Science vs. the Religion of Sexuality

[Isaac]

The Bible does NOT tell us about God. It tells us about the beliefs of people who believed in God. In other words, 2nd-hand information. Which is now why I take the Bible as a good source of old societal information, but its mysticism and miracles are merely misinterpretation of reality.

That would be much more believable if it weren't the case that 10's of 1000's of people witnessed Jesus' life and miracles, with a number of them writing it down, and hundreds of thousands of them quickly believing in Him despite just about the instant harshest persecution known inflicted, and without the incentives that have generally been the "driver" of other religions' starting, such as world domination, political influence, ethnic revenge, promises of sexual gratification in the afterlife, etc.

Of course you choose to see those "writings" as "religious", and thus, discard them.

I don't think this makes sense.

If PersonA writes something down, and nobody gathers around it in what you consider a spirit of religiosity, you study it as History.
If PersonB writes something down, and people gather around it in what you consider a spirit of religiosity, (mostly because you decided beforehand that what they wrote down can't possibly be true), you consider it Religious Writings, and not Historical.

Your choice to taint the credibility of the one because a lot of people believed it and started living differently because of it has no basis in anything related to credibility. If anything, it's exactly the opposite: People gathered around it and believed it, starting the most amazing world movement in history - precisely because it HAD the credibility of signs and wonders.

I think if a person looks at it in that objective light, having never heard the word "religion" or "religious writings" before, it enables you to see it for exactly what it was - documentation and evidence of something amazing, so amazing that people believed it who had seen it, and hence the movement started.

If Aliens land in New Mexico tomorrow, and the relatively few people there document what happened in the way they know how, and then after a while there are millions of believers, and finally billions of believers, you can arrive at that scene 1900 years later and claim "That's nonsense. It's not corroborated by Historical writings, those are just Religious writings". But your claim is based on your own decision to label them "religious writings" because of their Content and Effects on people--which is circular, and has no real impact on the veracity of what was documented/witnessed/written.

That's just the beginning of the evidence of the truth of Christianity, but it's a place to start.

 

[Isaac]

Regardless, I think my choice of post title says it all:

If you think Religion is a set of people denying facts to make themselves feel better, help them understand and cope with the world they live in, and control others...........Then it is undeniable that modern beliefs in Sexuality have DEFINITELY become a religion! Complete with irrational, science-defying dogma, harsh treatment of dissidents, the [not] coincidence of a feel-good doctrine, massive proselytizing, an eagerness to force it on unwilling people, and exclusivity!

If you saw that definition from anyone else, on a website containing a viewpoint you agreed with, most secularists would tend to agree a fair amount right away. "Yes, that pretty much sums up what I think about religion"

Yet the exact same thing describes a lot of the current sexuality of ultra-progressives. Why not see it for what it is?

 

[Isaac]

The people who can no longer define what a woman is and believe biological men can get pregnant, truly think the world is ending any minute now because of global warming all while kneeling at the altar of wokeness, they somehow have ALL the answers

Exactly - this is why my choice of post title.

The sex-crazed policy makers and think tanks have failed to notice when their "it's all science and love" crossed over into "it doesn't even align with reality any more, but you better agree with it anyway".

Nice sounding ideas bolstered by a little science turned, after a while, into irrational Dogma. Which calls into question the whole thing, and the people who promote it!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

That would be much more believable if it weren't the case that 10's of 1000's of people witnessed Jesus' life and miracles, with a number of them writing it down

It doesn't matter how many witnessed anything. It matters how many of them documented it. And it matters even more how many secular writers documented it since THEY had no skin in the game. The problem with believing the Bible's story of Jesus starts with the decree for that census that caused Joseph to bring a very pregnant Mary on a long journey that led through Bethlehem. But we know which kings were in power at the time and none of them was recorded as having ordered such a census. A lot of people supposedly attended the Sermons on the Mount - but the meticulous, one might say OCD, Romans didn't note the multitudes crossing borders in sufficient numbers to count as "multitudes." People point to Josephus as a documenter, but he lived a generation and a half AFTER the time of Jesus and all of his recorded witnesses were second-hand. He was never in the right place to see for himself anything that Jesus did. Even Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea named in the Bible, has no secular history of a trial of Yeshua bar Yoseph (which would have been the Aramaic name of Jesus) - though there are records of other trials when he presided.

