Just wondering if anyone else has seen this..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33838894/ns/technology_and_science-space

No I have not but really interesting. Just think Jesus only appeared on toast and potatoe chips and stuff.

The Catholic Church has been open and accepting of new scientific research and dicoveries for years now.

I personally find it to be the epitome of arrogance and ignorance.



As far as I'm concerned this is hogwash. All they are attempting to do is claim that somehow their faith in the Biblical stories can survive in the vase of scientific evidence to the contrary.

The real problem with the religion is that it can't even get along with other religions. Even those of its own faith! Much less with other world religions and philosophies.

Instead of attempting to claim that "Their Faith" can be made compatible with science, what they truly should be recognizing is that if there is any truth to a creator of this universe that truth must reside in all of mankind's spiritual philosophies and they need to drop this idea that any one book speaks for God, or that one individual was the actual 'son of God' sent to pay for the sins of man.

That just isn't going to work.

They aren't going to get anywhere with me attempting to claim that their "Faith" is compatible with science, when the very doctrine they place their "Faith" in isn't even compatible with it's own stories.

There are blatant contradictions in the Bible. It's clearly not the infallible word of any god. It's the made-up stories of men who can't even keep their stories straight.

And Jesus didn't even agree with the teachings of the Torah, or Old Testament, so it's all for naught anyway. Jesus couldn't possible have been the Son of Yahweh. In fact, Yahweh's very was translated from the Hebrew letters YHWH which actually stood for Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. The very origins of the religion came from ideas of Magick, not from some idea of a jealous egotistical Zeus-like Godhead.

This whole thing is nothing more than a desperate attempt of a dying church to try to survive in a world that is becoming increasingly scientific.

The church may fear that signs of extraterrestrial life may soon be discovered and so they are attempting to build a case ahead of time so that when that happens they won't instantly loose their flock.

They'd be far further ahead to confess that Jesus was most likely not the son of Yahweh and Yahweh was indeed a false God. Then they could follow Jesus like the Buddhists follow Buddha and toss out all the hate and bigotry from the Old Testament and 75% of the New Testament that was written by Paul.

Then they could keep Jesus without having to cling to the bigotry and male chauvinism of the Old Testament. And science and extratrestrials would be a freebie.

Instead of attempting to claim that "Their Faith" can be made compatible with science, what they truly should be recognizing is that if there is any truth to a creator of this universe that truth must reside in all of mankind's spiritual philosophies and they need to drop this idea that any one book speaks for God, or that one individual was the actual 'son of God' sent to pay for the sins of man.




Abra, I respect your right not to believe but why should the church recognize something they dont believe? Truth about a person , event, or even GOD does not reside in everyones beliefs, people believe and write falsehoods and false perceptions all the time.

For there to be a creator, does not require recognition that anyone who chooses to write their opinions of him should have those accounts taken as truthful accounts. Certainly, if you write an auto biography about yourself or even have a relative write a biography, I should take those books as more truthful accounts than some observer or person who never knew you.

The Bible is one of many truthful accounts, in my opinion, of what happened during specific periods of time as they pertained to faith and God. There are other truthful books, but certainly not all the books written are truth just because someone wrote them.

very well stated, took the words right out of my mouth!!

Truthful accounts can now be laced with contradictions and proven falsehoods yet still be considered the truth?

contradictions based upon whose perception? I dont know of these proven falsehoods either. It is the truth to me.

Matthew 27:5
And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18 (written by Luke)
Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.


Here we have two very important authors of the New Testment, Luke and Matthew telling totally different tales about the history of Judas. They differ dramatically on both, whether or not Judas kept his reward money, and on how he died.

The bible is full of these kinds of blatant contradictions.

If these authors can't be trusted to know what they are writing about with respect to Judas then why should their accounts of Jesus be any more respectable?

The many books of the bible are different perceptions from different authors. The above does not necessarily contradict each other as possibly refer to separate details of the events of Judas death. His money could purchase land before he chose to toss it. He could have fallen asunder and burst once his body rotted from hanging ( i dont know of any man just simultaneously falling over while alive and then bursting open.) The book is not the simplest to intepret or understand, but it is simplistic to say that different authors contradict each other because they choose differing details or see those details from a differing pov.

Proven falsehood- simple Dec 25th was not Christ's birthday. Historians had proved long ago that it was impossible to have a child in that climate in December. Other religions had virgin births long before Christianity was created.

And as for whose perceptions are these contradictions based on, any person that can read and detect fallacies I suppose.

( i dont know of any man just simultaneously falling over while alive and then bursting open.)

I know of no one walking on water or parting the sea either.

I know of one, Lord and Saviour.

Many people capable of reading draw different conclusions from what they have read. AS far as christmas, it was never stated in the bible the date Christ was born and I find it hard to believe that there was any climate in which children couldnt be concieved or birthed.

Sub-zero delivery, novel idea. And it was an immaculate conception right? I noticed you had nothing to say about Christianity copying the virgin birth method...do I need to delve into all of the other instances that were copied? The resurrection of christ for example.

And how was it proven what the ORIGINAL story was or when it occurred. hopefully we dont just go by WHEN the books were written.....?

LOL..........yep a closed mind I think....I am trying to show you there are other, scientific explanations, yet you are holding on with every fiber of your being to this fairy tale. If a person today were as shrewd and made the same claims as this diety, think they would be on the streets?

Moreover; this one is supposed to be perfect, think they would let themselves be interpreted differently? Wouldn't it make more sense to have one universal description instead of differing opinions?

I'm done here. Good debating with you, but in reality this is an age old argument that will probably never end.

we get to witness first hand Christianity turning into scientology