Science is a Matter of Trust, Not Faith

I may have cracked the code on this one.

Trust – reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.

Faith- “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews‬ ‭11:1‬ ‭KJV‬‬

I do not have an iota of faith in science, but I do place some trust and confidence in science and scientists because of the prior and continued successes all around us. It has a track record of measurable performance. Religion still has none. The paradox of religious faith is also found in scripture. Let this next part soak in a second.

“If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?” John‬ ‭3:12‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Was Jesus a scientist, or better yet, astrophysicist? The Greek word for heavenly is Ouranos, pronounced (oo-ran-os) meaning – heaven, the visible heavens: the atmosphere, the sky, the starry heavens. I digress.

Monotheistic premise today does not believe the earthly obvious, but holds to faith to explain what is otherwise clearly known.

Fundamental knee jerk resistance to science is holding the religious hostage to faith. If they won’t even admit to proven basics, how will they understand more complex disciplines like physics and evolution?

Author: jim-

One minute info blogs breaking the faith trap.

75 thoughts on “Science is a Matter of Trust, Not Faith”

  1. I would agree, and yet I would also like to see science less skeptical of new ideas. It seems that the evidence to rewrite an idea needs to be many times greater than the initial evidence.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Jim mind if I ask your view on the virgin birth thing? You have a perspective I do not have to evaluate conflicting claims on the matter. Thanks. Hugs

    Like

  3. Nothing says “I trust God more than science” than seeing the Vicar of Christ waving from an armor plated vehicle behind bullet-proof glass.

    Liked by 6 people

  4. Hello Jim. I agree that it is a general rule that the more education a person has the more they follow science and leave religion. I think that is why some of the religions try to ban both a secular education and a higher education. Some of the poorest least educated countries are the most religious. While Islam is projected to rise world wide it will fall as more of the faithful get out from under authoritarian governments and the people get educated.

    I enjoyed your comments on Mel’s blog today. I followed the link to J.B.’s blog post about Nan’s post where he took screen caps of our comments about the day long slog of comments and replies. He was insulting but I guess that is his level of discourse now. He left four things at the end he claims we did not answer and blow away all I said. Which is not true, so I guess lying is OK with his religious beliefs. I addressed each one over the course of the conversation. Oh well. Hey have a great weekend. Hugs

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well Zande was telling me yesterday that the efforts to keep people uneducated is a well oiled machine and religious collapse will probably be slow. But it’s happening! Funny how they espouse freewill, then take it away from everyone they can. All the best Scottie!

      Liked by 3 people

    2. Oh, and I’m glad I missed JB. I ignored him on Mel’s post. Mel wasn’t too bad today. He started a little aggressive but I gave him a little ground and he shared his belief. What more can you ask?

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Hey Jim, you make some good points. A couple quick comments.

    Faith (pistis) is defined scripturally as conviction or confidence, which is a form of trust, so I can have faith in God (even though I can’t prove him scientifically) and have faith in science because I trust their discipline and methodology.

    Also, understand that the Fundamentalist’s knee-jerk reaction to science comes from their Biblicist (literal, verbatim, inerrancy) view of the Bible. This is unfortunate and unnecessary because it needlessly creates a wedge between science and their faith in God. But the early church fathers, going back to Origen in the second century, did not take this view of the Bible, nor did they see science as a threat to their faith.

    Just a few things from my perspective as a Christian. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    1. So if Christianity were to come to middle ground or consensus, where do you think that would wind up? I know a lot of people are leaving religion to follow Jesus, but ultimately if you eventually accept all the premises of scientific discovery it would put Christianity on par with Greek mythology. No?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I think we see that middle ground already in the scientific and academic community. Francis Collins would be one notable example. There are many others in various fields.

        But, no, accepting science doesn’t put Christianity on par with Greek mythology because we don’t believe in a “god of the gaps” (like Zeus or Thor). In other words, “god” is the placeholder for natural phenomenon until science can explain it. That is not what we believe. Scientific discovery doesn’t displace God, it only explains how the natural world works.

        Like

        1. I think we’re seeing it happen already. It took about 900 years to eradicate the last holdouts of Greek mythology. There will be holdouts for a while I’m sure, but we’ll get them sensible soon enough.

