Amputee Healings?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
441

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Our good friend push insinuated that many scientists were religious, and he’s wrong. That’s all. >>>[/quote]You mean the fuller the view man gets of His creator’s revelation the more independent he proclaims himself? NO WAY!!! Actually that’s about right on schedule.
[/quote]

Anyway the statement doesn’t say anything about anything.

Scientists don’t believe in something that cannot be observed or measured. This is news? If all the scientists on Earth suddenly throw themselves on the ground, repent and praise the Lord God before rushing to the nearest river to be baptized it would still say nothing at all as to the actual existence of God. Same thing if not a single one of them believed in him. More non sequiturs.

445

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
You’ve admitted there were spurious and fraudulent letters written during this time, yet none of them were pointed out by those who supposedly knew better.[/quote]

Actually I never did, most of these fraudulent letters came out during the second century. So…not the same time. And, not all the letters not taken were fraudulent. They just weren’t divinely inspired.
[/quote]

If they weren’t divinely inspired, weren’t written by the person they claimed to be written by, and were historically false, what else were they if not fraudulent?

Why do you accept that false letters could have been written during the second century, but not during the first century? [/quote]

Um…what? Not all of the letters not taken were written by someone not of the name sake. I’m thinking of the proto-evangelium of James. It’s a regular book and it is most of it is historically accurate, but there are parts that can be profitable to a Christian.

Other things like the Didache come to mind as being written by who it is claimed to be written by, is historically true, but just is not divinely inspired.[/quote]

Are you aware of the letters written during this time that were outright fraudulent and historically false?

You referred to the Gospels as being shining examples of historical truthfulness, so it made me wonder how much you know about the origins of those books.

446

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< men are capable of advancing knowledge using the scientific method, and without the need for a supernatural being to exist.[/quote]THEY ARE?!?!?!? Good heavens. I take it all back.
[/quote]

Let me know what you think of this, please.

http://clearsight.businesscatalyst.com/the-enlightenment-of-jesus.htm
[/quote]

Jesus always knew who he was, it didn’t take baptism for him to know.[/quote]

Then how do you explain Luke 2:52?[/quote]

Luke 2:40. Jesus was filled (not half-way, but filled) with wisdom. Moreover, Jesus increased not unlike the sun who increases from morning to midday in brilliance. Although the sun does not increase in brilliance, it seems so to men.

This would be the same for Jesus, this is a generalized over look of it. It goes much deeper, but I don’t feel like writing a research paper on it at the moment.

Jesus was full of wisdom from conception. The growing in stature and wisdom was what men saw in Jesus. [/quote]

Except the scripture says Jesus grew in stature and wisdom, not that men incorrectly thought he was growing in stature and wisdom.

447

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Shouldn’t your love for god unite all believers?[/quote]

Sadly, this is perhaps the truest statement ephrem has made.

But ephrem, for life, etc., have you ever stopped to wonder why so many of the greatest scientist in history were in fact either practicing Jews or Christians?

[/quote]

Have you ever wondered why there is a direct correlation between scientific progress and disbelief in supernatural beings?[/quote]

No need to wonder. It never happened - EXCEPT in the minds of those who have faith in their new “religion.”[/quote]

From Wiki:

Many studies have been conducted in the United States and have generally found that scientists are less likely to believe in God than are the rest of the population. Precise definitions and statistics vary, but generally about 1/3 are atheists, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 have some belief in God (although some might be deistic, for example). This is in contrast to the more than roughly 3/4 of the general population that believe in some God in the United States.[/quote]

Yawn

So what? Are the 1/3 who believe in God not “true” scientists? Tell me, O Church of the Scientific Method member.[/quote]

Scientists are subject to social programming and human biases like anyone else. Their training in the scientific method makes it easier for them to be objective, but it doesn’t guarantee they will be. I was a believer for many years, despite being trained in the scientific method.

I was addressing the false insinuation that most scientists are believers. They aren’t.

449

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Shouldn’t your love for god unite all believers?[/quote]

Sadly, this is perhaps the truest statement ephrem has made.

But ephrem, for life, etc., have you ever stopped to wonder why so many of the greatest scientist in history were in fact either practicing Jews or Christians?

