Science Vs God?????

[Captain Vegetable]

P.S. "Belief in His (Jesus Christ's) divinity" is not enough to count yourself among the saved. You need a personal, intimate relationship with Him.

Just to clear that up.

[Master of 7s]

Originally posted by burgundy
I'm not going to pretend that I know more about the faith than you do, but I'm not quite grasping you.

Here's how I see it:

People of other faiths do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ.
The path to God runs through (and only through) belief of the divinity of Jesus Christ (excluding, arguendo, Jews).
Those who do not believe in the divinity of Christ cannot reach God.
Hell is eternal separation from God.
Thus, people who do not accept Jesus Christ as divine are going to Hell.

Am I wrong?

To quote our Lord:

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me." John 14:6

In other words "I am the gatekeeper, I am the Judge, and I am the Son of God. I decide who sees My Father and if you wanna see Him you gotta go through Me first."

We didn't make this up. The church merely parrots what Jesus Himself said. Truth be told, at the beginning of these things there was no such thing as Christianity or Christians. The pioneers were called "those on the Way" and the faith was simply called, The Way. There were no distinctions between Muslim or Jew or Gentile or whatever. You simply believed in the divinity of the one called Christ and were on The Way.

Being called or calling someone a christian or a "christ follower" was actually an insult until someone realized "Hey we ARE followers of Christ!"

You see the essence of Christianity is that Jesus is the key to everything. I don't care if you're Muslim, Zen Buddist or Hindu if you believe in your heart that Jesus Christ died for your sins on the cross at Calgary, was buried three days and rose again from the dead and confess this belief from your mouth you are saved.

But what does it say? "The word is near you, even in your mouth and in your heart"( that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." Romans 10:8-11

Did you catch that? Whoever believes in the divinity of Christ is saved. Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Gentile, male, female, old, young, cat, dog, WHOEVER. Religion was never a part of Jesus' teaching. Jesus HATED organized religion because of all the hypocrisy and greed of the church leaders (the Pharisees). Men imposed religious nonsense onto the teachings of Christ so you can't blame Him for how screwed up the Church is today. Jesus only taught men that they ought to love God and love each other and by doing so they could fulfill all the Sricptures.

"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" Jesus said to Him "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 22:37-40

[Captain Vegetable]

Rock-on, 7's!

You just keep getting better and better...maybe I should bow out and let you handle this?

[bbobb]

Originally posted by Master of 7s
To quote our Lord:

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me." John 14:6

Ok, I tried to stay out of this but I do need to bring this up. I just finished taking a class on the three Abrahamic religions, and I need to point this out. Of the Four Gospels of Christianity Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Mark was written first in 50 AD, Matthew and Luke were both written around 80 AD and John was written around 100 AD. This is a fact that you can do all the research on you want and find out that it is true. So I find it hard to believe that something written in a book 100 years after someone died is really what he said.

[Captain Vegetable]

Actually, bbobb, in light of recent research, John is believed to have been written prior to 100 BC, due to his banashment. I believe Nero was the only ruler who maintained banashment...and as such John's Gospel would have had to have been written during Nero's rule.

Let me check on exactly who the ruler at the time of John's banashment was. I'll get back to you.

Reguardless of when it was written, you'll not believe it to be the truth unless God reveals it to you as truth. I don't believe what's in the Bible arbitrarily. God leads me into my beliefs and my faith, and He has lead me into the belief that the Bible is His word, reguardless of when it was written.

It takes a great measure of faith, but God will grant you that faith should you be seeking Him and His truth.

P.S. It might not have been Nero who did the banishing...I confuse things sometimes. But I'll look into it like I said, so I can get the dates and names correct.

[bbobb]

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
Actually, bbobb, in light of recent research, John is believed to have been written prior to 100 BC, due to his banashment. I believe Nero was the only ruler who maintained banashment...and as such John's Gospel would have had to have been written during Nero's rule.