          Liked by 2 people

    2. @Mel
      The problem (hypocrisy?) with this perspective is while you claim to be quite at home accepting that Adam and Eve are simply myth ( as is Noah’s ark and a global flood and the rest of the Pentateuch), and the scientific data refutes such claims and in the case of the Exodus can show evidence that flatly contradicts the bible tale and offers an alternative history of the settlement of Canaan /Palestine) you are adamant that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.
      If you are applying the same criteria why do you insist that such things as the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection are fact?

      Liked by 3 people

        1. @Mel – although the issues Ark is bringing are not ultimately why I left the faith, how do you know which is fact vs the fable. We do “know” some of the place names in the Bible are real, aside from that I wonder if any of the story is true at all. Mel?

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Jim, it’s basically how we know all historical events and people. We can have a reasonable knowledge forensically, by abductive reasoning, by the historiography, by testimony, by the affect the person had on those afterward, the culture, etc.

            You also need to understand that people in the ancient world didn’t write “history” the way we think about it today. They were more interested in what the story said to us than whether all the events were factually true. I’m not saying that it all fables either, but the strength of the Bible is in its transformational nature and how it reveals the human heart in relationship, not in whether it’s factually true or not.

            Like

            1. I’ve recently heard a similar description about the Book of Mormon. That if it makes people better, that is evidence in itself of its goodness. I don’t like that premise really. L Ron Hubbard also had some positive impacts, but overall it was a bad situation for people to put their trust in his presentations. I could fairly state on this logic that he was a man of god too. No?

              Liked by 2 people

            2. Well, it would be the same reasoning you would use to know whether Plato or Alexander the Great, or anyone else was historical. That was the question I was answering.

              Liked by 1 person

        2. If I didn’t want to know the answer I would not keep asking the question, for which, by the way you have never provided a reasonable answer.
          Actually this is not quite as honest as it could be.
          I accept the answer regarding the Pentateuch because it is the scientifically recognised answer based on evidence, for which a huge number of Christians, like Collins for example, agree with.
          The real question is why do you use double standards when considering such things as the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection?
          These are questions you have repeatedly failed to answer honestly.
          I suspect it is because of fear and indoctrination and thus I will continue to believe this, based on the testimony of numerous deconverted Christians, unless or until you provide an honest answer to clarify your position.

          Oh and just as an aside, while your mate Branyan is whining about being banned from several atheist blogs you might like to remind him that he has banned me and you have too.
          However … you are free and welcome to comment on my blog anytime you like.
          Although I suspect you might find the intimidation a bit much, it might be good to hone your apologetic teeth?

          Liked by 3 people

          1. Ah, but Ark, you seem to forget that I know you. We’ve been around this mountain a hundred times already. I have empirical proof that you don’t want to know the answer. Have a good life.

            Like

            1. I want to know YOUR answer. And there are others here who have not heard your rationale.
              Why do you accept that there was no miracle regarding Adam and Eve or Noah and the flood but consider miracles were involved regarding the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection?

              Liked by 3 people

            2. If I could get your views on that one simple question Mel, How can you separate the fact from the fable. Where are the lines drawn?

              Liked by 2 people

      1. Those are good points too Ark. how do you separate the fable from the fact? I am very curious. This was one of the questions I’d had a long time, although it wasn’t the reason for leaving faith. I would appreciate you thoughts on this Mel

        Liked by 3 people

    3. I would very much like to know, Mel, your answer on this. Why do Christians feel they have to believe in the virgin birth? Why a birth at all if this being was an offshoot of god and not a biological earthly person. Why not just a pop into existence? That would not be any harder that a pop back from the dead.
      And why the resurrection? After all Jesus was God and he can do anything. So why is that so unusual a feat to accomplish?
      I would appreciate your answer on this.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Hi Mary. You are asking a theological question, of course. I can only give you a theological answer. The virgin birth is necessary for Jesus to be fully God and fully man (called the hypostatic union). If he is not, then we cannot be in union with God because God is Spirit, not man. There’s a lot more I could say, but not without getting more technical.

        Jesus’ resurrection was God’s ultimate verdict on death, and it also vindicated Jesus, proving that he was who he said he was. But he died our death so that we could be restored to God and His eternal purpose for us—to be in relationship with Him and live forever in that relationship.

        Whether you believe this is another issue. I’m just giving you the reasons. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

    4. @ Mel

      Whether you believe this is another issue. I’m just giving you the reasons.

      I think we may at last be getting close to the core. Just to clarify, then. This is a belief issue based on the biblical account and NOT something based on any form of verifiable evidence.

