salvation or point to it. For most religions, all the information needed for that purpose is contained in the sacred/revealed texts. The sacred word of religion cannot be doubted.
For most religions, I think true science is a threat. Recall the early scientists who fear death by being labelled heretics of the popular religion of the day. For true science never truly believes in a final word. But I do believe there are brilliant scientists who are also pious followers of a religion. In the simplest sense, to be a scientist is just an occupation and you don't have to stake your salvation over your job. A scientist also has this inside knowledge "science doesn't know everything (yet)" and may never solve the existential question of God in his lifetime. Fear is a great factor to make one decisive.
So do try to understand where we are coming from when those of us with a little general knowledge doubt those scientific literature that tires to marry science and whichever religion. For the true spirit of science and the prevailing spirit of most religions diverge, and will not converge untill humankind revalues the true worth of empirical knowlege.
dun waste your time convincing xtians. they are beyond hope. they live in a world of fantasy and wishful thinking. the bible is nothing but a ancient book written by ancient religious jews, whose wishful and fantasy thinking were perpetuated in a book called bible. the bible is full of paradox and inconsistencies, not to mention irrationality and incoherent. -
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
dun waste your time convincing xtians. they are beyond hope. they live in a world of fantasy and wishful thinking. the bible is nothing but a ancient book written by ancient religious jews, whose wishful and fantasy thinking were perpetuated in a book called bible. the bible is full of paradox and inconsistencies, not to mention irrationality and incoherent.Then why are you here wasting your time trying to convince us since you think we are beyond hope? I think you are acting out of fear, fear that others may be convinced of Christianity! And perhaps you are afraid of being convinced too, so you act hostile and spew your anti-Christian bigotry polemic here.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I welcome your comments. Just to add some of mine. You rightly noted that science basically means knowledge. In its original word it has no connotations of being a wholly naturalistic endeavour. Neither did the fathers of modern science (who were mostly Christians) pursued their interests devoid of God. While science may be a threat to religions in general, it is NEVER a threat to Christianity in particular, for reasons already alluded to earlier. Most nonbelievers tend to promote the science vs religion dichotomy, where science is just about facts and religion is about values/faith/morals. But I submit to you that insofar as Christianity is concerned this dichotomy does not hold water.
Just a clarification, when you say no threat, you mean to say that the core beliefs of Christianity will conclusively stand up to scientific scrutiny right?
I'm just pointing out tips to those who may want to avoid reading the bible to look for more neutral sources and maybe even get the hang of being a mythbuster.) But some may say brought up may only allude to his childhood. So wouldn't neutral sources help you too?Originally posted by BroInChrist:I am quite familiar with this "Jesus in India" notion, but I think it rests on flimsy and flaky beliefs and circumstantial and questionable "evidences". I think we should let the Bible speak to us. In Luke 4:16 it is written, "He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. As usual, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up to read." This brief statement gives us a good idea of where Jesus was between 12-30 years, don't you think?
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
dun waste your time convincing xtians. they are beyond hope. they live in a world of fantasy and wishful thinking. the bible is nothing but a ancient book written by ancient religious jews, whose wishful and fantasy thinking were perpetuated in a book called bible. the bible is full of paradox and inconsistencies, not to mention irrationality and incoherent.Thank you for your warning Jacky but i'm not here to convince anyone. Like I mentioned to BIC earlier, as humans it is our freedom to choose what we believe. I may be a nontheist in the past, polytheist in future and just nonesensical right now.D I will keep in mind not to discriminate others for that will only build more walls and i'm not here to add more walls either.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
dun waste your time convincing xtians. they are beyond hope. they live in a world of fantasy and wishful thinking. the bible is nothing but a ancient book written by ancient religious jews, whose wishful and fantasy thinking were perpetuated in a book called bible. the bible is full of paradox and inconsistencies, not to mention irrationality and incoherent.Christians' hope is beyond you. With the hope in us, Christians devote time in worship, Bible study....and we offer money in response to the calling by the God who gives us this hope. I do not expect you to understand why, but at least you can share with us what is your hope, if there is any, and what do you do with the hope....at least you pay for Toto, I hope.
We live in a world that will last in eternity, fantasy and wishful thinking? hehehe...I believe the one who think the world will just end and man need not account for what they do is wishful thinking.
The Bible is a revelation of God, and is Christians' guidebook to morals and values. What is your guide? at least if you follow 论è¯, you will know what is 敬鬼神而远之.
don't waste your time and our time. Thank you.
-
Originally posted by soemt:
Hi everyone, hope you don't mind my joining in.