That doesn't make sense. How would the Gospel of John be written prior to Jesus' life and teachings? But as you said, it's the faith that's important. I just don't like the use of the Bible as fact, as it is written and translated by men and has tons of inconsistancies. I thinks there are some great points within that book that would improve the world alot if people would live by them, but it can most definately not be taken as facts.

EDIT

Also just to make things clear, I'm an agonostic with leanings towards monotheism. I don't believe in any of the given religions, but I do see alot of good in many of them, unfortunately many of the people who claim to be part of the said religions seem to miss/ignore alot of the points.

[burgundy]

7s: While it may be true that Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. are saved if they believe in the divinity of Christ, they cease to be Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. by definition.

[Master of 7s]

Originally posted by burgundy
7s: While it may be true that Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. are saved if they believe in the divinity of Christ, they cease to be Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. by definition.

Yes, that's very true when we are speaking of religion. But isn't the spirit and soul of a human being so much more than the religion the mind practices? Remember, Jesus preached no religion only love and love does not know such silly things as religion or culture or creed.

Love suffers long and is kind; love does not does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up (arrogant); does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, keeps no account of evil (doesn't hold a grudge); does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies they will fail; whether there are tongues they will cease; whether there is knowledge it will vanish away. 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

[Captain Vegetable]

Originally posted by bbobb
That doesn't make sense. How would the Gospel of John be written prior to Jesus' life and teachings? But as you said, it's the faith that's important. I just don't like the use of the Bible as fact, as it is written and translated by men and has tons of inconsistancies. I thinks there are some great points within that book that would improve the world alot if people would live by them, but it can most definately not be taken as facts.

And this is a perfectly valid way of approaching the Bible. The facts and historical acuracy of the Bible take a back seat to the message of Christ, and God's love for us.

P.S. I never made any indication that any of the gospels were written prior to Christ's coming...if I did through the use of a name or time period, then I most definitly have my facts mixed up...something I do often.

EDIT

Also just to make things clear, I'm an agonostic with leanings towards monotheism. I don't believe in any of the given religions, but I do see alot of good in many of them, unfortunately many of the people who claim to be part of the said religions seem to miss/ignore alot of the points.

I couldn't agree more.

[Hero]

Originally posted by rezo
Hero, if you don't question something in science because of a "stigma", then that is the error the person who isn't questioning. See Tracer's example of "Newton was always right until. . ./Einstein was always right until. . . " . That is to say, let them create their stigmas if they like. If it is at fault, circumstances will be found to prove it, and change will be necessary.

There's the rub though; if there are circumstances to prove A wrong, or at least put it into question, science still adopts A if A sounds less metaphysical than those theories which put doubt on it. Although Arkahm's (sp) Razor clearly says that the simplest answer is most likely the correct answer. Like I said before, I have a book which talks about this a lot, but it breaks down into this:

If scientific discovery were to make 'creation theory' more plausible than the one in a billion chance of chaotic creation, would science adopt this 'more likely' scenario? They don't; such ideas have already been tossed around, and many in scientific fields not only disregard the 'more likely' scenario, they vehemently fight against it, coming up with alternate 'theories' to the start of everything, the most popular being 'bubble universes.' Instead of considering intelligent creation, which we can't see, behind our beginning, they would rather try to construct and defend an idea in which billions of alternate universes and outcomes are, all of which we will never see. Believe in an infinite number of things we'll never see, or believe in one thing which we can't see? According to the Razor theory, you would believe in the latter, but science is more likely to adopt the former before even considering the other.

That's why I think science, at least in the most pioneering fringes, is more 'special interest' than anything. They don't care about the truth so much as how to shape the truth around their own biases and beliefs. If God were to come out and bite them on the rear, I believe if God were the 'most likely' explaination, science would grasp around for anything other than the most likely. Like I said, it's a search for truth, but colored by those who for the most part, either see no God or want Him dead to the public.