Evidence for God from Science

I know you're being bombarded with questions KBC and guess what, I have yet another . Just out of curiosity, how much studying have you done before dismissing the denominations you've already dismissed (and why)? Did you use references from the denominations themselves or did you rely on outside sources? You don't need to go in detail, just a general description is fine.

Byblos wrote:I know you're being bombarded with questions KBC and guess what, I have yet another . Just out of curiosity, how much studying have you done before dismissing the denominations you've already dismissed (and why)? Did you use references from the denominations themselves or did you rely on outside sources? You don't need to go in detail, just a general description is fine.

I research each denomination from their inception point and look at as much reference material as I can get my hands on and define as many referencial points as can be defined and related. This explanation I know doesn't actually give you a proper understanding of the range of effort that I have put into it but ultimately I do a gathering of as much information as is available and then read it all and take notes on the specific salient points. so some like catholocism took a year to gather and reduce because of the length of their history and others much less time such as mormonism. The information gathered is from both the denomination and outside sources. Nothing was out of hand eliminated foundationally.

One of my decisions ultimately came down to a biological understanding for their elimination. Mormonism failed in many points but one of those many points was an empirical biological reason which may be of some interest to you.
If memory serves this point was about the crops that they asserted they grew once they arrived in the americas. I believe it was wheat but my memory has faded since this was some time ago, but anyway whether it was wheat or another crop the facts came down to this. Their book asserted that they grew this particular crop for all the time they existed here as a staple for them, However, research into the geological record shows that this particular crop never existed in the americas prior to the Columbus era and as most would know any crop that is raised in any area begins the occurance of wild type growth of that specie without human help. So wheat if it had in fact been grown in the americas in the time frame they asserted would have continued to grow wild by natural cause right through until today. Thus, they were undermined by a simple point that the human writer never considered.
Joseph smith never knew that wheat was introduced into the americas after Columbus and in his era looking for remnants of plant species via pollen genetics was not known so he didn't see any problem with writing his lies without getting caught at that time.
Mormonism was knocked off its foundation by scientific advancement and in my research this was one of the primary empirical points that could immediately be defined to show their subterfuge. There were many other reasons as well but that was the most immediate that could be brought to bear on their historical accounting. God doesn't make those kinds of error, So God is not their foundation.

I don't know if anyone else here has considered that we have taken Hana's thread and completely made a mess of her original post here. Just htought I would point that out since I feel guilty for being a part of the problem. I would if I had the power make some other thread and move all the posts not dealing with her opening post to there but, this is just me doing what I usually do and trying to fix a problem when I see it.
In any event Hana, sorry to have intruded and persisted.

KBCid wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Far be it from me to put words in your mouth KBCid,

Look Sir, I will not assume you are trying to do anything with an evil intent. I want interaction to buildup so you have nothing to worry about from my end as I am sure your intent to help is genuine. I want you to express your heart as the spirit leads you to and not hold back because of what you think I may be offended by. If there is something I may be offended by then you will know when I reply and you can consider it but until such a case arises then my position is that you are going to provide the best advice you are able to give.
I have opened myself to readers here in as honest a way as I can muster in writing and I can only hope that you understand what I have said. As long as we both know where my belief and understanding separate then there should be no unresolvable problem. I want you to feel comfortable in being expressive in communicating with me and not held back by what you may think is a sensitive area. If I feel that something is beyond what I am willing to accept then I will say so. I will not cut you off nor will I give up without doing my best to ensure that you understand what my problem may be. I'm older and not so sensitive as I once may have been. So please worry more about expressing what is in your heart and less about what mine can take and I will respect you as I would assume you would respect me.

No worries. It's a deal.

RickD wrote:KBC, the book of Hebrews was written to Hebrew believers. The letter was to tell the Hebrew believers to stop acting like Hebrews. Many of the early Hebrew believers were slipping back into the old way of rites and rituals of Judaism, so they would avoid persecution that believers were encountering. The letter to the Hebrews was an exhortation to continue in the grace of Jesus Christ.

This is not accurate at all. To tell the Hebrew believers to stop acting like Hebrews? Geeze, look how far the church has drifted from her roots and her history. To be a believer, a Hebrew shouldn't act like a Hebrew. And to think originally the question was whether gentiles could come into the faith without having to become Hebrews (Acts 15)!

From a purely historical perspective, the Jews were the ones who were being persecuted by Rome in the first century. That's why the Jews had such a disdain for (fellow Jewish) tax collectors; they worked for the oppresive state, and often took more than necessary for themselves. Over time the Jews were getting persecuted more and more, hence the two Jewish rebellions, the first in 70 CE, and the second in 135 CE. Thousands of Jews were killed. As tensions rose, Rome created things like the Fiscus Judaicus, Latin for "Jewish tax," which was instituted after the destruction of the Temple in the rebellion of 70 CE, which required excessive taxes from any Jew and anyone who practiced Jewish traditions and religion, including keeping Shabbat and celebrating the festivals, which the early "Christians" did well into the 4-5th centuries CE. They didn't differentiate between physical Jews and those who were of the same faith. If anything, the early believers had an incentive to not act like Hebrews. After a while, the state made it outright illegal to practice Jewish customs. Yes, the early "Christians" were persecuted as well, but no more by Rome than the rest of the Jews, because they were considered by Rome, by the other Jews, and by themselves to be a sect of Judaism. There was no Christianity as we know it today. They were, however, rejected more and more as time went on (especially after the second revolt) by their fellow non-Messianic Jews (John 9:22, 16:22), which would have given incentive for the believers that the book of Hebrews was directed to to abandon the faith of the apostles for traditional Judaism.

