Christianity

[Jambo 4 Ever]

I have encountered many Christians in the Evangelical movement who believe that once a person has been "born again," that person no longer sins and is indeed "saved" and "better than others." I (and a lot of other Christians) strongly disagree with this position, but it's definitely held in some circles.

Do you think they really believe they are better than others though? Is AOG church the same as Evangelical?

[cosanostra]

What really bothers me about Christianity is the whole "accept Jesus or burn in hell" thing.

I've had Christians tell me that as long as every rapist, paedophile and murderer on earth repents, begs for forgiveness and accepts Jesus as their lord, they then get into heaven.

However, good people who spend their lives helping others but have never been convinced by Christian mythology or have the bad luck to be born in a part of the world where Jesus isn't the favoured mythical character of choice, go to hell.

Does that really sound fair or just? It sounds absolutely awful, immoral and downright nasty. 

[BigC]

When one reads through threads like these and others, I come away with the impression that the unchurched, non Christian majority believe that Christians some how believe themselves to be good people. Maybe even better than others. However when a person repents from their sins and asks Jesus Christ to be Lord and Saviour of their life, then the Holy Spirit can convict them even more acutely of sins past and present. Christians are not good people but rather sinners who realise that they need a Saviour.

 

Forgiveness from sins is not received from a community of people, comfort yes but not forgiveness. Forgiveness comes from the person of Jesus Christ. I attend church to worship God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To hopefully learn more about God and his word and apply my learning to every day life. I also enjoy fellowship and support from my Christian friends.

The "unchurched" recognise there is good and evil in all people and believe Christians are no different.

 

My impression of Christians is that they think they have improved themselves because they have a relationship with God and they think people who don't have a relationship with God would have a better life (and afterlife) if they let God in.

 

That does indirectly imply that they think they are better than me. Which is fine. I think I'm better than them because I'm less gullible and not wasting my life with group delusion.

 

I don't think that's necessarily arrogance on either side. It's just human nature to think that your position is the correct one.

[GlasgoJambo]

I'm really enjoying Ugly American's comments here. it's interesting to read Christianity put forward so eloquently and thoughtfully although I'm half expecting him to reply he doesn't believe in all that God nonsense at some point too such is his rationalised compassion

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Do you think they really believe they are better than others though? Is AOG church the same as Evangelical?

 

AOG is technically Pentecostal, which is sort of "Evangelical and then some."  In other words they agree with the rest of the Evangelical movement about a personal relationship with Jesus, being "born again," adult baptism, the Bible being the literal and inerrant Word of God, and then add on a lot more about speaking in tongues, "getting the spirit," and so forth.  To be clear, I identify as part of what might be called Ecumenical Christianity, which could roughly be called "Protestant but not part of the Evangelical movement," in that I don't think of myself or my church as having a monopoly on Truth, but still find the tradition to be immensely valuable anyway.  So, I talk about the Evangelical movement as an outsider who disagrees with it, so someone inside the movement may have a different take on it.

 

 

What really bothers me about Christianity is the whole "accept Jesus or burn in hell" thing.

I've had Christians tell me that as long as every rapist, paedophile and murderer on earth repents, begs for forgiveness and accepts Jesus as their lord, they then get into heaven.

However, good people who spend their lives helping others but have never been convinced by Christian mythology or have the bad luck to be born in a part of the world where Jesus isn't the favoured mythical character of choice, go to hell.

Does that really sound fair or just? It sounds absolutely awful, immoral and downright nasty. 

 

It was views like this that made me leave the church in the first place. (I had way too many close Jewish friends to believe in a God that would send them to hell that capriciously)  When I came back to the church I insisted on finding one with a more nuanced view.  That was easier than I thought it was going to be, actually.  "You're all going to hell!" is a lot easier to shout from a corner with a megaphone than "God's Truth transcends human understanding, and many people have sought this Truth and while none have found it perfectly many have authentic testimony, and we have a tradition of dialogue about that truth which you may find helpful and uplifting and if so you're welcome to join us but if not that's cool too and we can still hang out!"

[Norm]

AOG is technically Pentecostal, which is sort of "Evangelical and then some." In other words they agree with the rest of the Evangelical movement about a personal relationship with Jesus, being "born again," adult baptism, the Bible being the literal and inerrant Word of God, and then add on a lot more about speaking in tongues, "getting the spirit," and so forth. To be clear, I identify as part of what might be called Ecumenical Christianity, which could roughly be called "Protestant but not part of the Evangelical movement," in that I don't think of myself or my church as having a monopoly on Truth, but still find the tradition to be immensely valuable anyway. So, I talk about the Evangelical movement as an outsider who disagrees with it, so someone inside the movement may have a different take on it.

 

 

 

It was views like this that made me leave the church in the first place. (I had way too many close Jewish friends to believe in a God that would send them to hell that capriciously) When I came back to the church I insisted on finding one with a more nuanced view. That was easier than I thought it was going to be, actually. "You're all going to hell!" is a lot easier to shout from a corner with a megaphone than "God's Truth transcends human understanding, and many people have sought this Truth and while none have found it perfectly many have authentic testimony, and we have a tradition of dialogue about that truth which you may find helpful and uplifting and if so you're welcome to join us but if not that's cool too and we can still hang out!"

Yeah, thats not really catchy or something you can put on a t-shirt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, maybe Zeefuik's....

[Sharpie]

I was raised in what was probably a Christian home, I think. Only heard Jesus Christ mentioned when my Dad hit his thumb with a hammer, or when Hearts lost, Jesus Christ it only a ball they have to kick.  God was mentioned mainly by my mother as in Good God what the Hell are you up to now.  I was never christened as a child, was subsequently christened three times.  Was christened at St Peters Lutton Place because I was in the choir, you got paid quarterly and was in their boxing club.  I was christened at the Guards Depot, I don't know why, but I suppose you had to be christened to become an Onward Christian Soldier, c hristened again at College Street Church before they would marry us. All done because I had no proof of the previous one.   Between school and church connections I suppose I did believe in God, I have to admit in times of extreme stress I tend to hope there is someone out there who can help me, don't ask me how I think it will happen.

