They want to forget Darwin ... [help]
- Thread starter Giaguara
- Start date
- Status
pds
Registered
Well, civil...
Let's not worry too much about civility if it means that we don't talk about the issue.
With sympathy for MD's position that God is at the root, I have to say that Cat has a point that you can't have it both ways, literal "young universe" and scientific proof.
As far as personal, how can you fault Cat for making it personal when MD says "I", "I","I". Let some of the chips fall.
But Cat, a paragraph or two would have made it easier to read...
Let's not worry too much about civility if it means that we don't talk about the issue.
With sympathy for MD's position that God is at the root, I have to say that Cat has a point that you can't have it both ways, literal "young universe" and scientific proof.
As far as personal, how can you fault Cat for making it personal when MD says "I", "I","I". Let some of the chips fall.
But Cat, a paragraph or two would have made it easier to read...
MDLarson
Registered
I agree. How exactly did I "use God as an argument" though? Do you understand that there is, by definition, more elbow room for the believer in God and supernatural things than a strict naturalist? I have already alluded to this idea as the "Creationist Cop-out".Cat said:
I was thinking about this whole thing today at work, and I can maybe sum up my belief system in a few paragraphs:
Why I don't believe in evolution:
Based on what I know from science, I have decided that evolution could not have happened on its own. There had to have been an intelligent designer, at least to get the first few "building blocks of life" together (even then, I'm not convinced yet that mutations add genetic 'information' to the mix, notwithstanding Brian's brief mention of some studies that say mutation does contribute to evolution).
Why I do believe in Christianity
Based on my last paragraph, I already believe in supernaturality (I don't have to be a Christian at this point). I was raised Christian, but I've seen enough people "leave the fold" and enough more to join Christianity later in life to put much stock in that fact. (I had to make my faith my own, and not my parents, basically.)
So now, what's left? Which God to choose? I am most familiar with Christianity, of course, but from what I know (and yes, what I've been taught), I believe the Bible truly does withstand criticism, especially when it comes to archeology. I do not know a lot about other religions, but based on what I do know, it either a) doesn't make sense or b) is not encouraging.
Ultimately, I am a Christian because everything in my soul (speaking metaphorically) yearns for a purpose in life. The people in the church I go to are genuine, and the love is real. I even consider my own life as testimony to the Truth of the Bible. In contrast, evolution tells me that I have no purpose in life.
Following this line of reasoning, I believe evolutionists should not care about things like self-esteem classes in junior high, protecting endangered species, or putting crazy religious people in their place, because after all, what does it matter?
In the end, I would rather make myself look like a crazy religous fool and enjoy infinity with a loving Creator-God than to accept an atheistic worldview like evolution (even if it's true, which I don't believe) and simply live 80 years then die.
My honest opinion on those who challenge the Bible: The Bible is very much authoritarian in nature, and we don't like being bossed around. Even as a Bible-believing Christian, it is tough to read sometimes, as it commands us to do things that are contrary to our human nature and things we just don't want to do. I also think that some pre-conceived notions hinder an objective look at the Bible ("Why can't God be female?").
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that religion / science / evolution / creation is all very debatable, including my skepticism of life arising from lifelessness. But my primary aim (although it should be, if I'm honest with myself) is not to convert the masses of MacOSX.com. My primary aim is to offer up my defense when appropriate. This both strengthens my faith and challenges it at the same time.
Done for tonight...
-Matt
MDLarson
Registered
OK, I guess I'm not quite done yet...
A) God proclaims the creation including Adam and Eve as "very good" before the Curse
B) The Curse includes death as one of the punishments
C) God used evolution, whose primary catalyst is death, to eventually get to Adam and Eve
A + B does not equal C
In addition, if there is no original sin of Adam and Eve (specifically rebellion), then the definition of sin is greatly generalized and opinionized and therefore rendered meaningless. Jesus died on the cross for nothing, and the very thing that makes a Christian is eliminated.