When the secular writers of the time are silent then what is left is the single source called the Bible - but rules of evidence for historical documents require some type of outside corroboration. Otherwise you have a circular reference or an unsupported reference.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Physical evidence of what happened in 79 AD remains available. Physical evidence remains for Wolf's Lair. I don't care whether the documenters of Jesus were any particular religion. The question is whether they documented it.

A problem with the Bible that contains the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (four such witnesses) is that it was cherry-picked by the Council of Nicea, so there were no dissenting voices. In essence, the books were laundered.

Among other books of the Apocrypha, the books of Esdras were removed because they made it clear that when someone says "I'll pray for you" that the prayer plus a few drachma MIGHT get a cup of tea and a pastry. (Per Esdras, only your own prayers have any value. You face God alone and answer for your actions alone.) Intercessory prayers have no meaning.

 

[NauticalGent]

is that it was cherry-picked by the Council of Nicea, so there were no dissenting voices. In essence, the books were laundered.

An inconvenient truth that believers are either unaware of or choose to marginalize. I am married to a devout Christian and I respect her beliefs and I value her contentness (and my sereneness) so I do not voice such things...

 

[NauticalGent]

Physical evidence remains for Wolf's Lair.

New one on me...I had to GDB...learn something new everyday

 

[Isaac]

It doesn't matter how many witnessed anything. It matters how many of them documented it. And it matters even more how many secular writers documented it since THEY had no skin in the game. The problem with believing the Bible's story of Jesus starts with the decree for that census that caused Joseph to bring a very pregnant Mary on a long journey that led through Bethlehem. But we know which kings were in power at the tme and none of them was recorded as having ordered such a census. A lot of people supposedly attended the Sermons on the Mount - but the meticulous, one might say OCD, Romans didn't note the multitudes crossing borders in sufficient numbers to count as "multitudes." People point to Josephus as a documenter, but he lived a generation and a half AFTER the time of Jesus and all of his recorded witnesses were second-hand. He was never in the right place to see for himself anything that Jesus did. Even Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea named in the Bible, has no secular history of a trial of Yeshua bar Yoseph (which would have been the Aramaic name of Jesus) - though there are records of other trials when he presided.

When the secular writers of the time are silent then what is left is the single source called the Bible - but rules of evidence for historical documents require some type of outside corroboration. Otherwise you have a circular reference or an unsupported reference.

Pliny the Younger, Josephus and Tacitus, all secular historians of the first and second centuries AD, wrote about Jesus Christ.
They also wrote about their fierce persecution / executions of Christians, who because of them or their parents actually having seen divine acts of Jesus, knew for certain he was God, and thus were well known for being almost always incorrigible in their determination not to deny Christ.

Sounds like quite the stretch to me, imagining that all of that was some kind of elaborate conspiracy to trick you...

It's also a bit circular:

- Why don't you believe these writings?
- Because they're written by religious people
- What makes them religious people?
- Because they wrote that thing!!

Keep in mind most scientists WERE religious until very recently, and you probably don't struggle with that...

 

[Isaac]

An inconvenient truth that believers are either unaware of or choose to marginalize. I am married to a devout Christian and I respect her beliefs and I value her contentness (and my sereneness) so I do not voice such things...

That's like objecting to the DSM-5 because it was curated by psychiatric experts who agreed.

I'd say it's a supporting truth.

The Council picked the books that supported the gospel that was preached. The books that were dropped were deviating from it, hence, they were dropped.

Makes perfect sense to me!

 

[Isaac]

It doesn't matter how many witnessed anything

What??!

