Good Christ man. Did English grammar kill your parents or something? Full and coherent sentences cannot possibly be that difficult. I don't even care what your points were, that post made my eyes bleed.
ok hungover, the" to you it for" made me dizzy to process what you mean..but i personally we need both as a society religion gives those who need faith a way to cope, and to believe in a continued conscious gives closure to those who've lost loved ones. and science allows us to further develop as a society.
Here's something which I think you guys might like. At our local planetarium, they have a Christmas shpw which discusses the Star of Bethlehem, and what it might have been.
Very, VERY, generally speaking, the Star of Bethlehem was what brought the Magi to where Jesus lay.
The man in charge said that it was one of four options:
- Meteorite - Comet - Planet - Miracle
He set a timeline by saying that the census (which was what drew Mary and Joeseph to Bethlehem) was most likely in celebration of 25 years of Augustus' reign, in the yea 3BC. He also said that King Herod died in 1BC. So that sets a good window.
He said that a Meteroite would have fitted the visual description, but it would move much to fast to follow.
He also said that there were no known comets in the area between 3BC and 2BC. So that's out.
But he said something about planets moving in front of stars, making the brighter. I honestly can't remember. It was so warm in there, I kinda fell asleep.
And we've determined that we can't prove miracles, right? So there's no sense of discussing it.
That census thing was complete bullshit though, especially the part about having to return to your birthplace. Seriously, what would be the point of that?
A census records where you are living at the time it is being taken, so you know the actual population layout. What they want to know is more than just the size of the population, they need to know where the people are, what they do, etc.
Yes, but if you were an insane dictator or monarch, you might do equally insane things to keep those numbers they way you want them. Not saying that that's the case in this situation, but I have no doubt in my mind that something that absurd has been attempted a few times in human history.
So much for dating the census. What about motivation to authorize it in the first place? Do we have any clues from the historical sources about what might have motivated Caesar Augustus to issue his censuses? Perhaps one. Roman historian Dio Cassius tells us that Augustus was so concerned about the declining marriage and birth rate in his empire, that he passed legislation that made promiscuity a crime, which penalized bachelors in their right to inherit, and which bestowed political advantages on fathers of three or more children.5 Because of his demonstrated concern about marriage and birth rate in his empire, it is likely that one of the reasons that Augustus authorized the censuses was to see whether his legislation was working, or, at the very least, to see how birth rates fared.
Some scholars have scoffed at the notion that people in faraway Palestine (such as Joseph and Mary) would have had to travel to their ancestral birth place for a census. But we have evidence to show that such traveling was indeed done with a Roman census, in Egypt at least. A Roman census document, dated 104 A.D., has been discovered in Egypt, in which citizens were specifically commanded to return to their original homes for the census.6 Another census document from 119 A.D. has been found in which an Egyptian man identifies himself by giving (1) his name and the names of his father, mother, and grandfather; (2) his original village; (3) his age and profession; (4) a scar above his left eyebrow; (5) his wife's name and age, his wife's father's name; (6) his son's name and age; (6) the names of other relatives living with him. The document is signed by the village registrar and three official witnesses.7 This latter document is of special interest, because it gives us an idea of the kind of information that Joseph and Mary would have had to provide for the census.
I wonder how many people could actually read or write during this time or if the village registrar/officials did it for them.
'Free schools' are a new government initiative to make new schools easier to create. They are technically state schools in that they are taxpayer funded, but they are not governed by local education authorities (LEA). They still have to comply with certain standards (Ofsted inspections, same standardised tests and education standards, etc) but otherwise have a great deal of latitude to their curriculum and focus.
The idea is greater competition (because we all know that works in education...) and more new ideas. Some of these ideas are simple enough, like creating a well rounded liberal arts curriculum or focusing on the sciences, while others are... odd. Like that one, a decent number of these were previously private/independent fees based schools. A fair number are religious, but because they need clearance from the Department of Education before they can become a free school they can't be fundamentalist.
That fundamentalist part now seems to include creationists.
can the two ever be compatible, We already know that the three monotheistic religions are instantly incompatible, (world made in seven days/Noa's flood/ earth belong at the centre of the universe.) but do you think that personal belief will ever co-exist with science or should we abandon religion as a large amount of it leads to scientific decline.
I'm no theologian, although that is something I aspire. But as far as my limited knowledge knows, Catholic beliefs can coincide with science. The seven "days" don't necessarily have to be days. Interpretation can deduce that days can mean millions of years. The belief that the Earth is the center of the universe is garbage. No one believes that anymore. The development of Church doctrine has retracted any dumb statements made in the past about such things. (Catholics do not condemn the belief of evolution.) I'm not quite sure on Noah's Ark, I'll have to come back to you on that.
Actually something that's interesting, is that the Earth could very well be the centre of the universe..........if the universe is boundless, although I don't think it is. But it could be! xD
Generally I thing that Science does well to leave space for God or a higher being in their theories, because we really don't know much at all yet. Anyone who claims to be a scientist, but then will shout down any religious beliefs as bullshit hasn't really thought about the origin of the universe hard enough. that's not to say that I believe that Jesus turned water into wine, or that one old man managed to herd two of every known species on to one boat, but I think we should leave the question "Is there a God?" well enough alone, until we know more about the universe. Because science has no evidence for what actually began the universe (Big Bang is a good theory, but it doesn't explain what triggered it) and the only evidence that religious believers have are books from hundreds or thousands of years ago.
I think you may be right, In an infinite universe any point could be labelled the centre for the reason you stated but also because by definition a centre has an equal distance from each edge and in all directions there is an equal distance to the edges infinity, GheTToCl0wN isn't wrong either, in a boundless universe you can apply both arguments.
As for the big bounce, I've heard of it but i don't believe in it, experiment shows that the universe's expansion is accelerating which contradicts the big bounce theory (I think, i'm not too familiar with the theory so if my reason for not believing it is rubbish don't hesitate to educate me :D )
Yeah I don't really believe in the Big bounce or Big Crunch either, mainly because of what HyBriD said. I think the entropy theory is interesting. If I remember correctly it suggests that everything will just keep expanding until all matter is aligned and no one particle is near or part of another, meaning no planets or stars. I'm pretty sure that's roughly what it is, someone can correct me if I'm wrong. It's pretty morbid, but I like it, to be honest I haven't really decided on a theory about the future of the universe yet, because none are really concrete yet, just interesting and plausible ideas. :)