 

My mother raised me on some old folks tales, if a picture falls over there will be a death, if a bird comes in your house there will be a death, if you have a death in the house after the passing a bird will visit the house.  Prior to and after a fairly recent passing, we had encountered all of these things, not I am afraid proof of an after life, but a series of incidents that if required could all be related by coincidence.

 

The overly religious I think do more harm than good.  There is one evangelical program on here, the main star a preacher who founded the "church" was telling how he and his wife were in their car talking about whether they should by a new fridge, and what type. In the car they prayed and God talked to them and told them what to do. He then proceeded to ask for donations for starving kids in Africa. He didn't seem to realise that  he was being very insulting to God who was more interested in his freaking fridge than those poor kids.

[Sidelight]

UglyAmerican:

 

It was views like this that made me leave the church in the first place. (I had way too many close Jewish friends to believe in a God that would send them to hell that capriciously) When I came back to the church I insisted on finding one with a more nuanced view. That was easier than I thought it was going to be, actually. "You're all going to hell!" is a lot easier to shout from a corner with a megaphone than "God's Truth transcends human understanding, and many people have sought this Truth and while none have found it perfectly many have authentic testimony, and we have a tradition of dialogue about that truth which you may find helpful and uplifting and if so you're welcome to join us but if not that's cool too and we can still hang out!"

 

 

 

Alfajambo:

 

Forgive my lack of understanding in my interpretation of what you are trying to say.

 

But I must say this even Satan knows that 'God's truth transcends human understanding.' What is it that you are really saying?

 

What parts of scripture do you actually hold as truth?

 

Does your dialogue of truth include Jesus as the only Way and Truth and Life?

 

Does your theology include other ways to God?

 

Eternity out with the presence of God is a Hellish prospect.

However Jesus Christ died so that no man should perish.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

I was raised in what was probably a Christian home, I think. Only heard Jesus Christ mentioned when my Dad hit his thumb with a hammer, or when Hearts lost, Jesus Christ it only a ball they have to kick. God was mentioned mainly by my mother as in Good God what the Hell are you up to now. I was never christened as a child, was subsequently christened three times. Was christened at St Peters Lutton Place because I was in the choir, you got paid quarterly and was in their boxing club. I was christened at the Guards Depot, I don't know why, but I suppose you had to be christened to become an Onward Christian Soldier, c hristened again at College Street Church before they would marry us. All done because I had no proof of the previous one. Between school and church connections I suppose I did believe in God, I have to admit in times of extreme stress I tend to hope there is someone out there who can help me, don't ask me how I think it will happen.

 

My mother raised me on some old folks tales, if a picture falls over there will be a death, if a bird comes in your house there will be a death, if you have a death in the house after the passing a bird will visit the house. Prior to and after a fairly recent passing, we had encountered all of these things, not I am afraid proof of an after life, but a series of incidents that if required could all be related by coincidence.

 

The overly religious I think do more harm than good. There is one evangelical program on here, the main star a preacher who founded the "church" was telling how he and his wife were in their car talking about whether they should by a new fridge, and what type. In the car they prayed and God talked to them and told them what to do. He then proceeded to ask for donations for starving kids in Africa. He didn't seem to realise that he was being very insulting to God who was more interested in his freaking fridge than those poor kids.

I have heard a similar story about he fridge. What was the name of the pastor do you know?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Forgive my lack of understanding in my interpretation of what you are trying to say.

But I must say this even Satan knows that 'God's truth transcends human understanding.' What is it that you are really saying?

 

Lots of heavy questions here.  I'll try to answer them as faithfully and honestly as I can.  I apologize that this is long-winded -- these aren't easy answers.

 

What parts of scripture do you actually hold as truth?
 

Being of the Reformed tradition, scripture is the most central authority we have on God's truth.  And yet our best history and research tells us that scripture is the result of human endeavors, some of it clearly altered in form even in the earliest recorded versions we have of it -- Bart Ehrman's work is particularly illuminating in this regard.  I also think it is illuminating to look at how scripture gained its central place in our theology; the Reformed tradition adopted it as most central in response to what was seen as the corrupting influences of power and imperial tendencies in what was then the only form of the church present in the West -- the Roman Catholic Church.  By placing scripture as the central authority above any earthly institution, we empowered people to break free from what at the time was a very compromised institution of the Vatican.  (Of course in the UK in particular, the church then became a political football for the nobility and the crown, which I think is one reason why church attendance in the UK is among the lowest in western Europe. I don't do much "America is teh awesome" stuff, but I do think our church and state separation was a good idea for both institutions.)  

 

In any case, while I fully agree with the decision to break from the incredibly problematic politics of the Renaissance church, I think we risk turning scripture itself into a false idol.  Indeed, parts of scripture itself warn against getting too hung up on scripture (off the top of my head Jesus answering questions in the temple, 1 Cor 13, 1 Cor 7, 2 Cor 11, but there are other places I can't call to mind at the moment). In our zeal to set the scriptures free and to embrace the emerging Enlightenment, we turned a hyper-rational eye on scripture which ran counter to 1500 years of Christian tradition and further before that in the Jewish scholarly tradition of interpreting scripture beyond and deeper than its literal meaning.

