Jesus was married in Kana?

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Mveins0
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


Still cannot be even proven the man existed, and you're trying to spin a marriage on him. SMH.


Yeah, and we can't prove Pythagoras existed either. Then his wisdom and knowledge is invalid and must be nulled according to your "logic".




posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


His wisdom and knowledge can be tested and proven.. unlike your theoretical marriage.. or Jesus' existence.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Mveins0
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


His wisdom and knowledge can be tested and proven.. unlike your theoretical marriage.. or Jesus' existence.


You know, ethics, philosophy and theology are sciences too. Since when was it unscientific and useless to propose theories in any subject or field? The idea that Jesus never existed is you theory. And I respect that. The thought has crossed my mind quite a few times, and your point was again?



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


sciences according to you, pseudoscience according to others.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   


How did this benefit "america" or mankind since Bush claimed that 'God" wanted him to run for president. Sure if you becomes a christian..or a muslim or a budhist, your life will change, but is this change for the good of all or for a selective few?? Is the change any good at all or are you using "selective perception"
reply to post by toktaylor
 


I don't see that it had any benefit for America or Mankind. Yes, He said in a way "God" wanted him to run for the presidency. I think it's all in his head. (and a way to get votes) I agree finding a religion your life will change. As far as that being for the good of all or a selective few. Well, that would depend on the person's who's life has changed. And the people they come into contact with and how they utilize their new life change.

I'm sure the change can be good, Assuming it's a positive one and how your portrayal of said event is.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


And my point was you might as well speculate whether Dracula and Frankenstein had a torrid gay relationship.. it'll be just as meaningful.. which is to say.. not at all.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Mveins0
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


sciences according to you, pseudoscience according to others.


Wow! Philosophy is now pseudo-science. That's a good one. Until the word 'scientist' was used the first time in the latter part of the 1800's, a scientist was refered to as a natural philosopher. You can take a PhD in philosophy on applied ethics at the world's greatest universities, and you claim it's pseudo-science? Science is philosophy. As for theology I tend to agree, but let's use the term 'Religious studies' or 'Science of religion'? Are they pseudo-sciences too?



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


Can a philosophy be proven? No. Ethics replicated and repeatable without fail? Alchemy was once thought a science too. And just because you can get a degree in something.. no matter where.. does not make it science. And theology? lol.. please.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 05:39 AM
link   

C21H30O2I
reply to post by Logarock
 


Duly noted. However, I simply, was showing the mass contradictions in the bible. (I certainly did not right the work.) By , quoting a few. We could show, discuss, debate, them all day. There are so many, I mean the whole book.



My favorite is Jesus telling us to forgive others or God wont forgive you. Then He says that He spoke in parables to keep some blind, to the point, so that they wouldn't repent and He wouldn't have to forgive them. He also extols virtue on the widow that couldn't just "let it go" bugging the Judge for justice until he gave it to her just to shut her yap. In yet another place He tells his disciples that they had power to forgive or not, they could bind or let go.

The above is just a surmise but it indicates......some folks don't have to forgive but there is no apparent criteria mentioned save for what looks like special granted authority, apostolic authority. Some criteria may be found in the 70x70 forgiveness maxim in that it is an intra brotherhood directive i.e "if your brother offend you". When asked who His brothers where Jesus said those that follow Me.

You can forgive but still demand justice, restoration and compensation.

So folks even Jesus doesn't want to forgive.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Mveins0
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


Can a philosophy be proven? No. Ethics replicated and repeatable without fail? Alchemy was once thought a science too. And just because you can get a degree in something.. no matter where.. does not make it science. And theology? lol.. please.


Isaac Newton was 95% religious alchemist, 5% scientist. Pythagoras was deeply into mystery and used most of his time defining the properties of music. He waited 50 odd years to be initiated into the mystery school from which he stole "his" famous theorem. And what with Euclid and Archimedes? Plato and Aristotle? They were all highly religious people. Still, they are pillars within science.

The studies of ancient religious manuscripts is science too, whether you like it or not. You apply scientific method and analyse these relics for what they are, and interpretation into the lores within is a very important part of it.

PS: As I said in my post, I tend to agree that theology could be called pseudo-science.
edit on 31-12-2013 by Utnapisjtim because: clearup
edit on 31-12-2013 by Utnapisjtim because: Postscript



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


And as I said.. many things that used to be considered science.. no longer are. You seem to think of the "soft" sciences as science. But you are wrong. Where interpretation comes in.. science goes out. its really as simple as that. If the best you can do is give me an estimate, an opinion, an interpretation.. which cannot be proven.. it .. is... not... science. period. You can try to apply the scientific method to it all you want.. it still doesn't make it science. Science is in the proving.
edit on 31-12-2013 by Mveins0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Mveins0
 


The Cosmos is a pillow of nothing, mate. Any odessey or endavour to understand nature is mere interpretation. Or are you in control of the spinning atoms?



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Mveins0
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


Can a philosophy be proven? No. Ethics replicated and repeatable without fail?


What we normally refer to as 'scientific method' and 'empirical research' &c. is philosophy. It is no problem to turn anything into math and put it under scrutiny mathmatically. Philosophy is the 'idea and logos' of science. Hey, in Norway you first have to complete 'examen philosophicum' before you are allowed to study anything at a university, and like I said earlier, science used to be called 'natural philosophy', while 'science' actually refers to 'subject' or 'field'.

For instance, often problems within medicine, very much science, can't be proven, but if we apply empiri (a philosophy) we can rationalise and evaluate &c. And in mathmatics you can't square-root a negative number, still we have concepts like the imaginary number i, where i^2 = −1 -- an impossibility, but still needed in some calculations for the answer to make sense.





top topics
 
16
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join