There was no Adam and Eve (genetics proves that ) . No garden of Eden , no talking snake , no tree of of the knowledge of good and evil . And definitely no Original Sin . No Job . No Jonah living in the belly of the whale . No Noah and the great flood (geology , archaeology , and genetics disprove that ) . No Exodus (Israeli archaeologists proved that in both 1949 and 1967 ) . No Moses . Even most rabbis do not believe in an historical Moses . And no talking donkeys . Couple that with the fact that Matthew ,Mark , Luke and John are just made up names and nothing is known about the actual writers of these texts . In fact none of the writers in the New Testament ever met Jesus . And do I need remind you that Jesus lied about when he would return ? He said that some of the people alive while he was speaking would be alive when he returned . Unless there are some 2000 year old people still running around then he indeed lied . I fully support your right to believe any nonsense you choose to believe but don't act like it is actual truth or proof .
Science doesn’t negate any of this. Science and religion move in alternate universes of discourse. Chemistry tells us what the chess pieces are made of, and physics tells us one piece cannot be in two places at one time, but neither chemistry nor physics compels a player to move 15. e4-e5 or why that is a good or bad move. Richard Reti tells us why it’s a good or bad move, without knowing anything about physics or chemistry.
Same with science and religion: science explains how things happen, religion gives people a reason (exhorts people) to act morally, by teaching people what is good or bad. It just happens that the OT was written in an allegorical style which people 2-3,000 yrs ago falsely interpreted as a kind of true history. Read it as you would Hänsel und Gretl, and there’s no problem about it; just remember that witches don’t really exist (despite Ex. 22:18).
Science doesn’t negate any of this. Science and religion move in alternate universes of discourse. Chemistry tells us what the chess pieces are made of, and physics tells us one piece cannot be in two places at one time, but neither chemistry nor physics compels a player to move 15. e4-e5 or why that is a good or bad move. Richard Reti tells us why it’s a good or ...[text shortened]... and there’s no problem about it; just remember that witches don’t really exist (despite Ex. 22:18).
You are very wrong . And if you truly need a religion to act morally then you have a whole other set of problems.
Science doesn't negate religion but it can disprove certain claims made by religions, such as a global flood, 6,000 yr age of the earth, fully-formed humans suddenly appearing on earth rather than evolving from ape ancestors, etc.
@caissad4said There was no Adam and Eve (genetics proves that ) . No garden of Eden , no talking snake , no tree of of the knowledge of good and evil . And definitely no Original Sin . No Job . No Jonah living in the belly of the whale . No Noah and the great flood (geology , archaeology , and genetics disprove that ) . No Exodus (Israeli archaeologists proved that in both 1949 and 1967 ) ...[text shortened]... right to believe any nonsense you choose to believe but don't act like it is actual truth or proof .
Maybe you should wait another 1000 yrs and make this post again, when you are sure. As far as I can remember scientists and researchers keep changing their minds about just about everything from health to the origin of the universe. Youall need more time to come to the same conclusions religious people have already reached with divine help. Take your time .. we understand and we will wait for you guys to catch up. I mean .. like you people still arguing about how many genders there are ... lol 😆
@vivifysaid Science doesn't negate religion but it can disprove certain claims made by religions, such as a global flood, 6,000 yr age of the earth, fully-formed humans suddenly appearing on earth rather than evolving from ape ancestors, etc.
Science negates only a literalist interpretation, as if these were factual claims. They were not intended as a factual history of what happened. There were intended to exhort people to comply with the Commandments: 'Do this or God'll do a number on you and all your descendants.'
Science more often than not does not and, indeed, cannot negate people's faith. In that respect, religionists are on a hiding to nothing framing their religions as science's competitors.
@caissad4said In fact none of the writers in the New Testament ever met Jesus . And do I need remind you that Jesus lied about when he would return ? He said that some of the people alive while he was speaking would be alive when he returned .
What do you think the actual writers of the New Testament, several hundred years after Jesus death and his obvious non-return, were referring to when they wrote that particular text?
@caissad4said There was no Adam and Eve (genetics proves that ) . No garden of Eden , no talking snake , no tree of of the knowledge of good and evil . And definitely no Original Sin . No Job . No Jonah living in the belly of the whale . No Noah and the great flood (geology , archaeology , and genetics disprove that ) . No Exodus (Israeli archaeologists proved that in both 1949 and 1967 ) . No Moses . Even most rabbis do not believe in an historical Moses . And no talking donkeys .
The Bible is littered with analogies and hearsay accounts of various super-natural beasts flying, talking, ruling and doing other atypical things. Most Christian’s who are not of the “the Bible is literal or it is nothing” zealot mindset, also don’t believe most of those things you list were real either.
Perhaps you were coached or manipulated into believing they were real when you were a Christian yourself and you now feel that trotting this out in a disparaging tone is somehow a vicarious payback for being duped?
@divegeestersaid What do you think the actual writers of the New Testament, several hundred years after Jesus death and his obvious non-return, were referring to when they wrote that particular text?
They quoted Jesus directly The actual writers put in 2 entirely separate birth narratives . One of the narratives is clearly a lie . Manmade nonsense is the answer .
@divegeestersaid The Bible is littered with analogies and hearsay accounts of various super-natural beasts flying, talking, ruling and doing other atypical things. Most Christian’s who are not of the “the Bible is literal or it is nothing” zealot mindset, also don’t believe most of those things you list were real either.
Perhaps you were coached or manipulated into believing they were ...[text shortened]... ow feel that trotting this out in a disparaging tone is somehow a vicarious payback for being duped?
Sorry to disappoint , but I am not angry at your god . I cannot be angry at something which I believe does not even exist .The analogy and hearsay argument is bogus . Are you really saying that most Christians do not believe in Adam and Eve , garden of Eden , talking snake and the core of Christian belief , Original Sin ???? Christianity is a nonsense manmade religion followed by ignorant nonsensical people .
@caissad4said Sorry to disappoint , but I am not angry at your god . I cannot be angry at something which I believe does not even exist .The analogy and hearsay argument is bogus . Are you really saying that most Christians do not believe in Adam and Eve , garden of Eden , talking snake and the core of Christian belief , Original Sin ???? Christianity is a nonsense manmade religion followed by ignorant nonsensical people .
Mind like a steel trap: closed and very tightly sprung shut.
@caissad4said They quoted Jesus directly The actual writers put in 2 entirely separate birth narratives . One of the narratives is clearly a lie . Manmade nonsense is the answer .
1) How do you know they “quoted Jesus directly”?
2) How could they have “quoted Jesus directly” if they didn’t personally meet him, as you claim?
@caissad4said Sorry to disappoint , but I am not angry at your god . I cannot be angry at something which I believe does not even exist .
I see what you did there…
I didn’t say nor even imply that you are angry at mine nor anyone else’s version of God. What is did propose is that as someone who has been caught up in some church or sect of Christianity in the past, then perhaps all the stuff you posted in your OP is about your projected anger at being duped.
Science Negates All of Abrahamic Religions
16 Jun '23 11:13
Back to Top