Stephen Hawking knows more about heaven than Jesus did.

by moshe 124 Replies latest social current

mindmelda

But, how do you explain such things without first explaining that there IS a universe bigger than what a person can see with the naked eye? Without the technology to prove that stars are stars, or planets are planets, which the telescope did, it's almost impossible to explain that concept.
I'm talking about the fact that it's been advancements in technology that have increased our knowledge, not an inability to grasp the concepts. Until Leevenhoek invented the first crude microscopes, did anyone know that it was tiny organisms unseen by the naked eye that caused disease? How could they when they didn't know they existed? He wasn't even looking for these things when he invented the microscope, he did it for other reasons.
A considerable amount of our current knowledge came as an unexpected result of advancing technology allowing us to observe the previously unobservable, and then changing our view of the physical world.
The progression of knowledge happens in such a way that you can't leap over to concepts like "universe" at least, not in the present sense of the word without an awful lot of supporting concepts coming first. To even get there, you have to have the means to discover new facts and information and then reconceptualize your world.
One man saying, "Let me explain what the sun is to you." without people understanding what inflammable gases were as an underlying concept would be wasting his time, and then you'd have to demonstrate that something invisible exists, such as a gas, and you have to have the technology available to do that.
notverylikely

I'm not sure you're taking into account how much technology has influenced our view of how the universe operates and how it's only been fairly recently in human history that we've had access to knowledge that we tend to take for granted.
People in the time of Christ weren't any smarter than we are, not organically, but they hadn't the technology with which to observe the universe or know it as we do.
We are talking about Jesus. He certainly should be able to know, and if he was God or the Son of God, figuring out how to explain it should be no problem.
I mean, when you don't even have a clock or the concept of a timekeeping that keeps time any better than a sundial, how are you going to explain light speed to someone who doesn't have the concept of a second or a minute or even an hour because time wasn't kept by mechanical devices constructed for that purpose?
That's not true at all. Water clocks were around by 4000 BC. Then there was the Antikythera device, constructed around 100 BC, a geared mechanism for calculating the postions of heavenly bodies based on a date entered into the device and could even take a leap year into account. They had the concepts, the knowledge and the technology to the degree needed.
I mean, algebra then calculus to express higher mathematical concepts hadn't even been invented yet! You can't explain things to people who don't have the tools to get to the knowledge, which MUST come progressively.
Integral calculus was being used as early as 1850 BC, Archimedes was using heuristical calculus 200 years before Jesus was born. The Bablyonians were using algebra 2000 years before Jesus.
It's just too big of a cultural leap to expect people with primitive or no technology to understand things in modern terms.
They were not nearly as primitive as you seem to think. They were much more "modern".
Time, universe, physics, science....all pretty modern concepts that were either just in their infancy or didn't exist to people then.
So? When presented with info, people are smart enough to understand it. Galileo, for example, pretty quickly changed the entire worlds view of the entire universe in just a few years.
I mean, Jesus just could have said "x number of years from now a volcano name krakatoa will explode here" and drawn it on a map. People knew what maps, years and volcanoes were.
notverylikely

But, how do you explain such things without first explaining that there IS a universe bigger than what a person can see with the naked eye?
I suppose he could have drawn a picture or created a telescope. The technology certainly existed for that.
Until Leevenhoek invented the first crude microscopes, did anyone know that it was tiny organisms unseen by the naked eye that caused disease?
Good point, Jesus could have invented the telescope or microscope. I mean, the Antikythera device had been built about 100 -150 years earlier, the technology certainly existed. Water miscoscopes could have been easily made.
The progression of knowledge happens in such a way that you can't leap over to concepts like "universe" at least, not in the present sense of the word without an awful lot of supporting concepts coming first.
So teach them. That's how kids learn.
One man saying, "Let me explain what the sun is to you." without people understanding what inflammable gases were as an underlying concept would be wasting his time, and then you'd have to demonstrate that something invisible exists, such as a gas, and you have to have the technology available to do that.
So....Galileo did that in just a few years with EXTREMELY simple technology. Kids learn this all the time. Jesus should have been able to handle this. Proving the existence of a gas is as simple as making a simple battery and immersing the eletrodes in water (crude batteries were made long before this). Fire was a known concept, air blew all around them....everthing was there, all he had to do was connect the dots.
tec

Bottom line, Jesus did not come here to teach us about science - whether people were capable of learning it or not. Humanity can and has discovered these things itself, and that discovery is rewarding in itself.
Jesus came to teach us about spiritual matters.
Moshe, I hope I did not make you feel defensive about Judaism. That was not my intent, and thank you for explaining your journey to where you are now. I merely wondered how you believe in God, yet insist that real-proof is needed before believing in Jesus.
Tammy
mindmelda

