Evangelical Disconnect

[Crankyfeet]

CF : I'm RC and I don't view science as being a threat.
In fact, I see the pursuit of scientific enquiry as a a very valuable addition to mankinds store of knowledge.
For example, we know that the earth is 4 billion years old - according to the Bible, the earth is 6,000 years old.
If you accept the literal interpretation of the Bible - and many do - then in the case of the age of the earth, the Bible is clearly wrong.
Or more precisely it's incorrectly interpreted by those who accept the literal truth.

The great Christian scientist Michael Faraday stated that scientific enquiry and discovery is ultimately an insight in to Gods work.
If it is good enough for a christian like Faraday, then it's good enough for me.

Lim...I'm officially RC too. I think that science and religion can mix to an extent. Your philosophy at least sounds enlightened in the context of harmonizing modern knowledge and spiritual awareness.

My gripe is with those that are tied to the literal interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago (which is understandable if you believe it is the word of God). And the rediculous notions that many in the US assert as being "truth". I mean if you want to get literal with the Bible, then you have to believe in death as the punishment for any transgression of the Ten Commandments don't you?

Billsworld, I can't believe you took zoology, biology etc. in college and still believe that the earth was created several thousand years ago - you gotta be joking right, about your college education.

What is scary, for example, is that there is a significantly influential faction of the current US governemnt who believe that the world is going to be ending within the next 50 years with Christ's second coming, and that consequently - environmental policy is a waste of time.

 

[Crankyfeet]

In Lexington Mass. , a father was arrested when he went to scheduled meeting at the grade schhol that his son attends. He asked if his son could be excused from a class that taught sex ed featuring gay sex to his grade school son. He was also told that his son would not complete the grade without it. His son is 6 years old. A little Nazi sounding to me..ie , liberal...........And I am the one that is accepting , it is you that wants to exclude Christians from inclusion in your world.

What has that story got to do with Christians accepting gay sex as unsinful?

 

[Crankyfeet]

The vast majority of Americans have faith in a creator. You however want to seize their money at gunpoint , distribute it to the public schools and teach their kids that God doesnt exist.

Many Christians believe in evolution. Are you saying that they are un-Christian for doing so? Are you saying that the theory of evolution is part of the religion of atheism? Are you saying that dinosaurs didn't exist, or they did - but only a few thousand years ago?

 

[limerickman]

The Bible does not say the earth is 6,000 years old. That's an extrapolation people make...based on making a lot of assumptions in addition to what they think the literal interpretation of Scripture is.

There are many divergent views by Bible-believing Christians about the creation account in Genesis. The fact remains that the events are in the correct order...and the Genesis account is quite different from every other religion's "myths" about gods and goddesses.

A good website to check out is www.reasons.org which is run by astronomers who came to believe in Christianity through their scientific inquiry, and who do not believe in the "young earth" theory.

But I assume that you do not take what Genesis says literally, do you??

You've got to remember that Genesis is a book written at a point in time, for
people at a point in time.
What is described in Genesis is a simplistic explanation of the story of creation.
And to use that simplistic story to derive answers such as the age of the earth is an insult to the intelligence that the Man above gave us.

In fact, i would go further, a lot of the OT is a simplification of events that took place back in the mists of time.

 

[limerickman]

My gripe is with those that are tied to the literal interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago (which is understandable if you believe it is the word of God). And the rediculous notions that many in the US assert as being "truth". I mean if you want to get literal with the Bible, then you have to believe in death as the punishment for any transgression of the Ten Commandments don't you?

.

yep.

There's a couple of problems.
These "literal interpreters" choose to interprete, for their own ends.
You can almost justify anything by saying "it says so in the Bible, therefore God is on our side"
The Bible, especially the earlier books of the OT, is littered with contradictions.
One book says it's fine to do this, another book says that it's fine to do the complete opposite.

What is scary, for example, is that there is a significantly influential faction of the current US governemnt who believe that the world is going to be ending within the next 50 years with Christ's second coming, and that consequently - environmental policy is a waste of time.

The lunatics have taken over the asylum, I agree.

 

[jhuskey]

yep.

There's a couple of problems.
These "literal interpreters" choose to interprete, for their own ends.
You can almost justify anything by saying "it says so in the Bible, therefore God is on our side"
The Bible, especially the earlier books of the OT, is littered with contradictions.
One book says it's fine to do this, another book says that it's fine to do the complete opposite.





The lunatics have taken over the asylum, I agree.

If you are convinced you are sick,you probably will be. If you are convinced you will die and truly believe it, there is a good chance you will.
If you are convinced you are intelligent...get a second or even third opinion.
You could be wrong, however my point is that I agree that radical beliefs could end the world as we know it.

 

[Billsworld]

He did not. He was an atheist.

He was agnostic and there was some talk of his doubting that towards the end of his life...guilty of trolling. line up the firing squad.

