What isn't great on the History Channel? Religon!

[88GT]

I understand, and to a degree I can certainly see your point of view with abit of agreement.


General public:

We must accept that we live in a world, today. Which is activily seeking to undermine Christianity and it's principle heritage.

I've seen several times where mythology has been vendicated by science.

PP, whats wrong with the gnostic's?

My current bedside reading is a book on the Trojan War. For years it was thought the city of Troy was pure myth. Now it seems there's sufficient evidence to the contrary. The War itself may have been a complete Homeric fabrication (not far enough into the book to say one way or the other yet), but if the city was real, why can't the war be? On some level it's ludicrous to believe that it NEVER saw war. We're talking about a time where diplomacy consisted of arranged marriages and war, after all.

Also, an interesting point: both Paul and Homer use the "Achaen" (I think I've spelled that correctly) label for a group of people.

The list goes on. But has a sociological historical text, I think the Bible ranks up there with any other contemporaneous texts in terms of accuracy and validity. As a science text though, not so much.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

My current bedside reading is a book on the Trojan War. For years it was thought the city of Troy was pure myth. Now it seems there's sufficient evidence to the contrary. The War itself may have been a complete Homeric fabrication (not far enough into the book to say one way or the other yet), but if the city was real, why can't the war be? On some level it's ludicrous to believe that it NEVER saw war. We're talking about a time where diplomacy consisted of arranged marriages and war, after all.

Also, an interesting point: both Paul and Homer use the "Achaen" (I think I've spelled that correctly) label for a group of people.

The list goes on. But has a sociological historical text, I think the Bible ranks up there with any other contemporaneous texts in terms of accuracy and validity. As a science text though, not so much.

There is alot to suggest the Trojan war did occur. I doubt Turkey is very supportive.

Some speculate that the "Sea People" played a part in the Trojan war. Lost Trojans? Greeks?

In many Scandinavian/Frankish (French = Germanic kingdom) they speak directly of Troy. Ofcourse the myths were written, rewritten so on and so forth.

History and Origins of the Swedes and Sweden

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZJ1-cIAYMc]YouTube - Thor Heyerdahl's Odin theory[/ame]


When we hear modern day Scientist scuff at ancient history, we must also take into consideration what that says.

How can the ancients be wrong about one thing, but entirely correct on another. Why would they need to lie, how could they correlate the lie to be so truthful concerning other aspects aside from mythology that is vendication.

That is what stumps me about 'new insight'.

You would think that the History Channel could, at the very least, point out that the gnostic gospels are not historically accepted by the Christian Church.

Isnt what is accepted by the Christian Church only a result of the Council of Nyciea?

As I remember, the Council was set up, because there was so many different 'brands' of Christianity, teaching so many different aspects.

I dont understand the Gnostic's, but then again, I dont understand the book of mormon, either.

 

[brg1966]

Makes me crazy too! I take peace in the fact when these profs finally meet god it will be to late to believe!

 

[downzero]

Biblical stories are fact, an history....but not all men have faith to believe.

Facts don't require "faith to believe." Something is either factual or it's not.

"Faith" is belief in something for which you have no evidence to support its existence.

Something that requires "faith" can never be fact, or faith would be unnecessary.

 

[88GT]

Facts don't require "faith to believe." Something is either factual or it's not.

"Faith" is belief in something for which you have no evidence to support its existence.

Something that requires "faith" can never be fact, or faith would be unnecessary.

Well, not all facts are provable with our current capabilities. We still can't fully understand gravity, so until we do, we're somewhat operating under faith that it is what scientists tell us it is.

 

[Garb]

Facts don't require "faith to believe." Something is either factual or it's not.

"Faith" is belief in something for which you have no evidence to support its existence.

Something that requires "faith" can never be fact, or faith would be unnecessary.

I very much disagree. Faith is something that I have based on evidence I have already seen. For instance, many atheists view microevolution as proof of macroevolution. Faith in macroevolution is based on evidence in microevolution. The same goes for me. I have observed other historical documents that support the Bible, and I haven't seen any of the Bible that has been disproved undeniably. Since some of the Bible is proven to be historically accurate, and there is nothing credible to contradict it, I have faith that unproved parts of the Bible are also true.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Facts don't require "faith to believe." Something is either factual or it's not.

"Faith" is belief in something for which you have no evidence to support its existence.

Something that requires "faith" can never be fact, or faith would be unnecessary.

So why does the History Channel promote hypothesis as if they are facts.

It's amazing to me that Science consistantly finds new species of animals, has not explored the entire planet.

DZ, you are also not taking into consideration that the field of Science is like a clique, new ideas or information is often not accepted by the masses of Scientist because the new info often shows the older scientist for idiots, backwards, deceptive etc.