That's a good read, pds. However, I still have logical incompatibilities between the Christianity I know and evolution.pds said:
A) God proclaims the creation including Adam and Eve as "very good" before the Curse
B) The Curse includes death as one of the punishments
C) God used evolution, whose primary catalyst is death, to eventually get to Adam and Eve
A + B does not equal C
In addition, if there is no original sin of Adam and Eve (specifically rebellion), then the definition of sin is greatly generalized and opinionized and therefore rendered meaningless. Jesus died on the cross for nothing, and the very thing that makes a Christian is eliminated.
pds
Registered
MDLarson said:OK, I guess I'm not quite done yet...
That's a good read, pds. However, I still have logical incompatibilities between the Christianity I know and evolution.
A) God proclaims the creation including Adam and Eve as "very good" before the Curse
B) The Curse includes death as one of the punishments
C) God used evolution, whose primary catalyst is death, to eventually get to Adam and Eve
A + B does not equal C
In addition, if there is no original sin of Adam and Eve (specifically rebellion), then the definition of sin is greatly generalized and opinionized and therefore rendered meaningless. Jesus died on the cross for nothing, and the very thing that makes a Christian is eliminated.
Exactly! I wonder if you understand what you just wrote.
That argument is why a literal understanding of the Bible leads one to a conundrum, one that has to deny the phenomenology of our life today, one that disqualifies the holder of the idea to the methods of science. "All swans are black, this is a swan, so inspite of the appearance of being white, it is in fact black...." When the discussion stays in the realm of ideas and not the reality of the world, the sophists may win. But when the reality of this world is held and appreciated as the writtten word of God (Romans 1:20), and then explored without the ideological constraints of an assumption of a particular age or of a certain time period, we will get further.
BTW Can you supply the rationale for believing in the Bible word for word literally? Not as a challenge, but as a "need to know." What is it in the book that _requires us_ to believe that every word is literal? Would it undermine the validity of the book if part of it were to be read like a children's bedtime story of a loving father to his frightened children.?
There were a few posts in the thread about the meaning of life and death, but you were away... How can *edit add physical* death, part of the life cycle both in macro and in micro (doesn't the fetus "die" when the child is born?) be the result of a curse? The assertion *edit add that physical death is a result of a curse* is not factual or held up by even anecdotal evidence of really old guys waltzing around the world. (BTW concentrate in prayer on Paul's take on the resurrection of Christ. The sewn in flesh raised in spirit bits of Romans 7)
Jesus died on the cross because a people who were prepared for 2,000 years for the sole purpose of receiving the Messiah "did not know the hour of [their] visitation." Or as Paul put it in Cor. 2:8 "none of the rulers of this age knew [that Jesus was the one they were waiting for] for if the had, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory."
There is no root of anti-semitism here, but no political correctness either. The value of Jesus (along with the salvific position of being a "new Adam" Cor. 15:45 IIRC which I personally take seriously) is the example to "love your enemy!" So the persecution of Jews throughout history is a tragic mistake made by politicians who saw more motivating power in the urge to hate than the in religious requirement to love.
*edit hmm maybe I better not post just before leaving for work
. This one needs some looking into past posts to sew it all together. Sorry*
Cat
Registered
This sounds to me like "gravity could not happen on its own". What exactly do you mean? Regardless of positive or negative mutations organisms are born, live and die as individuals. They breed and over time we can see changes from individual to individual. We group individuals together to classify them as a species (which is a commodity definition and not absolutely established), we have a criterion that says that two individuals which cannot produce fertile offspring ar enot members of the same species. Animals drift around on the continents and separate branches of species emerge until they are no longer biologically compatible with one another. Evolution is not an active force that drives the individuals, it is an abstract description of a phenomenon. When you drop an apple it falls. The falling doesn't happen by itself, gravity causes the falling. WRONG: gravity _describes_ the falling. Evolution doesn't CAUSE species to change, evolution describes how species change. The CAUSE is genetic mutation and inheritance. Genetic mutation doesn't happen on its own, teleologically for a purpose, it happens mostly by accident. DNA was not designed, but came about by processes such as the order/chaos I described earlier. So again, why do you need a CAUSE for evolution?
That is exactly the reproach (not a personal attack or insult) I made earlier. You have already ruled out natural causes and are not really prepared to take them into account again, not even against overwhelming evidence. I'm sorry if I sounded offensive before, that was not my intent.