So, to not be completely contrary, yes the book is about Jewish believers starting to fall back into non-Messianic Judaism, but it most certainly does not tell them to stop acting like Hebrews. To say so reveals the heavy imprints of the anti-semitic theology that the church has been inundated with, which started in the 2nd century, and continued well into the 1500's and onward, being heavily developed and reinforced by the beloved church fathers (such as Ignatious, Origen, John Chrysostom, Marcion) and the reformers (John Calvin, Martin Luther, who advocated burning synagogues and Jewish homes and murdering Jews unless they converted).

I do want to make clear, though, that I'm in no way trying to imply that I think you, Rick, are anti-semitic in the least. It's simply the theology that the church has adopted that has been bred in anti-semitism.

The Epistle to the Hebrews does have some very unique qualities to it, in part because it is written from a deeply Jewish perspective and that's important to understand when you read it.

This link gives a reasonable look at its background, authorship and the primary messages. I don't necessarily agree with it all, but the source, Dr. Cooper is a respected conservative evangelical scholar (was rather as I think he's passed away but I'm not sure of that.)

Click on the link for what you want to look at and then scroll down as that is where it loads instead of taking you to a new page.

http://www.ariel.org/dlc/dlc-exw-heb01.htm

RickD wrote:
KBC, the book of Hebrews was written to Hebrew believers. The letter was to tell the Hebrew believers to stop acting like Hebrews. Many of the early Hebrew believers were slipping back into the old way of rites and rituals of Judaism, so they would avoid persecution that believers were encountering. The letter to the Hebrews was an exhortation to continue in the grace of Jesus Christ.

cheezerrox wrote:
This is not accurate at all. To tell the Hebrew believers to stop acting like Hebrews? Geeze, look how far the church has drifted from her roots and her history. To be a believer, a Hebrew shouldn't act like a Hebrew. And to think originally the question was whether gentiles could come into the faith without having to become Hebrews (Acts 15)!

From the link Canuckster posted:

To Whom Was the Letter Addressed?
To whom was the letter addressed? This question is answered differently by various scholars. The consensus of opinion, however, so far as I am able to ascertain is that it was sent to a given community of Hebrew believers who were discouraged and who were at the point of abandoning Christianity and going back to Judaism. There is much in the epistle that favors this view.

cheezerrox, since the consensus agrees with me, then I must be correct.

And off the topic, cheezerrox, when ever I read your screen name, I think of those cheesy cheese ball thingys. Cheetos cheese balls maybe?

Canuckster1127 wrote:The Epistle to the Hebrews does have some very unique qualities to it, in part because it is written from a deeply Jewish perspective and that's important to understand when you read it.
This link gives a reasonable look at its background, authorship and the primary messages. I don't necessarily agree with it all, but the source, Dr. Cooper is a respected conservative evangelical scholar

Hmmm by chance are you asserting that you have a respect for this person?

I have two points I believe are worth considering;

Lord Kelvin (1895): Heavier than air flying machines impossible
Indeed, eight years before Orville and Wilbur Wright took their home-built flyer to the sandy dunes of Kitty Hawk, cranked up the engine, and took off into the history books, Lord Kelvin, the President of the Royal Society of England made a forceful declaration. "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible," said this very powerful man of science....Rumor has it Lord Kelvin was slightly in error.
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2007/09/lord- ... n-air.html

and

1Ki 22:10 And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah sat each on his throne, having put on their robes, in a void place in the entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets prophesied before them.
1Ki 22:11 And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron: and he said, Thus saith the LORD, With these shalt thou push the Syrians, until thou have consumed them.
1Ki 22:12 And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramothgilead, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the king's hand.
1Ki 22:13 And the messenger that was gone to call Micaiah spake unto him, saying, Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good unto the king with one mouth: let thy word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak that which is good...

Even kings can be given missinformation. The problem that any religiously oriented person faces is that interpretations are nearly impossible to empiricaly confirm and the only power that an interpretation can hold in ones mind is the proportion of belief you imbue it with.
When I have no empirical way of testing the validity of something, that worries me a bit and I know that there is no anti-virus software in my mind for preventing me from receiving informational errors, so how do I rationalize what I believe is correct? Should I give creedence to a degree or creedence to the presenters standing in a community? I remember listening to an extremely devout mormon father with several phd's and he spoke from his heart, fully believing, when he told me that one day I could be a God over my own world of believers....

According to 2008 church records, there are 13,508,509 baptized members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) worldwide.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_foll ... _Mormonism

Excuse me a moment.....

