The BIBLE and SCIENCE

[Shwa]

But it can tell us that Early Christians were keenly bringing over elements of both formalized belief (Aristotle, Eastern mysticism, Judaism, polytheism) and more informal supernatural beliefs.

Yes, I agree. And very well put Toad Brother, thank you. However, I think that there is quite a bit to be gained from using the Bible as a source text especially since anthropology is such a multi-disciplinary field these days. I doubt that the mundane aspects of eary "Christian" culture was a sudden departure from how previous generations lived, even in the first century AD. So there are still important bits to be gleaned even from the New Testament - not for the sake of building up the validity of someone's religious beliefs, but to allow a more comprehensive regional view of the Middle East as a whole in terms of broad cultural development. Even Lazarus can give us clues as to funerary processes, material culture, religious power structures, etc. that can be comparatively analyzed with other sources outside of the Bible.

I think that if there were some corroboration with other regional mythical systems we might see a sort of pattern of myth making or 'borrowing' as a form of social control as well. There seems to be a provenance of sorts for almost all of the Bible stories in early Sumerian texts as well and those are linked with Egyptian cosmology - both early "civilizations." Because of the widespread influence of those texts - from Gligamesh to Judaism, through Christianity to Islam - is there a common myth making/borrowing/telling aspect that has since integrated itself even into the modern social context so that people nowadays - even those that strongly disavow anything to do with those religions - are influenced in their day to day lives or how they form decisions about themselves or others? A sort of inherited cosmological centrism/symbolism (like your sun-Son-halo example) that can be traced even into fairly recent descriptive anthropological literature about cultures remote from the Middle East.

[ToadBrother]

Yes, I agree. And very well put Toad Brother, thank you. However, I think that there is quite a bit to be gained from using the Bible as a source text especially since anthropology is such a multi-disciplinary field these days. I doubt that the mundane aspects of eary "Christian" culture was a sudden departure from how previous generations lived, even in the first century AD. So there are still important bits to be gleaned even from the New Testament - not for the sake of building up the validity of someone's religious beliefs, but to allow a more comprehensive regional view of the Middle East as a whole in terms of broad cultural development. Even Lazarus can give us clues as to funerary processes, material culture, religious power structures, etc. that can be comparatively analyzed with other sources outside of the Bible.

The thing is that there really wasn't a Christian "culture" prior to the 2nd century, or at least no more of a Christian culture than you might say there is a Mormon culture. In the 1st century, Christians were essentially a messianic Jewish sect, with a singular innovation that somewhere after the middle of the 1st century they began admitting Gentiles. The real story of Christianity's ascendancy doesn't begin until well into the next century as Christianity began spreading westward, and ultimately became so influential that Diocletian tried to wipe it out and Constantine adopted it.

As to the funerary pracices and such, there are plenty of much better sources for that than the New Testament. I mean, what do you think, the Jews stopped writing things down when Jesus showed up?

[quote\

I think that if there were some corroboration with other regional mythical systems we might see a sort of pattern of myth making or 'borrowing' as a form of social control as well. There seems to be a provenance of sorts for almost all of the Bible stories in early Sumerian texts as well and those are linked with Egyptian cosmology - both early "civilizations." Because of the widespread influence of those texts - from Gligamesh to Judaism, through Christianity to Islam - is there a common myth making/borrowing/telling aspect that has since integrated itself even into the modern social context so that people nowadays - even those that strongly disavow anything to do with those religions - are influenced in their day to day lives or how they form decisions about themselves or others? A sort of inherited cosmological centrism/symbolism (like your sun-Son-halo example) that can be traced even into fairly recent descriptive anthropological literature about cultures remote from the Middle East.

Actually, Hellenic Judaism (of which Christianity is ultimately a child of) is something of a break from the older Hebrew notions. The Hebrew cosmography was clearly taken from the Akkadians (Babylonians to many of us), and the Akkadians, of course, nixed it off the Sumerians. Hellenic Judaism (and its descendants; Christianity and Islam) essentially reinterpreted a great deal in the light of Greek thought. Notions like the "crystal dome" and a flat Earth (which were taken from the Sumero-Akkadian myths) were abandoned or reinterpreted because, of course, every learned person in Greco-Roman world knew the Earth was round.

It's been something of a conceit for Christianity that it has alleged to the inheritor of the original Abrahamic religion, when in fact, despite its Sumero-Semitic origins, it's gaze was firmly set towards Greece.

[Shwa]

The thing is that there really wasn't a Christian "culture" prior to the 2nd century,

Hence the quotes around the word "Christian" and the use of the word "mundane."