 

So where does that leave us in the Reformed tradition?  If, as the earliest members of the Reformation insisted, we are fallen and must acknowledge our limitations, we should acknowledge not just the limitations of the human authors of scripture and the human editors of the Ecumenical Councils that selected it, but also our own limitations in interpreting and understanding scripture.  The official position of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is one that I can (almost) completely embrace -- that scripture is the sacred and authentic testimony to God's Truth.  In other words, we believe and affirm that those writing scripture were not lying or making things up, that they were doing their best to testify to the immense mystery they were observing.  In capturing all of God's Truth, they fell short, as any meager human undertaking to do so must, but that they still left us with an immense treasure of testimony to which we can turn to understand God's Truth.  So, in our tradition, scripture is the absolute central authority, and I believe it to be true in the sense that there is no intent to deceive, but I also believe that scripture includes mistakes, misunderstandings, and confusions.  Otherwise we can twist ourselves into knots trying to reconcile the chronological differences between the Gospels, among many other internal contradictions.

Does your dialogue of truth include Jesus as the only Way and Truth and Life?

 and 

Does your theology include other ways to God?
 

I believe that at the core of existence there is only one Way and Truth and Life, and I testify to my belief that Jesus was as much an embodiment of that Way and Truth and Life as could be possible and still be fully human. (A full discussion of the Great Mystery of the dual nature of Christ would take days.)  I believe it would be the height of hubris and pride for me to declare that I know where God has and has not chosen to be revealed and whom God has and has not chosen to work through.  I can only testify to one corner of the Christian tradition, and there are repeated passages in scripture, from the minor prophets through the Gospels and into the Epistles for me not to worry about it and to get on with loving God and loving my neighbor and feeding the hungry and clothing the naked.

 

Eternity out with the presence of God is a Hellish prospect.
However Jesus Christ died so that no man should perish. 

 

I agree, but would phrase it slightly differently.  Eternity is Hellish -- dispiriting, demeaning, overwhelming, and full of despair -- to contemplate.  Jesus Christ died to show us that we should not fear death, and that if we live into the Light our lives are not in vain. 

[maroonlegions]

Interesting developments. 

 

 

 "His personal life has been the subject of speculation for centuries, and now a leading theologian is claiming that that Jesus was gay, ?or at the very least? queer. 

Dr. Reverend Bob Shore-Goss, an openly gay senior pastor, who has a doctorate degree in Comparative Religion from Harvard, told Vice that Christ ?subverted masculinities and gender codes? during the time that he lived, when there was not a modern understanding of sexuality"

 

http://attitude.co.uk/jesus-was-gay-or-at-the-very-least-queer-professor-says/

[Sidelight]

Forgive my lack of understanding in my interpretation of what you are trying to say.But I must say this even Satan knows that 'God's truth transcends human understanding.' What is it that you are really saying?

 

Lots of heavy questions here.  I'll try to answer them as faithfully and honestly as I can.  I apologize that this is long-winded -- these aren't easy answers.

 

What parts of scripture do you actually hold as truth?

 

Being of the Reformed tradition, scripture is the most central authority we have on God's truth.  And yet our best history and research tells us that scripture is the result of human endeavors, some of it clearly altered in form even in the earliest recorded versions we have of it -- Bart Ehrman's work is particularly illuminating in this regard.  I also think it is illuminating to look at how scripture gained its central place in our theology; the Reformed tradition adopted it as most central in response to what was seen as the corrupting influences of power and imperial tendencies in what was then the only form of the church present in the West -- the Roman Catholic Church.  By placing scripture as the central authority above any earthly institution, we empowered people to break free from what at the time was a very compromised institution of the Vatican.  (Of course in the UK in particular, the church then became a political football for the nobility and the crown, which I think is one reason why church attendance in the UK is among the lowest in western Europe. I don't do much "America is teh awesome" stuff, but I do think our church and state separation was a good idea for both institutions.)  

 

In any case, while I fully agree with the decision to break from the incredibly problematic politics of the Renaissance church, I think we risk turning scripture itself into a false idol.  Indeed, parts of scripture itself warn against getting too hung up on scripture (off the top of my head Jesus answering questions in the temple, 1 Cor 13, 1 Cor 7, 2 Cor 11, but there are other places I can't call to mind at the moment). In our zeal to set the scriptures free and to embrace the emerging Enlightenment, we turned a hyper-rational eye on scripture which ran counter to 1500 years of Christian tradition and further before that in the Jewish scholarly tradition of interpreting scripture beyond and deeper than its literal meaning.

 

So where does that leave us in the Reformed tradition?  If, as the earliest members of the Reformation insisted, we are fallen and must acknowledge our limitations, we should acknowledge not just the limitations of the human authors of scripture and the human editors of the Ecumenical Councils that selected it, but also our own limitations in interpreting and understanding scripture.  The official position of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is one that I can (almost) completely embrace -- that scripture is the sacred and authentic testimony to God's Truth.  In other words, we believe and affirm that those writing scripture were not lying or making things up, that they were doing their best to testify to the immense mystery they were observing.  In capturing all of God's Truth, they fell short, as any meager human undertaking to do so must, but that they still left us with an immense treasure of testimony to which we can turn to understand God's Truth.  So, in our tradition, scripture is the absolute central authority, and I believe it to be true in the sense that there is no intent to deceive, but I also believe that scripture includes mistakes, misunderstandings, and confusions.  Otherwise we can twist ourselves into knots trying to reconcile the chronological differences between the Gospels, among many other internal contradictions.

Does your dialogue of truth include Jesus as the only Way and Truth and Life?

 and 

Does your theology include other ways to God?