That is not true. This is maybe the conclusion that you personally draw from certain facts, but it is not evolutionary biology that tells you whether you do or do not have a purpose in life. Science in general should not and normally does not concern itself with this kind of judgement. Natural science describes the way things work, and does not give or take meaningfullness from one's life. Asking for the purpose of one's life is not a question of natural science.
According to the bible, Satan in the form of a serpent convinced Eve to disobey. There are two possibilities: 1) Eve was already prone to sin, _created_ prone to sin, how else could Satan so easily sway the virtuous wench? 2) Satan instilled the sin in her while she was completely virtuous.
Bot lead to appalling consequences: either god already created mankind sinful, or Satan made mankind sinful. In both cases: how could we hold Adam and Eve responsible for their actions? How could we accept god's punishment as just?
MDLarson said:
Interesting.
Where does evolution say that everthing has happened "randomly"? Many chrstians interpret that simply so that the evolution theory is religion neutral, but it would not be a controversy to bible. So they think that mybe the 6 days god created the world, probably were not 6 days of the lenth that we have here, but something a lot longer period. Interpreting the six days as a metaphor (would the ancient jews have understood e.g. a half light year, if that was closer to that time timewise? i doubt it).
Evolution theory does not say that you are random and meaningless. Not even the biology theories should leave you that impression. You exist because an egg cell and some sperm ... or was it god, did something? Sciences (maybe even theology) should be religion neutral, because it is not justified to think that everyone is christian (or any other particular religion). It has to be something that a hindu, buddhist, muslim, orthodox etc will understand (without reading that what they believe is wrong). Wouldn't biology make you feel worthless, if you think that you were at some point just a lump of cells, a parassite in your mum's stomach?
Self esteem and LOVE are important. But they don't have to be, and are not, limited to a religion. People of any (and without any) religion can LOVE, have a healthy self-esteem, and find their live meaningful.
brianleahy
Colonel Panic
(Note: this post composed purely as a reply to MD's recent post, not specifically to any subsequent post.)
Well done, MD. You have hit upon the undeniable benefits of belonging to an organized religion; feelings of purpose and fellowship and kinship, plus the belief that death... has its upside. This last is major - it gives courage to the dying, and comfort to the survivors. The human drive to form close emotional bonds with others, carries with it a terrible vulnerability. We face emotional devastation when we lose people close to us; the need for comfort in the face of such a loss is enormous.
Humans all have these needs, and in your post, you acknowledge the role these needs play in faith. This alone puts you ahead of many people I have heard and read over the years. That may sound condescending; it's not meant to be. Before it is possible to effectively defend one's opinions, it is vital to truly understand why you hold those opinions, and how they are important to you.
EDIT (meant to mention this): Because of this undeniable value religion can add, despite what I feel are serious problems in the Bible's ability to explain many observed properties of the universe, I personally think that science and religion ought properly not be imagined to compete. Neither "team" can defeat the other, because they are playing different games, on different fields, with different rules, different equipment and a different definition of 'winning'.
My own faith, as I have said, is in the scientific process. Indeed, without realizing it, I long ago adopted something similar to it as my personal philosophy.
As a boy, I can remember great curiosity about how things worked - toasters and TVs, planets and stars, plants and animals, governments and wars. I would first try to ponder things out myself based on my observations. Many times I would think that I’d figured out on my own how something worked, but then later I’d ask an adult about it, and I’d usually learn that there was more to it than I’d realized, and that a lot of my ideas were just wrong.
The lesson I learned was not to put too much trust in answers that seem too easy, too pat. To develop a real understanding of something is an ongoing process of refinement, revision, and filling in of gaps… and occasionally, of starting over from scratch in the face of new information.
This is the essence of the scientific process. So long as this process is hard at work, I have no problem in provisionally accepting new discoveries and new ideas – with the caveat that nothing is ever cast in stone. The ongoing, objective search for the truth: that is where my faith is, that is what I believe in. THAT, in my estimation, is the meaning and purpose of life.
The Bible rejects virtually all of that. The Bible enthrones itself as the last word on every subject it addresses (and I know there are some who will tell you that there is NO subject the Bible doesn’t address) and rules out entirely any reexamination of ideas in the face of new discoveries.
