A War On Science - SBS 8:30 28th Jan 07

[Doug]

Excellent example. Almost certainly a myth and legend, like the rest of the Bible.

And now for a more informed approach:

Much of the Bible is concerned with the Christ. myth???? no, there is independent testimony by at least one Historian of the time. Research Antiquities of the Jews book 18 chapter three verses one-three.(Josephus, a Jewish historian and Roman citizen through adoption by the Emperor Flavian, and not a Christian).

I can agree that Astronomers are waisting their time trying to identify the 'Star of Bethlehem'. The text clearly shows it to be other than celestial. If they bothered to gather all the information available, no such search would ever have been conducted.

[CoombellKid]

Any chance it could be a plain old nova

The chat on SNP around Xmas time, that it may of been a conjunction
of 2 or more planets, but that would only last several plus hours at best.

I always had a problem with Marry's pregnancy, was it really adultery.

regards,CS

[Doug]

Well there is only one reference to the 'Star of Bethlehem' so regardless of belief or not, it should be understood in the context of that account.
Ok, Matthew ch 2 v9:" When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was." Think about it; not even the Moon could be said to 'stand over' a particular place. An object that was perhaps no higher than 100 meters might be said, seen to come to rest over a certain place. That disqualifies comets, nova, planetary conjunctions, meteors, Asteroids and even high altitude weather balloons .

I always had a problem with Mary's pregnancy, was it really adultery.

Not as much a problem as Mary did I reckon.
Well I suppose the question acknowledges the fact of the pregnancy; that is a helpful sign . Again, taking the account at face value, why could not the creator (assuming His reality) arrange such a comparitavely simple thing? But maybe the whole thing is just myth, so Mary's pregnancy would have to be myth along with her suspected adultery.

[xelasnave]

Good morning everyone is it not a wonderful day .
Thank you Doug for sharing your views.
Doug my worry is that Jesus and the events of that time were recorded many years after those who could offer input were long gone. Given that humans tend to pick out what they like and disregard what they don’t like I see that aspect as possibly taking away from the credibility of the facts recorded.
I keep my mind open to the possibility that by the time the facts were laid down the story could have changed .
But the issue here should not be one of it did it did not approach there should not be a war waged by on side against the other unless a side shows signs that they can not entertain the principle that there may well be another view .
Religion can’t use science to justify things on a selective approach nor can science do similar and it was the way science in this case..not science but purporting to be science.
On the many points you raise you have only one reference book (which is a collection of many books with many folk offering input to combine them is a mission statement).
Faith and fact may not be in the same boat .
Your approach interests me and I enjoy the insight as to how others can view the world .
What I find the most difficult thing to accept and the reason I made my comments re the cop out by folk purporting to be scientists why the need when investigating the Universe when confronted with a brick wall only one explanation can be put forward and forgetting that science took us to that place then the matter can only be explained that that’s where Gods hand did the work.
I was a believer but lost my faith because fair and reasonable questioning was met with ...the bible says it happened this way or that so your perceived inaccuracies can put to one side .. don’t raise your fair and reasonable questions ..Accept something that defies common sense move forward on faith alone.. I am not that smart but I am smarter than that .
Having said that I believe I use Christian principles but when looking deeper into my belief I realize I have taken the parts I like and dropped the parts I don’t like ... and that was what I was trying to point out as the difficulty of taking history a couple of generations after the event and proclaiming it as fact.. could others suffer as similar condition as I have outlined . I am not trying to question your faith I would be the first to support it.. without faith that we count for something one has to be very strong to think of reasons for going on, however looking out there and imagining further still I find it difficult to see it was all made for us... I want to believe it was all made for us..me personally in fact but I would be prepared to consider that maybe it just “is” and that we just “are”... a disturbing prospect for those who need a reason … are e humans the centre of the Universe? Maybe just maybe we are not .
Again I think the matter of concern is the hijacking of science by those wishing to present their views as the only possibility... do that and if there was a God that gave us reason I think he would be horrified that we used our gift so unwisely.
I think one can question any man who says he is God today I so can not understand why when someone says it back then it makes it acceptable today, I think one can question any man who says he knows he is right to the exclusion of any other views available irrespective of their merit.
Hope the original observation I tried to make can be looked at and considered rather that being dismissed as nonsense. I think my observation does not say don’t have faith but simply don’t run to God if you cant think of the answers.. look at that one along the lines of what it is ..we don’t know..offerring God as the answer to what happened on the other side of the big bang for example is simply a cop out based on religion not science.
I like the expression we can agree to disagree it worries me when that can’t end discussions such as we are having here. I am supportive of all approaches and I encourage you to give that approach a go not withstanding your faith which I will not question but accept as your faith and belief.
Also if we get too hard on each other the moderators are placed in a perplexing situation and will closes the thread and each person then can not share their thoughts and that would be regrettable .
Alex