 

I believe that at the core of existence there is only one Way and Truth and Life, and I testify to my belief that Jesus was as much an embodiment of that Way and Truth and Life as could be possible and still be fully human. (A full discussion of the Great Mystery of the dual nature of Christ would take days.)  I believe it would be the height of hubris and pride for me to declare that I know where God has and has not chosen to be revealed and whom God has and has not chosen to work through.  I can only testify to one corner of the Christian tradition, and there are repeated passages in scripture, from the minor prophets through the Gospels and into the Epistles for me not to worry about it and to get on with loving God and loving my neighbor and feeding the hungry and clothing the naked.

 

Eternity out with the presence of God is a Hellish prospect.However Jesus Christ died so that no man should perish. 

 

I agree, but would phrase it slightly differently.  Eternity is Hellish -- dispiriting, demeaning, overwhelming, and full of despair -- to contemplate.  Jesus Christ died to show us that we should not fear death, and that if we live into the Light our lives are not in vain.

 

Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to reply.

 

But please remember that Jesus was totally committed to the authority of scripture, particularly the writings of Moses - and he said that we must be too.

 

Jesus also made it a condition of Christian discipleship that we believe what he says.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

How did Adam and Eve's kids have children?

[Sten Guns]

GOD IS GOD

[tian447]

I don't really care either way.  Personally I don't believe in anything because I feel there are too many reasons against it, but then people that do believe in something can counter argue those points as well, so even getting into that argument is fairly pointless.

 

I'm a firm believer of letting people decide on their own things, and leaving them to it as long as they leave me to my own views, and don't try and change things.  My girlfriend goes to Church every Sunday, and it doesn't bother me.  If it makes her happy, then I'm happy with her going.  I'm not going to tell her to stop going because I don't believe in something, because that would make me as bad as someone trying to force their views on me.  We tend to just ignore the whole religion discussion in our relationship and it works well - if it ever does come up, we're both mature enough to discuss it without petty arguments.

 

If people would just shut the **** up and get on with their own lives, without trying to push their views on other people, there would be less problems in the world.

[Adam Murray]

I don't really care either way.  Personally I don't believe in anything because I feel there are too many reasons against it, but then people that do believe in something can counter argue those points as well, so even getting into that argument is fairly pointless.

 

I'm a firm believer of letting people decide on their own things, and leaving them to it as long as they leave me to my own views, and don't try and change things.  My girlfriend goes to Church every Sunday, and it doesn't bother me.  If it makes her happy, then I'm happy with her going.  I'm not going to tell her to stop going because I don't believe in something, because that would make me as bad as someone trying to force their views on me.  We tend to just ignore the whole religion discussion in our relationship and it works well - if it ever does come up, we're both mature enough to discuss it without petty arguments.

 

If people would just shut the **** up and get on with their own lives, without trying to push their views on other people, there would be less problems in the world.

Amen to that brother.

[Unknown user]

GOD IS GOD

U no wat u spik of dia frind

[redm]

GOD IS GOD

 

[AlphonseCapone]

How did Adam and Eve's kids have children?

Incest mate.

[CollyWolly]

If Christianity was a new thing, it would go right into the Gullit Lounge.

[graygo]

It must be true because you couldn't make that shit up.

[Jamboman1512]

What do the religious people think of this?

 

[Jambo 4 Ever]

Incest mate.

Seriously, I'd love to hear how it was possible!

[Norm]

What do the religious people think of this?

 

I'm not religious but if I was, I'd be concerned. However, there's enough about the video to hint it's a hoax. The science behind the "God gene" also isn't the strongest.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

I'm not religious but if I was, I'd be concerned. However, there's enough about the video to hint it's a hoax. The science behind the "God gene" also isn't the strongest.

What suggests it is a hoax? I have only viewed it on a small phone ...

[moogsy]

What do the religious people think of this?

 

 

You seem pretty adept at trawling the internet to find whacky videos but totally inept at doing a 2 second Google search which would show you they are demonstrably nonsense:

 

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-funvax-pentagon-briefing-on-removing-the-god-gene.t317/

 

Not that it should really be necessary, that video and its premise are so obviously fake it's unreal

[Jamboman1512]

You seem pretty adept at trawling the internet to find whacky videos but totally inept at doing a 2 second Google search which would show you they are demonstrably nonsense:

 

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-funvax-pentagon-briefing-on-removing-the-god-gene.t317/

 

Not that it should really be necessary, that video and it's premise are so obviously fake it's unreal

 

Fair enough if it's been proved a fake, my views are not set in stone and can change with the evidence.

 

Just stumbled upon it, posted because i thought it was an interesting subject and wanted religious peoples thoughts.

 

Strange that you would say i post wacky videos, you obviously have not watched them, interviews with credible people is not wacky imo.

[Riddley Walker]

Seriously, I'd love to hear how it was possible!

Total mystery like.

[Sidelight]

I'm confused. What does this post actually mean?

French foreign ministers comments - "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos"

 

Takes us to September 23 2015. A very significant date. Who knows?

 

Are you ready?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

French foreign ministers comments - "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos"

 

Takes us to September 23 2015. A very significant date. Who knows?

 

Are you ready?

 

Aye. Why would they be so bothered about Greece if the world is fecked in a couple of months time?

 

[Jambo 4 Ever]

French foreign ministers comments - "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos"

 

Takes us to September 23 2015. A very significant date. Who knows?

 

Are you ready?

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/151553-are-we-in-end-times/

[Debut 4]

We live by information, books, video etc... To teach us...

 

Will people in 100, 200 ,a thousand years believe there were two world wars? There'll be no people left to clarify, just information.

 

The bible is just a book passed on and on, just like any other written about any subject.

 

People will say there is video, photographs etc..to back up the existence of wars, other happenings etc... from our time on the planet , but like the very videos posted, will they be dismissed as hoaxes too?

 

You could doubt the very existence of anything if you weren't there to see it for yourself but you can't live your life like that.

[Ray Gin]

The bible is just a book passed on and on, just like any other written about any subject.