@BIC,
1. Yes there are nontheists taht believe in the absurd just as much as monotheists or polytheists. Belief of one form does not take away ones freedom of choice to believe in another belief (logical/ilogical/contradictory). Imagination affords us that luxury of vacationing from reality.
2. Lets look at a brief definition of the terms Science and Religion.
Science - (from wikipedia) (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic
enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and
predictions about the universe. An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found
for example in Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the
type that can be logically and rationally explained.
Religion - (from dictionary.reference.com) a set of beliefs concerning the cause,
nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation
of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual
observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human
affairs.
Note "testable explanations" is not included in the definition of Religion. Of course Aristotle's more malleable "logically and rationally explained" definition might be prefered by many of us to explain the un-testable.
3. The work of science is to explain how things work, figuring things out. Scientific knowledge is never complete and ever expanding. New discoveries or technological advances may promt re-writing of once central scientific principles. Everything in scientific knowledge is open for scrutiny and test. The seemingly endless knowledge discovered through science gives hope to many that science can in time solve the problems of humankind. However there is no moral code, to determine how that knowledge gets used. And there is no road map to salvation here or affirmation that it even exists(yet).
For religions, the purpose is to deliver salvation or point to it. For most religions, all the information needed for that purpose is contained in the sacred/revealed texts. The sacred word of religion cannot be doubted.
For most religions, I think true science is a threat. Recall the early scientists who fear death by being labelled heretics of the popular religion of the day. For true science never truly believes in a final word. But I do believe there are brilliant scientists who are also pious followers of a religion. In the simplest sense, to be a scientist is just an occupation and you don't have to stake your salvation over your job. A scientist also has this inside knowledge "science doesn't know everything (yet)" and may never solve the existential question of God in his lifetime. Fear is a great factor to make one decisive.
So do try to understand where we are coming from when those of us with a little general knowledge doubt those scientific literature that tires to marry science and whichever religion. For the true spirit of science and the prevailing spirit of most religions diverge, and will not converge untill humankind revalues the true worth of empirical knowlege.
No problem with what you post, but do try to understand that religion is about faith, and we don't know what we do not know, this is where there is no science! Christians believe in what we believe and non christians are free to believe in what you believe, and such respect is a value, not sure if it is something that can be proven by empirical knowledge.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
No problem with what you post, but do try to understand that religion is about faith, and we don't know what we do not know, this is where there is no science! Christians believe in what we believe and non christians are free to believe in what you believe, and such respect is a value, not sure if it is something that can be proven by empirical knowledge.
Yes religion is (mainly) about faith, often about what we cannot comprehend(fully). And there is definately no science available on what we don't know. But unless i've misread, BIC also believes that religion/faith shouldn't be out of bounds to scientific reasoning, just because we do not have a means/method/techonology yet.
And i do respect the free choices of others. I engage in disscussions because i believe we can better sort out/refine our thinking/understanding through such. I have personally experienced that having to explain to others my understanding of a subject improves my own understanding as well. I hope you get to benefit from this as much as i do too.
-
Originally posted by soemt:
Just a clarification, when you say no threat, you mean to say that the core beliefs of Christianity will conclusively stand up to scientific scrutiny right?
I'm just pointing out tips to those who may want to avoid reading the bible to look for more neutral sources and maybe even get the hang of being a mythbuster.) But some may say brought up may only allude to his childhood. So wouldn't neutral sources help you too?
Your question assumes that scientific scrutiny is the litmus test of truth. I beg to differ. The scientific method is the brainchild of Francis Bacon who was a believer, but yet the method is limited to that which is observable and repeatable and testable. Is the resurrection of Jesus which is a historical event be capable of scientific scrutiny? How so? As mentioned the founders of modern science were believers and never saw science as a threat to faith. In fact it was their faith that motivated their science! -
Who created God?
Personally I believe in God but as an atheist thinking, God is merely an imagination from humans, just like in the past, during thunders, humans believed God was angry... science came in and realize the chemistry/physics behind why rain and thunders took place...
Someone asked me whether I am a free thinker or a Christian, I can say I am both. When it comes to science exams, like physics, unless I want to fail my exams, otherwise I need to use logical explanation in how things work, for example thunder... I cannot say because God is angry.
On the other hand, I believe science has its limitations. Some things are beyond explanation yet because we have yet to grasp that kind of understanding. Like for example, why some people so emo... logical explanation is only possible if someone managed to delve into their brain and understand the DNA/chemical reactions happening between the brain on that exact person at that exact point of time, which at this time is still impossible to do... Science has also yet to tell me a simple answer such as what is the black hole made of? where did all the things they suck go into?
But for now, I must continue to pass my exams and I must continue to make the best use of my logical knowledge and reasoning to move forward in life... for things such as God, I will know soon enough when I die.
