ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
YEC part Trois(407 Posts)
So we're still going, perhaps not as YEC as originally, but there's some good debate still occurring! Can we link from previous again?
Sabrina Now who's trying to convert who?
We get back to Tim Minchin's Storm here don't we? Storm opines "you can't really know anything, knowledge is just opinion..."
But when you read proper scientific theory you don't need to have any faith, or to pray for revelation to understand it. You don't need to be 'converted' to it - it's not a belief system.
I had my lightbulb moment when I realised that to believe in God I didn't have to believe all the nasty arse shit that goes along with Christianity. I didn't have to believe that God would punish someone because they had the misfortune to be born into the wrong culture or a God that would be ok with kids dying from horrid diseases he could prevent or cure.
January I don't believe that either - the nasty arse shit.
Sabrina Yes we are back to Tim Minchin's Storm I suppose. Although I hope I don't come across as drippy as that. I wouldn't pay a psychic or even want one either or some of the other stuff, can't remember all of it.
Unfortunately if you believe the bible is true the nasty arse shit is not escapable
I don't fear Hell, I am saved. The same with intentions, I can now trust my heart as I stay in communion with the Holy Ghost. If I miss God He'll find me again.
What makes you saved? Is it because we're all saved? In which case, what's the point in hell? Hashtag confused.....
I could say the same about some 'bad' science which you would then probably call pseudo-science , except it wasn't at the time.
Pseudoscience isn't discredited science, or something that was accepted at the time but is not accepted now.
It is a claim which is presented as scientific but does not actually stand up to proper scientific scrutiny or employ proper scientific method. Intelligent Design is an excellent example of pseudoscience.
Should say 'superceded' really, rather than discredited.
Sabrina If science can be superseded there is information lacking which means the 'conclusions' aren't absolute truth.
January You seem fond of arguing theology as if you know everything there is to it. From here I can see you haven't really had a revelation of God's love. Do you want revelation on this? You have to look for it, seek it, to get it.
PedroTruly believing on Jesus saves you.
An example of a superseded theory is the geocentric universe. According to the information available at the time, the ancient Greeks, among others, believed that earth was the the orbital centre and celestial bodies moved around it. This has obviously been superseded by the now extensive (but not complete) knowledge of the structure of the universe now.
Scientific theories like gravity, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, evolution aren't likely to be superseded or completely discredited in the same way. There is just too much physical evidence supporting them. The theories may be refined, as here:
In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology. Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress" became obsolete. Scientists continue to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing scientific theories, using observational data, and performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science. Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.
It's only because the science is so grossly inconvenient to those who want to argue that the bible is true that people erroneously say 'but evolution is just a theory.'
Btw, I believe that Jesus, the man, existed. But he was most unlikely to have been born on Dec 25th.
I don't believe that he was the son of god, or was resurrected. I don't believe in the virgin birth. Funnily enough, we are now at the stage of scientific discovery where a virgin birth could happen - via IVF. But science has made that possible, not god or religion.
Hypothetically, of course, if some discovery was made that completely blew evolutionary theory out of the water (it's not going to happen, but anyway...) the scientific theory would change. Because that's the beauty of scientific discovery, it doesn't need faith in anything. Just evidence. Scientists are forced to change their minds based on evidence.
Oh. No more replies. I'll just stay and chat to myself then
This is good.
"Btw, I believe that Jesus, the man, existed. But he was most unlikely to have been born on Dec 25th."
No one - ANYWHERE - EVER - believed Jesus was born on December 25th, Sabrina. The Bible indicates it would have been in the spring or autumn. Also, no one believes that there were only 3 wise men (that is presumed because only 3 gifts are mentioned - gold frankincense and myrrh) or that they visited baby Jesus in the stable. (The Bible indicates it was nearly two years later at a house.)
I think a fair few christians think that Dec 25th is Christ's birthday actually, Best. I know quite a few people who do. Perhaps they're just taking 'Mary's boy child' too literally...?
But I know it wasn't written in the bible - it was introduced because St Augustine's had a clever way of pinching English pagan festivals and making them 'christian.' He just usurped the god of Mithras's birthday with a celebration Jesus's birthday instead.
