Why does science always upstage God?

[The Grand Nudger]

-adden

That others have since used it otherwise, to me, displays one of the most singularly remarkable things about christian myth - it's extreme adaptability.  Look at that, the rare item of admiration about jesusism, literal or allegoric. He truly has become all things to all men...or was that "paul"....?....

---

Ha! Trick question, they're both fictional characters in an allegorical teaching aide about the divine cosmos.

---

That's more nice-times common ground because I know it makes Whatevs smile.

[Haipule]

I have no reason to doubt you have the history right (nor am I possessed of enough fucks one way or another to check for myself).  But I still think there is room for self-identified Catholics and even the institution as a whole to make their way to an allegorical understanding of the resurrection and everything else.  In the end, those who remain religious as well as well educated, open and reflective will realize that all of it is allegorical.  I'm sure there are Catholic clergy now who hold their faith in that way.  They just have no scruples about talking down to those who need to hear them in literal fairy tales .

Of course some catholics -do- make their way to such an understanding, but not on account of any room for it in catholicism's own official doctrine.  They insist that the cracker and wine are really transformed by muttered verse.  

They could always schism...again, I suppose.

---

I am a literalist because allegory is asinine! That started in the church by a clown named Origen. It leads to opinions and never ending more opinions and not understanding.

No, it didn't.  Origen is part of the later second century ruckus, not the originator of allegorical interpretations within or without any christian "church".  The rabbinic tradition had already established two seperate allegorical schools of thought which predated any silly christianism (by centuries) - and it was one of the schools, particularly, that influenced that later "christian jews" and earlier jewy jews who believed in jesus as an archangel.  

The alexandrian school is strongly represented in early christianity (the tradition from which Origen would ultimately arise, no less..as well as Clement, Eusebius, and Augustine of Hippo.   It even brought us the ontological argument).

The palestinian is more well represented in islam (amusingly enough).

Both persist in current rabbinic traditions to this very day in their own right. Ask a rabbi how much allegory there is in the OT, it is their book, after all.  Meanwhile, the same was certainly true of the earliest forms of christianity and the NT, by the continuing presence of alexandrian scholarship and Origens training therein (the whole reason he was ever anybody)...from which he drew his own personal theology even as he converted others to an emerging and increasingly literal orthodoxy.

He detested literal interpretations because they were as ignorant then as they are now, something which had been known for a long time already.  -and yet here we are, 2018..literal nutters talking about how allegory is assanine leading only to opinion and no understanding.  Well, if that's the case, it's time to give up jesus and christ and christianity altogether.  It was not intended to be and it has never been anything more than allegory in the first place.

I am not part of any of that! Not Clement, not Eusebius and most certainly not a part of that Hippo(horse) clown! Augustinianism is lamer than lame! Even the Eastern Orthodox agrees even though he was from the Eastern Church, whom he also spoke Latin, whom tried to amend the "Great Schism", the Eastern Orthodox call him a clown and I am not Eastern Orthodox Catholic or any other type of Catholic and I am not a Protestant or "Undenominational". I am a pre-denominationalist only and reject every theology since the NT bible was written! And every goofy Pharisaical religious idea preceding the writing of the Newer Covenants!

Augustine had his head so far up his own ass he didn't even smell it! As far as the earliest church so called "fathers", whom were a bunch of anti-Semitic's, why on earth would I listen to them?

I don't care how far back the idiocy of allegory goes, I only went as far back as Origen. The Jews introduced the stupidest idea in the English language which is "spirit"! Really, is God a "Spirit"(don't quote that misunderstood, badly translated verse please) or, is God somehow, "spiritual"? Spirit from the Latin word spiritus which merely means: breath. Do you have any idea how desperately bad you would have to manipulate Scripture to come to any such conclusion of "spirit", "spirituality" or, "Trinity"?

God is preternatural and not, supernatural! He is a part of all that nature is which He established, NOT BEYOND IT! The Antioch school and the Alexandrian school often argued points especially Nestorius head of the Antioch seminary whom was anti-Roman Church and forced to flee for his life.

It was NEVER indented to be allegorical endless opinion. Just accept and we'll fill in the blanks later. The problem with the church is, they tried to fill in the blanks then without any understanding of what you know now! See the problem?