      At the risk of being pedantic. Even though you acknowledge that scientific evidence flatly refutes the previously identified supernatural events in the Pentateuch, you are purposely setting aside such criteria and evidence and accepting the description of the virgin birth and the resurrection narrative, solely on faith.

      Is this correct?

      Liked by 3 people

      1. No, and you already know this, Ark. Science does not deal with the supernatural at all for methodological reasons. So your argument is a fallacious category mistake.

        Like

        1. Oh, but it does deal with the supernatural, Mel. It deals with it by proving it is nonsense as you have already acknowledged by fully accepting that Adam and Eve and Noah and the Flood are simply myth. Pure fiction with no supernatural involvement at all .

          So, either the statement is correct that, you are setting aside science and a total lack of evidence merely to allow for your belief or, you do have evidence to demonstrate the veracity of your claims regarding the virgin birth and the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth.
          Which is it?
          Evidence or no evidence but simply Faith?

          Liked by 2 people

          1. How does science deal with something that, by definition, is outside of the natural world? Sorry, your argument is fallacious and absurd.

            Like

            1. The bible claims the flood was a supernatural event, as it does the creation of Adam and Eve. And we can also include the supernatural nonsense as recorded in Exodus etc.
              We know these events are simply nonsense. Works of fiction. No supernatural involvement at all. because science has shown this t be so.
              The genome project, geology and plate tectonics, and the settlement pattern in Palestine .
              You have acknowledged(most of) this.

              Yet you are putting aside similar scientific criteria when it comes to the virgin birth and the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth.

              Once again, you either have evidence for these events or your belief is based solely on faith. Which is it?
              Evidence or faith?

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Ark, this is the last time with you because you never stop. As Eugenie Scott, former Director of the National Center for Science Education said, “Science neither denies nor opposes the supernatural, but ignores the supernatural for methodological reasons.”

              Like

            3. Yes, but you have acknowledged that these supernatural claims of the Old Testament are nothing but myth, and scientific evidence has shown this to be true.
              You are on record as stating you that you accept the science.

              And yet, you are vehemently stating that the virgin birth and the resurrection of the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth are factual, historical events.
              So it seems you have set aside all rational thought, and the scientific based evidence you acknowledged and accepted for the Pentateuch solely to accommodate the virgin birth and the Resurrection.
              Or do you have evidence?
              If not then your belief is based solely on faith.
              This is correct is it not?
              Faith not evidence.

              Liked by 2 people

            4. Mel I know I am butting into your conversation with Ark, but I think there is a better way to word your quote. I think the quote is not correct in its meaning. It would be better to say that “Science does not affirm the supernatural due to scientific method having no tools to detect or measure the supernatural”. Meaning we have no way to know if it exists because we can only see the cause and effect of the natural world on the natural world. We can detect no effect from any claimed supernatural event. Just makes the whole thing much clearer. Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

            5. I understand and I was not saying you misquoted. I was saying the quote was misleading as said by what I was taught about science. That is all. Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

            6. Then again I may have misunderstood the reason the guy said it the way he did. I am not a scholar by any means. It just seemed a bit off to me. Hugs

              Liked by 2 people

            7. I know you and Ark have a lot of history and I feel a hint of animosity from each of you. When I was younger the Bible was the infallible word. Everything was literal. Then reason slowly made it an allegorical presentation. I do think it is unraveling pretty quickly, and the less total knowledge and learning is suppressed by the right, the faster it will go. The reason secular learning is suppressed is real learning exposes tradition and faith as unsupportable. Especially the fundys They withhold knowledge at many turns. “Daddy found Jesus, and his freewill took my freewill away”. Maintaining faith requires skill and deception and a closed environment.

              Liked by 3 people

            8. Jim, it’s not so much animosity for me with Ark as it is that I don’t want to waste my time going down the same trail again.

              To your comments, it’s unfortunate that the Bible is taught as always literal and infallible because it’s untenable and unnecessary. It’s too long of a story to explain here why the Reformers invented infallibility but the early Christians never looked at scripture that way. And this leads to the other misfortune you mention, an unnecessary hostility and suppression of scientific discovery. Again, the early church didn’t suffer from this problem. They embraced both science and their faith.

