Nice the thread is back
It's not the first time that the leader of a cult (or possibly he wasn't even and the cult started somewhere else) was described as a holy, special person. Hubbard of Scientology also claims to know some universal truths only he knew before he spreaded it. Mohammed said he had contact to God, but Christians don't believe in the Koran nonetheless. Other religions exist as well and most have their divines.
First off I take offense to you assuming Jesus Christ is a cult leader 
.....if you want to talk with me be respectful because I'm going to be respectful to you. Secondly your putting all religion in the same field assuming they all say the same thing while that is definitely not the case. The thing is Jesus was the first of his kind (and I would say only) in that He has the unique claim unlike anyone else that he is actually God. Also Mohammed came at the end of the first century and his writings were influenced by Catholics and Jews and there is even evidence of him confusing two different biblical passages together because he thought the Jews and the Catholics were talking about the same person when they really weren't. I do not deny that some people abuse religion, but the whole point of me being Catholic is that I recognize Jesus Christ as being the SOLE representative of the truth and disregard the other religions because I recognize Him as God. I do not disrespect anyone with any religion but I don't believe in all of them, only one.
Of course it's explainable in other ways as well, but this was only about the point you mentioned that science was unable to answer the question. I only wanted to make sure to write why science is absolutely able to answer it.
I still disagree because science is not something that is absolute 
. If it was it would have all the answers and it doesn't nor with it ever have them. Humanity will never have them because our existence in limited. We can progress in our understanding but we will never reach an end because frankly we'd have to become unlimited being and thats impossible.
Ok, this is fun because it's a major internal dissent.
You claim that mens' knowledge is too limited to explain anything scientifically.
And the same time, religion claims to explain
everything.
This does not fit together.
Now, the difference is: Religion is static. Someone says something, and this statement is treated as a static universal truth.
Science does accept that we do know everything. It tries to ask a question, and then try to find an answer. This answer either just remains a
theory -which means it's officially "no official truth", or it's beeing
proven by the amount of logic we can use. Once it's
proven wrong, the potential answer has to be scrapped or at least changed, so it can be tested again.
Again another assumption. Religion doesn't claim it knows everything. Specifically Catholicism recognizes humanities inferiority to God in which we can't know everything. We wouldn't know anything about God if God Himself didn't choose to reveal Himself to us in Jesus Christ. We only know what we do know because of God. Catholicism doesn't claim to explain everything because only God can do it. It claims that we have RECOGNIZED the source of everything and have clarified as much as we can on the source as revealed to us through Jesus Christ, but we will never KNOW the source in itself because we would have to be God to do that.
Gravity can be measured by different means. Then the measurements can be concluded into a mathematical system to describe gravity. This system then will either be proven universally right, or it will remain "just another theory", or it will be proven wrong and scrapped.
Since it's rarely possible to find final evidence, it often just remains a theory: It's beeing used to predict something, than this prediction will be compared to reality; and when they meet each other, then the theory worked for the specific case. Once there is a case in which this does not happen, the theory has been proven wrong and will be scrapped.
Of course this means that it takes a long, long, long, long time to eventually find a truth. But the good thing about that, is that it will actually change after it's been proven wrong.
Right but that is not what I am saying. I'm saying that even if you can find mathematics to REPRESENT the existence of gravity, you can not actually encounter GRAVITY ITSELF. The mathematics are the evidence of the existence of a force yet you cant say you experience and come in one on one contact with the force and what it is really like. You look at the evidence and the effects of the force and have faith that it actually exists based on the evidence. That is that same I do with my faith in Jesus Christ is that I've seen evidence and things which point to something I cannot actually see and encounter in itself and chose to accept that it exists because I find it reasonable and likely based on my understanding.
How can something like the Bible be compared with that? It cannot. It just claims "this is universal truth" and makes a bunch of claims which cannot be proven wrong - however, it does not mark them as "just a theory", but claims them to be universally true. It's stupid.
The Bible is a theological text and as I would say is supposed to be a reflection of God and who he is. If its really God, then its supposed to be universal truth because that is what God is, and more. The Bible isn't science, God isn't science but beyond that. Its not stupid because frankly if the Bible was to be a "theory" then I'd scrap it and put it along every other scientific theory out there BUT I DONT because I recognize it as dealing with God who deserves to be above all science since He's creator. Again with the "Its stupid" comment, you want to talk to me, then do it with some respect 
.
The same dissent. We cannot prove anything, but religion contains universal truths - these concepts don't fit together. If we cannot prove anything, but only could use proven facts, then in what way would religion be better than science? Simple answer: It is not.
Science tries to prove facts as far as we can with our human senses and intellectual capacities. And, other than religion, it obviously showed quite some success! We can build diverse high tech machines. We can build computers. We can build a rocket. We can produce, measure and predict electricity. If science was all wrong, how could this possibly work? Do you believe in such an amazing coincidence, that all of this scientifical stuff just works out randomly although our science was unrelated to the real world?
NO my point is that I believe science as well, but I'm correlating the act of faith one makes even with science with the act of faith I make in Christ. Evidence for something doesn't necessarily equate to you KNOWING the object of discussion. In science all we have is mathematics which are numerical representations of how things are and because we trust in those representations of something that is true, we can progress technologically. I don't think it is all coincidental, that is also my point why I believe in God as well because the universe contains all these complex truths in science that it is just unfathomable to acknowledge it as all just being coincidence.
On the other hand, what is the success of religion, any kind of event which would be a hint that religion was right? Some miracle healings, some old stories. Unrelated to our lifes. It looks kinda scarce compared to the accomplishments of science.
There are many miracles and healing associated with Catholicism. I've heard MANY cases in which people were miraculously healed of cancer when the doctor told them they were terminally ill. I've had personal miracles. There have been WIDE range miracles such as the Miracle of the Sun in Fatima in which 30,000 to 100,000 people witnessed the sun do miraculous things such as rapidly moving across the sky, and this was just after an apparition of Mary (Jesus' Mother).
I'd also say that its supposed to be scarce in comparison to science because if it could easily be analyzed by science and explained then it wouldn't be a miracle 
.
Originally Posted by Roflkopt3r
Reply With Quote
3 Member(s) thanked this post
) ago and then I've been to Canada. Those are the only two times I've been outside the country 
.
