Scientific or religious conception?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Theoria
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:02 am

Scientific or religious conception?

Post #1

Post by Theoria »

Hey all,

a post I wrote got me thinking and I came up with a question I would like to post to people on this forum.

It was the following sentence that got me thinking of this question. 'the human being as conceptualized in the Bible.'

My question is a result of the following reasoning:

1. Since the Bible is about human beings at least, there must be a certain conception of the human being at its foundation (for example, that it has a soul, that it can be good or evil, etc.). These assumptions about the human being do not come from scientific research. They are Truths about the human being acoording to the Bible, which is the word of God.

2. This brings me to a question. What is this human being that is needed to be able to be the creature the Bible talks about? What must the minimal characteristics of a creature be to be the one the Bible talks about? And how does it relate to what science can tell us about the human being today?

I want to know this because I have a feeling there are many of those Thruths, about the kind of human being that is required, that persist today but people tend to be totally unaware where it came from. Something that can happen after two thousand years of using these Truths as tho they are self-evident. One can easily forget where it came from and use it as a self-evident truth on wich further inquiry is done. I think free will for example falls under that category.

Hoping for an interesting answer and
With friendly greetings,
Theoria.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: Scientific or religious conception?

Post #2

Post by Clownboat »

Theoria wrote: Hey all,

a post I wrote got me thinking and I came up with a question I would like to post to people on this forum.

It was the following sentence that got me thinking of this question. 'the human being as conceptualized in the Bible.'

My question is a result of the following reasoning:

1. Since the Bible is about human beings at least, there must be a certain conception of the human being at its foundation (for example, that it has a soul, that it can be good or evil, etc.). These assumptions about the human being do not come from scientific research. They are Truths about the human being acoording to the Bible, which is the word of God.
You lost me at the bold.
We all know the Qu'ran is the word of god after all.

I'm going to guess my statement means as much to you as your un-evidenced claim about the Bible should to the rest of us.

Who knows though, perhaps you are impressed with un-evidenced claims made on the internet. If that is the case, I would like to retract my Qu'ran example for fear of you becoming a Muslim over it.

Furthermore, do you find it logical that a god would inspire the writing of a book with a message for everyone, and then require Theologians to interpret and explain the book (and then to arrive at over 30,000 different denominations)?

Thanks, and welcome to the forum.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

Theoria
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:02 am

Re: Scientific or religious conception?

Post #3

Post by Theoria »

[Replying to post 2 by Clownboat]

There were bound to be some misunderstandings i suppose.

I did not intend to claim that the Bible is truly the word of God or anything down that line at all.

What is meant with that line, is that within Christianity, the Bible is the word of God.

I am not taking a stance either way. It doesn't really matter whether you believe it to be true or not. But for Christianity, the Bible is the word of God.

This is not stating a personal opinion of what the Bible is. During the past two millenia I think most Christian theologians approached the Bible in that way.

Theoria.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Scientific or religious conception?

Post #4

Post by Divine Insight »

Theoria wrote: I want to know this because I have a feeling there are many of those Truths, about the kind of human being that is required, that persist today but people tend to be totally unaware where it came from.
And you lost me with the above sentence.

To begin with the Bible isn't the only folklore that describes human nature in general terms. In fact, all human creation myths address the nature of human beings.

Also, when you ask from whence it came my answer is simple. It came from the humans who wrote these fairytales. Let's not forget that Greek mythology, as well as many other mythologies including the Biblical mythology, also attribute to the God human characteristics.

The biblical God is a jealous God. A God of wrath as well as compassion. The biblical God not only has all the human frailties that we have but in many cases he unleashes them with the immaturity of an unwise adolescent human. There is nothing impressive about the God in any of the Abrahamic religious myths.

These myths were written by humans.

And that is from whence it comes.

It's also flat out wrong in many cases.

Psalms 14:1,3 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Romans 1:
[28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
[29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
[32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


This is clearly nothing more than outright lies. There is no truth in it.

The Bible was clearly written by opinionated religious fanatics. It didn't come from any jealous immature wrathful God as the authors claim. ;)
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Post Reply