              Liked by 1 person

            9. Do you think the church can survive outside of closed environments? It may be a little early to have bible museums popping up all over, but as more education creeps out into the hidden pockets of the world, the more likely it will happen. People do want explanations and faith was able to provide a little comfort, but in light of secular trends, little comfort does not surpass the direction mythology has always gone. Same as the dodo. I appreciate your insight Mel. You can have the last word if you want.

              Liked by 2 people

            10. Why wouldn’t I believe that the church would survive? Historically, it has thrived in the worst environments (early Rome, China, etc.) That is not to say that all “churches” will survive. We’re already seeing some denominations in sharp decline.

              But, as I said in my last post, what we’re seeing in not a decline in authentic Christian faith, but a decline in a nominal version of Christianity, which the Pew data and Harvard study backs up.

              Liked by 1 person

            11. it’s unfortunate that the Bible is taught as always literal and infallible because it’s untenable and unnecessary.

              Agree completely. But … how does one decide what parts are truth and what parts are not? And who makes this decision?

              Liked by 2 people

            12. Nan, first, it’s more important what the Bible is saying to us, than whether we can prove its historical accuracy. Second, as you know about me, Jesus interprets the Bible for us. We cannot read it indiscriminately (as Christians) as if He never happened. So, whatever is said about God that doesn’t sound like Jesus should be held as suspect. This is how the apostles and early church fathers interpreted the Bible.

              Liked by 1 person

        2. Mel, mind if I ask a question based on belief ? The virgin birth. I grew up thinking this meant Mary never had sex until after Jesus was born. Recently I have encountered blogs that claim it was really Mary that was born from no sex, a virgin birth. Now I admit right up front on this subject I have no training or education, and from what I can gather it is basically church / organizational believed. What and why is the story here? If it is that important to the whole savior narrative it should be clearer shouldn’t it? Hugs

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Hi Scottie. The belief that Mary was born without sex is the Catholic doctrine called the Immaculate Conception. They added this to try to fix their doctrine of Original Sin (from Augustine). But it becomes untenable because of it become regressive. Long story but that’s the gist of it. It’s not biblically based.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Thanks. I keep stumbling over the whole virgin birth thing ( had rather good sex / reproductive education ) as it makes so very little sense. Plus I could be wrong but I read your response to Mary about the whole Jesus man / god thing, and I have to say sex or not, couldn’t god have magically ( he is omnipotent right? ) have put his being in to one of Mary’s eggs regardless of how often she might be getting giggly with the man pals / Joseph? OK even I had trouble understand that sentence. What I am a asking is why the big hang up on the idea of a female virgin? Seems cultural to me. Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Understood, Scottie. Of course, it would violate natural law, virgins don’t normally have kids! But no one is claiming this is a natural or normal event. And the theological reasons makes it harder to figure out why it’s necessary until you have a firmer grasp on the overall theology.

              Liked by 2 people

            3. Thank you for not saying I have to be a believer before I can understand. I got that from a person I was asking a question of just two days ago. OK I can see if you don’t have a religious background some beliefs may be harder to explain / understand why they are needed for the story. But it does seem so cultural and to me, the way regressive religions treat sex and females. What is good for the gander is off limits for the goose. So I had to ask if it was more to do with the culture 2000 years ago ( or what ever close to that period the story was written in ) than with the religious miracle magic aspect. Just to fill that out, there is a popular meme out that shows a pregnant teenage Mary practicing several excuses why she might be pregnant without letting on she had sex. The one that sticks is the “Oh it is a baby from god per an angel and it will be god’s son / god”. Shows Joseph saying “OK let’s stick with that one”. Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

            4. Of course, it could be anything, Scottie. We only have the text. But the story is so strange and unprecedented, where would they even get the idea to make up such a wild tale? It wouldn’t be one I would ever make up if I wanted to be believed by anyone! They would’ve done what Joseph originally wanted to do, have her go away and have the baby in secret. The fact that they even admitted to such a crazy story is persuasive evidence on its own.

              Liked by 2 people

            5. I don’t know Mel, could be. But I know I sure did some fast talking when a kid and trying to avoid punishment. I sure could get real creative if I was about to be stoned for something. Just saying. Hugs

              Liked by 3 people

            6. Sure, Scottie, we all have good imaginations when we’re in trouble, but wouldn’t other explanations be more plausible and easer to defend? It just doesn’t make sense to make up such a wild story if you didn’t believe it was true. And this (virgin birth) is where I will agree with Ark. It is a faith issue since we cannot prove it one way or the other, looking at it 2,000 years later. Not only does it fall outside of scientific inquiry but it only allegedly happened one time. The only reason it matters to me is because of the reason for the virgin birth with regard to the hypostatic union of Christ that I already explained.