 

No it isn't - the bible has been rewritten multiple times to fit various agendas, with much of it being disproven by advancing knowledge and science.

[sandyk]

We live by information, books, video etc... To teach us...

 

Will people in 100, 200 ,a thousand years believe there were two world wars? There'll be no people left to clarify, just information.

 

The bible is just a book passed on and on, just like any other written about any subject.

 

People will say there is video, photographs etc..to back up the existence of wars, other happenings etc... from our time on the planet , but like the very videos posted, will they be dismissed as hoaxes too?

 

You could doubt the very existence of anything if you weren't there to see it for yourself but you can't live your life like that.

I don't think it always so much that, but the fact that what has been written is often unbelievable. There is some weird shit in the bible that really is a case of 'you would have to have been there to believe it'!

[Gizmo]

French foreign ministers comments - "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos"

 

Takes us to September 23 2015. A very significant date. Who knows?

 

Are you ready?

[AlphonseCapone]

We live by information, books, video etc... To teach us...

 

Will people in 100, 200 ,a thousand years believe there were two world wars? There'll be no people left to clarify, just information.

 

The bible is just a book passed on and on, just like any other written about any subject.

 

People will say there is video, photographs etc..to back up the existence of wars, other happenings etc... from our time on the planet , but like the very videos posted, will they be dismissed as hoaxes too?

 

You could doubt the very existence of anything if you weren't there to see it for yourself but you can't live your life like that.

What a really silly post.

 

The bible claims a man turned water into wine, another parted a sea, some guy built a boat and took two of every animal onto it. These are implausible.

 

Countries going to war, hardly the same thing.

[Ray Gin]

I wasn't there to witness either World War, but I don't doubt they happened as documented.

 

But if the story was that Hitler was 900, lived inside a whale, or was resurrected 3 days after committing suicide in his bunker, I would certainly be raising an eyebrow.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

No it isn't - the bible has been rewritten multiple times to fit various agendas, with much of it being disproven by advancing knowledge and science.

 

Certainly parts of it have been.  The best scholarship on the first six books identifies two very distinct voices in the mythological segments (using two different words for God), plus the voice of a historical author, plus the touch of yet another or possibly two voices collating these stories, redacting them, and expanding upon them.  There are even theories that this later action is actually recorded in scripture in the book of Ezra, and that Ezra himself is possibly the Redactor source as well as possibly the Priestly source.

 

The New Testament is considerably different, though -- we don't have original manuscripts for any of the books, but we have very, very old copies of them, including multiple copies of most of them, and the scholarship of textual criticism (again principally the work of Bart Ehrman, himself an agnostic) gets into exactly where they are the same and where they differ.  We have paper copies that date from the first century of many of the epistles, and can date the origin of their words to within a decade or two after the crucifixion.

 

Certainly science has effectively disproven things like the creation story as literally factual, but reading that story as literally factual has not been the primary way these were read in the majority of the history of the Christian tradition.  Many scholars in the period of Scholasticism (the same era that created the modern university and the precursors to modern science) very clearly treated these as myths and parables and not as exact rendering of events.

[Sidelight]

Certainly parts of it have been. The best scholarship on the first six books identifies two very distinct voices in the mythological segments (using two different words for God), plus the voice of a historical author, plus the touch of yet another or possibly two voices collating these stories, redacting them, and expanding upon them. There are even theories that this later action is actually recorded in scripture in the book of Ezra, and that Ezra himself is possibly the Redactor source as well as possibly the Priestly source.

 

The New Testament is considerably different, though -- we don't have original manuscripts for any of the books, but we have very, very old copies of them, including multiple copies of most of them, and the scholarship of textual criticism (again principally the work of Bart Ehrman, himself an agnostic) gets into exactly where they are the same and where they differ. We have paper copies that date from the first century of many of the epistles, and can date the origin of their words to within a decade or two after the crucifixion.

 

Certainly science has effectively disproven things like the creation story as literally factual, but reading that story as literally factual has not been the primary way these were read in the majority of the history of the Christian tradition. Many scholars in the period of Scholasticism (the same era that created the modern university and the precursors to modern science) very clearly treated these as myths and parables and not as exact rendering of events.

Compromised positions facilitate neither good science nor good theology.

 

The universe contains galaxies, stars, planets as well as the life forms we know, but even given every possible advantage, the secular, naturalistic big theory can only produce an expanding cloud of gas.

 

Yes the big bang theory is based on the law of physics, however there is no known mechanism to start the expanding out of the singularity.

 

The maths equations in the theory only work after expansion has started.

 

It then requires the inclusion of a hypothetical period of massively increased expansion to stop the whole thing from recollapsing.

 

It also requires amazing degree of fine tuning to maintain stability.

 

Then there are the complete disregard of physical laws and the introduction of unknown force and substances to explain what is observed.

 

And yet you write that science has disproved the creation story as literally unfactual.

 

Whether you choose to believe it or not God defines himself throughout the Bible as creator. His honour and glory are demonstrated in His work of creation. Therefore it is illogicall for Christians to worship God as Creator, but then refuse to accept what he says on the subject of creation.

 

It seems to me that much of what you write is more than a little confused from a Biblical perspective. A compromised position does nothing but destroy the internal consistency of the Bible. I would also add that it does not earn respect among non-Christians.

 

Thankfully we are free to express our understanding and make comment, I understand this, however we live in a desperate world where people need to hear the authentic message from the Bible of the good news of Jesus Christ.

 

What they don't need is a compromised message changed to suit the cultural dynamics of the age.

 

Jesus said: I am the Way and the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except by me.

[Maple Leaf]

Compromised positions facilitate neither good science nor good theology.

 

The universe contains galaxies, stars, planets as well as the life forms we know, but even given every possible advantage, the secular, naturalistic big theory can only produce an expanding cloud of gas.

