Entropy vs Christ (A scientific basis for Jesus Christ Part II)
2 weeks ago Sunday post from me created quite a stir and a rather robust debate.
https://steemit.com/religion/@gavvet/is-there-a-scientific-basis-for-jesus-christ
Some follow up posts were even spawned or highlighted as a result of it.
https://steemit.com/religion/@alexbeyman/the-fossil-argument-for-the-existence-of-a-historical-jesus
https://steemit.com/jesus/@miguel12/the-biological-father-of-jesus
https://steemit.com/religion/@dwinblood/civil-response-inspired-by-gavvet-post-concerning-science-and-jesus-christ
https://steemit.com/religion/@dwinblood/part-two-gavvet-reply-a-hypothesis-is-not-proof-in-science-jesus-science-debate-civil-and-invited
https://steemit.com/science/@business/is-there-a-religious-basis-for-science
https://steemit.com/jesus/@virtualgrowth/ideas-and-thoughts-on-of-jesus-christ-metaphor-symbolism-to-read-and-or-discuss
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
If I missed your follow up please link in the comments below.
I thank those who took the time to engage with the introductory post.
Many comments were made as a result and many of them were respectful… some were not. But I think a fun time was had by most, except perhaps for the one or two that appear to have totally lost it (the plot or their cool).
A few ground rules
I’d like to lay down a few ground rules and disclaimers at the start of this week’s post…
- The previous post was an experiment to gauge how the levels of tolerance have changed on the platform.
- It was merely an introduction to some of my thoughts.
- This post is not intended to present any empirical evidence for the matters under scrutiny.
- Someone suggested that a “thought experiment” may be a more appropriate description of what’s presented. If that will make it more palatable and less detestable, I concur.
- Many go to great lengths to forcibly widen the gaps between science and religion, this is about finding similarities.
- I find scientific knowledge and understanding enriches and broadens my understanding of religious doctrine and beliefs.
- I find many profitable metaphors on both sides… this is discussion of some of them.
- If you don’t like it (the thought experiment and metaphors) you are more than welcome to browse the copious amounts of other content on steemit, or if that is unsatisfactory there is this thing called the World Wide Web that I can highly recommend.
Science is about the How - Religion is about the Why
That is why the two appear to be mutually exclusive and why many choose to try to separate the two as much as possible…
For myself, having a healthy foot in both camps, I like to find areas of compatibility between these two domains where principles appear to overlap.
Previously I mentioned that Christ’s claim to be the Son of God was necessary in order for His other claim (relating to possession of power over death) to valid based on our current understanding of genetics and inheritance. I also remarked that this was not very remarkable since many myths, legends, religions etc. claim special parentage for their hero/special child (more could be discussed on this on another occasion).
I then started to examine Christ’s claim to be the Savior from sin. I introduced that we could possibly equate the concept of sin with disorder or absence of law because sin is disobedience or transgression of law.
I explore this further today.
I suggested that perhaps the laws of thermodynamics could be examined.
Temperature and heat are simply ways to measure the levels and distribution of energy within a system. The way the energy flows in an attempts to reach equilibrium brings about entropy, or that ordered things will always tend to a less ordered state. It’s a simple case of energy following the path of least resistance.
Matter appears simply to be highly organized forms of energy. Everything in the observable universe is about the organizing, disordering and re-ordering of energy into simple and more complex forms. The human brain is so far the most complex entity we have discovered in the known universe but at is core its simply about electrical impulses, the flow of electrons, some of the most simple energy interactions known.
The web of Life creates order by tapping into the disordered energy flow that originates from our sun or the core of the earth and uses this energy to create order. Life creates order by decreasing disorder and excreting disorder in the form of byproducts and waste.
This is not very different from stars, stars build complex atoms by decreasing entropy levels… they in essence excrete light.
By extrapolation it is possible that dark energy could simply be the excreta of galaxy clusters and other macro elements of the universe and this is sufficient to drive the expansion of the universe.
Each process that creates order in the cosmos does so by ejecting disordered energy. This excreted energy becomes the fuel for the next lower order of the cosmos. Nearly all earth life (excepting some extremophiles) is dependent on the sun's ejected disorder (energy in the form of light).
It is interesting that Christ claims to be the way the truth and the life… the light of the world. (More on the depth and breadth of this later)
Christ saves from not only sin but all forms of disorder.
Where there is:
Illness, He brings healing,
Morning, He brings comfort,
Pain, He brings relief,
Despair, He brings hope,
Sin, He brings remission.
Etc.
He descended below all things that He could rise as above all things, that he would know according to the flesh how to succor his people.
He took all these things upon himself in Gethsemane, and when we reach out to him in faith we pass these things over to Him, we let go…
We let go… through faith, of the disorder in our lives and thereby the system is able to increase in order again… the waste, the dross of our lives is ejected and we are able to move forward and upward as new creatures, born again, reordered and reorganized in His image and so we strive on to our better selves by letting go of that disorder that would burden us, captivate us, and drag us down.
Entropy loss is the sacrifice or repentance required to bring about the higher state. The entire process is symbolized by the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The bread representing the body or life of Christ, the wine the shed blood, death and mission of Christ. The bread is broken chewed, swallowed and digested. Each a further degree of dissolution. Until it is carried about the body by the circulatory system to become the building blocks of new cells. As Christ disseminates himself and is internalized he becomes part of us.