And – to me at least – the Bible’s 'answers' (to such questions as "where do we come from?" and "how should we treat each other?") seem, frankly, too pat, too easy. Thus, I put little trust in them.
And as for treating one another with respect and compassion, despite non-belief in God – the benefits of this are self-evident. Indeed, I think it can be argued that religious faith can, in a sense, sort of 'cheapen' any act of compassion. Isn’t it better to act charitably and kindly because you WANT to, or because it makes you FEEL good, than because you think it’ll score you points with God, or will earn you a nicer spot in heaven?
Well done, MD. You have hit upon the undeniable benefits of belonging to an organized religion; feelings of purpose and fellowship and kinship, plus the belief that death... has its upside. This last is major - it gives courage to the dying, and comfort to the survivors. The human drive to form close emotional bonds with others, carries with it a terrible vulnerability. We face emotional devastation when we lose people close to us; the need for comfort in the face of such a loss is enormous.
Humans all have these needs, and in your post, you acknowledge the role these needs play in faith. This alone puts you ahead of many people I have heard and read over the years. That may sound condescending; it's not meant to be. Before it is possible to effectively defend one's opinions, it is vital to truly understand why you hold those opinions, and how they are important to you.
EDIT (meant to mention this): Because of this undeniable value religion can add, despite what I feel are serious problems in the Bible's ability to explain many observed properties of the universe, I personally think that science and religion ought properly not be imagined to compete. Neither "team" can defeat the other, because they are playing different games, on different fields, with different rules, different equipment and a different definition of 'winning'.
My own faith, as I have said, is in the scientific process. Indeed, without realizing it, I long ago adopted something similar to it as my personal philosophy.
As a boy, I can remember great curiosity about how things worked - toasters and TVs, planets and stars, plants and animals, governments and wars. I would first try to ponder things out myself based on my observations. Many times I would think that I’d figured out on my own how something worked, but then later I’d ask an adult about it, and I’d usually learn that there was more to it than I’d realized, and that a lot of my ideas were just wrong.
The lesson I learned was not to put too much trust in answers that seem too easy, too pat. To develop a real understanding of something is an ongoing process of refinement, revision, and filling in of gaps… and occasionally, of starting over from scratch in the face of new information.
This is the essence of the scientific process. So long as this process is hard at work, I have no problem in provisionally accepting new discoveries and new ideas – with the caveat that nothing is ever cast in stone. The ongoing, objective search for the truth: that is where my faith is, that is what I believe in. THAT, in my estimation, is the meaning and purpose of life.
The Bible rejects virtually all of that. The Bible enthrones itself as the last word on every subject it addresses (and I know there are some who will tell you that there is NO subject the Bible doesn’t address) and rules out entirely any reexamination of ideas in the face of new discoveries.
And – to me at least – the Bible’s 'answers' (to such questions as "where do we come from?" and "how should we treat each other?") seem, frankly, too pat, too easy. Thus, I put little trust in them.
And as for treating one another with respect and compassion, despite non-belief in God – the benefits of this are self-evident. Indeed, I think it can be argued that religious faith can, in a sense, sort of 'cheapen' any act of compassion. Isn’t it better to act charitably and kindly because you WANT to, or because it makes you FEEL good, than because you think it’ll score you points with God, or will earn you a nicer spot in heaven?
pds
Registered
Cat said:
Now now, there is at least one more possibility.
That God created all things to grow. What came first, the chicken or the egg. The egg! Regardless of whether God effected or nature effected the development, it happened at a cellular (even sub-cellular) level to establish this new being (delicious chicken) as distinct from anything that came before.
So why would man be any different? He also started out as a child and had a task to accomplish. The Bible expresses this task in two ways. Do this (Genesis 1:28) and don't do that (Gen 2:7). Having been given the command to "be fruitful" (i.e. to acheive the purpose of his existence Be fruitful means be perfect, complete your purpose - an apple tree is perfect not when it bears watermelon, but when it bears apples, the genetic programming of the seed becomes the reality of the fruit.) - Adam and Eve were certainly capable of doing so (God gives not tests that we cannot withstand or however that is poetically expressed). Their purpose is clear. Jesus said it, Mat:5:48 "you must, therefore, be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect."