I'm going to refrain from saying what I really think about that statement. Especially from a scientist who probably knows enough about history to know that not all of the history of mankind was during a time period when everyone could make videos and type documents.
Much of mankind's history has to be accepted as having been documented in large part by verbal traditions.

 

[Isaac]

I don't care whether the documenters of Jesus were any particular religion. The question is whether they documented it.

That's strange, in past posts you've said the reason you don't trust it is that the writers were religious.
What changed? Other than we started talking about documentation?

 

[Isaac]

I definitely feel that Roman Catholicism, although providing a structure which aligns with many major elements of Christianity, has gone astray in a number of ways, and do not defend it, per se. Popes are definitely not infallible, and the dogma of Rome disturbs me too. I think Protestantism is not new, but has resurfaced throughout history in waves, thank God. The Bible makes it clear enough to me that since the resurrection of Jesus, anyone can have a personal relationship with Him and be redeemed through belief and surrender, although when it comes to things like good works and sanctification, I tend to "read the Bible for myself", and fall somewhere between the two, there are just too many verses about "actions" being important for me to go all the way with the full-scale grace-only Protestant emphasis that are to be found in some places, and too much about simple belief being a basis for forgiveness to be anywhere remotely close to Catholics in daily practice.
Although interestingly, close family members have been in the C.Church and a couple of them had what seemed to be one of the best relationships with God I have ever seen a person have. Then again, they took it personally; many don't.

For me the differing versions of events is a big nothing-burger. If multiple people witness events, everyone tells it a bit differently.
If the early Christian church had remotely considered that to be suspicious, and wanted to fool everyone, they would never have included them all!

If you listen to 1000 witnesses recounting of a crime, you get 1000 stories with some amount of similarities.

Christianity is the most enduring, effective force with evidence of families and people being redeemed, improved, joy-filled and hope-filled that the world has ever seen, nothing comes close.

Human nature is evil; people will use anything, including Christian umbrella organizations, for all kinds of evil, but this says nothing about the veracity of the faith, just the dirt of the human heart.

When I was younger, I felt science might call into question the Bible. As the years went by, I notice that "science" changed its mind every few years, which is natural, as it's a process of understanding what we misunderstood yesterday. Time after time after scientists had said "this does it - the Bible has to be false because of ___", then new ways of understanding the situation would emerge. After a while I decided I had seen enough. The Bible is true, and some parts may be storytelling and contextual and lore, but the only part I need to be certain of is the part I am certain of.

There is a guy in Texas, a scientist, who maintains a museum where you can see evidence for yourself that contradicts many of the things evolutionists have promoted about the age and sequence of earth layers. He has been persecuted infinitely, but he persists, and the evidence is there, although I'm not sure for how much longer.

I don't know about how the world is going to end with a lot of certainty as it pertains to the way I understand the world around me.
One thing I think MIGHT be relevant is, I am waiting for the Catholic Church to embrace unnatural sexual relations as "good", there is some evidence to suggest that when that happens, the end is near.

I'm often reminded of the Bible saying in the last days, men will call evil, "good" and good "evil". We can interpret that many ways, but when I read stories about parents in the USA who reported sexually explicit material being taught to little children and those parents being reported TO the police (rather than calling the police to report the obscene material, which we all would have done just a few years ago), it definitely makes me think of this concept.

I often ask God to give me whatever understanding I need to live life well, there are a lot of unanswered questions, but I remind myself that having unanswered questions is not an excuse for me to refuse to surrender to God...it's just evidence that there is a God, and I am not Him! It's evident that all of this didn't come from nowhere, so Whoever created me, I think I'll err on the side of caution and submit to Him!

I liked your post Pat. I think I agree with every statement made. Yes there are unanswered questions. There is also a lot of evidence that a personal relationship with the God of the New Testament provides a positive transformation a bit unlike anything else. There are 10's of 1000's of people per year coming to know God. There is a small trickle that leave the faith, I'm not sure what the nature of their personal relationship was with God before they left.