 

Yes the big bang theory is based on the law of physics, however there is no known mechanism to start the expanding out of the singularity.

 

The maths equations in the theory only work after expansion has started.

 

It then requires the inclusion of a hypothetical period of massively increased expansion to stop the whole thing from recollapsing.

 

It also requires amazing degree of fine tuning to maintain stability.

 

Then there are the complete disregard of physical laws and the introduction of unknown force and substances to explain what is observed.

 

And yet you write that science has disproved the creation story as literally unfactual.

 

Whether you choose to believe it or not God defines himself throughout the Bible as creator. His honour and glory are demonstrated in His work of creation. Therefore it is illogicall for Christians to worship God as Creator, but then refuse to accept what he says on the subject of creation.

 

It seems to me that much of what you write is more than a little confused from a Biblical perspective. A compromised position does nothing but destroy the internal consistency of the Bible. I would also add that it does not earn respect among non-Christians.

 

Thankfully we are free to express our understanding and make comment, I understand this, however we live in a desperate world where people need to hear the authentic message from the Bible of the good news of Jesus Christ.

 

What they don't need is a compromised message changed to suit the cultural dynamics of the age.

 

Jesus said: I am the Way and the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except by me.

 

I have numerous Christian friends and, over the years, we've discussed Creation as described in the Bible.  Their opinions seem to broadly fall into three categories:

 

1). The Bible version(s) are literally true, and the differences between the two versions can be easily reconciled. (Minority opinion).

2). The Bible is correct, but the six days are not the same as present-day six days.  Those days were infinitely longer. (Minority opinion).

3)  The Bible versions are allegory.  (Majority opinion).

 

Would you care to share your views on this?

[BigC]

Compromised positions facilitate neither good science nor good theology.

 

The universe contains galaxies, stars, planets as well as the life forms we know, but even given every possible advantage, the secular, naturalistic big theory can only produce an expanding cloud of gas.

 

Yes the big bang theory is based on the law of physics, however there is no known mechanism to start the expanding out of the singularity.

 

The maths equations in the theory only work after expansion has started.

 

It then requires the inclusion of a hypothetical period of massively increased expansion to stop the whole thing from recollapsing.

 

It also requires amazing degree of fine tuning to maintain stability.

 

Then there are the complete disregard of physical laws and the introduction of unknown force and substances to explain what is observed.

 

And yet you write that science has disproved the creation story as literally unfactual.

 

Whether you choose to believe it or not God defines himself throughout the Bible as creator. His honour and glory are demonstrated in His work of creation. Therefore it is illogicall for Christians to worship God as Creator, but then refuse to accept what he says on the subject of creation.

 

It seems to me that much of what you write is more than a little confused from a Biblical perspective. A compromised position does nothing but destroy the internal consistency of the Bible. I would also add that it does not earn respect among non-Christians.

 

Thankfully we are free to express our understanding and make comment, I understand this, however we live in a desperate world where people need to hear the authentic message from the Bible of the good news of Jesus Christ.

 

What they don't need is a compromised message changed to suit the cultural dynamics of the age.

 

Jesus said: I am the Way and the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except by me.

Do you know what would need more fine tuning than our universe?

 

God.

 

If it's so implausible that the universe simply came in to being, how can an infinitely more complex God be plausible?

 

And just because we know what we don't know about the Big Bang theory, it doesn't make it implausible.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Compromised positions facilitate neither good science nor good theology.

 

The universe contains galaxies, stars, planets as well as the life forms we know, but even given every possible advantage, the secular, naturalistic big theory can only produce an expanding cloud of gas.

 

Yes the big bang theory is based on the law of physics, however there is no known mechanism to start the expanding out of the singularity.

 

The maths equations in the theory only work after expansion has started.

 

It then requires the inclusion of a hypothetical period of massively increased expansion to stop the whole thing from recollapsing.

 

It also requires amazing degree of fine tuning to maintain stability.

 

Then there are the complete disregard of physical laws and the introduction of unknown force and substances to explain what is observed.

 

And yet you write that science has disproved the creation story as literally unfactual.

 

Whether you choose to believe it or not God defines himself throughout the Bible as creator. His honour and glory are demonstrated in His work of creation. Therefore it is illogicall for Christians to worship God as Creator, but then refuse to accept what he says on the subject of creation.

 

It seems to me that much of what you write is more than a little confused from a Biblical perspective. A compromised position does nothing but destroy the internal consistency of the Bible. I would also add that it does not earn respect among non-Christians.

 

Thankfully we are free to express our understanding and make comment, I understand this, however we live in a desperate world where people need to hear the authentic message from the Bible of the good news of Jesus Christ.

 

What they don't need is a compromised message changed to suit the cultural dynamics of the age.

 

Jesus said: I am the Way and the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except by me.

 

Whoa, a lot to unpack here.

 

On being "compromised" -- this is a loaded accusation. Frankly, if you've never seen any tension or self-contradiction in scripture that's hard to figure out, or never seen any tension between religion and science, you're not paying attention.  Trying to find ways to faithfully reconcile those positions isn't "compromising," it's active engagement with the Christian tradition. In scripture itself, when it comes to interacting with God, Abraham barters, Moses argues, Elijah complains, Job scolds, Jeremiah weeps, Peter denies, Thomas quibbles, Christ despairs, and (my favorite) Jacob physically wrestles. and that's not even getting to all the moaning in the Psalms.  The notion that we can't be faithful (or as you imply that we can't be "uncompromised") unless we accept the most simplistic, uncomplicated understanding of God is not just putting the ultimate force in the universe in a tiny box, it's downright unscriptural.  So no, while I am looking in places where modern science and the Christian tradition into tension with each other and trying to understand that, it's not out of some wishy-washy desire to just "compromise."