....Father in heaven..... besides giving me existence thankyou for helping me to see through those unGodly things you have revealed to my understanding.... in Christs name .... Amen

And this is what goes through my mind before I even click on the link to your reference.

I will of course look when I have more time though, I promise.

KBCid, I'm well aware of the fallacy of making an appeal to authority. That doesn't mean that there aren't opinions on matters that aren't more relevant than others because of the education of the person giving the opinion. I don't know about you, but that's one reason why I'm willing to have a have a doctor do a colonoscopy on me but not a plumber.

If you knew me better, you'd also know that I'm not a conservative evangelical, although that has described me in the past. I made the reference while noting that I didn't give an entire endorsement to everything I believe and have studied with regard to the book of Hebrews. I'd offer my own qualification but then, they don't really matter, do they?

I'm glad something was going through your mind however.

Canuckster1127 wrote: KBCid, I'm well aware of the fallacy of making an appeal to authority. That doesn't mean that there aren't opinions on matters that aren't more relevant than others because of the education of the person giving the opinion. I don't know about you, but that's one reason why I'm willing to have a have a doctor do a colonoscopy on me but not a plumber.

How many people believe they have a proper education relevant to the specific topic? Here is an example... Evolutionary biologist. How exactly might one become an expert in this field and why should anyone believe their education gave them a better understanding than anyone else?
I am a bio-engineer that is what I have studied based strictly on empirical evidence and applied physics. When I say I know about something I can produce empirical evidence for it and it is not just an understanding in my head. These truths are open to anyone who wishes to look. So ultimately there are differences in what is considered an education.
What I am getting at here is there are some things one can learn that do indeed give them knowlege of useable truths then there are others that are built on the traditions of men. A medical doctor has a ton of empirical support for his decisions even though he doesn't know the whole story in contrast there are those with Phd's who have no empirical evidence to work with. Would you give greater respect to those with empirical backing or mostly tradition? You will find with me that I will question everything and trace it down to its root... because... well... that has become my nature.

Here is a bit of empirical evidence you may not be aware of on your plumbing issue;

Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system.
RESULTS: 82 serious complications occurred (5.0 per 1000 colonoscopies [95% CI, 4.0 to 6.2 per 1000 colonoscopies]). Serious complications occurred in 0.8 per 1000 colonoscopies without biopsy or polypectomy and in 7.0 per 1000 colonoscopies with biopsy or polypectomy. Perforations occurred in 0.9 per 1000 colonoscopies (CI, 0.5 to 1.5 per 1000 colonoscopies) (0.6 per 1000 without biopsy or polypectomy and 1.1 per 1000 with biopsy or polypectomy). Postbiopsy or postpolypectomy bleeding occurred in 4.8 per 1000 colonoscopies with biopsy (CI, 3.6 to 6.2 per 1000 colonoscopies). Biopsy or polypectomy was associated with an increased risk for any serious complication (rate ratio, 9.2 [CI, 2.9 to 29.0] vs. colonoscopy without biopsy). Ten deaths (1 attributable to colonoscopy) occurred within 30 days of the colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy with biopsy or polypectomy is associated with increased risk for complications. Perforation may also occur during colonoscopies without biopsies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17179057

Here is a good thing to seek about this. Look to see how many people are being saved by the proceedure and then see how many are being harmed. Then tell me your opinion on how many people being saved would outweigh how many that are harmed?
God created our living system. Man is only able to look look through a very dark veil to understand Gods work. Whom should we trust with our bodies?

Canuckster1127 wrote:If you knew me better, you'd also know that I'm not a conservative evangelical, although that has described me in the past. I made the reference while noting that I didn't give an entire endorsement to everything I believe and have studied with regard to the book of Hebrews. I'd offer my own qualification but then, they don't really matter, do they? I'm glad something was going through your mind however.

I hope to know you better. In these posts we are learning about each other and I do enjoy meeting another creation of God. you will note that I posed my concern in the form of a question to feel you out (so to say) on the subject. The good thing about not knowing you ahead of time is that I will not come in with any more preconceptions than the ones already alluded to about your intent logically being to help others. The problem for any of us created beings is that none of us possesses the whole truth and how we discern truth from error becomes the great question for each of us. Like I pointed out earlier I was approached by a very committed mormon who had a rock solid belief system and it pained me to see the amount of belief he placed into what he had been taught as the truth.
There are a great many people in this world who have the best of intentions when it comes to religion and they feel that they are helping others by conveying their understandings. This is quite an honorable and noble action to contemplate and I respect the intent because I would want to do the same.
And then I look around in the world and I see a plethora of religions and denominations and I see each of them with their commited people and it pains me to think that they all can't be right. This will probably be the reason that I will never try to be a teacher of religious truths. Without empirical evidence to back my words I will always wonder if my teaching is sending another being in the wrong direction. A very hefty load to bear wouldn't you say?

In the end for me whatever you assert will come down to a matter of how you reached your conclusions. I will respect the conclusions you have made for yourself just as I would any other commited person and it is not my place to judge you or your conclusion for yourself but the process and rationale that you used to reach your conclusions is where I want to peer in and in some cases I can judge method or rationale. Not always mind you, but for me I will feel that I have done my due diligence by looking.