What would the World be like if JESUS had never been Born?

Hi
Jahis4us wrote:


Not true. Some events in history can easily be backed up or discredited by science. Religious claims are especially easily prone to this examination. here are a few examples:

Christians claim the history of the earth only goes back 7000 years. Science has disproven that.

Christians claim there was a worldwide flood and only the animals aboard Noah's Ark survived.
Geology shows us it is very unlikely such a flood occured within the recent past that the bible claims it did. Archeology shows us using fossil records that animals species around the world have continously existed for millions of years. So not all life could have come from the Ark.

Claims that the Bible made accurate predictions of the future can be SCIENTIFICALLY examined. Most of these predictions have been shown, thru the scientific method, that they are too ambiguous to be evidence for true prediction.

Those are just a few

Greg

truth
Skeptic, I don't think you have shown that science has falsified historical claims; you have demonstrated that it can falsify mythological claims. The trouble with a "scientific history" is that historical events are one-time events, lacking the possiblity of being replicated for any kind of scientific rigor, no "if-then" predictions. We can only postdict, asserting that if a certain interpretation of the past is so (and history is hermeneutical, not experimental) then future findings (actually findings about the past, but future to the events being interpreted) will be consistent with it. Despite this, I do think that history is the queen of the social "sciences". All events--real events--occur in meaningful social/cultural contexts, and they occur as dynamic processes, not as formal relations between abstracted variables.

Actually, I think I demonstrated that science can falsify historical claims when those claims include anything that can be tested by science. Science gives evidence to history (or takes it away) all the time. The reason we know dinosaurs existed is because of science.
We know the age of the earth because of science.
We have an idea about how humans evolved using tools because of science.
I never claimed that all history can be tested by science. Some history is only eye-witness accounts and documents.
But many historical claims can be tested by science and they do not have to be mythological.

Greg

truth
Skeptic, yes, you did not claim that ALL historical assertions can be tested by Science. By history I am referring to the WRITTEN RECORD (historiography) of past human social, economic, and political events. YOU have been referring to the physical record of PRE-historical events.

My problem with the Jesus story, or I should say the crucifixion story is that it condones, or offers an example of self inflicted suffering as redemptive. There is nothing redemptive about self destruction and suffering. It is in fact a pathological adaptation. I recognize that the story is seen by many as something other than a story about martyrdom, but I can't see how it can be interpreted in any other way. As long as it's not used as an excuse for self destructive behavior, I suppose it's innocuous enough. However, there are plenty who take it quite literally. I for one would prefer a different story to depict themes such as maintaining an openness to the infinite or the concept of being forgiven. This particular story carries so much destructive baggage, I personally would like to see it discredited.

Lola, just think - if you get this thing going, in another 1,000 years 1/4 of the earths population may be going to the the House that Lola build (I guess that could be a house for the wealthy and a cafe for us po' folk)

I like the cafe. But most likely in a thousand years, christianity will be a minority. Doesnt the bible say that, theyll be in small numbers and basically treated like witches two hundred years ago. Its easy to say that since jesus himself had a similar fate, couldnt agree with the establishment. Actually that was the purpose of his teachings, to take power away from the establishment(rich) and give it to the people(poor). Sort of an enpowering of the weak one might say.

bongstar, and all it cost him (in the story) was torture, suffering and his life.

And BillW..........I don't want to build a house, I want to be rid of houses. I'd rather go play racquetball on Sundays. But any po folks who want to come over and join me are certainly welcome. Afterwards we can all go to Cafe 101 for food on me.

I dont think that it was worth the effort on his part, all in vain.

People suck, not all of us, but lots of us. That cannot be changed salvation. To me it seems like a cop out justification for people nowa days. "Oh, Im saved, so it doesnt matter how much I sin." Thats not what this is supposed to be about. It is supposed to be a way of life.

