|
5003 Posts
he Bible is not presented as such. It is the authoritative and inerrant Word of God. To disagree with it, in a sense, is to disagree with your creator.
First, I don't understand why me talking about immorality would lead you to this remark. I'm a bit confused, so I'll take on your word on face value rather than trying to connect the dots. My apologies if my response isn't what you're looking for because of that.
In my opinion, the Bible does not say anything like that -- what you're saying is more doctrinal rather than actually biblical.
The Bible was put together by a council. There are *many* books related to the bible that didn't make the cut -- the people who put it together tried to put together a coherent message. Again, many of the books of the Bible has MANY motivations when it was written. You should take a look at such a history.
The verse that's most commonly quoted doesn't say that it *is* the word of God -- but inspired by God. You look at the Bible to look at the inspiration behind it, not just the words on the surface.
I also believe it is foolish for you to tell me "it is to disagree with my creator" to not read the Bible as the literal word of God. For me it doesn't matter whether or not Genesis happened or not, the point is that it gives tremendous insight into our spiritual walk. That is what matters.
Why is that such a faulty assumption. Let's say the Biblical narrative is correct. We are made by God as logical and rational creatures. Even subconsciously we are weighing pro's and con's in our head. We are constantly looking for evidence in the world around us to validate or challenge what we believe. Therefor, the supreme God of the universe, who made us as such, reveals himself in a way which is the total opposite. He creates us as logical beings who have to ascend to God by faith without evidence. Heb 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." 2 Cor 5: 7 "We live by faith, not by sight."
Because when we look for evidence we have a "theory" we want to prove. God isn't a theory. God is God. He is who he is. Look at the disciples -- they were by Jesus the entire time, saw all of the miracles. They believed that he would be the Messiah. Look at what happened when Jesus was arrested -- they all denied him and scurried away. All of those miracles, those evidence, what are they? They were for the theories that we feed to ourselves, but the second that theory that we have crumbles apart we run away from it all.
There's a reason why we call Christianity a "relationship" -- and once you understand that, those versus will make much more sense.
|
@OP
I just want to say thanks for your post and sharing your feelings. It was very heartfelt (to me at least). I have spent most of my young adult life struggling with the perceived gap between science and religion. For example, the events in Genesis 1-11 are so incredibly different from what is taught in school (Earth is 6000 years old vs. millions, evolution vs. creation, etc). I had a hard time trying to reconcile the differences between scientific facts from Scripture (ie, the mustard seed is the smallest seed when it is really not) and what we discover from our science.
That all changed when I took a Christian theology course at my university. My professor, Dr. Denis Lamoureux, has a doctorate in evolutionary biology and a doctorate in theology, specializing in Genesis 1-11. Needless to say, he has spent his entire life studying this. The class changed my life and I thought perhaps some of his material would be of interest to you.
I would definitely recommend you check out his book "I love Jesus and I accept Evolution." Also his website has essays regarding his official stance on this subject (Evolutionary Creation), as well as his testimony and some lectures on youtube regarding the subject.
Website: http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/
Essay on Evolutionary Creation: http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/evolutionary_creation.pdf
To summarize my thoughts, I think God is a concept that cannot be proven. Otherwise we would not have a definite choice. So if creation was so obvious, this would leave us with no choice but to believe in God. For man to truly be free from God, there must be no obvious signs that God is there. But because of that, I believe that leaves the door open to so much interpretation and doubt and etc. So I have a feeling you will be struggling with this for a long time. In the end, I believe this is what makes faith so incredibly challenging for some people (especially myself).
On the flip side, I don't think morality is a scientific principle. I think it would be almost offensive to attempt to attempt to fit emotions such as love and hate into a formula. To me, science studies nature. And theology will study morality and spiritual truths. I don't think you can mix the two.
In any case, I said I would try to keep this short and here I am with a long post. Of course this is a vast and complex topic, so I don't think a public forum is the best way for me to talk to you.
Feel free to send me a PM. I would love to discuss with you further on this subject. All the best in your spiritual journey.
Cheers.
|
First, I don't understand why me talking about immorality would lead you to this remark. I'm a bit confused, so I'll take on your word on face value rather than trying to connect the dots. My apologies if my response isn't what you're looking for because of that.
In my opinion, the Bible does not say anything like that -- what you're saying is more doctrinal rather than actually biblical.
The Bible was put together by a council. There are *many* books related to the bible that didn't make the cut -- the people who put it together tried to put together a coherent message. Again, many of the books of the Bible has MANY motivations when it was written. You should take a look at such a history.