We are built up we become more than we were before,
we change,
we grow,
we become.
The sacrifices required and the repentance made, represent the waste eliminated to achieve the more ordered state.
Hell is when we refuse re-ordering and embrace entropy, we will to be a law unto our own selves. As long as we are in this attitude we cannot improve, we cannot be re-ordered we cannot grow or progress. In short we are damned. Not by someone else but by our own willfulness, not willing to submit to anything that would bring about our own improvement and if we cherish this attitude we will be locked in this state forever.
Unable to progress because our own wills prevent us from submitting to the laws necessary in order to progress.
An eternal fire of entropy.
I can attest to the power of Christ. My life completely turned around the minute I acknowledged him. Opportunities presented themselves. Certain truths were revealed to me. And people I never expected came into my life. Now I feel his presence every day. And whenever I have needed anything, he has always been there to provide it in 1 form or another. The difference now is I see his work, and I am grateful in advance for it all ....
You might get a kick out of this post, then.
Awesome to hear Jesus still working miracles through the Holy Ghost today. Me too, am just a product of his Grace. Me and my family are so blessed and Jesus gets all the praise for that.
With regards to Science and Religion, my point of view is simple. God (the Holy Trinity) created the Universe and all that exists. Thus, God created Science, it is how everything fits together. One cannot remove the one from the other. Simple.
I agree with you. For me it is almost impossible to see the complexity with which even a single cell is made up of and the ways our body works in unison and not believe that there was intelligent design. Could I be wrong? Of course, but if I were to find a watch in the middle of the forest I wouldn't think that nature just put it together. Nature causes entropy and disorder. For dust and cells to somehow turn into the beings we are today is just too large a stretch of the imagination for me.
this is called anecdotal evidence
To the outside observer, certainly.
There is also something known as a 'body of evidence'.
It is subjective since I'm the observer in some of the experiences, but there is a body of evidence around the results of prayer and faith in something greater than oneself.
The body of evidence is that prayer is not effective http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html
The only body of evidence that could be linked to prayer working could just as easily be explained as positive thinking and the placebo effect.
The concept of measuring "effective prayer" is flawed. God is not a vending machine. The vast majority of things asked for in prayer are not in accordance with God's will or His knowledge of what is good for His children. Do a similar study for the number of child requests for candy that get fulfilled by responsible parents. Are those childish requests a good test of whether it is worthwhile for a child to request things from a parent?
With a dose of confirmation bias.
Yes I understand what you are saying. Your own personal testimony is something that cannot be disputed. What Christ means to you is not dependent on anything but your relationship with him. That's why sharing what you have gone through and your personal testimony should not be offensive to anyone. It is spoken out of love to others and not hate. Christians can disagree with others without hating them. The media portrays Christians as a judgmental group of people, and they do have a point. Some people do see others not following their beliefs to be morally inferior.
But God preached about love and Jesus was friends with tax collectors and prostitutes. He didn't love what they were doing, but the person behind all of the things they were doing.
It is a rare site that allows people with strong religious beliefs and those with no interest in that at all to be able to dialogue and listen to one another.
One side isn't stupid or lesser than the other, we just have different perceptions from our experiences in life.
"Your own personal testimony is something that cannot be disputed."
But also can't be confirmed or verified by the person experiencing it. There is also no reason for anyone else to believe it was anything more than a hallucination. We know the human mind is susceptible to seeing things that aren't there.
Absolutely. People receive enlightenment in a variety of ways. Some like @rok-sivante had his eyes opened by an ayuwasca experience.
It is our freedom to share and others freedom to accept or reject what we may tell them. But even a dream can open someone's eyes and change their life.
Everything can't be proven, but some things that cannot are commonly accepted. I believe we should question everything along with our experiences and come to our own conclusion.
"Everything can't be proven" Can you prove that? ;)
I am a Lutheran, but also a devout believer in science. That being said, just because you can't see something or prove it with scientific formulae doesn't mean it isn't real. Religion and science are on a collision course as we learn more about our world and universe. Who's to say that "God" isn't an alien being that "created" mankind in his image through genetic manipulation? Maybe I'm crazy for saying that. Or maybe it's even crazier to think that with all the billions of inhabitable planets in the galaxy, there are no life forms more advanced than our own. I love this discussion you've started, and remember, many of the great scientific advancements were initially discredited by the church as blasphemy. Religion and science are advancing together
Truth will always gravitate toward truth whether discovered empirically or "revealed"
Very wise words
would you mind elaborating? the point of empiricism is to give us an unshakable foundation of truth, so to speak. if i drop acid and say that the truth was "revealed" to me, how can that carry any weight without any empirical evidence to back it up?
Exactly... revealed truth should not contradict empirical evidence if there is enough of the latter.
There's no stopping the Truth!
Are you open to the idea that the truth may not involve any god?
@gavvet can we help this woman https://steemit.com/life/@juvyjabian/to-kind-hearted-steemit-this-woman-suffering-from-unknown-skin-disease-for-20-yrs
@juvyjabian, sounds interesting, I'll have to check it out.
