Evolution and Creationism (Page 9)

Renee, you and I have agreed on very little over the years, but I agree with you.  And I go one step farther, Religion should also welcome scrutiny.

Too often us Christians fear scientific scrutiny of our religious beliefs.  Too often if science contradicts our religious beliefs we are too quick to argue that the science must be wrong, because certainly the "word of God" cannot be wrong.

I personally believe that this is not the sole choice to explain the universe.  I believe that science and God are not mutally exclusive, but rather are interdependent upon each other.

The explanation of the fertilization of the human embryo makes it no less a "miracle".

The other problem I have is from a theological view point, I do believe that the Bible is the infalable word of God.  However, man's interpretation of that word is open to all sorts of problems.  To  hold to your belief in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, causes a false choice of either asserting that the science is wrong or the bible is wrong.  There is another choice, and that choice is I believe the most logical for christians, and that choice is...both the science and the Bible are correct, however your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

An example is ancient vs young earth theory.  The scientific evidence is overwhelming for an ancient earth.  I beleive in an ancient earth, I also believe that this view is not inconsistent with the Bible creation story.  I believe that a literal interpretation of a 7 day creation Genesis is a misinterpretation of the Bible.  It boils down to the word "yom" and the fact that it has several meanings. 

God reveals his nature to us in the natural world.  There is the specific revelation of God's nature as contained in the Bible and there is also the general revelation as contained in observations of the natural world.  I believe they are consistent.

I do not fear science,  I believe the more we know, scientifically, the more we learn about the nature of God, and also the more questions are raised, both scientifically and theologically.

I've been asked to clarify my beliefs.  I guess that's fair.  I'm not a fundementalist, I'm also not a theologian.  I'm Christian, I believe in the devinity of Christ, I believe in the virgin birth and the resurection. I believe that one of the most important leasons from the New Testiment is observing who Christ hung out with..., I believe in the Loving nature of God as stated in John 3:16.  Christ didn't come for just Christians, or the good, or the sanctimonious, or the clean...he came for the WORLD.  I believe we are all sinners.  I also find it odd why some christians focus on certain "sins" to the point of rabid fanaticism.  My wife and I actually went to the governing board of our church because we were outraged by a table in the vestibule that was asking people to sign a petition to place a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriages on the ballot.  Shouldn't a Christian church welcome all?  (Bare with me on this one, and I know it might be offensive but hear me out...assume homosexuality is a sin...just for my argument...)  Why is this particular "sin" deserving of such attention?  Why isn't there a table decrying Lust, for the "Christian" man who watches the butt of the woman in front of him while he sings on Sunday?  Isn't this too a sin?  I'm tired of the Holyer than thou attitude.

Honestly, if I was gay, I wouldn't step foot in most churches...and that's tragic.  It's certainly not God's fault...

Perhaps what is even more important is what I don't believe.  I don't believe the earth is only 8,000 years old, and I assert my beliefs are not contrary to Genesis.  I don't believe God "hates" anyone, (I do believe anyone who utters the phrase "God hates 'x group" has pretty much missed the message) I find agnostisim understandable, but I find atheisim illogical, I conceed that by the same token an atheist should find my views equally illogical.

I don't believe that my job is to convert a single person.  I actually believe that I personally cannot convert anyone.  I believe personal conversion is just that "personal" and it takes a change of ones heart.  I do believe that how I live my life is a direct reflection of my beliefs. (I screw up all the time, I'm full of sin and I struggle to not sin.)  I also believe that in spite of my sinful nature God still Loves me.  I find my Christian beliefs to be freeing rather than constraining.

I don't agree with school prayer because I am in charge of teaching my child about our religious beliefs, not some teacher.  I also believe in the Constitutions Establishment Clause (not seperation of church and state, I believe that phrase has been misued, misapplied, and I agree with Justice Rhenquist that it is of little to no interprative help in applying Establishment Clause jurisprudence)  I always ask people in my church when they promote school prayer if they would be OK with their kids facing Mecca and reading the Quaran?  If they say "no" (which they always do) I tell them then they are clearly arguing for an impermissible entanglment.