The verse that's most commonly quoted doesn't say that it *is* the word of God -- but inspired by God. You look at the Bible to look at the inspiration behind it, not just the words on the surface.
I also believe it is foolish for you to tell me "it is to disagree with my creator" to not read the Bible as the literal word of God. For me it doesn't matter whether or not Genesis happened or not, the point is that it gives tremendous insight into our spiritual walk. That is what matters.
I agree. The Bible does not claim to be inerrant. Paul, in Timothy, does say all Scripture is God-breathed. Some may say that points to inerrancy, but at the very least it says that the OT is inspired.
Let me ask you this. If you agree the Bible is not inerrant, and that some of the stories such as the creation narrative in Genesis are not accurate, then how can you trust any of the spiritual insights? How do you pick and choose what is real and true while the others are bullshit?
There's a reason why we call Christianity a "relationship" -- and once you understand that, those versus will make much more sense.
I know, the whole "Its a relationship, not a religion" bumper sticker. The Bible sets forth an entire world view, not just a relationship. It says how man should live his life, the roll of the government, how we got here, why it rains, who God is, and how man is to respond to him. To regurgitate my question from above, if some of those has been proven wrong on what grounds can you accept the rest?
|
I have read many of the theistic evolution arguments. BB Warfield was a theologian around the time Darwin published Origins, and he came to accept it as well.
The reason why I do not accept this view is that I believe evolution and the concept of God to be incompatible. Evolution is not order. It has lead to the extinction of 99.9 percent of all species which have been on this planet alone. The thought that a god could just sit in his throne and watch billions of the creatures he created suffer and die for no purpose is diabolical. And if a Christian says, "We were that purpose" then how can such arrogance be reconciled with the order to be humble?
|
5003 Posts
Let me ask you this. If you agree the Bible is not inerrant, and that some of the stories such as the creation narrative in Genesis are not accurate, then how can you trust any of the spiritual insights? How do you pick and choose what is real and true while the others are bullshit?
I know, the whole "Its a relationship, not a religion" bumper sticker. The Bible sets forth an entire world view, not just a relationship. It says how man should live his life, the roll of the government, how we got here, why it rains, who God is, and how man is to respond to him. To regurgitate my question from above, if some of those has been proven wrong on what grounds can you accept the rest?
Why do we believe in science, when the methodology also gave us false conclusions quite a bit? We don't believe in the results of the science but we believe in the method, the process, and the spirit. Anytime we take these ideals and apply them, we're bound to make mistakes one way or another because the picture we see isn't the whole picture, or we may have applied it badly, or maybe there's just something we just don't understand. Imagine if every time someone publishes some result and it turns out they were wrong for whatever reason. Are we going to not believe in the scientific method now?
I'm not saying "cherry pick". I am saying, what matters is this spirit, in the same way. The Bible is a story of people, and people are sensitive to a lot of different factors. Religion doesn't provide us with "truths", it provides us with a path that we walk towards.
It's our nature, really. If we don't understand a statistical concept or a model we will so often say "well, that's because we're not good enough". But when it comes down to philosophy or economics or religion or things like that, we are so damn quick to deride the other side as "quacks" and "has no idea what they're talking about" -- because we have our own opinions, our own mold on what we believe.
Reading your posts you clearly have some notion of God. It's very likely that I don't believe in the God that you believe in, because to a certain extent when it comes to things like God it's so easy to project ideals and notions onto God and call it a god and what not. This is what means to seek God (or at least, what I currently believe it to be)
|
^And this is also, Milkis, why you should learn about every religion, and not just pick one and be, say, a "Christian"
On February 20 2013 01:03 ImAbstracT wrote:
if some of those has been proven wrong on what grounds can you accept the rest?
because it's just a book that some people wrote a long time ago about how they were trying to find some meaning in the world. The mistake is thinking that you should "accept" it in the way you are thinking about it.
|
Despite what people lie and tell themselves because they don't like the alternative, you cannot "create" your own purpose or meaning for life. If a chair was conscious it could not "decide" for it's purpose to be a table. You are confined to the limits set by your universe, your biology, your experiences. Every person is confined to the same purpose. And the only possible way life could have meaning is if it was created by an external consciousness for a specific purpose. Objects which are the result of indifference and purposeless cause/effect cannot have meaning, no matter how much they've been programmed to desire it.
What we call "purpose" or "meaning" these days has simply come to mean "what am I gonna do with all this free time I have as a result of industrialization?"