Certainly we can help. Wonder what help may be possible. Will read the post later. Couldn't open it on my computer at this moment. Have learned about numerous disease, having my own to learn about as well.
I'm not sure that even means anything.
Religion is pointing out the author of life and redeemer and also the savior and the creator but that wont save the people.
Science is believing what is seen, if you do not see anything that cannot be the science which always seeks the proof.
where as the faith, beyond the religion and science, hoping the unseen world i.e heaven, which is real. the faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is overcoming the world, which is filled with the lust of eyes, and lust of flesh, and the pride of Life.
Faith is the substance of the things hoped for, and an evidence of unseen thing.
people make a study and know about the God in the theology or divinity studies for which they need some academic qualifications, but the real devotee, know God personally,who doesn't need any academic qualification they experienced the God and had intimate relation with him just by faith in the Jesus Christ and the word of God. by the wisdom of the world , the wise and the prudent knew not God. the God had made the wisdom of the world foolish and, destroyed the wisdom of the wise even.
"it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe the Jesus and the work on Calvary"
many scribes and, pharisees of the Jesus days, failed the to recognize the works of the Holy Spirit, received not the Jesus as their God and savior. Beyond that, they accused Jesus as the head of the Beelzebul. then Jesus warned them, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be for given unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men neither in this world nor the world to come. that is why, this forgiveness of their sin must be proclaimed in the entire universe.
so the word of God is fire. preach it with the sense of urgency. God be with you sir!
"Religion is pointing out the author of life and redeemer and also the savior and the creator but that wont save the people."
You are jumping the gun a little. It hasn't been established there is an author of life and redeemer or savior.
You've put much stock in faith but why is it a virtue? If you value truth, faith is a hindrance.
we all like the truth but we failed to practice it, and live upon that. why because all human beings are in the image of the God but our inward built in character is satanic, devilish, and evil. we try to be truthful, faithful but we lairs and unfaithful. we are told not to trust the men, kings but the Lord God Almighty and His word. then you will be fruitful. so believe the Jesus Christ and The Bible. get saved.
Why should I believe the bible is true? Why should I believe the god of the bible exists? Why do you not believe in Zeus, Odin or the countless other gods invented by humanity?
You read the Bible and either find it to be credible or you don't. There is plenty of evidence that we have an accurate record of what the authors wrote. Now, do you believe the authors?
You won't know unless you apply yourself and actually want to find God. If you don't want to find Him, you won't.
@stan reading the bible alone is completely insufficient to establish its credibility. There is massive lack of evidence for the extraordinary claims made.
If by "genetic manipulation" you mean "created from earth", I totally agree ! :)
Here is the verse from Genesis:
“Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
Genesis 2:7 NIV
http://bible.com/111/gen.2.7.niv
Also the Hebrew word for man (adam) might be related to the Hebrew word for ground (adamah) according to New International Version comments.
Be blessed !
You can't prove a negative. Unless the world is a vast simulation and Schrodinger's Cat is taken to the extreme... atoms did not suddenly exist when we observed them. Electricity did not pop into existence when we observed it. X-rays did not pop into existence only because we had a machine.
Scientists who disbelieve something simply because it has not been measured are closing the door to wonder.
It is true that something they cannot measure may not exist, yet as the examples I provided... sometimes they do. Yet sometimes they don't.
As to your take on God. It is so nebulous and ultimately incomprehensible to us that it literally could be MANY things and we'd have trouble proving/or disproving.
"Scientists who disbelieve something simply because it has not been measured are closing the door to wonder."
They are also purposefully closing the door to falsehoods and thereby protecting the integrity of their held beliefs. What is more valuable to you, wonder or truth? Should we believe in leprechauns or anything else someone could easily fabricate just because we can't prove a negative? That doesn't seem like a very practical way to function.
Believing everything imaginable exists is not the null hypothesis.
I don't believe everything imaginable exists. I also don't believe we've measured everything, or likely ever will.
Pretty simple use the scientific method. It doesn't say anything about something not existing because it has not been measured. It really only deals with things we can measure.
So closing mind isn't scientific either. Might as well be a religion. ;)
You don't have to close your mind to not believe something for which there is no evidence. If you value holding true beliefs, believing in something without reason would be foolish.
You keep saying "there is no evidence". That is false.
There is ton's of evidence. There is no absolute "proof".
But court cases are decided all the time without "proof".
The archeological records that exist exceed all other sources of historical information in quality and quantity.
So, we have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that real, credible eyewitnesses observed Jesus do and say amazing things.
Now you, the jury, need to decide whether they are credible or not.
No @stan there is not a ton of evidence. There is a massive lack of evidence.
Nesting limit reached
I didn't say I believed it. I said science could not prove or disprove it. I am an atheist / deist.He likely did not see your latest response since you replied to me, and not @stan.
You'd be surprised at how observant he is.
"just because you can't see something or prove it with scientific formulae blabla"
Yeah well this isn't to scientific to proof or disproof such claim, but rather to the people who claim it.
Damn... for someone who says you are a "devout believer in science", you should open once in a while a book of philosophy of science, just to see how it works...
And most of what you wrote here would be categorized by the skeptical enquirer (and alike) as fallacies.
Well if your Alien theory is right then the bible would be wrong. Can you please elaborate on how religion is advancing? It would appear religion is continuously just yielding ground to science as we understand more.