Adam and Eve were neither _prone_ to sin, nor completely virtuous. They were simply immature. They were responsible to grow. That was the amazing gift that was given them, the chance to be co-creators of their own natures. The omnipotent God gave Adam and Eve His omnipotence, making them completely responsible for their own growth. And the reason for it is simple. He loved them.
As to the consequences; were they a curse, as Matt has stated, or was it a simple fact that through following Satan's explanation of their task, rather than God's man became dead, i.e. no longer within the realm of God's word and love?
Since he was responsible to grow, was Adam not also responsible for the consequences of not growing? (God didn't say "Lucifer, don't tempt them" he said "Adam, resist the temptation.")
(Shaky example coming)
If a crackhead becomes a parent, the suffering of her child is consequence, not punishment.
Now, Hows that for going off-topic!
Cat
Registered
Well, if Adam and Eve didn't fully know the consequence of their actions, how could they make a truly informed choice? Can we even see it as a choice to disobey and rebel? They knew they were disobeying, but had they fully realised what would happen to them afterwards probably they would not have disobeyed. Moreover, god lied to them when he told "as soon as you take one bite of the apple you will instantly and straightforwardly die". I still don't really believe the spiritual-death story. So where is gods infinite forgiveness? Where is his infinite love and compassion for his children? Doesn't Jesus himself say "forgive them because they do not know what they are doing"? Did Adam and Eve truly realise what they were doing? I don't think so ...
Take Satan: now that is a rebel! Truly great in his defiance: "Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven!" (Milton, "Paradise lost"). Strange though: angels did not have free will, so how could they even conceive of rebelling ...
Take Satan: now that is a rebel! Truly great in his defiance: "Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven!" (Milton, "Paradise lost"). Strange though: angels did not have free will, so how could they even conceive of rebelling ...
pds
Registered
brianleahy said:
Now Now Now...
The Bible is an inanimate object and as such does no such thing as enthrone itself nor does it do any other activity except age...
I asked what part of the book is used to lay siege to the idea of literal infallibilty, and in the absence of an answer I will put one forward - though I might be wrong and welcome fuller answer.
AFAIK It comes from Revelation 22:18, the penultimate verse in the book. Now I believe we all know that Bible comes from biblio meaning (approx) library. It is a collection of books. (The book of Job, the book of Numbers etc.) Rev. 22:18 rightly belongs to the nightmare that is the book of Revelation. Needless to say there was quite a fight about putting Revelation into the Christian Canon. It was included because it made a nice balance, from alpha to omega so to speak. Two of John's letters were written after Revelation was written, after 22:18 was written.
Point?
Politicians have enthroned it.
"Faith without works is death."
Interesting book is "Life in the World Unseen" by Anthony Borgia. Bit strange as Borgia is a medium and claims to write the book at the direction of a spirit person. But I love the explanation of the guy sitting at the border of paradise, unable to go in because his selfish motivation in faith and charity never prepared him to "breathe the atmosphere of paradise." He could see it, but he couldn't partake in it.
brianleahy
Colonel Panic
A fair point; a person or thing is 'enthroned' by its followers. I could walk around calling myself a king, but unless I have people obeying me, it's just blabber.
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." ???? You lost me.
If "politicians" includes priests and evangelists, then I agree.
In this context does "works" mean 'deeds' -- specifically 'good deeds'?
Or do you mean 'trappings' - prayers, religious services, traditions etc?
pds
Registered
You are so clever. It is not a case of rebellion or even disobedience. Toss into the story the idea that Lucifer (who becomes satan, the enemy) was there in the garden as a nanny. He was the one feeding them their information.Cat said:
Yes, so the pleasure of the deviation of their behavior (to stay away from the term disobedience) was so stimulating that they became focused on the moment, forsaking the future. Hmm, what could that have been?
Unless they did in fact do so. There is certainly textual hinting to the idea of physical life and spiritual death in the Bible. "you have the name of being alive, but you are dead." "Though he may die yet shall he live." "Those who hear my words and believes....has passed from death to life."