Where you trip up OP is focusing solely on Christianity. Looking for evidence about the truthfulness of the bible says absolutely nothing about the important questions, such as the existence of God. You've lumped the two together as if they were a single question, which is natural because you were raised that way. So make your title "my struggle with Christianity" and not "my struggle with God," because those are not synonymous. God is something there is no evidence for or against, something which is necessarily dependent upon faith and not logic or science. You either believe faith is worthwhile or you don't.
|
On February 20 2013 03:35 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:
Despite what people lie and tell themselves because they don't like the alternative, you cannot "create" your own purpose or meaning for life. If a chair was conscious it could not "decide" for it's purpose to be a table. You are confined to the limits set by your universe, your biology, your experiences.
To paraphrase a wise man:
Men make their own meaning, but not under conditions of their own choosing.
|
On February 20 2013 03:38 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2013 03:35 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:
Despite what people lie and tell themselves because they don't like the alternative, you cannot "create" your own purpose or meaning for life. If a chair was conscious it could not "decide" for it's purpose to be a table. You are confined to the limits set by your universe, your biology, your experiences. To paraphrase a wise man: Men make their own meaning, but not under conditions of their own choosing.
The conditions are deterministic.
Men do precisely what their physical brain tells them to do. Which can include deluding themselves into inventing a "meaning" for their actions, of course.
|
5003 Posts
On February 20 2013 03:18 sam!zdat wrote:
^And this is also, Milkis, why you should learn about every religion, and not just pick one and be, say, a "Christian"
I absolutely agree (I don't think I implied that you should only learn about Christianity). But at the same time, I still don't fully understand Christianity -- how can I make a full judgment regarding religion when I'm only able to look at them on the surface?
|
eh, whatever man, I'm not getting into this with you. go read some philosophy and get back to me in a few years
(edit: not you milkis the other guy)
|
On February 20 2013 03:59 sam!zdat wrote:
eh, whatever man, I'm not getting into this with you. go read some philosophy and get back to me in a few years
(edit: not you milkis the other guy)
Believe me, I've read plenty of philosophy. I don't make it my refuge from reality like you do, though.
|
Yeah, my life is pretty much defined by taking refuge from unpleasant truths
edit: the fact remains, you chose to believe that. it's an illusion which you cannot escape. stop trying to pretend like it isn't.
edit: "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away"
|
An illusion which you cannot escape? It's not about escaping it, it's about rejecting it. You simply have to remind yourself that the human mind is fully capable of tricking itself. Even science is coming to confirm this fact.
|
Let's see you reject it then. Stop making choices. You have no free will.
les non-dupes errent
|
On February 20 2013 04:31 sam!zdat wrote:
Let's see you reject it then. Stop making choices. You have no free will.
les non-dupes errent
Oh, choices still exist. I just don't have any choice in the choices I make. 
You cannot stop something that has never begun.
|
So your point is irrelevant, because you wouldn't be able to tell the difference either way. You still have to make choices. Who cares if God already knows what choice you're going to make? I don't see what difference that makes.
Anyway, this is all a different question than the question of searching for meaning in existence, I don't really see what determinism has to do with it.
edit: and you still have to explain how the epiphenomenon of consciousness could arise from the simple rearrangement of objects which are not themselves conscious, that is extremely troubling
edit: if anything, determinism makes the problem even more problematic! how can I find meaning in a deterministic existence? I suppose I could become a calvinist, but then I would have to be a calvinist, and I can't think of anything more depressing than that.
|
On February 19 2013 04:49 sam!zdat wrote:Nice blog  I'd just like to leave you, however, with the seed of doubt, that there are more sophisticated ways to think about religion than the way in which you were raised, and there are more sophisticated ways to think about the critique of religion than Dawkins and Hitchens. Keep asking questions I love a curious mind! If you decide that NOW you have found the Truth, then you have just made the same mistake as before  Show nested quote +
Confucius said, "When everyone dislikes something, it should be examined. When everyone likes something, it should be examined."
fair words as usual samzdat
|
I am proud of OP. sharing this with us; it must be hard to overcome this. realizing what we believed in so deeply is in fact not what we thought it was.
|
On February 20 2013 04:30 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:
An illusion which you cannot escape? It's not about escaping it, it's about rejecting it. You simply have to remind yourself that the human mind is fully capable of tricking itself. Even science is coming to confirm this fact.
the rephrase with exactitude you thoughts I'd say that human have this biological tendancy of religious thoughts. mostly because, like primates, we recognize links of causality, we learn through them, everything. with our higher cognitve capacity, though we humans, have a much more complex sociality which involves semantics, which allows us to think of this causality. which mostly explain why we have such things as beliefs. Yes science confirms this fact. Illusion? partially.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