I know very little of it but what I know I know. I am slightly offended that you are suggesting that because I dont believe the same things as you I must still be seeking God.
The thing is I found God and I LIKE what I found. I don't like the God of the OT and I dont like the idea of God that enjoys watching people suffer when he can stop it. So if I wanted to find belief in the Bible I would be looking to find fault which is kind of counter productive is it not.
Not sure if Islets is still around. She hasn't posted on this thread yet. (maybe because it hasn't been linked to the previous thread yet). I just wanted her to know that the book she recommended "The Seashell on the Mountaintop" has come in through the inter-library loan program and I'm going to go pick it up tomorrow.
Of course seashells - especially in the closed position - are best explained by a global Flood.
Of course seashells - especially in the closed position - are best explained by a global Flood..... only to an idiot, I'm afraid.
January Not my intention to offend.
We obviously are each getting a different message from the Bible.
It is because, with my understanding, I find such comfort and love in Christianity that I have tried to encourage you to keep seeking or questioning your own beliefs about it.
Like you I like the God I have found but unlike you He is in the Bible.
As you have said trying to find fault is rather counter-productive to understanding.
Now you probably would want to accuse me of the same closed thinking regarding science. Just because I put God and the Bible first does not mean I don't think any science can give us wisdom. Indeed if something really bothered me, a conflict between science and the Bible I would probably revisit my understanding of both. However the Bible holds priority for me because of my faith.
I am stating my bias, as a good scientist should. I don't believe there is anyone out there with no biases whatsoever. In your last post you stated your bias by saying you would be looking for fault with the Bible. How can you be sure this does not reach over into your interpretation of science?
no I would not be looking for fault within the bible. If I look to the bible to build my beliefs upon I find fault with God.
The bible says that women are being eternally punished for Eves original sin. The bible says its ok to own other people. The bible says that God can physically save people but chooses not to. The bible says that people are unequal and that childen are to be punished for the crimes of a parent. The bible justifies wars and killing. And the bible is used to manipulate and rob vulnerable people. A loving God wouldn't be OK with any of that.
Technically it is improbable (to the point of impossibility) That the bible we have today is anything close to a representation of the original documents (which themselves are unlikely to originate fron the people we think because of the levels of literacy required) I find it completely illogical to base my beliefs of something like that.
daftdame tell me if I've got this wrong, but it sounds like you mean that reading the bible just connects you to god. So it's not the actual words that matter as god will put the meaning into your head. If so then presumably holding the closed bible would do as well except that it's the intention of looking that invites god to put things into your mind.
Back I just don't see God revelling in it. You've just got to look at how Jesus was, for example with the woman who was about to be stoned.
Yes, Jesus was clearly a completely different person with totally different morals from the god of the OT (there's a quote a few posts back about dashing children to death). That makes sense if you see Jesus as just using the OT as a basis for a brand new religion like Joseph Smith did, but can't be made to work if you say he is the same good god.
objective and relative
I think some of us might be using these words differently. Objective morality would surely mean that some things are just wrong. They'd still be wrong even if god did them. Therefore if you think that slaughtering children is a bad thing then god is bad. If you want to say god is good then you should stand up and say that slaughtering children is a good thing.
Some people may mean external morality where things are wrong simply because god declares them to be wrong. If he changes his mind tomorrow then tomorrow it is right to do those things.
Back Just to complicate (or simplify?) matters I believe the word is God (and Jesus is God and the Holy Ghost is God).
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1)
I believe morality is objective and external with God. Humans can not be truly objective because they are so subjective they cannot fully comprehend the bigger picture.
January What can I say except what I understand from the Bible is not the same as what you believe.
Back The word, word(s) do matter.
I don't know whether it will help at all but in my mind I view truth as cyclical or spherical, not linear as such.
It is a complete entity, there is right and wrong in every case but to understand it the divide is not linear. It is difficult to predict, as it adapts to context, but if you repeat the exact the context it will repeat.
Some contexts, although they appear to be externally different from others, will be the same in truth, hence as when analogies work.
Join the discussion
Please login first.