Even in everyday living, aren't there times when your thinking is cloudy, confused, ambivalent, and other times things shine through in more clarity certainty. Sometimes we feel God's presence and sometimes not. In my experience we kind of wander between the the realms of life and death a lot. (no I am not forgeting my medication
)When did God forgive Adam and Eve? Some would say that all forgiveness comes from Jesus, but I would say that the forgiveness starts immediately with Adam and Eve. Now, is there forgiveness without a level of acceptance of responsibility for the problem? When Jesus says "... they know not what they do", isn't he saying "it's my fault that I couldn't convince them what they should do."?
It is my understanding that forgiveness is a precondition for God to work with mankind and love is a precondition to that forgiveness. He has to forgive man in order to save him (how can he waste time saving that which is worthless in his eye?) and he started the work of salvation immediately in Adam's own family, again because he loved them. He tells Cain "If you do well, will you not be accepted?" (Its a JudeoChristian paradigm, but born it's born out in Muslim tradition. There is an amazingly similar story in ancient Korean mythology too.)
God's forgiveness is infinite, but since man is in this "omnipotent" position due to his purpose, he cannot be saved by God's effort alone, but by his own effort within the principles and the purposes of God. (not saved by faith alone.) It takes a long time for us to get it.
That "man's omnipotence" thing is going to get me in trouble, I know. Please note the quotation marks around it.
Angels ... free will ... free action ... hmmm another tangent?
Is it free will that is at the root of man's (or the angel's) fall, or is it responsibility? I see free will and free action as components of responsibility so anything that has a job to do has some level of responsibility and therefore some level of free will to be able to act freely. Rule in hell - act independently - rather than serve in heaven, so he had a purpose to do something which again requires the ability to act independently.
pds
Registered
Rev.22:18,19 "...should anyone take away from the words in this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life an the Holy City described in this book." It has been told to me as applying to the entire 66 book library we call the Bible, but erroneously so as far as I know. It applies strictly to the book of Revelation, a nightmare as I said. (a vision seen in dreams)brianleahy said:
Re politicians - Some priests and evangelists may fit that description, some may not. There is definitely a proper path, a high road to improvement and salvation, and there is definitely a need for leadership on that road. The one who decides to stay on the road and carve out his feast is the politician.
Re faith and works - perhaps too glib a quote, the former for sure. If you can find the Borgia book it is an easy read. DLloyd, you'll like the bits about the castles of music.
******
I'd post a smiley
to the brian's post below, but it would end up on the next page.
brianleahy
Colonel Panic
Ah blast, somehow I clicked Exodus when I should have clicked Revelations. Whoops!
That's how I got the wrong passage.
EDIT (more):
In any case, Faith without works is death, okay...
But what about works without faith?
That's how I got the wrong passage.
EDIT (more):
In any case, Faith without works is death, okay...
But what about works without faith?
pds
Registered
Well, first off, what should we have faith in? But leave that till later...
The way I see it, every act has a couple of components that determine it's value. One is motivation and the other is direction. Since we stand in a position that is between life and death, heaven and hell, God and satan, our actions will have a direction, to accomplish goodness or to accomplish evil, the will of God or the will of Satan. This was Adam and Eve's dilemma too. So there's a whole matrix of possibilities in looking at any deed. The motivation could be pure and good and the act itself in the direction of either good or evil. Also the motivation may be evil (selfish or destructive) but the deed good. Lastly there could be the completely selfish evil deed. I consider that God can (and will) bless three out of the four possibilities, some more than others.
What should we have faith in? God want's love, not faith. He doesn't want people to believe in him, but to strive to know him and be like him. So what should we believe in? A typical response might be that faith is the belief in things not seen, the hope for fulfilled promises. Maybe, but for me, faith is more like belief that what happened before will happen again. It is more like recognition that there are principles of life that can be seen and discovered in the real words that God wrote, forever, in the the things that he has made. "Let there be light." He created with the word and that word is written on every thing of creation, in it's consistency and it's complexity. It is therefore belief in what is seen.
When we give to someone who we see needs help, is it not faith that moves us? Faith, not in an unseen God, but in the unseen law that I will not lose by giving something of myself to this one who needs it.
So are there works without faith? I might say that it's impossible.
