Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

[Taffer]

Stop lying, DOC. Do you think the quote you posted lied when it claimed there were no languages before 1200 BCE?

 

[thaiboxerken]

100% of the scientific theory that the first one celled organism (over time) came from non-living chemicals is not fact.

It's not established fact, but the evidence all points to it.

 

[Lothian]

You know I sometimes wonder if you're as ignorant and dense as you seem to be or if you're just pulling our collective legs.

DOC is almost certainly a troll.

I originally thought that he was a brainwashed fundie who was simply regurgitating what he understood to be true. However, the flaws in his arguments were clearly pointed out to him and instead of taking them on board he repeated them. His arguments were refuted in so many ways nobody could possibly be so stupid as to repeat them, but repeat them he did.

I then decided that he could not be that thick and decided that he was a fundie that realised that he was talking crap but hoped that some people could be converted by his drivel. However his arguments got such a battering that if anyone was to read his threads and be converted it would be the other way. Anyone with half a brain cell would see that DOC is not doing the religious cause any good. There are good arguments but he shuns them for extraordinarily pathetic ones. This behaviour does not fit in with the premise that he is doing it to convert people.

There is only one other option I can see.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

DOC is almost certainly a troll.

I originally thought that he was a brainwashed fundie who was simply regurgitating what he understood to be true. However, the flaws in his arguments were clearly pointed out to him and instead of taking them on board he repeated them. His arguments were refuted in so many ways nobody could possibly be so stupid as to repeat them, but repeat them he did.

I then decided that he could not be that thick and decided that he was a fundie that realised that he was talking crap but hoped that some people could be converted by his drivel. However his arguments got such a battering that if anyone was to read his threads and be converted it would be the other way. Anyone with half a brain cell would see that DOC is not doing the religious cause any good. There are good arguments but he shuns them for extraordinarily pathetic ones. This behaviour does not fit in with the premise that he is doing it to convert people.

There is only one other option I can see.

I disagree that DOC is necessarily a troll. I think we’ve seen this exact behavior from other missionary type posters (kurious kathy, 1inChrist, etc.), and I think it brings to light once again one of my biggest grievances with modern-day Christianity.

DOC simply does not care whether his facts are straight, whether we believe him one way or another, or whether we’re even reading him. In his own words...

And with regard to your debate offer, I'm basically just a messenger of the facts. I'm not an expert on evolution or creation science. I mostly just put the facts out there, what you do with them is up to you. If you think a fact is not accurate, look it up, and tell us you found something different.

It seems to me that what he’s after has nothing to do with us, and everything to do with Divine favor. Posting for Jesus on a board of unbelievers is just a cheap and easy way of getting it. “I mostly just put the facts out there, what you do with them is up to you.”

He may not save a single soul, but he won’t have failed, because the trying itself is worthy of spiritual reward. And that, in my opinion, is what posters like DOC are after. Their ultimate goal -- and that of many, if not most, modern Christians -- is about getting their own buttinskies into heaven.

And while this very me-centered attitude is not unique to Christianity, there are religions which avoid it. The ultimate goal of Judaism is to save the world. In many forms of Buddhism, it’s to raise the state of all sentient beings.

None of this, as I’ve said before, makes Christianity necessarily wrong. But on any comparative scale of nobleness, it’s hard to imagine ranking Christianity terribly high.

 

[H3LL]

DOC would appear to be well aware that he is Lying For Jesus as evident by his rather pathetic attempts to weasel. Changing what the OP stated halfway through the thread and the most feeble of attempts to support Morris.

He is a lying, liar and knows full well that he is a lying, liar telling lies.

But he is Lying For Jesus...So it's OK.

.

 

[joobz]

DOC and KK are representatives of a fundie movement in christianity. Much of the pentacostals, baptists and nondenominationals that I know definitely fit into the claim you state.

However, to say that the me-centered view is a trait of christianity in general is wrong. Most of the teachings of christianity ARE centered on helping eachother. This is reflected in the number of religious charities that have religion as only a subset and not the forefront of their goal, the red cross and easter seals coming to mind.

DOC's attitude is self defeating in christian doctirine anyway. Remember the quote, "Any why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? "

 

[H3LL]

This is reflected in the number of religious charities that have religion as only a subset and not the forefront of their goal, the red cross and easter seals coming to mind.

I would like to see some evidence for your claim that the Red Cross is a religious charity or has religion as a subset.

