To find the Christian faith difficult to understand?

[redshinyshoes]

Firstly, I am not looking for a fight, trying to upset anyone and I can see why this may sound ignorant but I am genuinly curious. I was brought up in a very atheist household where anyone religious was treated with suspision but as an adult I have a few Christian friends and would consider myself agnostic. I want to know (but don't feel I can ask my Christian friends as don't want to offend) whether Christians believe the bible word for word or see it as more metaphorical? If it's word for word, how otherwise down to earth intelligent people can fathom a virgin birth, the Earth only being a few thousand years old and the sea parting?

Himalaya - I believe in God and I "believe" evolution. To me, there isn't a contradiction - God created a universe in which evolution could/would occur, and the process of evolution would always tend over time to cause the development of more complex organisms, some of which would have greater intelligence, which would lead at some stage to the development of a self-aware creature - humans. The "special relationship" between God and Man is possible because we are self-aware. Therefore we were in a sense the end point of evolution, because evolution would throw up something like us, and God wanted it to so that He could have a relationship with whatever self-aware species evolved.

That doesn't need God to interfere in evolution in order to bring us into being, just to create the basic game rules which make evolution work, because self-awareness would happen sooner or later. We might have been insects, or cetaceans, or any other line of evolution, if conditions had led to those becoming self-aware instead of some hairless apes.

Several old books written over a long long time by various men in different languages and countries, translated/interpreted badly over time.

I think you only have to look at how humans have changed between the New Testament and now to see evolution ar work.

In Jesus' time, women were servants to their fathers then their husbanmds- they had no say, no right, no will of their own except to agree to serve their "master" and to bear/look after their children.
Now we see women as almost completely equal to men (that bit's still being worked on!) and therefore, the roles of women in society have changed.
That means that although men and women as husbands and wives still exist, they exist in a much more equal partnership then they did.
So the rules about adultery and punishment are out-dated.
That's why we can't take some parts of the bible literally - we have to take those parts with a small pinch of salt, allowing for how we have changed as humans i nthat time. We have to look at the basic premise, about love and commitment, but now we apply it equally to men and women.
so where in the passage quoted at weddings the man is the head of the woman as God is the head of the church, and women must submit to their husbands like christ submitted to God, man protect your woman, love her and look after her - it's the same, except men haveto submit to the woman as well as her submitting to him.
That makes it fairer.

I always see that passage in a positive light as well nickel because it instructs men to love and respect their wives, which was a radical statement for the time, and although St Paul is oft quoted as a raging misogynist he says some startling things setting women free in the time he was living. The head of the woman/as Christ is head of the church thing doesn't imply oppressing women but freeing them, because a comparison to Christ being head of the church is a direct implication of a person being given freedom, grace and love.

The evolution thing - what AMIS said I am not a scientist so I am not going to pretend I am and make a fool of myself, but I know people who are highly intelligent scientists and have no problem with evolution and creation. God is clever and all that. (not saying I haven't read up on it and will just believe anything - I have, but am not particularly au fait with all the language, not my strong point. Theology however... )

you said it so much better than me!

Just want to comment on a couple of points on the previous page:

Someone asked why God was so active in Biblical times but doesn't seem to be now. Definately an understandable question, but its worth bearing in mind that the Bible covers a far greater period of time than that which has elapsed since the period it is recounting finished. Secondly, in sending Jesus, God kind of changed the nature of his relationship with humanity. Went from the law of stone, i.e. the ten commandments, to the law of the heart, i.e. Jesus' revision of the ten commandments into two instructions to love God and to love your neighbour. (By the way, I realise that I have just given arguably the most simplistic interpretation of this ever, but kind of figured this might be a long post anyway!)

Essentially, God sent Jesus as a living example and sacrifice and then - once Jesus had gone - made it clear that his spirit was available for guidance, support etc. Rather than simply laying down a set of prescriptive rules as per the Old Testament, he put the responsibility on us. Good example: there's a story in the Bible of Jewish leaders taking an adultress woman to Jesus and testing him on his knowledge of Jewish law, asking him what they should do with her (by law she should have been stoned). Rather than explicitly stating anything, Jesus simply said that whoever was without sin should throw the first stone. He put the responsibilty back on them.

I also think that God does still speak to people and guide them. As someone else has said, we record things differently now and are arguably more sceptical thanks to our greater understanding of the physical world (I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing by the way). Just a few people who testify that their actions were inspired by God: Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, William Wilberforce (did more to abolish slavery in this country than anyone else) and then the more obvious ones like Mother Theresa and Desmond Tutu. God has always spoken. The way he does it will change from person to person and from time to time.

Re evolution debunking creation: I disagree to be honest. I believe that God created the world, he created the laws of physics and he created the laws by which evolution takes place. I don't think that he has been constantly tinkering with it over the years but has allowed certain things to take their course, hence the immense suffering that the world has seen over the years. The suffering question is one that I think pretty much every Christian will grapple with more than once and there are not easy answers. My response would take another far too long post, but will try to get something down if anyone actually wants it.