              Liked by 2 people

            7. I guess the story I would make up to be believable would depend on the place, time, and customs / beliefs of where I was. As I am not sure how deeply ingrained in religion the people of the times were, and what they felt their god(s) got up to I am not sure I can answer with any assurity. I will just mention that Zeus / Jupiter along with other gods were quite well known for having the off chance random sexual encounters with mortals. Given that… I might have tried it in her position. But like you say, we can never really know. Have a great weekend, Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

            8. Mel, I am surprised. I know I am behind on email and comments. But I was curious about what Ark was hinting at and when you did not respond I looked it up on google. I googled “virgin birth god”. I got a whole list of virgin birth stories of lots of beings. https://homebrewedchristianity.com/2012/12/19/of-course-jesus-was-born-of-a-virgin-it-happened-a-lot-back-then/ . Mel I know you told me it was a matter of faith, and I accept that. I don’t argue your right to that position. But I have always been fair with you , I think I have, and I try to be. So during our conversation why did you not just throw in that those stories went around. I knew about the greek / roman gods having relations with humans as I mentioned, and yes those gods had weird birth stories. But you could have thrown me a bone and let me know it was not like the idea was unknown. In fact you sort of hinted that it was so wild and far out why use that story? OK got to run, about 5 hours behind now.

              Ark thanks for the hint. I looked it up.

              Here are just 10 people born of a virgin in the ancient world:

              Buddha
              Krishna – born without a sexual union, by “mental transmission” from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki, his mother.
              Odysseus
              Romulus
              Dionysus*
              Heracles – Son of a god (Zeus)
              Glycon – son of the God Apollo
              Zoroaster/Zarathustra
              Attis of Phrygia
              Horus

              Hugs

              Like

            9. Scottie, I’ve been through these so-called similarities before. I really don’t care to go over them again. These alleged connections to Christianity are well-known and have been debunked.

              Liked by 1 person

            10. I did not know about them. And I am not sure they have all been debunked. I am looking up videos on youtube that claim them. Of course I have not watched them. I knew Aron Ra had said that the Jesus story was like prior myths, but I guess I missed the virgin birth part. OR he did not say it. Ok anyway, thanks for getting back to me. Have a good weekend, I know sunday is your work day. Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

            11. looks like I have a long night ahead and seems I will get farther behind on emails. ( about 9794 right now . I do not know how people keep up with comments, discussions, new posts, and reply likes. )

              I think I will cheat and ask Professor Taboo about it. he is even handed and knows so much it hurts my head to think about it. I will ask a few others also. One thing about our community is a lot of smart people who have studied this stuff up one side and down the other. Way far more than I ever had a chance to. Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

    5. And this (virgin birth) is where I will agree with Ark. It is a faith issue since we cannot prove it one way or the other,

      Faith it is. Thank you. That must have taken guts to admit. And by doing so you are tacitly admitting that you have set aside the same standards you used for the Pentateuch simply to satisfy your religious convictions.

      However … probably Scottie may not be aware where of the origin of the story and where the author Matthew lifted the tale of the virgin from , Mel?
      Do you have the integrity to fully explain to Scottie <em< exactly how the tale came about? And while you are at it , why not also include what numerous Christians scholars (sic) have stated concerning the rubbish of a Dual Prophecy?

      I think it would look better coming from you, don’t you?

      So, one down, one to go.

      Why don’t you explain why you are still not prepared to apply the same criteria to the Resurrection as you have already done to Adam and Eve and the Flood?
      Or are you finally up to admitting that belief in Resurrection is also simply nothing but faith?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. No guts needed here. I was arguing against your assertion that science disproves these things. That’s a fallacious argument. Science cannot prove or disprove anything supernatural.

        Like

        1. We have already established it can and has done with the Adam and Eve story and the Flood.
          You have admitted that belief in the virgin birth is only a matter of faith, thus tacitly acknowledging you have set aside the same scientific criteria you acknowledge renders the Pentateuch stories as myth.
          So are you prepared to explain to Scottie which story in the Old Testament the writer of Matthew used to base the virgin birth on?