To my knowledge, and I have posted their statement here before, their only religious activity is not to discriminate on religious grounds and clearly state their impartiality and neutrality from religion.

What is your evidence for your claim?

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

However, to say that the me-centered view is a trait of christianity in general is wrong. Most of the teachings of christianity ARE centered on helping eachother. This is reflected in the number of religious charities that have religion as only a subset and not the forefront of their goal, the red cross and easter seals coming to mind."

I agree that the teachings of Christianity center around helping others. I also agree that helping people is one of Christianity’s proximate goals. I disagree, however, that it’s the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal centers around one’s personal relationship with Jesus, and consequently one’s own very personal place in the afterlife.

As for religious charities, they are designed to be about charity first. Church, on the other hand -- the "body of Christ" -- is about Jesus first, charity second.

 

[H3LL]

I agree that the teachings of Christianity center around helping others.

I disagree.

The teachings of christianity centre around promoting and funding christianity....Period.

Everything else is just a means to an end.

.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

I disagree.

The teachings of christianity centre around promoting and funding christianity....Period.

Everything else is just a means to an end.

.

The rantings of modern day evangelists may have much to do with filling the coffers. I don't think you can say the same about the Sermon on the Mount.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But the sermon on the mount is just a story.

 

[Upchurch]

I would like to see some evidence for your claim that the Red Cross is a religious charity or has religion as a subset.

I have to agree. The Red Cross symbol, itself, is modeled after the Swiss flag with the colors transposed.

Now, granted, the Swiss flag is modeled after the Holy Roman Empire, but I think that is far enough removed that I don't think any direct connections were implied.

 

[Lothian]

I have to agree. The Red Cross symbol, itself, is modeled after the Swiss flag with the colors transposed.

Now, granted, the Swiss flag is modeled after the Holy Roman Empire, but I think that is far enough removed that I don't think any direct connections were implied.

From here

The simple red cross on a white background - the reversal of colours of the Swiss flag - was adopted as the emblem of the Movement when it was founded in 1863 by Swiss humanitarians trying to care for battlefield casualties who otherwise would have been left to suffer.

But while it has no religious connotations, the symbol unintentionally reminded Muslims of the Christian crusaders, and they began using a red crescent in the 19th century.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

But the sermon on the mount is just a story.

A teaching story.

 

[Upchurch]

But while it has no religious connotations, the symbol unintentionally reminded Muslims of the Christian crusaders, and they began using a red crescent in the 19th century.

Oops! I thought it was simply an early example of being PC. I didn't even consider the Crusades.

 

[H3LL]

The rantings of modern day evangelists may have much to do with filling the coffers. I don't think you can say the same about the Sermon on the Mount.

If the Sermon on the Mount isn't about promoting christianity..Then I'm not sure what is.

What would one do if one was impressed by the sermon? Stay at home and watch soaps? I suspect that it would involve time (money), travel (money) and putting a dime in the tray (money).

If people actually did as Jesus said in the sermon, the churches would have a serious problem and I would be a very happy man:

When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.
But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.

So perhaps you are right.

.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

If the Sermon on the Mount isn't about promoting christianity..Then I'm not sure what is.

I’m probably not understanding you, but if stating a religion’s teachings is “promoting” that religion, then you simply couldn’t have a religion without promoting it. What’s a religion without stated teachings?

If people actually did as Jesus said in the sermon, the churches would have a serious problem and I would be a very happy man:



So perhaps you are right.

.

 

[drkitten]

I’m probably not understanding you, but if stating a religion’s teachings is “promoting” that religion, then you simply couldn’t have a religion without promoting it. What’s a religion without stated teachings?

Stating a religion's teachings is not promoting it, but stating that a religion's teachings are true is.

Simply citing that Jesus told us that the peacemakers are blessed is not promoting religion. Telling us that the peacemakers are in fact blessed is promoting Christianity.

 

[Hokulele]

This thread just became much more interesting.

 

[joobz]

I would like to see some evidence for your claim that the Red Cross is a religious charity or has religion as a subset.

To my knowledge, and I have posted their statement here before, their only religious activity is not to discriminate on religious grounds and clearly state their impartiality and neutrality from religion.

What is your evidence for your claim?

My apologizes, I was going off of the Red Cross/Red Crescent dichotomy that led me to also believe it had religious undertones. So I will correct myself and strike red cross from my list.

In it's place, I'll substitute in
Habitat for Humanity and the IOCC (international orthodox christian charities)