As to the funerary pracices and such, there are plenty of much better sources for that than the New Testament.

For sure, including grave and occupation site excavations, pottery and other material culture morphology and other written texts. There are plenty of better sources for information about Gettysburg too, but Shelby Foote's books are useful just the same.

it's gaze was firmly set towards Greece.

But again, as an adaptation to contemporary times IMO. There was no wholesale rejection of Hebrew roots, Son of David, messianic prophecies, etc., and perhaps this just another example of the acculturative aspect of a regional myth system.

[ToadBrother]

But again, as an adaptation to contemporary times IMO. There was no wholesale rejection of Hebrew roots, Son of David, messianic prophecies, etc., and perhaps this just another example of the acculturative aspect of a regional myth system.

I didn't wholesale, but I consider the Trinity and the Veneration of the Saints to pretty much be a complete abandonment of a key feature of the Hebrew religion for at least a thousand years prior; namely monotheism. The Trinitarian Doctrine was pretty much in place by the end of the 1st century, and the Veneration of the Saints seems to have very deep roots (though, obviously, it was rejected by many later reformist movements during the Reformation).

Edited December 10, 2009 by ToadBrother

[maple_leafs182]

This is my opinion on science and religion.

Science is the left side of the brain which deals with logic, structure, rules, laws.

Religion is the right side of the brain which deals with creativity, faith, beliefs, intuition.

this is my theory.

God did not create the universe. God became the universe. God isn't a man with a beard either, god is just energy. Matter is energy, its vibrations are just slowed down to be perceivable by our senses. So technically we are all god.

Without sound, matter would not exist.

[GostHacked]

This is my opinion on science and religion.

Science is the left side of the brain which deals with logic, structure, rules, laws.

Religion is the right side of the brain which deals with creativity, faith, beliefs, intuition.

this is my theory.

God did not create the universe. God became the universe. God isn't a man with a beard either, god is just energy. Matter is energy, its vibrations are just slowed down to be perceivable by our senses. So technically we are all god.

Without sound, matter would not exist.

Space is full of matter. I challenge you to make a sound in space!

[maple_leafs182]

k, maybe i should of said frequency, the sun sends out frequency, so does our brains.

[Guest TrueMetis]

this is my theory.

It's a hypothesis, and not a very good one at that.

[maple_leafs182]

How isn't it a good one.

We are all just atoms on a subatomic level.

"On such things as matter we have all been wrong, what we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter." - Albert Einstein

[Shwa]

We are all just atoms on a subatomic level.

No. We are atoms on the atomic level. On the sub-atomic level we are just particles and waves. On the post-modern sub-atomic level we are simply mute pixels on a screen.

[charter.rights]

No. We are atoms on the atomic level. On the sub-atomic level we are just particles and waves. On the post-modern sub-atomic level we are simply mute pixels on a screen.

Sure...accordingly sub-atomic particles are primarily energy and empty space.....bits and bytes....

[Guest TrueMetis]

How isn't it a good one.

We are all just atoms on a subatomic level.

"On such things as matter we have all been wrong, what we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter." - Albert Einstein

Because it involves God, God by its very definition is not scientific. You've also got it backward sound relies on matter not the other way around.

[Shwa]

...God by its very definition is not scientific.

Be careful there TrueMetis or you'll end up trapped in semantical quicksand.

MLS182 has provided his/her definition of "god/God" as "just energy" and "the universe." Thus the definition has changed. You are arguing based on an old definition and so the ball is still in your court.

Question for MLS182: when you say "god is just energy" do you mean "just" in the moral sense like 'justice' or in the limiting sense like 'only?'

[Shwa]

...but I consider the Trinity and the Veneration of the Saints to pretty much be a complete abandonment of a key feature of the Hebrew religion for at least a thousand years prior; namely monotheism.

This is very interesting. I am sure I have read something about a trinity concept in ancient Sumerian cosmology, but I can't remember where. When I get a chance, I'll see if anything pops up on EBSCO. It would be interesting to see if these triforms appear in other ancient myths, texts or symbols in the same region and compare those percentages to other regions and see if there is anything like a universal at work.

As for veneration of the saints, that could be an easy adaptation from ancestor worship cults (Our Father...) which appear in many cultures in almost every corner of the planet. Which probably makes that concept an easy sell to transmitting these ideas to other cultures I would think.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Be careful there TrueMetis or you'll end up trapped in semantical quicksand.