The way I see it, every act has a couple of components that determine it's value. One is motivation and the other is direction. Since we stand in a position that is between life and death, heaven and hell, God and satan, our actions will have a direction, to accomplish goodness or to accomplish evil, the will of God or the will of Satan. This was Adam and Eve's dilemma too. So there's a whole matrix of possibilities in looking at any deed. The motivation could be pure and good and the act itself in the direction of either good or evil. Also the motivation may be evil (selfish or destructive) but the deed good. Lastly there could be the completely selfish evil deed. I consider that God can (and will) bless three out of the four possibilities, some more than others.
What should we have faith in? God want's love, not faith. He doesn't want people to believe in him, but to strive to know him and be like him. So what should we believe in? A typical response might be that faith is the belief in things not seen, the hope for fulfilled promises. Maybe, but for me, faith is more like belief that what happened before will happen again. It is more like recognition that there are principles of life that can be seen and discovered in the real words that God wrote, forever, in the the things that he has made. "Let there be light." He created with the word and that word is written on every thing of creation, in it's consistency and it's complexity. It is therefore belief in what is seen.
When we give to someone who we see needs help, is it not faith that moves us? Faith, not in an unseen God, but in the unseen law that I will not lose by giving something of myself to this one who needs it.
So are there works without faith? I might say that it's impossible.
brianleahy
Colonel Panic
Interesting, and nicely thought out.
You seem to have distilled the essence of what is sometimes called 'Christian Charity' ('charity' as a quality, not as something to which you donate money) to a philosophy that can stand with or without the Bible or its trappings.
It is a common practice in science, in logic, in law and so forth to illustrate a concept by imagining an idealized situation. For example, there is a riddle that illustrates a concept of geography:
Question:"A man walks 10 miles south, 20 miles east, then 10 miles north, and arrives back where he started. Where is he?"
Answer: "The north pole".
This story is useful to illustrate how the compass directions work - north and south have 'poles', while east and west are merely relative. This overall lesson is true, but it does NOT imply that the STORY is literally true (i.e. perhaps nobody has ever ACTUALLY walked 10 miles south, 20 miles east, then 10 miles north, to arrive back at the north pole).
This is how I believe significant parts of the Bible must be interpreted -- that is, they carry a message that is 'true' in its way, but the story used to deliver that message is like a fable; illustrative though not literally true. (Not to say that the entire thing is made up, there is some historical truth in the Bible, parts that can be independently confirmed by other sources.)
You seem to have distilled the essence of what is sometimes called 'Christian Charity' ('charity' as a quality, not as something to which you donate money) to a philosophy that can stand with or without the Bible or its trappings.
It is a common practice in science, in logic, in law and so forth to illustrate a concept by imagining an idealized situation. For example, there is a riddle that illustrates a concept of geography:
Question:"A man walks 10 miles south, 20 miles east, then 10 miles north, and arrives back where he started. Where is he?"
Answer: "The north pole".
This story is useful to illustrate how the compass directions work - north and south have 'poles', while east and west are merely relative. This overall lesson is true, but it does NOT imply that the STORY is literally true (i.e. perhaps nobody has ever ACTUALLY walked 10 miles south, 20 miles east, then 10 miles north, to arrive back at the north pole).
This is how I believe significant parts of the Bible must be interpreted -- that is, they carry a message that is 'true' in its way, but the story used to deliver that message is like a fable; illustrative though not literally true. (Not to say that the entire thing is made up, there is some historical truth in the Bible, parts that can be independently confirmed by other sources.)
MDLarson
Registered
Hey all... I'm just dropping in again, and I am officially exhausted from this thread. I crave closure, and I had naïvely envisioned my last post to be a conclusion to at least my end of the discussion.
Angels obviously had free-will at one time, that is, the time period between their creation and the Curse on Adam (Mankind), Eve (Womankind) and the serpent (Lucifer / Satan / the rest of the angels and fallen angels / demons). Satan was the 'mutineer' and 1/3 of the angels chose to follow him in his rebellion. It appears as if angels are sort of "locked-in" to their fate according to the Bible, but I don't know if I could say that they have "no free will" (I could simply be ignorant of a verse that brings this issue up).