 

"And yet you write that science has disproved the creation story as literally unfactual."

 

I write that the creation myth is not true literally, by which I mean God did not create the world in six days and then take a nap on the seventh.  The world is not 6,000 years old, and God did not create Adam out of mud and Eve out of Adam's rib.  Empirical observations of the universe are not consistent with that narrative (to say the least), so from the perspective of science, we have to treat it as a scientifically inoperable theory. This does not mean that our best scientific theories are true in that they are comprehensive or 100% accurate either -- it means that they're consistent with observations and make predictions on other observations which can be checked and repeated.

 

Getting hung up about what consensus astronomy and physics in 2015 says about what happened in the moments immediately after the Big Bang is a recipe for getting bogged down in minutiae and frequently results in putting the cart before the horse.  We have a range of observations about the way the universe behaves now plus light coming from far enough away that it's from an earlier era in the universe.  There are a range of theories that can explain various parts of how that happens, from Einstein's cosmological constant to calculations on dark matter and dark energy.  However, all of those aren't axiomatic extrapolations from the Big Bang theory, they're attempts to use mathematical physics to explain current observations.  Then, once a model is in place, you can roll that model backwards in time, at which point most of these models begin with a singularity, where you get really strange behavior in the physical laws.  Which, really, isn't that odd, considering that we observe really strange behavior in physical laws around non-Big Bang singularities (black holes) too.

 

The fact that we can't understand the origin of the Big Bang doesn't mean science has failed, it means it's still a mystery. However, nothing in modern science supports the creation of humanity five days after the creation of the earth.

 

"Therefore it is illogicall for Christians to worship God as Creator, but then refuse to accept what he says on the subject of creation."

 

It would be illogical if I accepted direct, inerrant divine authorship of scripture ("verbal plenary inerrancy"), but like hundreds of millions of non-Evangelical Protestant Christians around the world, I don't. If pressed, I'll push back and say that's an almost profane understanding -- that something as enormous as God's Truth and the full creation of the universe can be fully expressed in a few chapters of human verse. To my mind, that forces God to be incredibly small.  That's basically the point behind the various doctrines of Divine Condescension (for the unchurched looking in, it's not what it sounds like) -- God couldn't be understood by humanity, so God had to become human in Christ in order to be understood, and that involved a big step down.

 

"It seems to me that much of what you write is more than a little confused from a Biblical perspective. A compromised position does nothing but destroy the internal consistency of the Bible. I would also add that it does not earn respect among non-Christians.

 

Thankfully we are free to express our understanding and make comment, I understand this, however we live in a desperate world where people need to hear the authentic message from the Bible of the good news of Jesus Christ.

 

What they don't need is a compromised message changed to suit the cultural dynamics of the age."

 

I've already dealt with my issue with "compromised" above, but at this point if I went around telling people about the Bible as the literal and inerrant Word of God, I'd be telling them something I don't think is true, which I don't think will bring them peace, and which I don't think is in keeping with the best parts of the Christian tradition. I don't think either Christians or non-Christians are impressed by me lying to them about what I think.  What do people need?  I think they need a lot of different things.  But last Sunday I stood up in front of church on behalf of the Membership Committee to welcome another 11 new members to our church, some of whom have left other churches and some of whom have been out of the church for a decade. This year our church has also baptized two adults who've found a place they can be Christian and still be a geneticist and a research librarian. And frankly, whatever our thoughts on the authority of scripture, in every text we have Jesus is pretty insistent on the most important things we have to do -- love our neighbors, feed the hungry, heal the sick, comfort the afflicted, and so on.  The rest comes after that.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

 

Whoa, a lot to unpack here.

 

On being "compromised" -- this is a loaded accusation. Frankly, if you've never seen any tension or self-contradiction in scripture that's hard to figure out, or never seen any tension between religion and science, you're not paying attention. Trying to find ways to faithfully reconcile those positions isn't "compromising," it's active engagement with the Christian tradition. In scripture itself, when it comes to interacting with God, Abraham barters, Moses argues, Elijah complains, Job scolds, Jeremiah weeps, Peter denies, Thomas quibbles, Christ despairs, and (my favorite) Jacob physically wrestles. and that's not even getting to all the moaning in the Psalms. The notion that we can't be faithful (or as you imply that we can't be "uncompromised") unless we accept the most simplistic, uncomplicated understanding of God is not just putting the ultimate force in the universe in a tiny box, it's downright unscriptural. So no, while I am looking in places where modern science and the Christian tradition into tension with each other and trying to understand that, it's not out of some wishy-washy desire to just "compromise."

 

"And yet you write that science has disproved the creation story as literally unfactual."

 

I write that the creation myth is not true literally, by which I mean God did not create the world in six days and then take a nap on the seventh. The world is not 6,000 years old, and God did not create Adam out of mud and Eve out of Adam's rib. Empirical observations of the universe are not consistent with that narrative (to say the least), so from the perspective of science, we have to treat it as a scientifically inoperable theory. This does not mean that our best scientific theories are true in that they are comprehensive or 100% accurate either -- it means that they're consistent with observations and make predictions on other observations which can be checked and repeated.

 

Getting hung up about what consensus astronomy and physics in 2015 says about what happened in the moments immediately after the Big Bang is a recipe for getting bogged down in minutiae and frequently results in putting the cart before the horse. We have a range of observations about the way the universe behaves now plus light coming from far enough away that it's from an earlier era in the universe. There are a range of theories that can explain various parts of how that happens, from Einstein's cosmological constant to calculations on dark matter and dark energy. However, all of those aren't axiomatic extrapolations from the Big Bang theory, they're attempts to use mathematical physics to explain current observations. Then, once a model is in place, you can roll that model backwards in time, at which point most of these models begin with a singularity, where you get really strange behavior in the physical laws. Which, really, isn't that odd, considering that we observe really strange behavior in physical laws around non-Big Bang singularities (black holes) too.