MLS182 has provided his/her definition of "god/God" as "just energy" and "the universe." Thus the definition has changed. You are arguing based on an old definition and so the ball is still in your court.

his/her deinition sucks. But ok I'll go with it is a bad hypothesis in another way. It says sound creates matter through vibrations. Which is wrong matter creates sound through vibrations.

Also MLS182 what was the point of including God if you were going to change the definition so much? why not just say energy? Because if God actually is as you defined it then it is kind of pointless.

[ToadBrother]

This is my opinion on science and religion.

Science is the left side of the brain which deals with logic, structure, rules, laws.

Religion is the right side of the brain which deals with creativity, faith, beliefs, intuition.

this is my theory.

God did not create the universe. God became the universe. God isn't a man with a beard either, god is just energy. Matter is energy, its vibrations are just slowed down to be perceivable by our senses. So technically we are all god.

Without sound, matter would not exist.

It's difficult to say what you expect as a response to something like this. On one level, it does largely appear to obey general rules of grammar and syntax The spelling is unimpeachable. But as an expression of a concept, I gather more meaning from the ingredients on a box of Corn Flakes.

[maple_leafs182]

Because it involves God, God by its very definition is not scientific. You've also got it backward sound relies on matter not the other way around.

I said frequency after.

Question for MLS182: when you say "god is just energy" do you mean "just" in the moral sense like 'justice' or in the limiting sense like 'only?'

only

God = The universe

they are one in the same

We are apart of the universe, so technically we are god.

Your eyes are the eyes of the universe and when you look at an object, it is the universe looking at itself threw those eyes

[Mr.Canada]

Science is a tool given to man by God to better understand all that He has created. They need to be working together not be at odds with each other.

[charter.rights]

Science is a tool given to man by God to better understand all that He has created. They need to be working together not be at odds with each other.

I agree.....

So how about you use scientific principles to prove the existence of God? That should support your argument, right?

But if you can't work together with science to prove the existence of God, then science and religion are not at odds with each other. Religion has no part in the science of the world, since God does not exist.

[Mr.Canada]

I agree.....

So how about you use scientific principles to prove the existence of God? That should support your argument, right?

But if you can't work together with science to prove the existence of God, then science and religion are not at odds with each other. Religion has no part in the science of the world, since God does not exist.

Welcome to my ignore list troll. You join M.Dancer and Michael Hardner. So you'll do well to ignore my posts or topics in the future as I will no longer read your replies until I see fit to un ignore you.

[charter.rights]

Welcome to my ignore list troll. You join M.Dancer and Michael Hardner. So you'll do well to ignore my posts or topics in the future as I will no longer read your replies until I see fit to un ignore you.

Heck no!

This is all the more licence to have fun with your often stupid (in a Forest Gump way) posts. I trust that we can get your attention well enough using alternative methods.

Now what is priceless is that you defeated yourself by not rising to the challenge. It is proof enough that you are nothing but fat air and an empty head.

Edited December 14, 2009 by charter.rights

[ToadBrother]

Science is a tool given to man by God to better understand all that He has created. They need to be working together not be at odds with each other.

And when science goes against your religion, what then?

Science needs to do what it does, irrespective of any and all religion. That's what the very best scientists, religious or otherwise do. Evidence is the sole requirement, not looking over your shoulder wondering if some orthodoxy is being violated. No more Galileos, thank you very much.

[charter.rights]

Funny thing is...scientific principles aside....Mr. Canada can't even prove through the Bible that Jesus is still alive. Of course we could bridge that discussion again (and over and over again) but he doesn't even have the intelligence or the capacity to defend his position using a religious text. Only cultist would have you accept what they say blindly without questioning it. But given his penchant for Nazism it would appear he is more politically motivated than he is religious.

[Mr.Canada]

And when science goes against your religion, what then?

Science needs to do what it does, irrespective of any and all religion. That's what the very best scientists, religious or otherwise do. Evidence is the sole requirement, not looking over your shoulder wondering if some orthodoxy is being violated. No more Galileos, thank you very much.

Science is a gift from God to help us understand his great works. If man chooses to misuse this gift well then that is entirely human nature isn't it. Humans will always make excuses to justify there own immoral behaviors. That's just how things are.

Seeing isn't believing, believing is seeing.

[GostHacked]

Science is a gift from God to help us understand his great works. If man chooses to misuse this gift well then that is entirely human nature isn't it. Humans will always make excuses to justify there own immoral behaviors. That's just how things are.

Seeing isn't believing, believing is seeing.

Thanks, I needed a good laugh today. Here, let me put on my Biblical Glasses so I can see things better.