I know a School girl, in T.H Indiana who is told that Solar power, kills the sun... This idea is being promoted by the School.

What gives on that FACT...

 

[downzero]

Well, not all facts are provable with our current capabilities. We still can't fully understand gravity, so until we do, we're somewhat operating under faith that it is what scientists tell us it is.

Those aren't facts. A fact would be something along the lines of, "I released this ball from my hands and it fell to the ground." Why it happened, or trying to explain that, cannot be fact.

I very much disagree. Faith is something that I have based on evidence I have already seen. For instance, many atheists view microevolution as proof of macroevolution. Faith in macroevolution is based on evidence in microevolution. The same goes for me. I have observed other historical documents that support the Bible, and I haven't seen any of the Bible that has been disproved undeniably. Since some of the Bible is proven to be historically accurate, and there is nothing credible to contradict it, I have faith that unproved parts of the Bible are also true.

I'm sorry to say this, but if you're denying the existence of any sort of evolution, it's obvious that you have no place in any discussion about science or the philosophy of science.

Nothing in science, to my knowledge, is more concrete and established than evolution. Google "observed speciation" if you're interested in learning about the facts.

Scientists do not make a distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution because such a distinction is illegitimate. If you just said what you typed in this post to an evolutionary biologist, he would probably think you were so out of it and so far from reality that he'd just laugh and walk away.

This is one thing I've never quite understood about some people of faith. They can't even admit when they're clearly and obviously false. Denying evolution would be among those instances where there is little doubt.

 

[Delmar]

As I remember, the Council was set up, because there was so many different 'brands' of Christianity, teaching so many different aspects.

Because there were people teaching false doctrine, yes.

 

[Delmar]

Facts don't require "faith to believe." Something is either factual or it's not.

"Faith" is belief in something for which you have no evidence to support its existence.

According to the Bible, it is the evidence of things not seen.

Something that requires "faith" can never be fact, or faith would be unnecessary.

How certain are you of that?

 

[Garb]

Those aren't facts. A fact would be something along the lines of, "I released this ball from my hands and it fell to the ground." Why it happened, or trying to explain that, cannot be fact.



I'm sorry to say this, but if you're denying the existence of any sort of evolution, it's obvious that you have no place in any discussion about science or the philosophy of science.

Nothing in science, to my knowledge, is more concrete and established than evolution. Google "observed speciation" if you're interested in learning about the facts.

Scientists do not make a distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution because such a distinction is illegitimate. If you just said what you typed in this post to an evolutionary biologist, he would probably think you were so out of it and so far from reality that he'd just laugh and walk away.

This is one thing I've never quite understood about some people of faith. They can't even admit when they're clearly and obviously false. Denying evolution would be among those instances where there is little doubt.

But the idea that micro and macro evolution are different is based on the theory that Evolution as you claim is true. That is far from being proven. And I'd be willing to bet that for every expert would would laugh at me and walk away, there would be another one that would agree with me, and would have a good argument to present. Anyways, I'm no scientist, I was only using an example. I've done more research in the area of history, and I've found that the Bible is historically accurate.

 

[DragonGunner]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonGunner
Biblical stories are fact, an history....but not all men have faith to believe.

Facts don't require "faith to believe." Something is either factual or it's not.

"Faith" is belief in something for which you have no evidence to support its existence.

Something that requires "faith" can never be fact, or faith would be unnecessary.

^^^posted by downzero^^^^

Hmmmmmm.....Hebrews 11:1 Now Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[glockpatriot]

Hmmmmmm.....Hebrews 11:1 Now Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

When you read the whole 11th chapter of Hebrews, it is about the deeds and triumphs of FAITH! A great chapter. Big plus for the King James Version 1611. [KJV]

 

[Expat]

The shows where they try to explain how the Red Sea was parted, or how Joshua brought down the walls of Jericho, etc. bug me because if God caused a miracle then no physical explanation is needed in my mind. If there is a logical explanation for everything and no miracles then what is there to believe.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The shows where they try to explain how the Red Sea was parted, or how Joshua brought down the walls of Jericho, etc. bug me because if God caused a miracle then no physical explanation is needed in my mind. If there is a logical explanation for everything and no miracles then what is there to believe.

Yet God, who is Omnipotent and Omnipresent, isn't a cheater (to paraphrase Albert Einstein). He's put the Universe together with rules to govern its behavior, and there's no harm, and, if done honestly, quite a bit of good in speculating how miracles can occur. Granted, that's not what some of these shows are after, but we still don't know everything about how our world works. Faith is the belief in things unseen, but that doesn't mean the things unseen aren't true. I was told many years ago by a Baptist preacher I met that "Faith is a gift - and you can pray for it". Darned if he wasn't correct.