I don't think there is any ground that the Bible has yielded to Science.
Certainly there are extra-biblical claims that certain religious organizations have made that they have had to back down on - like "the earth is the center of the universe" and so on, but nowhere does the Bible claim that (other than in poetic statements like even scientists may make about "sunrise" and "sunset" and other observer centric metaphors.)
The solar system, the shape of the planet, noah's ark. These are all things the bible/religion has yielded to science. Labeling these things "observer centric metaphors" proves my point. These were not considered metaphors at one time but that ground has been yielded to science.
Do you have a reference to where the Bible makes a false claim that is not merely a metaphor?
Here's what it has to say about the shape of the planet:
@stan You are loading the question. Envoking metaphors proves my point. When go down the road of saying various claims are only metaphor you've also given up all credibility on divine origins. It makes the bible useless since it becomes impossible to decipher what is meant to be metaphor and what isn't.
Anyways I name a very strong part of the bible that has been disproven by multiple disciplines in science. Noah's ark is a laughable tale.
Yet Jesus Himself gives it total credibility:
So, the second most important thing he has promised to do is "just as it was in the days of Noah."
On the one hand you claim that some miracles are "too small" and have some natural explanation. But it they get "too big" then they are "laughable".
I'll double down on you. There was a point in Joshua where the Lord stopped the earth from rotating (without sloshing the Atlantic ocean across Africa at 1000 miles per hour). No problem. He did just for Joshua's convenience in winning a battle. (Joshua 10:12-13.
And in another case he made the earth rotate backwards (without spilling a drop) just to provide an impossible, supernatural sign for King Ahaz.
Laughable, right? Unless you understand that God has the same kind of control over every particle of this universe as if it was a simulation that he can simply, pause, rewind, or even restart at any point in time.
@stan you are just getting desperate now. Are you saying you believe in the story of Noah because of the claimed magic for which your god is capable? Again I'll have to see a reason to believe your god even exists let alone has these magical powers you claim before I can consider that to be any sort of valid answer.
What I do know is that there is absolutely no evidence to corroborate the story of Noah and we have plenty of scientific evidence it would be impossible.
I get there by a different path.
So, I don't need any other evidence. Given that Jesus demonstrated over and over again that He had complete mastery over the laws of physics, I believe that God can make something as big as a global flood happen without leaving a trace.
I do understand that if someone just tosses the story of Noah's ark in your lap without all that background, you might be a tad bit skeptical. :o)
Not necessarily, the bible doesn't say exactly who god is, except his name, which certainly isn't "God". It's Yeweh, or Jehova, depending on the translation. Interestingly enough, the Sumerians wrote about this thousands of years before biblical times, speaking of an alien race called the Anunnaki, and a "man from the sky" who's name was the Sumerian equivelant of Yeweh. They said he added parts of himself to us using machines. Now the bible says god came from the heavens, so why on earth would he not be an alien? He's certainly not from earth. I don't necessarily believe any of this, just a point of discussion. I loooove CONTROVERSY
Um, because God tells us he is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End and that he existed before anything else was made. He made the universe, He is not part of the universe.
Now perhaps he has created other beings superior to us in our present form and not bothered to tell us, but they are not God.
Ahh the ancient aliens hypothesis. It certainly makes for interesting reading and cool sci-fi like Stargate.
Muy buen materia gracias por compartir
el gusto es mio
Hehehe... brilliant.
This could be another very interesting topic.
@gavvet -- what would you say to the argument that
666is actually an entropy 'percentage'? For instance, once 66.6% of a population local, regional, or global, seeks that entropy you mention, it begins the process of catastrophic destruction.Just a theory I've bounced around in my head for a while. Thank you for creating the opportunity to get it out!
Interesting, two thirds majority...
I may post about it... but is in John's revelations a lot that is astronomical. Check out non other than Sir Isaac Newtons... Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John
Its the last part where your post, and religion in general always goes wrong for me: only Jesus can be the catalyst for improving yourself. Unfortunately I find that utterly unpalatable; I am not living in hell, I have problems like the faithful, but I dont ask a magic man in the sky to solve the problems for me, I go through the process of living (or death (entropy)) and things move on.
I sincerely hope this comment isnt offensive to anyone, its not my intent. I have met some wonderful people of faith, and some wonderful people with no faith, the only difference is the faithful attribute everything good they have to the devine.
I'm with you, Jesus isn't the only catalyst for improving yourself. But, that's not what he's about. Jesus doesn't exist for us. He exists for him and his glory. So, the very concept of evaluating him on the basis of what he can do for us is backwards.
He does love us and wants us to be successful, but he wants us to serve him. Through that process we are improved, perhaps not in a situational sense, but in a spiritual and emotional sense.
'he wants us to serve him' I find to be very worrying, why would he want that? If you are a parent, do you want your children to serve you? I think not. You want your children to flourish and be happy, and if you really love them, then whichever path leads to their flourishing is just fine. Perhaps as a parent you want them to be a scientist, but they choose to become a lay clergyman, does that matter so long as they are following their own path, can be happy and live a fulfilled life?
Perhaps you fail to see the gravity of who we're talking about. Jesus is God. God must be worshipped and served. He commands it because he is the only One who deserves it.