[CoombellKid]

Originally Posted by Doug

Not as much a problem as Mary did I reckon.
Well I suppose the question acknowledges the fact of the pregnancy; that is a helpful sign . Again, taking the account at face value, why could not the creator (assuming His reality) arrange such a comparitavely simple thing? But maybe the whole thing is just myth, so Mary's pregnancy would have to be myth along with her suspected adultery.

Well the old saying goes, and maybe where it comes from... "You shouldn't
always believe what you read" or something like that.

regards,CS

[Doug]

Rob I think there is a lot of truth in what you say. My point was that it is a waist of time to speculate on half a report. Not trying to convince you of anything in particular. I just can't see the wisdom in taking any written record to be a smorgasbord from which to pick and choose; that's all. For example, if I report that I saw a red car being driven down the road, either accept it or reject it as you choose, but don't settle for just the fact that I might have seen a red car and speculate about if it was parked in someone's driveway or in a used car lot.
cheers,
Doug

[Doug]

G'day Alex, you said :

Doug my worry is that Jesus and the events of that time were recorded many years after those who could offer input were long gone. Given that humans tend to pick out what they like and disregard what they don’t like I see that aspect as possibly taking away from the credibility of the facts recorded.

I think you are referring to the gospels. I am referring to a secular historian.
If we can't place some credibility in the work of historians...... .

You went on to say:

On the many points you raise you have only one reference book (which is a collection of many books with many folk offering input to combine them is a mission statement).

Alex I am simply responding to points raised by others am I not? PeterMo raised the issue of ages of things being faked. (not that he was personally asserting that) The allegation of faked ages is based on reference to what?
The book of beginnings:Genesis. Should I then go off and quote Beatrix Potter or Shakespear?
Again, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone about anything other than the need to be logical rather than emotional. I say logical rather than emotional (or irrational) because if a person wants to criticize God, then logically they must hold Him to be apart from man and allow for the fact that He must necessarily be an entity beyond human experience. That does not mean a person must accept His reality in their heart, just not treat Him as another man, which would be an absurd position to take would it not?

Alex you go on to say:

I was a believer but lost my faith because fair and reasonable questioning was met with ...the bible says it happened this way or that so your perceived inaccuracies can put to one side .. don’t raise your fair and reasonable questions ..Accept something that defies common sense move forward on faith alone.. I am not that smart but I am smarter than that

Frankly Alex it seems to me that your faith was stronger than your fellows. It takes a lot to go against the tide, and only an honest person can admit that there are a few discrepancies where plainly there are! But that doesn't bring the whole lot down like a card castle unless you you have built a card castle instead of a solid edifice. But I wander off track I think.

cheers,
Doug

[xelasnave]

I think in truth Doug my problem is more with religion than with God my problem is more with man than God my problem is more with me than with God .
You alert me to the possibility that I have stopped seeing him as God but as you say like one would see another man I cant go deeper than that.
Thank you for your wisdom it is not lost on me I can assure you .
alex

[PeteMo (Pete)]

Hi Alex, Doug
Does that make me more normal if I'm not considered as a fundamentalist? I bascially see the science and faith debate today as the Church reaping what it sowed when it persecuted scientists. Copernicus was a man of God, a Canon in the church, yet he would have been tortured and burnt at a stake if he had voiced his findings. I've read the Bible at least twice over, using several translations and cannot find a verse anywhere that says "And the Lord God made the Sun go round the Earth". Most of Jesus's rebukes were against the so called religious leaders of His day, for taking the letter of the law instead of the spirit of it. I dare say He would have the same to say of the Church in the Middle Ages and now.

