Sunday Express Skeleton - Last One
Crosswords2 mins ago
Religous acceptance of science fact.
9 Answers
Is there any site which chronicles the times in history where things from the bible have been proven false by scientific facts and the religous establishment has in turn accepted these fact thereby admitting the bible was wrong. I would also like to see the way that these things were twisted to show that the bible still had relevant points on the matter, if applicable.
The first thing would be flat earth or sun revolving around earth and the most recent probably the acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution. Any pointers appreciated.
The first thing would be flat earth or sun revolving around earth and the most recent probably the acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution. Any pointers appreciated.
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flobadob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In my opinion there are few scientific facts. Most things we take for granted as facts are only theory waiting to be changed by a newer theory. Knowledge itself is evolution in practice. Sorry flobadob but i believe the jury will always be out on the question of religion except of course by those who refuse to accept any more evidence both for or against their argument once they have made up their minds, and both sides of the debate have those amongst their ranks.
FKO is right in that all scientific principles are theories - the best explanations so far.
But when a theory makes a huge amount of sense, is supported by mountains of evidence with not a grain of evidence against it, with no other viable theory in sight, it is reasonable to accept it for all practical purposes.
Evolution is one such theory in that it fits all the above criteria.
Religion - a belief in a god - is a theory which does not stand up: it makes no sense and there is not a jot of evidence to support it. So the equivalence of 'both sides of the debate' does not exist.
Religion is faith - belief without the need for evidence.
So, answering flobadob, religionists are always reluctant to admit to absurdities in the bible because they don't deal in fact, evidence and logic, merely faith.
But when a theory makes a huge amount of sense, is supported by mountains of evidence with not a grain of evidence against it, with no other viable theory in sight, it is reasonable to accept it for all practical purposes.
Evolution is one such theory in that it fits all the above criteria.
Religion - a belief in a god - is a theory which does not stand up: it makes no sense and there is not a jot of evidence to support it. So the equivalence of 'both sides of the debate' does not exist.
Religion is faith - belief without the need for evidence.
So, answering flobadob, religionists are always reluctant to admit to absurdities in the bible because they don't deal in fact, evidence and logic, merely faith.
-- answer removed --
You are along the right lines Steve. One reason for the success of Christianity was it's ability to adapt and absorb features of other beliefs. The general plan of a church descends from a Roman basilica but it is also much the same as a Mithraum which was the place of worship for the cult of Mithras. That was the main religion of the Roman soldier and the Christian Eucharist is a direct descendant too. Worshippers of the Persian god Mithras joined him in his meal of bread and the blood of the bull he killed. That was adopted by Christians consuming bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ.
Another adaptation was the Christian adoption of Mary and Jesus as 'Mother and Child'. That term was originally used for the Egyptian gods Isis and Horus who were the focus of the most powerful religion of ancient times - especially amongst women. Horus was always depicted sitting on Isis's lap or in her arms just as Jesus and Mary have been since. Women generally worshipped the gentle Isis and Horus and men worshipped the warrior Mithras.
Christianity's success was to recognise that it couldn't fight and supplant the old religions - they absorbed their features instead. That's also why we still celebrate Celtic pagan festivals under Christian names such as Christmas which supplants the Celts' Mid-winter festival.
The Bible flobadod is a loose collection of texts that date from many centuries before and just after Christ. None can really be taken literally but there are echoes of empires, peoples, places and events under the surface. It's thought that the flood story is an echo of the terrible disaster that must have occurred when the Black Sea was formed by a vast flood about 9,000 years ago. The same story occurs in all the ancient literatures.
There isn't much in the Bible that can be exactly pinned down though.
Another adaptation was the Christian adoption of Mary and Jesus as 'Mother and Child'. That term was originally used for the Egyptian gods Isis and Horus who were the focus of the most powerful religion of ancient times - especially amongst women. Horus was always depicted sitting on Isis's lap or in her arms just as Jesus and Mary have been since. Women generally worshipped the gentle Isis and Horus and men worshipped the warrior Mithras.
Christianity's success was to recognise that it couldn't fight and supplant the old religions - they absorbed their features instead. That's also why we still celebrate Celtic pagan festivals under Christian names such as Christmas which supplants the Celts' Mid-winter festival.
The Bible flobadod is a loose collection of texts that date from many centuries before and just after Christ. None can really be taken literally but there are echoes of empires, peoples, places and events under the surface. It's thought that the flood story is an echo of the terrible disaster that must have occurred when the Black Sea was formed by a vast flood about 9,000 years ago. The same story occurs in all the ancient literatures.
There isn't much in the Bible that can be exactly pinned down though.
Yes, a very good answer, Andyvon. But the god-man ritual you mention was even nearer the later Christian Eucharist. These words..
"He that will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."
...are from the god-man Mithras.
Years later the gospel of John says...
"Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in yourselves. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will live in me and I in him."
In fact, there is little in the Jesus story which wasn't already part of the various pagan god-man stories.
"He that will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."
...are from the god-man Mithras.
Years later the gospel of John says...
"Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in yourselves. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will live in me and I in him."
In fact, there is little in the Jesus story which wasn't already part of the various pagan god-man stories.
1 to 9 of 9
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.