-
Jesus is not theology, Christianity is! Jeus simply wants one to be, neither doing, nor not-doing, but just being …. Hence, the hint is that one has no ’’God’’ to preach to onself, no rituals to be followed; in his being .... hinted to the freedom of being … He was an invitation to partake of the existentitial being that he was. To partake the wine of being divine. that makes all the difference between being spiritual or being religious. However, the latter limits one cos of doctrines, dogma and ... it limits one to be ... When one does not believe in persons, one does not believe in ideologies. And when , a great knowing explodes, a trusting in existential manifestations (manifesting is more apt) eg,s in trees, in rocks, in people, in ….., in all that is. The ''Jesus'' are part of it, n yet not part of it ( a paradox that human mind can only experience when the mind is parked no-where). One Simply abides in being ….. PS – those … in quotes are in quotes cos of the constraints of language and that which one cannot pinpoint to or define.
-
Originally posted by soemt:
Yes religion is (mainly) about faith, often about what we cannot comprehend(fully). And there is definately no science available on what we don't know. But unless i've misread, BIC also believes that religion/faith shouldn't be out of bounds to scientific reasoning, just because we do not have a means/method/techonology yet.
And i do respect the free choices of others. I engage in disscussions because i believe we can better sort out/refine our thinking/understanding through such. I have personally experienced that having to explain to others my understanding of a subject improves my own understanding as well. I hope you get to benefit from this as much as i do too.
soemt,
My point is that, contrary to what the atheists like to portray, there is no inherent conflict between Science and the Bible. The Bible touches upon many things that science touches on, though the Bible is not written as a science textbook.
-
Originally posted by DailyFreeGames.com:
Who created God?
Personally I believe in God but as an atheist thinking, God is merely an imagination from humans, just like in the past, during thunders, humans believed God was angry... science came in and realize the chemistry/physics behind why rain and thunders took place...
Someone asked me whether I am a free thinker or a Christian, I can say I am both. When it comes to science exams, like physics, unless I want to fail my exams, otherwise I need to use logical explanation in how things work, for example thunder... I cannot say because God is angry.
On the other hand, I believe science has its limitations. Some things are beyond explanation yet because we have yet to grasp that kind of understanding. Like for example, why some people so emo... logical explanation is only possible if someone managed to delve into their brain and understand the DNA/chemical reactions happening between the brain on that exact person at that exact point of time, which at this time is still impossible to do... Science has also yet to tell me a simple answer such as what is the black hole made of? where did all the things they suck go into?
But for now, I must continue to pass my exams and I must continue to make the best use of my logical knowledge and reasoning to move forward in life... for things such as God, I will know soon enough when I die.
Please clarify, you said you believe in God but you claim to be an atheist? How can one be a freethinker AND a Christian? Moreover, during science exams you are asked to describe how thunder happens, you are not asked for theological reasons. And you seem to pit logic against faith. Yet the Christian faith is a reasonable faith, a logical faith.
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
Jesus is not theology, Christianity is! Jeus simply wants one to be, neither doing, nor not-doing, but just being …. Hence, the hint is that one has no ’’God’’ to preach to onself, no rituals to be followed; in his being …. hinted to the freedom of being … He was an invitation to partake of the existentitial being that he was. To partake the wine of being divine. that makes all the difference between being spiritual or being religious. However, the latter limits one cos of doctrines, dogma and … it limits one to be … When one does not believe in persons, one does not believe in ideologies. And when , a great knowing explodes, a trusting in existential manifestations (manifesting is more apt) eg,s in trees, in rocks, in people, in ….., in all that is. The ’’Jesus’’ are part of it, n yet not part of it ( a paradox that human mind can only experience when the mind is parked no-where). One Simply abides in being …..
PS – those … in quotes are in quotes cos of the constraints of language and that which one cannot pinpoint to or define.
Jesus, being God-incarnate, TAUGHT many things to His followers about God. Are not such teachings rightly referred to as dogma, or theology?
-
Christianity is still the largest religion in the entire world....I think it'll still work...otherwise why so many believers ?
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Christianity is still the largest religion in the entire world....I think it'll still work...otherwise why so many believers ?
Demon Bane,
I think if a religion is true it will work. But just because a religion "works" it does not mean it is true. What do you think?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Demon Bane,
I think if a religion is true it will work. But just because a religion "works" it does not mean it is true. What do you think?
I have this idea of collective consciousness....if many people gathered and think/wish/hope for the same things, somehow miracles will happen....I dunno where I got this idea from....
If a religion "works" is good enuff for me....it doesn't need to be 100% "true" becos those are questions about religions, not about faith....faith is not about having all the right answers...