The Geneisis account is strikingly similar to the modern day scientific account, which makes it all the more remarkable, considering Moses had no modern sciences like we do. Neither does Genesis rule out Macro Evolution, Aquatic Ape, Explosive Evolution etc or any combination of these as the process used. Genesis does state that man was made from something that already existed. I once came across a literal translation 'man was made in the clay'. I don't rule Macro Evolution out because it's only been going for about 150 years or so, whereas astronomy today is the culmination of several millenia of ideas/discoveries across diverse cultures. Even now, when we all look at the same universe we draw conficting conclusions. Some are convinced we live in a closed universe, others are equaly convinced it is an open universe.

ArgoNavis looks like you are right about the 'Star' of Bethlehem, as no star or comet seems to account for the phenomena. The comet idea lost ground when it was discovered that some planetary conjunctions took place around the time. I don't know about a Supernova, as I would have thought someone would have detected the remnants of it. The Conjunctions and Occultations, whilst not being astronomically spectacular (although one was), would certainly have been astrologically spectacular. The word 'Magi' translated as 'wise men' can mean 'Astronomer/Astrologer'.

Rob I understand most people's reservations about a book written after the events. There are less than 25 years between the crucification and Paul's letter to the Thessalonian church written around 51 AD. The gospels were written between 60 AD and 70 AD, although some recent studies that suggest they may be even ealier. The earliest surviving part of the New Testament is a fragment of John's gospel AKA the John Rylands Papyri, written in Coptic and dated between 110 AD to 140 AD, which at most is only 70 years after the original. Of the 11 remaining disciples, only John died of old age, the rest were executed/martyred. As the leaders of the church faced growing persecution from the Roman empire, the need to write eye witnesses accounts intensified.

I am wholly indebted to the scientists who discover these documents, painstakingly restore them and preserve them before we can translate them. I therefore have no issue with science and faith, but appreciate that others do.

[xelasnave]

While one seeks to prove something others will seek to prove it is not. It would be a sad day when there is not a defence to the prosecution as it were.
I hope that is fundamentaly correct.
alex

[xelasnave]

or live and let live . You are OK mate
alex

[Doug]

The word 'Magi' translated as 'wise men' can mean 'Astronomer/Astrologer'

Hmmm, well it is the word (Magus) from which we get the word Magician.
They were priests of the Zoroastrian religeon (founded in Persia, and mentioned in Daniel). They travelled around in groups much larger than the supposed three. But yes, they were astrologers among other things.

[xelasnave]

Consider two statements one made 50 years ago and one today and think about the difficulties of recording anything with certain acuracy.
"I have had this joint but I am gay"
and
"I have had this joint but I am gay"
one is an expression of disgust with a place and description of happiness yet the other not really very long after refers to drug use and sexuality.
So I can see the difficulties the scholars must have had working thru it all .
alex

[Doug]

Alex the statement from 50 Years ago ;"I have had this joint but I am gay"
was part of additional text. "I have had this joint but I am gay, in spite of the ridiculous goings on there, I have much happiness and contentment in my new surroundings."
The statement from recent times + additional text: "I have had this joint but I am gay so I fear it is only a matter of time now before the effects of my lifestyle will impact on my health."
Context is a great Alli for those who wish to interpret things. 'One liners' belong in third rate American (comedy?)


your witness.

[avandonk]

All you poor pathetic people this is a wake up message. YOU are responsible for your decisions in life. Not some deity that looks over your shoulder to see if you have sinned. All the preceding diatribe leaves me angry at the lack of clear thinking of supposedly educated people.

We do not live in the dark ages anymore, or do we? To even waste time on arguing about primitive beliefs and then compare to scientific understanding just beggars belief.

We may as well argue about how many angels can dance on a pin!

I refuse to even argue with primitive beliefs and people that base their lives on fictional accounts that were written four hundred years after the events.

Bert

[Doug]

Bert posts:

YOU are responsible for your decisions in life. Not some deity that looks over your shoulder to see if you have sinned.

That is the message of most religions. People are responsible for their own actions. The Agnostic atheist types say no one is responsible for their actions cause they just evolved that way and things will get better as time goes on.............apparently they don't read the newspapers

Then there are those who claim to be unaccountable because their daddy would't take them to see the circus when they were young.

[Doug]

I forgot to mention those poor unfortunates who were born with bank robber genes and others with homicide genes. Even the Jewish priests had their Levi's.couldn't help themselves

[iceman (Mike)]

I think this thread has reached it's end. Nothing new is being brought to the table that hasn't been discussed over the last few threads on this in the past few weeks.