Without a Doubt - faith and opinions

[bloom]

Christians up until the time of the printing press and for awhile after - believed whatever was told to them. They didn't have a chance to dissect the Bible... Science wasn't challenging faith that much until Galileo or so.

Those people could more or less believe with their minds and their emotions (or you might say "hearts"). It seems there wouldn't have been so much conflict and for most people - it didn't matter anyway.

Today's fundamentalists - those who want to take every word in the Bible as the word of God (because to do anything else creates doubt and confusion) have to suspend their minds. They have to suspend logical, rational thought (scientific discoveries as well as inconsistancies) and just go with their heart.

These are the Bush* voters that Suskind refers to. Facts are irrelevant. As are opinions.

They don't really have to believe with their minds at all. And if they tried - it wouldn't make sense.

It could be argued that Bush* has suspended his mind as well. But I don't think he is leading with his heart either....

[ProdigalJunkMail]

1. I have not suspended my mind...

and I am a Christian. Why should I have to suspend my mind to be a Christian?

theProdigal

[newscaster]

2. You should not suspend your mind.

Thats the whole point. Far too many Christians do suspend rational thought (not you, of course) and in this modern day, you must be a realist. Its fine to have faith and to believe in all you have been taught in Sunday school, but remember.....faith never stopped a bullet or a biological hazard. And faith never ended a war.

[dddem]

3. I am a person of faith

People need to acknowledge that there is a difference between faith and religon. Your faith guides you into making decisions that will affect you and those whose lives you touch. Religon wants to tell you how to think. Some people don't see a difference. As I've told my mother and others, God isn't Catholic.

[bloom]

4. Well...

I think people can continue the Christian tradition and reconcile modern thought with some of the things in the Bible. Especially - some of the philosophy, for instance.

I am concerned about people who want to believe that Genesis explains creation and are not willing to consider any new evidence about anything.

I am concerned about people I know (with science degrees) who believe that the Bible is infallible because to do otherwise shakes their faith to the core.


The Bush* aide who said, "we create our own reality" sums up my theory fairly well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?pagewanted=1&adxnnl=0&oref=login&adxnnlx=1097985908-0dRofRUjy4vCbmVQfO6cww

[ProdigalJunkMail]

6. well, the bible doesn't really address how things were created

it sort of mentions when...at least the order...but not what hour and day (please be aware that the Hebrew yom is a literary term that does not describe a 24 hour period, but a period of time that is technically indeterminate). I can't really think of a place where the bible is in direct conflict with the world of science. I guess part of the reason for that is that I believe there is a lot of descriptive language to the bible that was never meant to be taken too literally...especially around the creation.

You do not have to shut down your mind to be a Christian. You don't have to shut down your mind to believe that the bible is inspired by God. If people have questions about the text, they should ask someone who has studied it and has a firm grasp of the science AND the theology (yes, there are people like that). The part that a lot of thinking people get stuck on is the miracles. If you aren't willing to accept a God as being in existence, then miracles just become something that is either badly described by the writer or intentionally 'stretched' or possibly a fluke. But if God can exist...then miracles really aren't a problem.

Science and the bible really don't clash that often. And where they do, in many cases the bible story is clarified and in others, it may soon be.

All I am asking is that the people here that say Christians (or any faith for that matter) are not using their minds to stop...because for MANY of us it simply isn't true.

/rant
theProdigal

[Djinn]

7. I think the point being made

although I could be a mile out here - is that to beleive the Bible FUNDAMENTALLY, ie it is the express word of God and was inspired word for word by God, that it wasn't an allegory, it wasn't written in relation to a certain time in history and regarding the social mores of the time, it was never edited by man for political or other reasons of expediency and every translation has been faithful.

To beleive the above you absolutely need to suspend your brain.

Although I still don't know how one can follow it knowing the above either but atleast following the general tone of it makes more sense than believing that we all descended from Adam and Eve and the world's been around for 6000 years.

[lgardengate]

5. I am a Christian and i have Not suspended my mind

Actually, I think that God created life (the world) as it says in the Bible..but...When it said God "spoke" and created i believe That was the "big bang".Sience dosen't mean the Bible isn't true.Maybe just that we don't always see "the whole picture".

[Djinn]

8. but surely if the Bible is the word of God

it COULD explain that whole picture?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

10. actually...Genesis does about as good a job

explaining the Big Bang as anyone else has...

Genesis Chapter 1
2 Now the earth was <1> formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

The universe was formless...empty...and then, BANG! It was...and one of the first by-products of the Big Bang was light...

And because we cannot measure time/space prior to the Big Bang (heck, didn't even exist as we know it) all science will ever be able to do is speculate about it...unless HitchHiker's Guide comes true and we end up building a restaurant that glides back and forth across that time...

theProdigal

[bloom]

12. to me that is an example of being able to reconcile

science as we know it - with what was written in the Bible.

It's not changing (or creating) science to fit what was written thousands of years ago.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

13. aboslutely...

there are unfortunately a lot of people out there trying to twist the science to make it fit the biblical creation...and it just won't jive...not matter what they do. The thing is that the bible doesn't give a whole lot of 'how' but a lot of who an why...

The Bible and Science rarely really conflict...it is just some people trying to jam the two into the same space that bring out all the little gotchas!

theProdigal

[podnoi]

9. Christian who is an educated Scientist

I agree that some sects get simplistic about their "theories" of the origination of man etc, but Christianity is not at odds with Science. It is only at odds to the uneducated and indoctrinated. The longer I am a Christian and the more I delve into science (I have a degree in Biology) the more I discover that Biblical accounts are not inconsistant with current science.

In college I learned and studied the theory of evolution. I loved Geology as well. The more I learned the more I realized that they were imperfect explanations. There are many missing links in these theories yet they are taught as "fact". Yet equally one could not dismiss all the science as there were many factual observations that are contrary to traditional theologies.

On the other hand, simplistic ideologies espoused by some uneducated theologists never fit for me either. Interestingly enough though, I have found answers that are neither inconsistant with Geologic observations nor evolutionary observations (that can be proven). This is not a forum to get into a full discussion of how the Bible is consistant with the evidence of the construction of the world and universe. But leave it to say that some in the science community are beginning to find explanations that seem consistant to both ideas. And they appear as plausable as accepted theories.

[bloom]

11. And i don't have a problem with people

who can blend modern science and thought with what can be considered to be more allegorical or whatever... with those who can be flexible.

People who say the world is 6000 years old and so dinosaurs either 1. lived within those 6000 years OR 2. the fossils were put here to confuse or test people's beliefs...(I've heard both arguments) is what bothers me.

I find troubling the fact that these anti-science people are gaining momentum and building grade schools, high schools and colleges to spread their inanity. If Bush* gets elected - I will have to chalk it up to the spread of pseudo-thinking.

Of course these people can carry on long "explanations" and have developed intense "theories". And for what. To keep everything religious - black and white - in their minds.

[podnoi]

14. Theories

I won't argue theories. But I do have to say that there is "faith" involved in both camps. People seem to forget that these are theories and by nature require some form of faith in them until the missing pieces/evidence come forward.

Have you taken college level evolution? There are still some large leaps that must be made due to missing evidence, many people take for granted evolution is proven fact because it is indeed presented that way.

Not trashing the theory. But I never did understand getting so dogmatic about it. It indeed is protected like a religion. I always felt if we want to find answers it is best to keep the options open until proven otherwise.