Really interesting thread, and thanks to everybody for actually being respectful about our faith rather than simply taking the piss (as happens in many walks of life).

good post deepheat :)

(Bangs head against wall) The eye did not evolve in it's fully functioning present form in one fell swoop. And the old 'you can't get by with half an eye' argument cannot be pulled out either. Eyes as we know them have evolved from light-sensitive spots that over the millenia acquired other characteristics (ie, evolved even more) that were advantageous to their possessors and thereby led them to leave more offspring, eventually leading to what we see today as an amazing piece of biological engineering in the form of the eye.

I haven't explained it as well as I would like there, but there are some excellent books out there that break down and explain evolution very well. The Greatest Show on Earth being one (please don't let the fact that Richard Dawkins wrote it frighten you away. He is well and truly on form when writing about evolution) and Why Evolution is True being another.

There is a lot of misunderstanding on how evolution works and what the scientific definition of a theory actually is, as opposed to what we call a theory in day-to-day life.

I know this isn't a discussion about the wherewiths and whatfors of evolution, but a previous poster's statement about 'every time the 60 parts required to make an eye happen to evolve in the right way at the same time' really made my arse twitch.

Hey crazy. Pretty familiar with Dawkins and don't disagree with the mechanics of his views on evolution at all. I bang my head against a wall when I see states in America refusing to teach evolution in their schools. Put simply, I just don't see why I shouldn't believe that God isn't behind it.

Similarly, I've read a fair bit of Hawkins work re origins of the Universe as well, and saw nothing there that I felt contradicted my faith (though obviously he puts his hypothesis forward more speculatively than that lovely Dawkins fellow!).

deepheat right there with ya regarding the situation in many parts of the US.

And well done reading Hawkins! I've tried at least 3 times to read A Brief History of Time and I get as far as chapter 3 before my mind ties itself into a mobius strip and eventually implodes (physics is not my strong point!)

I'm actually quite pleased to see that this thread hasn't imploded so spectacularly as so many on this topic seem to.

Haven't read the whole thread so apologies if someone has already said this. But I just wanted to say two things:

1. some people do believe the Bible word for word, some don't (to varying degrees). The essential bit about being a Christian is believing that Jesus was born the son of God and died for our sins.

2. You may want to consider going on an Alpha course, lots of churches run them and its where anyone, and I mean anyone can go a long, listen to a short talk and then have the chance to ask as many questions as they want. uk.alpha.org/

crazy I was slightly forced into it. My Dad was a Professor of applied maths and worked with Hawkins. Wouldn't say I was forced to read it per se, but not far off! He was a strident atheist and so felt that Hawkins would debunk my faith nicely. Thinking about it, forcing your son to read up on quantum physics can't be far off child abuse. Should've reported him.

Ironically, he's dead now so would probably be able to shed some light on this subject.

Should just stress that he was a lovely man.

Nickelbabysnatche - that is not evolution, it is just a change in society. Evolutionary change takes place much more slowly.

Himalaya, do you not think that there is something different about human evolution? Why is there such a huge leap between other apes and us? Is the thinking that homo sapiens evolved through a series of chance events? I don't doubt that this is possible, but then sometimes I wonder about our level of sophistication in terms of technology etc compared with our nearest living relative (oranguatang I think?) I am really fasctinated by this. Thanks.

Cornflower - for a long time we did have other near relatives who were not that different from us in terms of technology etc. The "family tree" of early hominids has many species, overlapping in time - there seem to have been several who could have been the one to make it. But Homo Sapiens out-played them, out-competed, and/or just got lucky, and they then died out. Other current apes may seem similar to each other in our terms, but each occupies a niche - they live in certain areas, or types of vegetation, or eat different things. But Homo Sapiens competed more directly with the other early hominids, so there wasn't "room" for them to continue as well as us.

Cornflower - I know it's not evolution, but I was trying to put the analogy into the "7 days" theroy

It's people adapting to their surroundings - which is basically what evolution does.

Thanks AMumInScotland. I can see that, but I still think there is a huge leap in terms of intellectual capability between us and other apes that is difficult to explain by luck, or a series of random events, although I know that is possible. I sound like I believe in divine intervention and I don't really Any thoughts on the aquatic ape theory or is that all codswallop?

Yes true Nickelbabysnatcher, I guess that would be social evolution, but the evolution we are generally talking about refers to changes at the DNA level that alter the genetic make up of the species, which is a different thing. Sorry, don't mean to be pedantic!