Your analogy is correct to a certain extent because God identifies with us a Father and therefore the reason we want our children to succeed is because he imprinted that on us from his own character. But, primarily he is God, which means he is ultimate authority.
As a parent, I am authority for my children. If they disobey, I discipline because I love them too much to see them go wrong. But, I don't deserve their worship, because I am only their secondary authority. God deserves their worship and obedience as their primary authority and he delegates some of his authority to us as parents and leaders in society.
Bottom line: Jesus is God and God deserves worship. Regardless of what he does for you, he deserves worship because of who he is.
But if I dont worship him that should be ok with him, because if he really can see into my thoughts he knows its not a malicious or rebellious act. He knows I try to be a good person and the remorse I have when I hurt others.
Also, this life is essentially an audition for a position in the Lord's coming government and membership in His spiritual family. He needs people He can trust in those positions of responsibility. Unwillingness to enthusiastically acknowledge his authority is a key indicator that you can't be trusted with bigger things.
Perhaps you will enjoy a future discussion on exactly that matter... stay tuned.
@scalextrix That would work if he was flawed like we are. He's forgiving but only to the repentant. God cannot tolerate one tiny shred of sin or disobedience because He is holy. For him to permit sin would be unjust and He would cease to be God. From the moment we make our first mistake we're screwed.
People say, "but God is loving"! Which is true. But, just because God is love doesn't mean that trumps His other attributes like justice and holines.
The solution then was to send a worthy substitute. That's who Jesus is. The only fully human, fully God being to ever walk this planet. He kept the whole law and never once sinned before God. Therefore, God allowed him to be the substitute for our sin. If you want to talk about injustice, an innocent God-man died to pay your right penalty for disobeying God.
So, no, he's not ok with you just trying your best. He has suffered the ultimate injustice on your behalf to satisfy His wrath for your sin. You deserve that wrath. I deserve that wrath. Without Christ, we will all be subject to the eternal wrath of God.
I agree with your core concept only in so far as it relates the spiritual. Yes, Christ came to reverse spiritual entropy and restore order. But, the result of sin on the physical universe was an irreversible curse of disorder and chaos.
The only way to escape entropy is the utter destruction of this world and the establishment of a new one. That is the promise for believer in Jesus, to reign with him in the new world. In that sense, we most certainly are freed from ultimate spiritual entropy.
However, we still live in a cursed world run by consequences of evil actions. Therefore, our situational physical entropy is still our curse to bear. Christ saves our spiritual, and promises to save the physical in the end, but until then the curse is real.
I heard some Catholic tendencies in your post. Are you Catholic?
Nope, not catholic... mormon.
I see much of what happens in the physical world as metaphorical or a "type" of the spiritual... and I understand the spiritual with greater depth by looking for real world equivalents. So the sacrament is symbolic of what occurs spiritually and that's the most important part.
Just because you and I do discourse occasionally. My wife is a former mormon (LDS). Her two elderly parents both in their late 80s are mormons and live with us. Every sunday the elders or other members will come see them. They have trouble making it to the church. I am an atheist/deist. I NEVER challenge their beliefs even though I view quite a few things wrong with the mormon faith. If people invite me to discuss, I will do so, but I truly believe that we all have a path and it is wrong of me to try to force you off the one you are on and onto mine. My path could totally be the wrong one for you and you very well could be right where you need to be. So even though I DO debate with you, I completely respect your right to your faith. I would never have debated science and religion with you, but you opened the door. By now you might think you invited a vampire into your house. :)
Let me ask you this. I come across you sitting on a train track quite comfortable and happy. I know that a train is coming and share that information with you. You tell me that is my opinion and state plainly that you don't believe me.
Where does my obligation to try to convince you end? After one try? After seven?
The problem we have is that this is not about choosing alternative paths to alternative destinations. This is life and death. The people sharing this with you believe that with all their heart.
So when you ask them to respect your right to be wrong they are caught is a very severe conflict: Which is the greater evil? To ignore your right to be wrong or to let you die because of it?
Oh I do understand this. Yet this true of any cult as well. Yet at what population of followers does a cult cease to be considered a cult and become a religion? Even Christianity was viewed as a cult at one time, same with many of the different denominations.
Now let's go with a non-Christian cult. They all instill their followers with imperatives. Things they truly believe must be done. That does not mean they are correct, and it has nothing to with science proving/disproving something which is the only thing I am addressing. I am NOT telling you that your religion is wrong, or why you should or should not speak about it. I'm only stating that science as a tool cannot prove or disprove it simply to it not being possible to get beyond the hypothesis stage in the scientific method. That's it.
Let me address what you spoke of from a Christian point of view. (Yes I was raised Christian and have many wonderful debates with Christian priests, ministers, pastors, who were friends).
Free Will.
God gave man free will supposedly. This is actually a pretty common belief outside of Christianity as well.
So why would a man be so arrogant as to tell a person to give up that free will or be damned? If you don't agree with me you are damned, you'll go to hell, etc.
Saving me
Now let's take another perspective. It isn't always the case, but in many denominations the concept comes up of "What about people that our missionaries never get to reach, to teach about Jesus? When they die are they damned?" To which I usually receive an answer that when they die they will be asked by God (or Jesus) himself.