Why on earth would anyone defend a man invented scripture and man invented church and at the same time be atheist? What, is it more fun that way? You know, attacking from both ends? Your talking to me, NOT whatever you invent the church to be! I know what the Greek NT says and doesn't say. I am the ekklEsia, the called-out of God. Not a hierarchal money grubber with an agenda of trolling!

Before you say it, "So your right and everyone else is wrong?" That's everyone else's problem, not mine! I only wish I knew why me, why now! I do not question the fact that I DO exist right here, right now! Nor the fact that I am called to be magnificent! Cut me some slack, I'm on uncharted territory!

[The Grand Nudger]

I am not part of any of that! Not Clement, not Eusebius and most certainly not a part of that Hippo(horse) clown! Augustinianism is lamer than lame! Even the Eastern Orthodox agrees even though he was from the Eastern Church, whom he also spoke Latin, whom tried to amend the "Great Schism", the Eastern Orthodox call him a clown and I am not Eastern Orthodox Catholic or any other type of Catholic and I am not a Protestant or "Undenominational". I am a pre-denominationalist only and reject every theology since the NT bible was written! And every goofy Pharisaical religious idea preceding the writing of the Newer Covenants!

Then perhaps you simply don;t have an accurate picture of the history of the christian faith.  No sweat there...theres a reason for that.  Right around two thousand sustained reasons for it, in fact.  

The only typer of christianity that we can identify as having existed before the construction of the NT was allegorical.  That was the cheif heresy that the NT orthodoxy set out to eradicate from the word go and it was an uphill battle for them.  It's why Origen was made as a consequence of his profession to convert people to an ideology which he did not share with them.  If you were a "pre-denominationalist and reject every theology specifically -since- the NT..you would be in the allegory camp.

Augustine had his head so far up his own ass he didn't even smell it! As far as the earliest church so called "fathers", whom were a bunch of anti-Semitic's, why on earth would I listen to them?

If I had to suggest an explanation, it's because you're confused.  

I don't care how far back the idiocy of allegory goes, I only went as far back as Origen. The Jews introduced the stupidest idea in the English language which is "spirit"! Really, is God a "Spirit"(don't quote that misunderstood, badly translated verse please) or, is God somehow, "spiritual"? Spirit from the Latin word spiritus which merely means: breath. Do you have any idea how desperately bad you would have to manipulate Scripture to come to any such conclusion of "spirit", "spirituality" or, "Trinity"?

You made a claim.  It was wrong.  Not a little bit wrong, hugely wrong..and you;re still making predictably innaccurate claims that obviously relate to that initial mistake.  The "idiocy of allegory" was the foundation of christian myth.  Literal interpretation of choice bits was a later invention of politically motivated actors and (I'm sure) a good deal of true but equally confused believers as yourself...but..importanly, the product of the very same set you describe here as a bunch of clowns you wouldn't associate yourself with.

God is preternatural and not, supernatural! He is a part of all that nature is which He established, NOT BEYOND IT! The Antioch school and the Alexandrian school often argued points especially Nestorius head of the Antioch seminary whom was anti-Roman Church and forced to flee for his life.

It was NEVER indented to be allegorical endless opinion. Just accept and we'll fill in the blanks later. The problem with the church is, they tried to fill in the blanks then without any understanding of what you know now! See the problem?

You are wrong here, demonstrably wrong.  The oldest extant christ myth is of a divine christ.  No life and ministry, no miracles, no resurrection appearances.  Nada.  These stories were later additions of allegory to divine events - that were subsequently -used- as a literal basis for an emerging orthodoxy in the proto catholic church.

Why on earth would anyone defend a man invented scripture and man invented church and at the same time be atheist? What, is it more fun that way? You know, attacking from both ends? Your talking to me, NOT whatever you invent the church to be! I know what the Greek NT says and doesn't say. I am the ekklEsia, the called-out of God. Not a hierarchal money grubber with an agenda of trolling!  

I don't know, why would anyone "defend" man made scripture...of the allegoric -or- literal variety?  It's a question that you're far better equipped to answer than I am.  

Before you say it, "So your right and everyone else is wrong?" That's everyone else's problem, not mine! I only wish I knew why me, why now! I do not question the fact that I DO exist right here, right now! Nor the fact that I am called to be magnificent! Cut me some slack, I'm on uncharted territory!