 

[Billsworld]

...should have taken spelling as well...

touchey..or is it toochey..whateva

 

[Billsworld]

Quite clearly, you have no idea about Marxism.
Or spelling.

Enlighten me on how well it works. Examples please

 

[Billsworld]

Many Christians believe in evolution. Are you saying that they are un-Christian for doing so? Are you saying that the theory of evolution is part of the religion of atheism? Are you saying that dinosaurs didn't exist, or they did - but only a few thousand years ago?

Evolution teaches that God doesnt exist. My points have less to do with creation vs. evolution and more to do with the rights of the individual and the misuse of the tax system to promote a left leaning agenda. You guys scream for a separation of church and state, but you are not happy there. You then want to teach that God doesnt exist (evolution) , teach 6 year old children about gay marriage and give birth controll pills to 11 year old girls. When Christians speak up, guys like you begin with the name calling..homophobe...nazi, neocon , right wing crackpot. You can attack my faith all you want. It doesnt bother me. What I do I ask is that you dont take my money to teach my kids your values and I will do the same by you. ......As far as Christians being "ungodly".....I think there are plenty of Christians that dont know or want to know what the Bible says. If I had a freind and had the type of relationship with him that allowed for that type of discussion; I would speak to them. If so, I first would define the term Christian. That is someone who believes that Jesus Christ , born of a vigin, the son of God , came here to be crucified for all of our sins and then rose from the dead 3 days later. You have faith in all that, and all the miracles that he performed. Faith in all his teachings, but no faith that God the Father is the creator. To remind you, that discusion would take place in private. Not in a publicly funded building and I am sure that yourkids would not be forced to listen to it to pass first grade.

 

[Crankyfeet]

Evolution teaches that God doesnt exist. My points have less to do with creation vs. evolution and more to do with the rights of the individual and the misuse of the tax system to promote a left leaning agenda.

Bill (i'm assuming you're a guy), why does evolution teach that there is no God? Is that what you've been told? As Lim said, Genesis was written at a time when anything less symbolic would have flown straight over the head of the few people who could read. Does teaching that the earth is not the center of the universe also mean teaching that there is no God?

If you want to take everything in the Bible literally Bill, then you are on a very slippery slope.

But I get your point about dogma being thrust upon our children in school. I just don't agree that the theory of evolution is dogma. Just like I don't agree that the lesson of the earth revolving around the sun, which revolves around the center of the Milky Way, is dogma either.

So I guess you would have to agree with the atheist who regarded the forced oration of the Pledge at school containing "one nation.. under God", be scrapped as well. I mean the "under God" bit was only added in 1954, in a bid to combat communism.

My point is that much of religion is dogma. And that if truth (or as close to truth as we can perceive currently) contradicts dogma, then that doesn't make truth dogma as well.

 

[nns1400]

But I assume that you do not take what Genesis says literally, do you??

You've got to remember that Genesis is a book written at a point in time, for
people at a point in time.
What is described in Genesis is a simplistic explanation of the story of creation.
And to use that simplistic story to derive answers such as the age of the earth is an insult to the intelligence that the Man above gave us.

In fact, i would go further, a lot of the OT is a simplification of events that took place back in the mists of time.

I accept what it says is true....Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth....

Which is to say that God existed first and He is the cause of the universe. In the past, scientists thought the universe was eternal, therefore the Bible was incorrect. Since the big bang theory....it has been proven that the universe had a beginning, and therefore a cause.

As for the "literal" interpretation of the six day account...entire books have been written explaining how the original Hebrew can most definitely mean that "days" could be periods of time. So you can take still take it literally, with a bit more wisdom than saying six days equals six 24 hour days.

People who claim the earth is 6000 years old, and that this is the literal interpretation of the Bible, base that on taking genealogies listed in Genesis and extrapolating how much time was necessary to get to now. When all Biblical exegesis can show that genealogies listed in the Bible are to convey certain important pieces of information...not to be used as some kind of calendar...some generations are typically left out. And that is making a broad assumption anyway, as no one knows when said genealogies began, etc.

It's ridiculous. The Bible doesn't say how old the earth is...period. It doesn't matter. It's not a science book. The purpose of the Bible is to explain God's dealings with mankind. (I'm so sure Moses is going to record astrophysics for ancient peoples.)

 

[Billsworld]

I accept what it says is true....Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth....

Which is to say that God existed first and He is the cause of the universe. In the past, scientists thought the universe was eternal, therefore the Bible was incorrect. Since the big bang theory....it has been proven that the universe had a beginning, and therefore a cause.

As for the "literal" interpretation of the six day account...entire books have been written explaining how the original Hebrew can most definitely mean that "days" could be periods of time. So you can take still take it literally, with a bit more wisdom than saying six days equals six 24 hour days.

People who claim the earth is 6000 years old, and that this is the literal interpretation of the Bible, base that on taking genealogies listed in Genesis and extrapolating how much time was necessary to get to now. When all Biblical exegesis can show that genealogies listed in the Bible are to convey certain important pieces of information...not to be used as some kind of calendar...some generations are typically left out. And that is making a broad assumption anyway, as no one knows when said genealogies began, etc.