'Fraid my knowledge of current thinking on hominid evolution is very out of date (about 20 years old...), I really out to read up on the current theories, but it's not reached the top of my To Do List yet

poor anybody who isn't an intellectual or academic eh - NO chance of knowing God!

you're not supposed to understnad it in its entirety, that would be like understanding the full contents of the internet - absurd. it's not about a set of laws but a relationship, which he (don't get hung up on the he) has made abundantly clear he wants, and has gone to tremendously extravagant lengths to facilitate.

namely, through Jesus - as in Christ, as in christianity. we've gone 6 pages here and yet the Jesus, of Christ, of christianity has barely been mentioned, which is odd don't you think?

as someone has said, Jesus - God with us - paid the price to reconcile us to God (an alpha course will explain it well) and our part is to accept that, or want to accept that, or want to know him re God. no amount of study will get you there (though CS Lewis had a good go). Jesus said it was good for him to go so that the teacher, the holy spirit, would come to show us and explain: Jesus was a human being in one place, the HS is everywhere, able to communicate with every heart and mind. that's a pretty good deal I think. He makes sense of it all - ridiculous to try to do it on your own, impossible.

obviously there are basic tenets to the christian faith (again, an Alpha course will lay those out effectively as well as offering a good space to question and discuss). If you want to know him though imo you have to ask him re if you are there, if you are real, if you are who you say you are, I want to know you, I want to understand. ime having bottomed out I did precisely this and was totally astonished to be knocked sideways with THE most gorgeously neat loveliness. It's not called the good news for nothing.

re you make sense of it through a relationship. not possible otherwise - or long, laborious, frustrating, fusty (religious) and doomed to failure. why bother with that, which is sickeningly dull, when you can have - and are invited to have - a gorgeous, living relationship; ongoing, leading you into truth, teaching,
explaining, comforting, encouraging, healing, challenging, real, exquisitely loving.

that's not to say there isn't a place for intellectual/academic study and questioning - and those who have this gift, infused as it has to be with a living relationship with the gorgeous Jesus, are a joy to listen to, learn from and study with. Just get it in the right order: relationship first (or did I say that already?)

oh dear, do I sound smug

You're still pretty spot-on with your explanation AMumInSCotland. Actually there have been even more hominid species discovered in the past couple decades so the human family tree is even richer and more varied than originally thought. I think I also read not too long ago that there are some gene markers in some European and Asian populations today that indicate the presence of Neanderthal DNA.

here

CornflowerB the aquatic ape theory is indeed codswallop! Can't find any sources to link though... But we evolved in a different direction than the other apes due to differing environmental pressures on us.

It's all so fascinating isn't it!

Deepheat love that story about your dad! He would probably have enjoyed the challenge of a former co-worker of mine who was a physics teacher and also a devout Mormon!

I haven't read the thread....but we're believers in our household, and the people encourages Christians to not have a "worldly outlook" or "worldly perception".

So while someone with half a brain might consider a virgin giving birth as "unfathomable", if you were to address to situation without "worldly logic" or "worldly knowledge" it would make perfect sense.

I'd also like to throw "faith" into the mix, and that faith comes in to it in a big way-while you have faith in the scientists that tell you the Earth evolved, some have a faith in God that it was created, and that goes for anything else, not just the Creation/Evolution argument.

nobody ever thought the world was flat, whoever said that, not really. Anyone looking at the horizon can see instantly the world is not flat.
The ancient greeks knew it to be a sphere.

I find Christianity very hard to understand too. Especially because so much of the Bible, and so many of the commentators on the Bible, say things I find repellent and offensive - especially the sexism and the focus on the pain of death. I find it very hard to square up to a religion that appears to celebrate a tortured body, and even harder to understand the passages in the Bible that are so very bigoted by modern standards.

I am Christian, as it happens.

I think that part of the difficulty may be, that people try to 'understand' religion. I know that, if I go to church and pray, I feel better. I know this in the same way that I know if I go and swim 100 lengths, get about and eat healthy chicken salad and then read a 'serious' novel I've been meaning to tackle, I will feel good. I don't think it's necessary to understand all the theology or philosophy of religion before you decide it works for you. I don't understand a lot of theology, and when I do read and understand it, it is interesting but I'm not sure the theory helps me practice.

I don't myself believe the Bible word for word - I think that is very strange (especially as it has been translated so many times and so much of it is not 'spiritual' but rather practical advice. It's not hard to see why the Old Testament should forbid eating pork: if you kept pigs in the countries in which the Old Testament was written, they would not be very healthy as the climate does not suit them. So, of course, it is sensible to ban eating them!).

I'm not sure why I believe what I do, but it's usual to cite the line in the Bible about 'the peace of God, that passes all understanding'. It is a cliche, but I find it quite helpful to think of faith as something you don't have to try to explain. I think it's better to make sure your actions can be explained, and can always be justified as kind and appropriate. As long as that is true, you shouldn't need to rationalize faith, as that should be the hidden motivation for your actions.

.... I've no idea if that makes sense!

Buzz, they actually believed it to be "pear shaped".

The Bible describes it has a hanging jewel, so that would make sense.