RE: sciDocument.rtf

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Sat Jul 06 2002 - 14:37:09 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Science verifies religion and love"

    Shuan wrote Friday, July 05, 2002 3:44 PM
    >Glen wrote:
    >ay I point you to an earlier instance, where Jesus offered to Thomas the
    >chance to OBSERVE (i.e. use scientific observation) to verify that
    >Jesus had
    >been dead, that the events had been real. That DOES have a basis in the
    >scientific method. If one can't use science/observation to verify claims,
    >why was it considered worthwhile to stick fingers into the wound???? What
    >difference would that have made had science/observation been irrelevant to
    >theological claims?
    >Shuan observed:
    >The next verse puts rather a different spin on things:
    >Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen
    >me? Blessed are the people who have not seen and yet have believed.

    YOu had better read more of your Bible than just that. What Jesus said,
    doesn't change the fact that Jesus himself offered Thomas the evidence.
    Jesus offered observational support for his resurrection(unless of course
    this story is myth). And I would submit that none of the apostles believed
    without some evidence. Peter and John ran to the tomb to see if the body
    was there? If that wasn't looking for evidence, what was it? Mary Magdalene
    didn't believe when she saw the stone rolled away--she told the disciples
    NOT that Jesus had arisen, but that they had taken him away. (John 20:2) And
    it wasn't until John SAW the empty grave clothes that he believed (John
    20:8) Mary Magdalene still didn't beleive at that point. She didn't beleive
    until two angels told her and she SAW him. In Luke 24:11 the disciples are
    reported to have rejected the first reports that Jesus had arisen. Indeed
    it says they thought their words were nonsense. They, it is clear, wanted
    EVIDENCE--OBSERVATION--which is what science is based upon.

    Our religion is not one of mere belief without any evidence. If it is, we
    are in trouble. So don't give me this stuff about believing without
    evidence. Even the early Christians are not reported to have believed
    without any evidence! If Thomas wasn't 'blessed,' then neither were the
    entire crowd of them. They all wanted evidence.

    >Keeping Glenn honest,

    Someone needs to do it. :-)


    for lots of creation/evolution information
    personal stories of struggle

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 06 2002 - 12:58:58 EDT