So that leads to the question of WHY a mere man would think he should be damning people? If you as a man ask the question of another man, and they do not embrace the faith they are damned. Yet had you left them alone and they were not challenged with that question it would be God himself who asked them.
Who do you think I am more likely to believe you, or God?
So does that not kind of indicate that men are damning other men by forcing this choice upon them?
Let me spin that to a positive now. Perhaps men are living a very vile and evil life, and you believe they are likely to go to hell instead of heaven, so if they are not course corrected they may not even get asked by God.
I know quite a lot about the origin of the concept of Heaven and Hell. The concept of Heaven did exist in the Judaism as far as I can find. Yet Hell did not. In fact it was not added to Judaism until after those of this faith encountered people of the Zoroastrian faith (which was quite powerful at the time). Up until this point there was a reference to The Satan but that was simply a helper to God. The Zoroastrians had a dualistic system with a good being and an evil one in conflict, and heave and hell. It was after this that Judaism began to incorporate Heaven and Hell, and the idea of an evil being opposed to God. You see this changing of the faith to incorporate beliefs from religion continuing in history, even after Christ. December 25, is known to not be the true day that Christ would have been born. It was a very prominant pagan holiday. It was changed as such. The now popular appearance of Satan... that comes from Hades, and Pan (Greco Roman religions). In many cases they didn't fight "pagans" by forcing them to christianity, they changed Christianity to be more compelling to the pagans to switch.
Pointing to a lot of errors made by humans and even so-called "Christians" throughout history says nothing about the veracity of Biblical Christianity. It is a standard none of us can meet.
To be sure, we are dealing with a needle of truth in a haystack of lies - one constructed by satan, "the father of lies" as Jesus put it.
We know more about satan and Hell from what Jesus taught than any other source. That's another great reason to take it seriously.
At to your point about free will. God is recruiting people to serve in His government and become members of His family. He needs people who will be loyal and faithful and trustworthy with that kind of power. So he sets up the situation we find ourselves in. Plenty of free will opportunity to walk away and join satan's side. Since God has made it clear what joining satan means, whose fault is it if that's the choice you want to make?
Again, choose your side. Hell is not a threat, it is the default consequence of not choosing to accept a position in God's kingdom.
Appeals to authority are meaningless to me.
If I do good in my life and help people and will not bow and worship and that dooms me, so be it. I would never worship anyone so petty.
EDIT: Clarify. Even if there is a God, I will NOT worship them. I consider it petty and human like. My acts and my works should be how I am judged. If someone judges me in other ways, their problem, not mine. I do not believe I need to WORSHIP anything. Even if something created the universe, constructed me with their own hands, I need not worship them. If I made an army of robots it'd be kind of silly to make them worship me. Worship is a petty human concept. Which is another reason I don't buy into so much of it. It requires accepting APPEALS TO AUTHORITY. I will not.
That's fine. Your loss.
I truly respect your position as well. Having faith is illogical. But, we all have faith in something.
The difference is, my faith compels me to warn others that their faith is destroying them. There cannot be more than one path to God. If there were, Jesus was useless and unnecessary.
There are many denominations of Christianity based on slight differences that are what Paul calls "disputable matters". We are all free to choose what makes sense to us. But that is not to say that you can stray arbitrarily far from the truth.
The only thing that matters is that we admit we can't meet God's standards and that He had to reach down and do it for us by suffering the consequences of our shortcomings for us.
That's it. All other religions (those made up by humans) continue to insist that there are things we can do to earn our own salvation. These are presumptive, arrogant and by their very nature offensive to God.
So, don't sweat the small stuff that divide us. Focus on the Only Thing that matters.
I see. I didn't realize Mormons held to a more literal interpretation of the sacraments (Christ internalized). Interesting.
The above post is probably the least of our disagreements. So, I'll leave it there. Interesting discussion!
They don't... this is my own personal metaphor that I consider as I ponder on the significance of the sacrament.
Why Jesus, and not say Zarathustra or Hercules and a few tens or hundreds of similar characters sunk into history?
The fact that European civilization is used Jesus, even though he was a preacher in the distant Jewish pastoral tribe, yet does not speak about his uniqueness.
Religion asks questions and doesn't answers on them at all.
For the most part questions are primitive and can captivate a person, who's too lazy to try to understand all by itself and delegates this to Superbeing - who knows all the best.
A science just answers the questions through observation and experiment.
So to say that "science is about the How - religion is about the Why" It is not quite correct, as for me.
The most atheistic book I've ever read is bible by the way.
Please don't try to mix the science with your personal hobby, such as religion - it's have nothing in common
No. History is the reason civilization 'is used Jesus'. The Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic church had a little bit to do with the way history unfolded. Jesus had something important to do with each of those. Care to disagree with that point?
I've flagged your comment for generally antagonistic debate style.
Unless you can give me a good reason for the following sentence, the flag will remain:
History is not a science, because it's just a collection of different opinions that's far away from truth and you can't check it by experiment
This is my opinion on the topic (A scientific basis for Jesus Christ Part II)
it has nothing in common with the science, but you have right to censore my opinion like you want.
How can you say that a book that starts out with the words, "In the beginning, God created..." is atheistic? It ends with John praying to Jesus as his God, "Even so, come..."