Theres too much to tell what was ment, too many points of views. But its nice to hear and talk about them. :wink:

Hello bongstar. We haven't met yet and I see you're a relatively new arrival. Nice to meet you and welcome to a2k

If Jesus had never been born then Golden Corral would be **** out of luck.

What is Golden Corral?

truth
A steakhouse in Rawhide, Arizona?

Re: truth


What, a Jesus steak house?
Please explain how this works?

truth
I'm guessing that you eat His flesh and drink His blood (wine).

Re: truth


What kind of an asuption is that? I hate wine, and what would his flesh be?

For me nothing in life has to do with that, except for the fact that Im trying to find out why people follow those beliefs.

truth
Bongstar, I was just making a tasteless (and not too funny) joke, referring to the Catholic mass where the wine and host (flat bisquit) are eaten and drunk as symbols of unification with Christ.

Re: truth


Oh I see, but that would be all to true.

I didnt get it because I dont know anything about Cathlicism, nor do I care to. Unless, of coarse, I start debating with Catholics. Theheheeehhe!

Bongstar, "communion" -- eating jesus' body (bread) and Jesus' blood (wine) -- isn't an exclusively Catholic thing. In fact, anyone who doesn't practice it in order to remember Jesus isn't following his instructions in the Bible.

In Reply to Skeptic
In response to SKEPTIC responding to me: If you read the entire paragraph of my posting on September 26, you will notice that I state that when establishing virility of an historical issue, evidence may or may not be scientific in nature.

Having said that though, I do stand by my statement that science can not prove or disprove historic events. Science at best is another piece of the puzzle.

sci·ence 1.a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Let's use one of your examples: What can science tell us about the age of the earth? Has it "proved" anything concerning the age of the earth?

Well science has observed that certain radioactive elements are decaying at what appears to be a constant rate and has identified some of these elements and established at what rate they are decaying today. That's what I call "science."

Now comes the problematic part. In order to use this to estimate the age of the earth, numerous assumptions must be made, including: 1.) the rock contained no daughter product atoms in the beginning, only parent atoms; 2.) since then, no parent atoms were either added to, or taken from the rock; and 3.) the rate of radioactive decay has remained constant.

Not one of these assumptions can be established, therefore, science has proved nothing concerning the age of the earth, except of course, the original obsevation, that certain radioactive elements decay. Everything else is FAITH because the assumptions cannot be proven.

Think about it, after less than a century of accurate observations we are expected to believe the radioactive decay has remained constant for billions of years? Give me a break. Maybe the assumptions are right, maybe they're wrong, who knows? The scientists don't! But to admit that
might call into question their role as High Priest of the Secular Humanist Religion.

Are you aware that one of the hottest debates in science today is over whether or not the speed of light is a constant (as has been assumed for centuries.) Barry Setterfield has done some groundbreaking research that appears to show that the speed of light is not constant but rather deteriorating. Why is that important? Science has established that radioactive decay is proportional to the speed of light. If the speed of light is slowing then so is radioactive decay and the whole theory of radioactice dating methods goes down the tubes.

Bottom line is science has its limitations. As Clint Eastwood's character in the Dirty Harry series once said, "A man's got to know his limitations." I can't prove the earth is 7000-10,000 years old. You (or science) can't prove the earth is billions.

As to your other examples, I challenge you to think about the assumptions behind the so called "proof"; i.e. Does a fossil really tell us anymore than what we directly observe? Or does a fossil tell that something just died and we have found its bone? After all "dinosaur "accounts are found in the Bible, mythology, and archaeology has discovered man's footprints embedded in dinosaur prints suggesting that there was a time when they coexisted.

Everything else is about asumptions and faith. You and I are two of a kind, just different assumptions.

My assumptions begin with God. Yours (or science's) begin with rates radioactive decay. The conclusions are about faith. I personally have no interest in worshiping at the feet of a god I created. I choose to worship the One who created me and gave Himself for me that I can spend eternity with Him.