You're definitely off the res.......I'll give you that. but I want to stress here that my intention is not to challenge your beliefs and comments for the simple sake of making fun of you.  You are wrong about your own beliefs.  Not as a matter of opinion..and not as an allegory, literally wrong. Biblical literalism is an invention, not an authentic, pre-denominational, pre-NT faith. These are facts about your faith and the christian faith. If there turned out to actually be a literal jesus or a literal genesis..it would be an almost unfathomable coincidence of pure chance. Of life, somehow, imitating religion.

[GUBU]

Are there any theists here who feel that science should keep its nose out of God's mysterious ways?

After all, all science is doing is diminishing God's mysterious ways. Everyday, credit is taken away from him.
I'd be furious if I was a theist...lol

Before you know it, God's lost all his power and is left having a one on one conversation with theists...
Shit, I might be too late! He's already doing that now!

Stephen Jay Gould proposed this, non-overlapping magesteria. Problem was that science kept finding ways to enter religion's realm.

[GUBU]

Ah!  Found a good starting point.

Miller, S.L.  A Production of Amino Acids under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions.  Science, 117(3046), 528-529.

There are dozens of starting points. None of them are particularly good until they lead to an ending point. We don't have any ending points.
.

Just because religion assumes the answer before asking the question, it doesn't follow that it's a good idea.

[Amarok]

There are dozens of starting points. None of them are particularly good until they lead to an ending point. We don't have any ending points.

That is quite possibly the dumbest thing i have ever seen said on this forum.

[GUBU]

No, no, they tried as hard as they could to eradicate that heresy.  It was highly damaging to their authority and, thus....their bottom line.  Catholicism is a simple but effective variation of a highly syncretic temple taxation scheme.  They needed a real peter, they needed a flesh and blood christ.  It's wholly through their insistence (and enforcement) that the story was in some sense literal that you would have come to believe it as whatever form of protestantism you suffered under.

The catholic faith, by the by, is dogmatically bound to literal creationism where it matters - in case you were taught otherwise by "catholics", lol.

That's surprising... to hear it told, it's as if the whole of that pesky OT was made allegory

With the catholic church they don't stop insisting you believe the obviously stupid shit. They just stop telling you about it.

When you look at the canon creationism is still there it's just that no penguin, priesr etc. will ever bring it up.

[John V]

No, but it does produce microspheres that encompass materials the catalyze basic reactions of life (like glucolysis). These microsphere will bud and split.

So while not life (yet),

Yep.

they are much closer than most people are aware.

It's interesting anyway. Got links to peer-reviewed sources?

[polymath257]

No, but it does produce microspheres that encompass materials the catalyze basic reactions of life (like glucolysis). These microsphere will bud and split.

So while not life (yet),

Yep.

they are much closer than most people are aware.

It's interesting anyway. Got links to peer-reviewed sources?

For protenoid microspheres, look up articles by Sidney Fox. These are older: back to the 1970s. For lipid microspheres, here is a good one to start with (unfortunately behind a paywall):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...via%3Dihub

I actually suspect multiple lines of chemical changes leading to the first life. The iron sulfur aspects, for example, probably came from deep sea vents. Some of the early polymerization was more likely to happen in small ponds undergoing cycles of drying and re-wetting.

It is a fact that we have not produced artificial life. But it is also a fact that we understand much more about the basic chemistry required than we did 30 years ago. And, that new understanding makes abiogenesis more likely rather than less.

[Amarok]

Yep.


It's interesting anyway. Got links to peer-reviewed sources?

For protenoid microspheres, look up articles by Sidney Fox. These are older: back to the 1970s. For lipid microspheres, here is a good one to start with (unfortunately behind a paywall):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...via%3Dihub

I actually suspect multiple lines of chemical changes leading to the first life. The iron sulfur aspects, for example, probably came from deep sea vents. Some of the early polymerization was more likely to happen in small ponds undergoing cycles of drying and re-wetting.

It is a fact that we have not produced artificial life. But it is also a fact that we understand much more about the basic chemistry required than we did 30 years ago. And, that new understanding makes abiogenesis more likely rather than less.

Your just wasting your time . He won't read it or will only read what he thinks supports his points(thou they never do ) Then will retort "that does not prove anything" or "That's not good enough" And the goalpost moving will continue. Because he does not care about the evidence . His conclusions are carved in stone . And no evidence will shift it. And worst he will twist anything you say to argue for hypocrisy were none exists  and religiosity were none exists . He argues in bad faith .