Did Jesus Die?

[TdC]

my eReligion is bigger than yours, infidel

 

[Turamber]

Aristarchus proposed that the Earth reveolved around the Sun before Jesus was even a twinkle in God's eye.

Jesus never commented on whether the Earth revolved around the Sun or vica-versa, moreover the Bible does not specifically discuss the issue ... the Catholic Church simply maintained the commonly accepted view of it's day. I'm not Catholic and have a lot of problems with their religion, but I'm just trying to be fair in my outlook. Such as pointing out that they did fund research and did embrace a number of advances.

science is precisely NOT a religion. The whole point about scientific theories is that they must be able to be challenged.

And yet the theory of evolution is taught as scientific fact in many schools and people who reject it are seen in a similar light as heretics are to 'religionists'.

 

[Wij]

Jesus never commented on whether the Earth revolved around the Sun or vica-versa, moreover the Bible does not specifically discuss the issue ... the Catholic Church simply maintained the commonly accepted view of it's day. I'm not Catholic and have a lot of problems with their religion, but I'm just trying to be fair in my outlook. Such as pointing out that they did fund research and did embrace a number of advances.

I never said he did. It was an aside.

And yet the theory of evolution is taught as scientific fact in many schools and people who reject it are seen in a similar light as heretics are to 'religionists'.

Because it IS a proved fact. The theory, is in principle, disprovable. That's what seperates it from relgious 'truths'. The theory has been proven though by a century of research. No more proof could ever be required. It would be like saying the theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun has not been proven becuase, it is a theory, which by definition COULD be disproved, if appropriate evidence turned up. At some point though you have to draw a line and say "Nah, 100 years of scientific study back this up. Nothing has disproved it. We can make useful discoveries by using this as the basis for further theories. It's a fact."

And it is.

 

[nath]

There's nothing wrong with working on the basis that things are true, but you've also got to accept the fact that it could all be bullshit - these theories are not infallible.

 

[Tom]

Frightening to think that Jesus was a Biblical Arthur Scargill.

 

[Sar]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. It's more that mass media has exposed people to a whole new array of mumbo-jumbo to believe and progressive attitudes have taught people that their ill-educated brain-spew is just as valid an opinion as that of someone with a PhD in Physics.

Churches are in decline. Superstition and belief in drivel is as high as ever.

I would. Rationality accounts for more of the Churches modern failings than anything else. New Age religions, sects and cults do account for a fair whack of people leaving the "flock" (curiously apt that term, considering what flock is the collective term for), I'll grant you that, but scientific and rational thought is the single largest reason.

And I'd echo what Dys said: The fact that Darwin said in initial runs of "Origin of the Species" he thought God was the First Cause (as mentioned previously - a flawed argument) has little bearing on this conversation other than as a small aside.

Wij made the rest of my points for me.