"God has put enough into the world to make faith in Him a most reasonable thing. But He has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason or observation alone.”

 

[The_Doc_Man]

It doesn't matter how many witnessed anything.

I don't care whether the documenters of Jesus were any particular religion. The question is whether they documented it.

You split the statements, then objected to them. They should be taken together. Let's try it this way. I don't care how many folks saw anything 2000 years ago. If they didn't leave behind some kind of trace, then anything we have is hearsay evidence. Have you ever played the game "Telephone" where after about five or six "relays" of a message, it has become nearly unrecognizable? The ones who actually WROTE something at the time, however, offer contemporaneous evidence that is of considerable value. The ones who saw something but recorded nothing might as well have not been there... and in fact we could never know if they were or weren't.

Pliny the Younger, Josephus and Tacitus, all secular historians of the first and second centuries AD, wrote about Jesus Christ.

Again, they were in different areas and different generations. Pliny the Younger in the year 112 AD had to deal with trials of Christians and wrote about them. He wrote about the eruption of Vesuvius that had occurred 25 years ago (in his lifetime), so a previous question about how we knew about Vesuvius is "because a contemporary wrote about it." We know that Christians were placed on trial. But to say that Christ was real because someone else THOUGHT he was real? That's a bigger step.

Tacitus, in his Annals, references the Emperor Nero and how he was noted for persecuting Christians. In that context, he mentioned Christ. But he was never close to the Holy Land. There has been a scholarly debate on whether Tacitus actually wrote the Annals, having to do with style issues.

Josephus was closer in time and place, but his works are in dispute by many scholars. Historian Louis H Feldman has cast doubt on his Antiquities, which is the source of the Judean references.

 

[Galaxiom]

That would be much more believable if it weren't the case that 10's of 1000's of people witnessed Jesus' life and miracles, with a number of them writing it down

There are no contemporary historical accounts of Jesus existing. The record starts with records of the belief of Christians written by Flavius Josephus in 78 AD. There are stories of thousandth witnessing the miracles but not credible accounts.

The "miracles" are all the more reason to reject the stories as fiction. The New Testament was a story written long after in Greek. Not a contemporary historical account.

Even if we consider the canonical gospels it is notable that they do not concur with each other. Only John apparently felt it worth mentioning the miracles.

 

[Isaac]

There are no contemporary historical accounts of Jesus existing. The record starts with records of the belief of Christians written by Flavius Josephus in 78 AD. There are stories of thousandth witnessing the miracles but not credible accounts.

The "miracles" are all the more reason to reject the stories as fiction. The New Testament was a story written long after in Greek. Not a contemporary historical account.

Even if we consider the canonical gospels it is notable that they do not concur with each other. Only John apparently felt it worth mentioning the miracles.

That's odd, I'm reading about miracles every day in my reading of Matthew.

 

[Isaac]

Near the end of his life, at age 82, John Newton—the former slave trader who came to know and experience God’s amazing grace—was asked what he recalled about his life. He replied, “Although my memory is fading, I remember two things very clearly: I am a great sinner, and Christ is a great Savior.”

The Gospel is the Good News of the Savior who has already come to set His people free from their sins.

 

[Isaac]

Hope this helps.
Random selfie Moses took while the red sea was drying up:

 

[NauticalGent]

Hope this helps.
Random selfie Moses took while the red sea was drying up:

View attachment 107176

Well HELL...I guess that settles that then, doesn't it?!?

 

[Isaac]

Found a couple more for fun!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Someone has found some of the AI art sites. I looked at them as a way to illustrate my novels, but the text box size allowed for detailed descriptions is too small to get a suitable image such as I wanted. My only question remaining is: Why doesn't they guy standing in front of the burning bush and the guy leading the Israelites across the Red Sea look like Charlton Heston?

On second thought, .... one MORE question: Why are there tigers in the lion's den?