The last sentence is understandable. Consider, however, the order that you are able to study in all creation. Does it make sense for this to just "happen" without design? Or was entropy somehow outdone by chance? The very order of creation cries out for an Orderer, if you will, an original Originator.
Rightly understood, science is the study of the Creator. This does not prove that the Bible is the revelation of the Creator. But it would seem that to accept the idea that all this order developed out of disorder and chaos requires far more faith than to accept that there is a Maker to established the order and the laws that maintain it, from its origin and on as it entropies.
This idea is understandably comfotable for human mind - to think that there is some powerful, yet humanoid figure , that takes care of everything, and everything have sense and order.
You still can try find a lot of analogies in a terms of sciense and religion, but it's kinda fictional.
More fictional and less scientific than the idea that everything is just some blind luck that fell into order in total contradiction to entropy? Can you find one shred if science to back up your assertion?
@zaebars - yes that few thousands of years makes all the difference if a certain subset of humanity is the end product desired by that Creator. This is what the Bible reveals and is the type of thing that Science has no way to know.
I didn't talk about luck, you could look at theory of multiverse, for example
Do you realy think that thousands years of humanity existing on surface of this planet make any diference in a universe scale?
It's a fair question, @zaebars. Yes, I do. But that is because it's part of the design of the Creator. Otherwise, no, it wouldn't make any sense at all. If there is no intelligent purpose, then trying to make sense of any of it is, to at least some degree, senseless.
The multiverse is an interesting idea. It's still blind luck though, isn't it? I mean, everything just spontaneously happens?
"Nihilism rejects the distinction between acts that are morally permitted, morally forbidden, and morally required. Nihilism tells us not that we can’t know which moral judgements are right, but that they are all wrong. More exactly, it claims they are all based on false, groundless presuppositions. Nihilism says that the whole idea of “morally permissible” is untenable nonsense. As such, it can hardly be accused of holding that “everything is morally permissible.” That too, is untenable nonsense. Moreover, nihilism denies that there is really any such thing as intrinsic moral value. . . . Nihilism denies that there is anything at all that is good in itself or, for that matter, bad in itself" - Alex Rosenberg (Professor of Philosophy - Duke University)
After reading your paper on the absurdity of life without God, I soon realized that I had to become a nihilist. To act otherwise would inevitably reduce into an inconsistency. Nihilism is the logical conclusion of an atheistic worldview. Yet, nihilism is unlivable. Letter From An Atheist To Dr. William Lane Craig
I believe in a bigger power of God. We are far away from knowing it all through science. It may be many years if ever, we can prove everything. Christ taught us how to live and learn to love one another. Remember: When US was a Christian based nation how much better off we were. Now its too much hate. We must learn to live by the Bible again! Always seek the TRUTH!
I might be coming from a completely different direction than most, but I do find this argument interesting and maybe you wish to touch on it.
When figuring out whether or not we just evolved or were created, I think, well if we really are only dust then why would killing be wrong. It's just taking dust and making more dust. Why bother with any sort of law or truth?
And to those who do no not believe in a God or a hell or any sort of absolute truth I often think about the following.
There are two options.
I could be wrong and there is no God and there is no afterlife and everything ends after our last breath
Or I could be right and there is a heaven and hell and consequences for our actions.
I guess I feel that if I am wrong then I will have lived a life that helped a lot of people and made a long term impact on the world. But if I am right it has eternal consequences.
I no longer gamble but I like the odds where if I am wrong I lose nothing and if I am right I gain everything.
I'm sure I will receive some comments that attempt to refute this, but I think it is an interesting talking point and am happy to respectfully discuss it.
I like this way of thinking. Sometimes I have phrased it this way:
If a believer is wrong, she will never know.
If a believer is right, she will reap a great eternal reward.
If an unbeliever is right, he will never know.
If an unbeliever is wrong, he will reap a great eternal disaster.
Now, assign whatever probabilities you like to the proposition of who is right or wrong...
Then compute the expected value of taking one of these positions.
For the believer it is always positive.
For the unbeliever it is always negative.
Absolutely. And when I share my faith it is not in a way to be morally superior, but because I do care where people may end up eternally. It would actually be more unloving to never ever share my faith. But it is not my job to try to force someone to believe, but plant a seed of thought.
I enjoy learning about all faiths and respect many different thoughts and beliefs, but feel certain religions receive a terrible reputation based on the actions of a select few.
My favourite question is - Would you still believe in god if there was no reward of going to heaven at the end of it?
Its funny, but not a single believer has yet to give me astraight answer
I believe in God and I'm probably going to Hell. ;)
Here we shall agree =)
Absolutely. Believe and serve. Heaven is not the end game. God is supreme and deserves worship and is under no obligation to me at all. I am doubly indebted to him because he created me and I slapped him in the face by disobeying his law. So, I deserve death. The least I can do is serve God.
I also believe whomever God calls comes to Him - so if He called me with no benefit to me whatsoever then I would be compelled to obey.
Sorry, but i highly doubt that. You can say it now but facts are there to remaine.
