Is There a Scientific Basis for an Afterlife?

[theVOID]

You mistakenly align me with some strange literalist interpretations. As I hope you will appreciate there is no reason for me to address those. Or were you being deliberately childish perhaps?

It is with your own twisted interpretation you seek to hang me. Perhaps you should look a little closer to home? Me I shall stick with my best effort unless something better should present itself amid this dross.

Why don't you take the bible and write down all the parts you believe are literal, mythical, metaphorical and fraudulent then rationalize your decision for all of us.

[Purple Rabbit]

You mistakenly align me with some strange literalist interpretations. As I hope you will appreciate there is no reason for me to address those. Or were you being deliberately childish perhaps?

It is with your own twisted interpretation you seek to hang me. Perhaps you should look a little closer to home? Me I shall stick with my best effort unless something better should present itself amid this dross.

As for now I am not assigning any specific christian interpretation to you. I am clearly asking how YOU bridge the gap between science and biblical account. I know there are many incompatible versions of the truth within christianity, all only requiring faith. But the fact there are many interpretations shows that it is impossible to resolve truth on faith alone.

I observe you are adding more and more emotion to your replies (with words like 'childish', 'dull' 'dross'). It seems it is your trademark. I hereby inform you that I do not seek to 'hang you' but am looking for argumentative debate. I am attacking opinions not you as a person. It is your good right to not answer my question how you bridge the gap but it won't credit you in debate.

[fr0d0]

So you withdraw your last comment then Rabbit?

Science and biblical account? All I see is you attributing pseudo scientific dross to biblical texts. There's nothing to answer there - just remove the bullshit!?

So tell me all these incompatible versions of the truth 'only' requiring faith please.

..and variety of interpretation shows that faith alone isn't enough? It requires reason perhaps?!?

Likewise I have no issue with you personally. However I feel I can express boredom or highlight naive understanding should it be obvious. I know you can take that so... Likewise I take your contradictions on the chin. No hard feelings old fella

[Purple Rabbit]

So you withdraw your last comment then Rabbit?

Of course not. It is in full accordance with my last reply in this thread.

Science and biblical account? All I see is you attributing pseudo scientific dross to biblical texts. There's nothing to answer there - just remove the bullshit!?

I have not indulged in adding any personal interpretation to biblical texts in my question to you. Though there is a variety of biblical versions, everyone of them with it's own specific rather incoherent phrasing, the short statements I have given in my post are widely known as genuine (for whatever it's worth) biblical accounts.

So tell me all these incompatible versions of the truth 'only' requiring faith please.

Now you're asking too much. I cannot even try to be complete with that. But you surely must know that there are 3000 different christian denominations each with it's own absolutely right interpretation of the truth.

..and variety of interpretation shows that faith alone isn't enough? It requires reason perhaps?!?

The most obvious fact about it of course that it simply defies reason that there are so many versions of the holy truth and nothing but the truth.

Likewise I have no issue with you personally. However I feel I can express boredom or highlight naive understanding should it be obvious. I know you can take that so... Likewise I take your contradictions on the chin. No hard feelings old fella

There you go then.

[fr0d0]

Rabbit: I have no desire to chase your multiple dodging gymnastics. If you have nothing to say please try not to prolong the agony


"If you are using rationality to asses christianity then how do you reconcile biblical account with the fossil record, an all-good all-powerfull god with kid cancer, the fact that Nazareth did not exist in Jesus' time, the evidence that moral naturally arises in primate groups with the account of divinely provided absolute moral, the fact that our universe is 13.7 billion year old and that it took several billion years to form earth with the biblical account in which it took seven days."

....This is you using strange literalist interpretation of biblical text. NOTE: I never said "personal interpretation". Or were you arguing with yourself there??

Here's an old chestnut for you: All Christians agree on the Nicene Crede. Denominations serve differing expressions of faith. All have access to the truth that is universally agreed between them.

Can you give me just one example where the truth 'varies' then please?

[Pope Alfred]

Here's an old chestnut for you: All Christians agree on the Nicene Crede. Denominations serve differing expressions of faith. All have access to the truth that is universally agreed between them.

Oh, come on, fr0d0, I torpedoed that one last week.

[fr0d0]

I apologise your holiness (Don't tell the wabbit ok?)

[Purple Rabbit]

Too late.

[Pope Alfred]

Too late.

Heh!

[Purple Rabbit]

Rabbit: I have no desire to chase your multiple dodging gymnastics. If you have nothing to say please try not to prolong the agony

Dodging seems your middle name fr0d0, for it is my question that you at all cost try to avoid.
And if I wasn't saying anything there would be no reason to react, is it?

"If you are using rationality to asses christianity then how do you reconcile biblical account with the fossil record, an all-good all-powerfull god with kid cancer, the fact that Nazareth did not exist in Jesus' time, the evidence that moral naturally arises in primate groups with the account of divinely provided absolute moral, the fact that our universe is 13.7 billion year old and that it took several billion years to form earth with the biblical account in which it took seven days."

....This is you using strange literalist interpretation of biblical text. NOTE: I never said "personal interpretation". Or were you arguing with yourself there??

Reading is an art form it seems. What my question confronts the reader with is not a literalist interpretation of biblical text but the contrast between 5 separate cases of widely known raw biblical accounts with scientific knowledge. If you happen to be a literalist you may give a literalist answer to the question how to reconcile the former with the latter, emphasizing the historic accuracy of the bible. If you happen to be a non-literalist you might give an answer that interprets the biblical account in a more loosely manner, for instance as non historically accurate. The question leaves ample room for either interpretation. And that room is precisely the reason to ask you the question dear fr0d0, not because I am so insanely interested in you as a person, but because you are here to have discussion and present me with opinions that dffer from mine.

Now, how about answering the question?

Here's an old chestnut for you: All Christians agree on the Nicene Crede. Denominations serve differing expressions of faith. All have access to the truth that is universally agreed between them.

It's good to hear that even at the other side of the universe everybody agrees on the Nicene Crede. But not all christian denominations adhere to the Nicene Crede (example: the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints).

Can you give me just one example where the truth 'varies' then please?

A rather clear example is the principle of Trinity which is held as central to most denominations but not in Pentacostal belief and Modalism.