[/quote]

Have you ever wondered why there is a direct correlation between scientific progress and disbelief in supernatural beings?[/quote]

No need to wonder. It never happened - EXCEPT in the minds of those who have faith in their new “religion.”[/quote]

From Wiki:

Many studies have been conducted in the United States and have generally found that scientists are less likely to believe in God than are the rest of the population. Precise definitions and statistics vary, but generally about 1/3 are atheists, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 have some belief in God (although some might be deistic, for example). This is in contrast to the more than roughly 3/4 of the general population that believe in some God in the United States.[/quote]

Yawn

So what? Are the 1/3 who believe in God not “true” scientists? Tell me, O Church of the Scientific Method member.[/quote]

Scientists are subject to social programming and human biases like anyone else. Their training in the scientific method makes it easier for them to be objective, but it doesn’t guarantee they will be. I was a believer for many years, despite being trained in the scientific method.

I was addressing the false insinuation that most scientists are believers. They aren’t. [/quote]

Nobody insinuated such. You made an absurd remark about a so called correlation.

That still begs the question, since the non-believing scientists are the priests of your religion, the one into which you were born again, what do you do with the scientists who do believe? Does your scoffing and caterwauling get directed at them too? Or just the non-believing non-scientists here on TN?[/quote]

I disagree about the insinuation, but am glad to hear you don’t hold that position.

You can keep trying to compare science to religion in an obvious effort to place them on an equal footing, but it’s futile to do so. Science delivers on its laws by providing PROOF. Religion can only ask people to have FAITH.

Both require assumptions, but science actually supports its claims while religion doesn’t.

Nice try though.

450

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
It is interesting indeed:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:JT4P-VksocAJ:religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Ecklund.pdf+scientists+religious+affiliation&hl=nl&gl=nl&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShZeq-2G2KDQw7BoO-vt202_v8xE3uhHx04FSgwnWHNnb1nuH09WTzlIz5c5arhancnjdAcwfNObd9ECKIHyl9yu_7j9jm6M1VD3yRDb-Sf4B4qa4_WTHN1aL5oeCyp2yNowzhL&sig=AHIEtbRPSKitZhYV1cK6gubQDtiyIEqDcA[/quote]

Scientists not being religious is a red herring. Who cares? The Bolshevistics weren’t very religious either. What’s that got to do with anything?

If you like what somebody does, do you follow all their beliefs implicitly? [/quote]

Our good friend push insinuated that many scientists were religious, and he’s wrong. That’s all.
[/quote]
It merely depends on the period in history. In the ye olde days scientists, clergy and professors were all the same people. These days, most scientists are university professors, most of which have no affinity to religion whether their discipline is in science or not.
Like anything else, it cycles.
Currently, professorship/ being accepted in the scientific community almost requires at least agnosticism lest you not be accepted in to the community.
Which is actually another huge problem for science as a whole, it’s a social club and in many cases dissenting opinions are suppressed.
For instance, everybody is all horny over string theory, even with it’s inherent flaws because it was discovered by a scientist in the social club. Guys like Garret Lisi with his I8 theory, which is actually very interesting is virtually shunned because he isn’t part of the club.

I am making the assertion that the sociological affects of the scientific community also serve to stifle progress when it comes to dissension. The egos you’re dealing with are rather large.

It’s hard to believe in God when you think you are Him.

451

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Nor did I make any such claim you stated.[/quote]

Except you did. You replace prime mover with the God of your choice. You should try being intellectually honest and admitting you don’t know.[/quote]

No, I didn’t. But I find it interesting you support cosmology.[/quote]

Do I? I see it as an interesting line of thought when not perverted by religious people, that is all.[/quote]

Fair enough, I accept it in it’s purity. There is no need to bring religion in to the discussion as it tends to muddy the waters which is why I leave it out unless asked directly.

452

[quote]forlife wrote:

Are you aware of the letters written during this time that were outright fraudulent and historically false?
[/quote]

Which ones?

453

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Are you aware of the letters written during this time that were outright fraudulent and historically false?
[/quote]

Which ones?[/quote]

See Historicity of Jesus and Apocrypha on Wiki for a good primer.