I believe that the many passages of the Bible are open to many different interpretations.  Did Jesus have brothers?  What does 7 "days' mean? And on and on and on.  I believe those that profess that they are absolutely correct on these interpretations and no one else could be correct are fools, and actually engaging in the sin of pride. I do however believe that certain things in the Bible are not open to interpretation and are very clear. These tend to be the large concepts, the devinity of Christ, Jesus' statement regarding the way to salvation.

The question was posed "Am I a literalist?"  In the strict sense "no".  I tend to be a literalist for the New Testiment, and not for the old.  I tend to focus on the red letter stuff of the 4 Gospels.  I find the argument of a Paulian conspiracy intriguing, thus I tend to stick to the 4 Gospels and not the writtings of Paul for my personal devotions.

If i have given the impression of being a fundementalist it's because I believe that there have been on this board, a small group of individuals, who have rabidly asserted anti-christian view points, with sweeping generalizations. Attacking individuals very personal beliefs with incredible vitrol.  I find this unfair.  Therefore, my support for the other side of the argument has been as equally rabid.

I certainly don't have all the theological answers that I am often faced with, in fact on certain days it seems as if I have more questions than answers.  But, I'm good with that.  The God I believe in, can certainly handle my questions, and any answers that I find.

I do believe we are a Judeo-Christian country, but this doesn't mean we're a theocracy.

AndrewMT - 2010-10-14 1:34 PM

wabash - 2010-10-14 12:22 PM

Brock Samson - 2010-10-14 12:53 PM

 The other problem I have is from a theological view point, I do believe that the Bible is the infalable word of God. 

man, i got burned for saying that before.    
lets see where this goes......if at all.
good post though!

Not touching this one with a 10 foot pole!!!

But I would ask for a clarification on whether you believe it as a literal translation or figuratively.  Either way you can believe it to be infallable. 

No man it's all cool, you can touch it.  It's all good.  Here's a very simplified explanation of where I come from:

1. God is infaliable. 2. God does not lie. 3. The specific revelation of God is contained in the Bible.  4. The specific revelation of God demonstrates the character of God.  5. The general revelation of God is contained in the world outside of the Bible. (Because, 'ya know there is a world outside of the Bible) 6. The general revelation of God demonstrates the character of God. 7. Because God does not lie in either His specific or general revelation then these must be consistent. 

Where fundementalist christians get in a bind, especially with science, is when science doesn't match their view of the Bible.  Take the age of the Earth for example.  When faced with this most Christians believe they are faced with only two choices.  1. The Science is wrong or 2. The Bible is wrong.  And because as Christians we don't believe the Bible can ever be wrong, the end result is of course rejecting the science.

This is foolish, and I believe the sin of pride.  Because there is a third choice when faced with a perceived conflict, and it is the choice that makes the most sense with my personal view.  Neither the science nor the Bible is wrong, rather my human interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

It's prideful because it says there is no other explanation than my personal interpretation of the Bible. 

Does that make any type of sense?

.

Took a camera-phone pic of this enroute to getting lunch today (I should have taken a better pic, but it was on the wall of a tunnel and I was wearing my sunglasses) - the title was "Is God The Problem?" -

There's something weird about that picture of Dinesh.

Agreed.... and as the OP, I'm pleased as punch at how well it has gone.  I was worried it would go way of the Dodo.  I did not give enough credit to my fellow BT'ers.  Just cause we don't agree doesn't mean we can't be civil about it and that is EXACTLY what this was, pretty darn civil. 

Kitzmiller's a great decision. (In my view) and I think Judge Jones got it exactly right.  And no one is going to confuse Judge Jones for a "Liberal Activist Judge"