Look at what Christ said - salvation through me - implying that salvation is the gift for believe
Look at the fanatic islamsits - they go for the job with the belief that they will go to heaven
Look at fabatic Jews - they believe because they, and only they are the chose once, and no one else will be saved at the end of the game
So whatever you say maybe true jsut for you, and maybe you are the one in a million, but for most believers (according to each instituion's religous manuscripts or books) - salvation in one way or another is the present for belief, and the main reason
No doubt there is a period along the growth path of a disciple where the motivation is carrot and stick. Just like what it takes to train a child to form good habits.
However, these days I would do anything for my mother out of love, even though there is not much more that she can do for me.
That is the way it is with God. Abba. Papa. Daddy.
Would you post on steemit.com... if there were no reward system in place?
But seriously faith in God is far more than just a hope for some future reward... that is perhaps only relavent when belief is very immature...
I am not a believer but I think you made a critical point. I think some people have a sense of spitituality, and some do not. Those who are spiritual are conditioned to find faith in a religion, and to them the world is unimaginable in a frame of reference without that religion. So I agree that the failthful are not failthful for a reward, but because they cant imagine any other way. For the non-spritual, the concept of living with a religion is equally un-imaginable. The problem comes when doctorine (either religious or not) tries to force these groups to pretend to do something in which they do not (cannot) believe.
Many modern religious leaders of many faiths preach tolerance of other faiths and the non-faithful, many on the secular side are happy to live with those of the religious persuasion. This only fails when intolerance prevails.
Preachers preach and teach from the begging of times.
If you are hearing that they preach about tolerance, then you are doing great. I hear the opposite, and there is no need to give me an example of how the Pope forgave Israel for the fact that they crucified Jesus... What?!
Where is tolerance? Thats pure disregard and disrespect to anothe religion.
For the fact of living along side religious persuaisin, no probs, read my comment to the topic starte. But thats not the point i was trying to make.
Respect =)
"the Pope forgave Israel for the fact that they crucified Jesus... What?!"
Are you implying Jesus wouldn't want them to be forgiven?
Yes i would post, as I would be writing a blog. I posted on facebook, VK, OK, and so on and so forth. In fact people wrote books and were burned for doing so by the church or other religious authorities.
So i dont think it has something to do with immaturity.
Having studied christianity, buddism, islam, judaism, bahaism and other religions i cm to lots of conclusions.
One of them is that believers belief becasue of the final reward (salvation will only be achieved if you believe in me).
Faith in God is not a bad thing, its a great thing in fact. But its absolutyl misinerpeted and corrupted.
One should I go to church whne Jesus said that buildings or any other physical entities have nothing to do with faith. The church (along with other institution of faith) are the most corrupt places i ever seen. They are hypocritical from the buttom to the top.
Why should I believe in 1 God, why not 20? If god or gods exists, who to choose?
Well each one (of the over 1000 known religions and over 100 000 thousnad known enteties and gods) states to believe in him only as he is the right one and he will save you (back to the reward)
what is heaven but a bribe, and what is hell but a threat?
Heaven is not a bribe, it's home. Hell is not just a threat. It's a prison, worst possible kind of prison. But it was not meant to be our prison. Place where you don't want to end but place where you can end without Jesus.
If that is all you understand them to be then that is all they will ever be to you... but if you engage with the concepts a little more deeply then there is a lot more there than meets the first glance.
Justice and grace. To my belief God allowed man to make his own decisions instead of forcing some sort of automotron love. Love cannot be forced or it is not love. Sin needed to be punished and according to the bible Hell is here because of a choice humans made not to follow the rules God gave. Heaven is not bribe, but a reconciliation with God through his sacrifice of his son who I believe was perfect and took on the sin of all. By believing that God did this and accepting it, he allows our many past sins and future sins to be washed away. That's not to say we can live as we wish and then at the end turn in some sort of get into heaven card.
I understand why it does not make sense to many people and there are many hypocritiacal christians who say one thing and do another. But to the best of my knowledge, I believe in my heart that heaven and hell are much deeper topics than merely a reward and a threat.
Straight answer. Yes.
I would.
The reward of heaven is not the only reason one believes.
But also without an afterlife what is the purpose of life? Are we more than dust that has evolved? If not, then why is there outrage about injustice when someone enslaves or hurts someone else? Would that not be dust engaging with more dust in a meaningless swirl of life?
I struggle to find what the meaning of life would be without believing there is something after this life.
Even without heaven as a reward for accepting Christ, one would still lead a life that served others even though it may not matter since without a heaven you would just die forever.
What pursuits would matter in life? Money? Status? Power?
I guess I would also pose the question back to you. Would you believe in God if you knew there was a heaven and would one day be held accountable for everything you have done in your life if you decided not to follow Christ?
You make a good point. I definitely appreciated your question @serejandmyself and respect your insight as well.
Thnaks, i think we all need to agree on disagreeing as it all going in circles. Thanks for the open answer
Yes absolutely. It is not my duty to change your beliefs, nor do I feel that anyone should impose upon another's beliefs. I think sharing your beliefs if a user asks or you feel you can respectfully contribute something to the conversation is what should be done.
Trying to "convert" someone gives an air of superiority. But if you share what you personally believe in a kind way, you will then let the person come to their own conclusion whether or not that turns out to be agreeing with out or not.
It is valuable to engage with many different beliefs and philosophies to shape your own and make you question why you believe what you believe.