Are you saying he should have been teaching people about the universe and physics rather than theology because that would have been better proof he was a deity than anything else?
I'm just trying to figure out what the point is, not that you're incorrect in your facts. Where are we going with the facts? That teaching people about the universe would have done them more good than teaching them philosophies about universal brotherhood or human behavior?
I'm of the opinion that myth, philosophy and even religion are useful knowledge, for no other reason than our culture and society are based on them if nothing else, they are as important as physics or other sciences, which I also find useful, of course. I can't really say that Christ teaching people advanced physics would have done them good as a society...what would they have done with it without accompanying technology, which is why technology and concepts tend to come together. One supports and influences the other.
I don't think Jesus of Nazereth had access to that knowledge and technology even available then, being a man born of that time and of average means, apparently, so how could he teach people things that a man in that situation would have no knowledge of?
I'm not particularly convinced that Christ was a deity in the flesh, but I do think he was a great spiritual leader and teacher.
When you say "Teach them" I'm reminded of a story about some friends of mine who went to Africa in the Peace Corps back in the 60s.
They went to a village which was still quite primitive, and were trying to teach the local men and women about birth control, and were demonstrating using condoms by placing them over the end of a pole, which was the only way they could think of demonstrating it without using an actual erect penis.
Thinking they'd really done a good job of showing how condoms prevent pregnancy, they went on to the next village and so on and so on and made a circuit until they came back about six months later to the original village. When they got there, there were poles placed all around the village outside of some of the huts with condoms on them.
Since the people really didn't have the concept that it was the invisible sperm in a man's semen that joins with an egg inside the woman's body that creates fertilization and results in pregnancy, they assumed that the nice white people were demonstrating some sort of anti fertility ritual and thought placing condoms on the ends of poles outside of their huts would prevent pregnancy.
Anything we don't really understand becomes magic. Even if it works, we still think it's magic unless we have the underlying information to know why something works.
It was easier for these people, with no technology or scientific knowledge of human reproductive biology (I'm sure they had a working knowledge of pregnancy and childbirth from what is observable without technology), even when it was explained to them, to believe it was a magical ritual they were being shown. They weren't stupid...they just didn't have the underlying concepts.
So, getting them to understand why and how the condom worked would have literally taken the Peace Corps people YEARS of education and by then, the village would have still been suffering from too many children and not enough food.
So, they simply decided to go with the current state of knowledge and told the people that they needed to put the magic condoms on a man's actual penis to work.
Problem solved. I'm sure that they got to work on educating the people about how condoms really work, eventually, but in the meantime...
So, even if a man with advanced knowledge comes along....how long would it take to get everyone up to speed, even if they believed what he was talking about? Would it be easier just to go with the current state of knowledge or try to bring it up about 200 centuries in a few years?
notverylikely

Are you saying he should have been teaching people about the universe and physics rather than theology because that would have been better proof he was a deity than anything else?
If I didn't say it, then I am not saying it :)
I'm just trying to figure out what the point is, not that you're incorrect in your facts. Where are we going with the facts?
That Jesus could have, if he was in fact who he said he was using some of the infinite knowldge and wisdom he should have had that would lend creedence to his other messages.
That teaching people about the universe would have done them more good than teaching them philosophies about universal brotherhood or human behavior?
Again, I didn't say that, but since you suggested it, it wouldn't have hurt to teach along with his other messages (which, BTW, were also thousands of years old, also taught, almost word for word, by the Babylonians 2000 years before Jesus).
I can't really say that Christ teaching people advanced physics would have done them good as a society.
Why not? It's done us a world of good.
I don't think Jesus of Nazereth had access to that knowledge and technology even available then, being a man born of that time and of average means, apparently, so how could he teach people things that a man in that situation would have no knowledge of?
So he was just a man? I thought he was supposed to be the son of god, infinite in wisdom and knowledge. I mean, a water microscope can be made using a leaf and a drop of water. Surely he had access to those? Or maybe some medical advice? He did know how to cure leprosy and blindness...
I'm not particularly convinced that Christ was a deity in the flesh, but I do think he was a great spiritual leader and teacher.
Oh, ok. In that case, he wasn't orginal in anything he taught (other than the son of god part). He was a good re-packager at best.
When you say "Teach them" I'm reminded of a story about some friends of mine who went to Africa in the Peace Corps back in the 60s.
Your friends lied to you if they say that happened to them. Urban legend... http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/jelly.asp. Also, people knew 4000 years ago that sperm got a woman pregnant. And if your friends thought they did a good job....well, they weren't very smart.
even when it was explained to them
That's my point, it wasn't explained. They did a piss poor job at transferring knowledge. You don't get to blame the student for not grasping the material when the teacher is an idiot.
So, even if a man with advanced knowledge comes along....how long would it take to get everyone up to speed, even if they believed what he was talking about? Would it be easier just to go with the current state of knowledge or try to bring it up about 200 centuries in a few years?
Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Archimedes, Copernicus, Da Vinci....their contributions to science change the world from darkness to light with new knowledge that went against everything the world "knew" in just a few short years.
XJW4EVR

