Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

Sure it is. God decides who goes to Hell but we decide who we kill. God's wisdom and justice is perfect while ours is flawed. We can kill the wrong person but God will not send the wrong person to Hell.

Ah, yes... The old famous "Kill them all. God will know his own." logic... My favorite!

Ah, no...I think somehow you completely missed what I tried to say. I don't know how you got that from what I wrote. If you look back you'll see that I was responding to a question that asked what the difference was between the attitude of "kill them" and "let them go to hell" Somehow you came up with "kill them all and let God sort them out

 

[Kevrumbo]

It has often struck me that those who insist on trying to merge science with religion are those of the weakest faith. I would assume those with the strongest would be content within their faith to let the folly of science proceed apace, secure in their knowledge that all those bespectacled geeks in lab coats cutting up frogs on foundation grants would be learning the 'lake of fire crawl' (christian mythology end game) in the end. It seems a strong desire to reconcile science with their mythology/faith that drives these folks.

"Science's tools will never prove or disprove God's existence. For me the fundamental answers about the meaning of life come not from science but from a consideraton of the origins of our uniquely human sense of right and wrong, and from the historical record of Christ's life on Earth" --Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (Time Magazine 9/15/05).

(Mods, can we close this thread now?)

 

[Thalassamania]

and from the historical record of Christ's life on Earth" --Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (Time Magazine 9/15/05).

A historical record, which, was amply demonstrated earlier in the thread to be nonexistant.

 

[Kevrumbo]

http://users.binary.net/polycarp/jesus.html

. . .This lack of secular reports should not be too surprising for modern Christians. First, only a small fraction of the written records survived those twenty centuries. Secondly, there were few, if any, journalists in Palestine during the time of Jesus. Thirdly, the Romans saw the Jewish people as merely one of many ethnic groups that needed to be tolerated. The Romans held the Jewish people in low regard. Finally the Jewish leaders were also eager to forget about Jesus. Secular writers only took notice after Christianity became popular and began to disturb their lifestyle.

Even though early secular reports on Jesus may have been rare, there are still a few surviving references to Him. Not too surprisingly, the earliest non-Christian reports were made by the Jews. . .

 

[Thalassamania]

Read the thread. Historical proof of the existence of an individual requires two contemporary cross-references, for Jesus there are zero. Try and rationalize that away however you want, it doesn’t matter, once you’re through, the facts still remain.

 

[Kevrumbo]

Read the thread. Historical proof of the existence of an individual requires two contemporary cross-references, for Jesus there are zero. Try and rationalize that away however you want, it doesn’t matter, once you’re through, the facts still remain.

Don't need to, nor will I read the previous 905 postings on this thread. . .

By your logic then, a billion Chinese have no basis for following the teachings & philosophy of Confucius and Lao Tzu because there are no "contemporary cross-references"? And therefore Confucianist and Taoist Traditions are based on hearsay?

While useful in Adjudication, your criterion is unreasonably harsh and cannot be fairly applied in disproving the existence of historical Jesus. In fact by extension, your argument generally wipes out the existence of many famous historical figures of Antiquity.

 

[Robert Phillips]

Josephus (c. 37 - 100) and names matching Talmud
Suetonius (c. 69/75 - after 130)
Phlegan (c. 55-?)
Celsus the Platonist (Greek writer in 2nd century)
The Talmud was written in the 6th century so again not contemporary with events.
Pliny writing in 111 ce about the followers of Christ is not secular evidience of an historical Jesus.
Would any real secular evidence prove that he was the Son of God sent down to save us from sin?
Does Confuciounism have an eschatology?

 

[Kevrumbo]

. . .However, the requirement for absolute proof ignores the fact
that there is a category of "sufficient evidence." In logic, there
is deduction and induction. Deduction is drawing a conclusion based
on facts. It is reasoning from the general to the specific.
Induction is process of drawing general principles from specific
facts. It is from the specific to the general. Often times, we use
deductive and inductive reasoning to arrive at conclusions about
events in history. In so doing, there is no requirement
of "extraordinary evidence." The evidence is simply examined
contextually; that is, it is examined according to the genre in which
it fits. This is what I mean:

We do not apply observation, experimentation, and repetition to
the subject of Napoleon's existence. The genre, history, does not
fit that methodology. Yet, the skeptic will sometimes require that
experimentation and repetition be applied to Jesus' resurrection,
thereby, misapplying evidential and logical analysis.

Furthermore, we cannot ascertain all things with absolute
certainty. We cannot, for example, prove that Alexander the Great
(356-323 B.C.) ever lived by observing him. But, we have ancient
writings from eyewitnesses concerning his existence. Skeptics
readily believe in Alexander the Great without involving the
scientific method and without requiring "extraordinary evidence" yet
they will require it of Jesus' existence. . .

from: http://www.mail-archive.com/mythfolk@yahoogroups.com/msg00612.html

Would any real secular evidence prove that he was the Son of God sent down to save us from sin?

Other than the Realtime Second Coming, probably not. That's a another matter all together, one of Faith.

 

[Divmstr223]

I'll weigh in on this discussion and add my .02

My firm belief is that we evolved into what we, as humans, are. I am not a religious person and I do not believe in a higher power. Can I prove to you that science explains our existance? Nope. Can you prove to me that there is a God and he/she put us here? Nope. It's an answer that none of us will ever know. To offer ones opinion on what they believe is one thing, to argue your side is plain silly. This is an arguement that cannot be won.

Believers will always say that their "faith" is all they need as proof. Us non-believers will question the existance of Adam and Eve and the validity of the Bible etc....

In the end, we each have squat to show for proof....You'll know when you die!

Until then, we evolved into what we are IMO....how this whole universe came to be..who knows? who cares? I'm here.

 

[Kevrumbo]

Hear, hear Divmstr223!

"Before we wake, we cannot know that what we dreamed does not exist. Before we die, we cannot know that death is not the greatest joy"