          And are you finally acknowledging that belief in the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth s also, solely a matter of faith.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. Mel!!! Why did you walk-off in the middle of the basketball game by closing your comments on your latest post!? For the sake of fair exchange of ideas, facts, letting others draw their own conclusions, and the search for more accurate truth… that seems, respectfully, unsporting! 😉

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Anyone who has read the thread has been affected by it. No doubt. He has church followers to protect I’m sure as well. This is the crescendo of the debate and the evidence is pretty overwhelming. Believing is a choice, but a much easier choice when you don’t have all the information.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Well, the subject had run its course, all the relevant comments were made, and besides, it was just you guys talking to each other. You can do that on your site, right? Have a good weekend.

            Like

            1. Thanks Mel. That took a lot of your time and I appreciate your insights. I think curiosity has been raised as well as insights to all. Have a feed weekend too

              Liked by 2 people

            2. Not necessarily. As is always the case with social-media and most everyone’s WordPress blogs and individual lives, it all quickly becomes lost and buried into the Black Hole of bytes and binary codes. It does not mean the subject is settled or no more “relevant comments” have ended. Social-media is by NO MEANS and end-all, be-all of truth. Well, actually it IS with many people; like those addicted to Facebook’s or Twitter’s veracity of espousing truth. LOL 😛

              On my site? Yes. I’ve been doing exactly that since early 2011, but not just boring theology and distorted history and knowledge. I enjoy covering MANY other life-invigorating subjects as well.

              You have a good weekend as well.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. It definitely had not run its course. It was just about to climax! It was a Roberto Duran moment is what it felt like.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. Hahahaha! Agree with you there Jim.

              But honestly, when I’m in public with Fundy-Evangy apologists or simply mainstream (nominal?) Christians, they too just do not care — for whatever reasons they can imagine — and walk away. I won’t speculate as to why, but one of the verbalized reasons I sometimes get from those courageous enough to tell me… is a FORM of shutting the discussion/debate down:

              I am not filled with the Holy Spirit thru Christ’s blood and God’s atonement — an esoteric sort of exclusive club (like the Lil Rascal’s He-Man’s Woman Haters Club) — so I apparently will NEVER understand or talk their language and grasp what it all REALLY means… until I surrender all of evil intelligence and self-will. A form of slavery, of intellectual suicide THEN a total betrayal of the “World’s Ways” of reason, logic, and self-identity. Fall inline or go to hell. LOL

              C’est la vie. 🙂

              Like

            5. What a long and good day. Mel had one foot over the line today. Fear shut his comments down. I could feel it. I know the feeling. He was presented with the whole lot. Let’s see if he’ll dip his toe another day. There are a lot of people counting on him and he knows the entire game is farce. We’ll see what happens. Good work my friend.

              Liked by 1 person

    6. Thank you Mel for your comment. I agree with Scottie that it seems cultural for the times. It sounds like a story that needed a pure woman to be able to give birth to a god of sorts and that the god would have human attributes to be able to understand man better.

      But to say the story was so bizarre and a one time only story, so it must be true is not logical. A lot of unbelievable stories are just that and that’s the allure and why people fall for them. People like to believe what seems absurd.

      And millions of religious believers of other faiths do not believe this story at all. It seems just a Christian myth with no relation to the real world of today or ancient history.

      Liked by 2 people

    7. @ Mel

      To your comments, (Jim) it’s unfortunate that the Bible is taught as always literal and infallible because it’s untenable and unnecessary.

      Here once again, a glaring example of the disingenuity on full display.

      You believe the Resurrection of the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth to be a literal, historical event that was witnessed and attested to.
      And you have the sheer gall to utter your contemptible, condescending platitude to Jim about how ”unfortunate” it is that the bible is taught as literal and infallible!
      And that this is ”unnecessary!”

      Are you for real?

      Acknowledgment that the Resurrection of the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth is a genuine(witnessed) historical fact and an undeniable physical reality is the single most necessary aspect of your faith(sic)

      Good grief, is there no level of dishonesty you will not stoop to to defend this garbage?

      Liked by 2 people

  6. If they won’t even admit to proven basics, how will they understand more complex disciplines like physics and evolution?

    They won’t. Then I would say that their ‘denial’ proceeds into psychological pathologies and Agnotology — at least in those two fields WE can better understand them. HAH! 😉 😛

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Hi there,My book in its complete form is my very best comment to this post. Since you are already reading, I do not have anything to add at the moment.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s