Since he didn't talk about physics, there is no cake to be had and since they didn't understand what he was saying about whatever it was he was talking about most of the time anyway, you get to eat no cake either.
This is precisely why this sort of argument is nothing but a red herring. We can only address WHAT Jesus talked about.
Secondly, Jesus should not be faulted for not addressing every single topic imaginable. He had a specific mission, and the things that were written about Him were the things related to that specific mission (John 21:25).
However, my point, which is based on Romans 1:18, is simple, even if Jesus had done what the OP wanted Him to do, the OP would still suppress it.
In that case, he wasn't orginal in anything he taught (other than the son of god part). He was a good re-packager at best.
That statement was a great belly laugh for me. Jesus' message was utterly revolutionary for His time. It was so revolutionary that it pissed off the Jewish religious leaders enough to have Him killed. Jesus' message was that trust in God was what is need in order to be declared righteous by God, and not feeble human works. This meesage was so revolutionary that within one generation Christianity had transformed the known world at that time, and still transforms people today.
moshe

-Moshe, I hope I did not make you feel defensive about Judaism. That was not my intent, and thank you for explaining your journey to where you are now. I merely wondered how you believe in God, yet insist that real-proof is needed before believing in Jesus.
When someone claims to be the Son of God he should provide extraordinary proof to back up his claims. Would anyone believe that someone was resurrected from the dead today based on the reports that 500 unnamed people had witnessed it? The other problem is that Jesus has been a no-show for almost 2000 years and his one generation prophecy has gotten very long in the tooth. Whether G-d exists or not has no bearing on day to day life, except in the minds of believers. If the god Odin is what motivates you, then have at it.
Religion is a belief system to explain the unexplainable. We have to admit that scientists have stripped away the mystery of the world. What used to fall in the domain of religion to explain is now answered by science. Why didn't Jesus help mankind out? Just telling everyone that disease is caused by small unseen organisms, not sin, would have been a big help. Or that crazy people have mental illness- a disease- and they aren't infected by some demonic spirit. Maybe Jesus could have prevented a lot of innocent deaths, by improved sanitation and eliminated the witch hunts/burniung at the stake stuff.
awildflower

Great points Moshe!
notverylikely

This is precisely why this sort of argument is nothing but a red herring. We can only address WHAT Jesus talked about.
Ok. He delivered a confusing message that was almost word for word what Bablyonians were teaching 2000 years before he was born.
Secondly, Jesus should not be faulted for not addressing every single topic imaginable. He had a specific mission, and the things that were written about Him were the things related to that specific mission (John 21:25).
Talk about a red herring....no one is suggesting he should have, but rather that, if he were the all powerful son of an all powerful god he could have done better to prove that than by delivering a re-stated message that was at least 2000 years old.
However, my point, which is based on Romans 1:18, is simple, even if Jesus had done what the OP wanted Him to do, the OP would still suppress it.
That's not a point. It's conjecture.
That statement was a great belly laugh for me. Jesus' message was utterly revolutionary for His time.
It was written down at least 2000 years before he was born by Babylonians. Unless you don't beleive his message was the whole love your neighbor and your enemy part. Tell you what, when all you christians agree on exactly what the message was, get back to me and we can discuss. No seems to agree on what his message was, exactly.
It was so revolutionary that it pissed off the Jewish religious leaders enough to have Him killed.
Exactly. It wasnt orginal, it was about taking away their power. People tend to get killed by the people in power for that sort of thing which again, is nothing new (nor was it at the time.)
Jesus' message was that trust in God was what is need in order to be declared righteous by God, and not feeble human works. This meesage was so revolutionary that within one generation Christianity had transformed the known world at that time, and still transforms people today.
Well if that is the standard then Mohammed was also a revolutionary and must have been the son of god since his message transformed the entire world within a generation. Einstein too. Newton. Galileo....all taught something that utterly changed the world in short order.
BTW, since nothing was even written about Jesus for about 70 years after he was hanging around, it's closer to 3 generations. I know match and facts are hard, so I try to make it easy for you.

Stephen Hawking knows more about heaven than Jesus did.

Share this