 

The fact that we can't understand the origin of the Big Bang doesn't mean science has failed, it means it's still a mystery. However, nothing in modern science supports the creation of humanity five days after the creation of the earth.

 

"Therefore it is illogicall for Christians to worship God as Creator, but then refuse to accept what he says on the subject of creation."

 

It would be illogical if I accepted direct, inerrant divine authorship of scripture ("verbal plenary inerrancy"), but like hundreds of millions of non-Evangelical Protestant Christians around the world, I don't. If pressed, I'll push back and say that's an almost profane understanding -- that something as enormous as God's Truth and the full creation of the universe can be fully expressed in a few chapters of human verse. To my mind, that forces God to be incredibly small. That's basically the point behind the various doctrines of Divine Condescension (for the unchurched looking in, it's not what it sounds like) -- God couldn't be understood by humanity, so God had to become human in Christ in order to be understood, and that involved a big step down.

 

"It seems to me that much of what you write is more than a little confused from a Biblical perspective. A compromised position does nothing but destroy the internal consistency of the Bible. I would also add that it does not earn respect among non-Christians.

 

Thankfully we are free to express our understanding and make comment, I understand this, however we live in a desperate world where people need to hear the authentic message from the Bible of the good news of Jesus Christ.

 

What they don't need is a compromised message changed to suit the cultural dynamics of the age."

 

I've already dealt with my issue with "compromised" above, but at this point if I went around telling people about the Bible as the literal and inerrant Word of God, I'd be telling them something I don't think is true, which I don't think will bring them peace, and which I don't think is in keeping with the best parts of the Christian tradition. I don't think either Christians or non-Christians are impressed by me lying to them about what I think. What do people need? I think they need a lot of different things. But last Sunday I stood up in front of church on behalf of the Membership Committee to welcome another 11 new members to our church, some of whom have left other churches and some of whom have been out of the church for a decade. This year our church has also baptized two adults who've found a place they can be Christian and still be a geneticist and a research librarian. And frankly, whatever our thoughts on the authority of scripture, in every text we have Jesus is pretty insistent on the most important things we have to do -- love our neighbors, feed the hungry, heal the sick, comfort the afflicted, and so on. The rest comes after that.

What is the name of your church if you don't mind me asking?

[Generic Username]

What is the name of your church if you don't mind me asking?

 

Uruguay Proddy Division

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Uruguay Proddy Division

[maroonlegions]

Millions of normal people believing in a book which said  a man walked on  water,turned water into wine,cured a blind man then also claimed a man parted the sea and that the world is only a couple of hundred thousands years old. Religious  creationists are another bunch of very strange characters and i thought i had seen it all on some of the Icke forums.      

 

And people get badgered, ridiculed, suffer  attacks on there character , slandered and made out to be a loony for their views on the possibility that ET intelligences may very well have the technology to be able to have  visited earth on some sort of observation agenda.

 

Nothing can match or surpass the  current human condition it seems.    

 

Faith or science???

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

I feel we've all got distracted from the real point of all this, which is just how nutty Christianity is (along with every other religion before people start rubbing sand into their lady parts.

Never realised this thread had scraped its ravaged corpse on for ten pages since I last came back to it.

 

Not sure I need to read the rest though... "nutty" is as good a closing line as any.

[Sidelight]

I have numerous Christian friends and, over the years, we've discussed Creation as described in the Bible. Their opinions seem to broadly fall into three categories:

 

1). The Bible version(s) are literally true, and the differences between the two versions can be easily reconciled. (Minority opinion).

2). The Bible is correct, but the six days are not the same as present-day six days. Those days were infinitely longer. (Minority opinion).

3) The Bible versions are allegory. (Majority opinion).

 

Would you care to share your views on this?

I have numerous Christian friends and, over the years, we've discussed Creation as described in the Bible. Their opinions seem to broadly fall into three categories:

 

1). The Bible version(s) are literally true, and the differences between the two versions can be easily reconciled. (Minority opinion).

2). The Bible is correct, but the six days are not the same as present-day six days. Those days were infinitely longer. (Minority opinion).

3) The Bible versions are allegory. (Majority opinion).

 

Would you care to share your views on this?

Genesis 1 clearly states that God created the universe in six ordinary length days.

 

The context of the word 'day'in Genesis 1 is "evening and morning" one day.

 

There is no real doubt that the Hebrew text taken in context describes a normal day of more or less 24hrs.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Genesis 1 clearly states that God created the universe in six ordinary length days.

 

The context of the word 'day'in Genesis 1 is "evening and morning" one day.

 

There is no real doubt that the Hebrew text taken in context describes a normal day of more or less 24hrs.

Hi Alpha,

 

We used to discuss this stuff before. (Monty)

 

Where do you stand on Noah and The Ark?

 

Cheers,

 

Mothy

[deesidejambo]

Millions of normal people believing in a book which said  a man walked on  water,turned water into wine,cured a blind man then also claimed a man parted the sea and that the world is only a couple of hundred thousands years old. Religious  creationists are another bunch of very strange characters and i thought i had seen it all on some of the Icke forums.      

 

And people get badgered, ridiculed, suffer  attacks on there character , slandered and made out to be a loony for their views on the possibility that ET intelligences may very well have the technology to be able to have  visited earth on some sort of observation agenda.

 

Nothing can match or surpass the  current human condition it seems.    

 

Faith or science???

ML you are mixing up a belief in the bible, which is a scripture written by humans that could well contain stories that are nonsense, with belief in god.  The two are different.