It's ridiculous. The Bible doesn't say how old the earth is...period. It doesn't matter. It's not a science book. The purpose of the Bible is to explain God's dealings with mankind. (I'm so sure Moses is going to record astrophysics for ancient peoples.)

1:2 goes on to say 'The earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Seems that is evidence enough that something had already happened before day#1. "In the beginning translates to Berashit in Hebrew. There is no specific timetable that pinpoints anything to a literal 6 day period. Neither opinion ruffles my feathers all that much.

 

[jhuskey]

"In the past, scientists thought the universe was eternal, therefore the Bible was incorrect. Since the big bang theory....it has been proven that the universe had a beginning, and therefore a cause".


Big Bang theory. Not proven ,still theory.
We still have more questions than answers and I would bet that in gaining knowledge we will raise even more questions.
It is difficult for me to believe that we are just a random accident and have no more meaning than any inert matter that exists.
Maybe existance has enough purpose within itself without assigning higher meaning to it.
OK, now I have a headache from too much esoteria.

 

[Crankyfeet]

"It is difficult for me to believe that we are just a random accident and have no more meaning than any inert matter that exists.
Maybe existance has enough purpose within itself without assigning higher meaning to it.
OK, now I have a headache from too much esoteria.

I think many of us go down the road of searching for the truth and end up looking into the abyss of "Is this all it is...Are we just a pile of atoms and molecules...Is there no meaning beyond our random existence". And then alot of us slowly back away from the scary hole and go find a church where the feeling is much better than that nightmare.

I don't think truth has to always be pretty. Human psychology is biased towards the happier ending. In America, as elsewhere, people have grown up on movies where the goodies win in the end, something that our soul yearns for while we watch them.

I believe we have all evolved to want for there to be a purpose. In eons past, those that didn't have faith in the tribal myths were probably killed, ex-communicated from the tribe, or weren't able to find a mate to procreate. We have a yearning from within for spiritual meaning, just like after birth we had the sucking reflex already ingrained.

The happiest people I have met in my life have been those with spiritual harmony. I am presently on a spiritual search. I am looking for wisdom from Jesus in the New Testament. As much as that sounds contradictory. I am just trying to get in touch with the spiritual side. Instead of blocking it out on the hogwash presumption. I am just finding what makes sense to me in his words, without trying to stumble over the dogma that has come from organized religion.

 

[Crankyfeet]

He was agnostic and there was some talk of his doubting that towards the end of his life...guilty of trolling. line up the firing squad.

So if Darwin wasn't an atheist as you postulate...why do you argue that evolution = atheism?

 

[Bro Deal]

"In the beginning translates to Berashit in Hebrew.

I don't know if I can accept that man came from bear ****. Evolving from apes seems seems much more acceptable.

 

[nns1400]

I don't know if I can accept that man came from bear ****. Evolving from apes seems seems much more acceptable.

Haven't spent too much time at the zoo lately, I can tell.

 

[Billsworld]

So if Darwin wasn't an atheist as you postulate...why do you argue that evolution = atheism?

My presumption mostly results from obseving the liberal hatred of Christianity. You yourself compared creation to palm reading as well as calling my beleifs dangerous. It is the left that is intolerant and fails to recognize that that pushing the agenda that I have represented with several examples is very destructive and counter to the core beleifs that the founding fathers had in mind when it declared independence. My belief is that the leftists in the US are Marxists and in a perverted way , that is their religion. So the end around answer is that in the scope of observing the liberal attack on Christianity, I beleive that the way you or BRO, or most of the left in this country would have evolution taught , would be from an athiest slant. Could you teach it in a way that blended creation with evolution.... maybe a dash of big bang to tie it all together and make everyone happy? Ok but its still ****. I am not trying to offend you here , but with the lefts (your groups) demonstrated disrespect towards Christian values; evolution = atheism BTW , It has been a long time since I did any study of creation vs darwin. As I remember it he was agnostic. I may be incorrect there . I think I read that he had some doubts later in his life, so I wont stand pat on his status. Frankly I am not sure its all that important.

 

[bkaapcke]

Beyond the disconnect with reality, it appears we have a desperate need for, a clinging to, belief in god for it's own sake. It is so entrenched that it cannot be dislodged, now matter how much reality and logic is used. My estimate puts it on the level of an Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

The believers won't let go (Obsessive-Compulsive) and it leads them to engage with reality using other worldly assumptions (Disorder). Interestingly, like the rest of humanity, their beliefs blind them to their own evil.

This leads me to conclude that this belief doesn't improve anything at all. If we could just get them to see this, it might ilmprove the situation we all live in. But, no, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Really; What good has christlianity done for the world? On balance, less than none. So, we are stuck with all these christians. Too bad we can't teach them any real morals. bk