456

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

You can keep trying to compare science to religion in an obvious effort to place them on an equal footing, [/quote]

I don’t even begin to try and put them on an equal footing. However, I find it so amusing that “your side” religiously defends “your faith” so ardently. It’s the quintessential pot/kettle thing.[quote]

but it’s futile to do so. Science delivers on its laws by providing PROOF. Religion can only ask people to have FAITH. [/quote]

Science “delivers” as long as one adheres to its basic assumptions, my friend.[quote]

Both require assumptions, but science actually supports its claims while religion doesn’t. [/quote]

Always?

Or, as in the case of macro evolution, does it build its foundation on wild speculations and conjecture? Unproveable, un-experimentable conjecture.
[/quote]

Just because we can’t know everything doesn’t mean we can’t know anything.

Yes, we could have been created 5 minutes ago in an alien virtual reality simulation, and nobody can prove otherwise. Both science and religion assume this isn’t the case.

The difference is in the conclusions science draws with this assumptions, vs. religion. IF those assumptions are true, science can prove its claims. However, the same is not true for religion.

Flip the switch and the light turns on. Proof. Insist that Buddha walked on water. Faith.

Lights and bodies of water could be part of the alien experiment, or they could reflect objective reality. In either case, science can support its claims and religion cannot.

457

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Are you aware of the letters written during this time that were outright fraudulent and historically false?
[/quote]

Which ones?[/quote]

See Historicity of Jesus and Apocrypha on Wiki for a good primer.[/quote]

Don’t want a primer, I want to know which letters are you referring to. Are you making reference to the Deuteronical books?

458

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Are you aware of the letters written during this time that were outright fraudulent and historically false?
[/quote]

Which ones?[/quote]

See Historicity of Jesus and Apocrypha on Wiki for a good primer.[/quote]

Don’t want a primer, I want to know which letters are you referring to. Are you making reference to the Deuteronical books?[/quote]

1 and 2 Esdras, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Letter of Aristeas, Ladder of Jacob, Eldad and Modad, Lives of the Prophets, Psalm 151, Book of Enoch, Epistle of James, Epistle of Barnabas, etc.

Apocrypha, Anagignoskomena, Pseudepigrapha, Antilegomina, etc. Not to mention disputed letters in the current bible like Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (per Luther), Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, and Philemon (per Baur), etc.

I’ve read several of these letters, and they seem every bit as “real” as the letters included in the bible.

People made shit up then, and they make shit up today. The bible is far from the historical document that people like to believe. Everything in it, and everything excluded from it, are suspect.

I’m not going into detail beyond that. If you want more info, there’s a ton at the Wiki references I provided earlier.

459

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< men are capable of advancing knowledge using the scientific method, and without the need for a supernatural being to exist.[/quote]THEY ARE?!?!?!? Good heavens. I take it all back.
[/quote]

Let me know what you think of this, please.

http://clearsight.businesscatalyst.com/the-enlightenment-of-jesus.htm
[/quote]

Jesus always knew who he was, it didn’t take baptism for him to know.[/quote]

Then how do you explain Luke 2:52?[/quote]

Luke 2:40. Jesus was filled (not half-way, but filled) with wisdom. Moreover, Jesus increased not unlike the sun who increases from morning to midday in brilliance. Although the sun does not increase in brilliance, it seems so to men.

This would be the same for Jesus, this is a generalized over look of it. It goes much deeper, but I don’t feel like writing a research paper on it at the moment.

Jesus was full of wisdom from conception. The growing in stature and wisdom was what men saw in Jesus. [/quote]

Except the scripture says Jesus grew in stature and wisdom, not that men incorrectly thought he was growing in stature and wisdom.[/quote]

Lol, no to them he grew in stature and wisdom. He was already filled with wisdom. Then to men he grew.

460

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< I’ve read several of these letters, and they seem every bit as “real” as the letters included in the bible. >>>[/quote]They do? Well blow me down (strong words from Popeye), A couple thousand years of new covenant history has been breathlessly waiting for elder forlife to skip along and tell us which canonical candidates seem real to Him. I hope the Holy Spirit is pickin up some pointers here.