As far as God lying to Adam and Eve about the consequence of sin, that don't work for me at all. Somebody had mentioned several Bible translations that appear to take liberties in the meaning of 'die', and I suspect the apparent problem would be satisfied if we understood the Hebrew (is Hebrew capitalized?). Clearly, there was a metaphysical change in the structure of the human body, as people began to die (literally). In that sense you could get away with saying "Adam and Eve immediately began to die". This is mostly my opinion, and certainly not to be held as scripture. (That's a joke, folks )
Oh, I also wanted to mention that I DO believe there are appropriate times to treat Bible passages as allegorical and poetic; sometimes entire books are poetry! However, as I have described earlier in my A+B does not equal C example, there are some things that are absolutely critical to a faith. Human origins is one of those things, and scientific evidence can, in my estimation, be explained in a Biblical worldview without automatically defaulting to poetry or allegory.
But anyway, those are a couple thoughts; just to let you know that I'm sort of still here... I plan on keeping up with the thread, but I don't know how involved I'm gonna be (just getting worn out mostly).
Angels obviously had free-will at one time, that is, the time period between their creation and the Curse on Adam (Mankind), Eve (Womankind) and the serpent (Lucifer / Satan / the rest of the angels and fallen angels / demons). Satan was the 'mutineer' and 1/3 of the angels chose to follow him in his rebellion. It appears as if angels are sort of "locked-in" to their fate according to the Bible, but I don't know if I could say that they have "no free will" (I could simply be ignorant of a verse that brings this issue up).
As far as God lying to Adam and Eve about the consequence of sin, that don't work for me at all. Somebody had mentioned several Bible translations that appear to take liberties in the meaning of 'die', and I suspect the apparent problem would be satisfied if we understood the Hebrew (is Hebrew capitalized?). Clearly, there was a metaphysical change in the structure of the human body, as people began to die (literally). In that sense you could get away with saying "Adam and Eve immediately began to die". This is mostly my opinion, and certainly not to be held as scripture. (That's a joke, folks
)Oh, I also wanted to mention that I DO believe there are appropriate times to treat Bible passages as allegorical and poetic; sometimes entire books are poetry! However, as I have described earlier in my A+B does not equal C example, there are some things that are absolutely critical to a faith. Human origins is one of those things, and scientific evidence can, in my estimation, be explained in a Biblical worldview without automatically defaulting to poetry or allegory.
But anyway, those are a couple thoughts; just to let you know that I'm sort of still here...
I plan on keeping up with the thread, but I don't know how involved I'm gonna be (just getting worn out mostly).
pds
Registered
Bingo
But consistency was never a big part of theology, to its detriment...
It seems to me that the cycle of life indicates that life, child-bearing/rearing and even death are part of the growing process, part of the learning process. To therefore exclude death in the creative process, to say that evolution is not possible because it involves the life/death cycle, is a limited approach.
BTW the "curse" mentioned was a curse upon man and the angel, not upon the animals of the world, who do die. I believe that man, being the image of God, is immortal, just not in a physical sense. It is our spirit that never dies, that is eternal. Our life determines whether that eternity is pleasant or unpleasant. (Which goes to the idea of spiritual life or spiritual death. "He who does not love abides in death.")
But the original theme of the thread was that Darwin was being shoved aside. I think the question becomes "How can we as a society provide the intellectual climate to embrace the questions of science and religion in a spirit of tolerance and understanding, avoiding the confrontation of either/or, and looking at each as a search for how and why?"
But consistency was never a big part of theology, to its detriment...
It seems to me that the cycle of life indicates that life, child-bearing/rearing and even death are part of the growing process, part of the learning process. To therefore exclude death in the creative process, to say that evolution is not possible because it involves the life/death cycle, is a limited approach.
BTW the "curse" mentioned was a curse upon man and the angel, not upon the animals of the world, who do die. I believe that man, being the image of God, is immortal, just not in a physical sense. It is our spirit that never dies, that is eternal. Our life determines whether that eternity is pleasant or unpleasant. (Which goes to the idea of spiritual life or spiritual death. "He who does not love abides in death.")
But the original theme of the thread was that Darwin was being shoved aside. I think the question becomes "How can we as a society provide the intellectual climate to embrace the questions of science and religion in a spirit of tolerance and understanding, avoiding the confrontation of either/or, and looking at each as a search for how and why?"
- Status