Creationism

Post Reply New Topic

Mine too.

Solipsism is worse than creationism in a way. Technically, solipsism means that you not only deny facts but you deny reality too.

Young Earth Creationism AKA Creationism, biblical literalism, the calcuation of the age of the earth based on the chronology of biblical patriarchs - about 6,000 years old, the creation of everything in 6 literal days, nope, no misunderstanding in there. The tendency of this, is the other way around, that they are more likely to misunderstand evolution and science.

A literal reading of Genesis need not be inflexible. That's the trouble with YC. The Bible gives no sure indicators of time.

I think we Christians would have liked more specificity in Biblical chronology, but it isn't there, nor does the Bible seem all that concerned with it.

It's called a personal opinion......

Don't worry it doesn't bite

You completely miss the point. Theists are harangued for an irrational belief, and yet Hawking's utterance is latched upon without any real understanding of what actually is factual. It is no small irony that self-proclaimed uber-rational anti-theists fall into irrational thinking.so easily.

I also notice you failed to comment on the substance of my post, instead resorting to sarcasm.

Most people do not have the theoretical background nor general comprehension from which Hawking makes his conclusions. The conclusions out of theology are empty speculations with no grounding in precise observation and integration of physical realities based on those observations. It is a matter of personal choice as to which authority is preferred. I see nothing but naive and self satisfying concepts in theological conclusions. Hawking is driven by tight self consistency of theoretical integration of observed phenomena and makes much more sense to me. Irrationality, it is obvious, flourishes extravagantly in theological constructions, not in Hawking's proposals.

The problem is that the fundamental conclusions of Christianity ARE grounded in precise observation and integration of physical realities. The events recorded in the Gospels were either eyewitness accounts or compiled from eyewitness accounts of the events in question. If there'd been nothing to report, nothing would have been written.

Nonsense.

The gospels are essentially fiction and not very good fiction either.

Tolkien's LOTR was written but there is hardly a word of fact in it.

ruveyn

I am totally with ruveyn on this. Observations out of ignorance concluded that Thor or Zeus tossed lightning bolts. We know enough today to understand that observed lightning bolts indicate nothing of the existence of gods.

There is another very important but neglected factor in in this discussion and that is the motivations behind the theoretical constructions. Scientific motivation is pretty purely merely a matter of making consistent theory to fit observations. Theological constructions have a very strong political element within them to control the populace from the point of view of a selected elite who frequently proclaim the nature of reality with little or no basis in fact but oriented to the benefit of the elite. This permits wild distortions of reality.

Ruveyn is making a lot of assumptions, though, in particular that those who related the stories contained in the Gospels didn't witness what they witnessed. If it makes for bad fiction, then perhaps it's not really fiction. I think if the Christian Bible really was written to support a political agenda or to control a populace, it would have been more in the self-interest of the writers to be more florid in their writing style (although Luke and Acts ARE very well-written). Particularly notable are unfavorable depictions of the 12, especially the most vocal among them, e.g. Peter. Paul is another character who struggled to gain any kind of credibility among the early Christians. He'd have been a more favorable character if the skeletons in his closet had been edited out of the text, yet those ugly facts remain.

Now, the quote I took from you is also based on the assumption that the Christianity that is in practice, perhaps with the Roman Catholic Church, was what was intended. If you read the Bible from a sola scriptura perspective, you'll find that was not what was intended at all. There was certainly a need for leadership among Christians, and all Christians are intended to be united in purpose. The problem with Christianity at varying times through history had more to do with the corrupting nature of power and authority. As long as the authority in question acts in service to the church and to the rest of the world, there are no problems. What you really have a problem with is not the teachings of the Christ of the Bible, but with the men in positions of power and authority who have corrupted it to suit their own purposes.

The only authority that Christianity sought to bring anyone under was that of God Himself. If I'm not mistaken, I believe it was James who wrote the purpose of Jesus' disciples was to care for widows and orphans. Living a life that doesn't seek power or personal gain for one's self but rather the good of all is the true purpose of a believer. It pains me that the only God you see really is one created from the human mind serving a purely human motive, not the One who really is.

If you widen your focus to religion in general and not view merely Christianity it will be very apparent that religion in general has always been an auxiliary force to politics and Christianity is obviously no exception but follows the standard patterns of religions millennia before any of the current religions came into being. To attempt to divorce religion from politics may donate some sort of spiritual satisfaction but it has nothing to do with the realities of civilization or culture.

That the style of some theological writing may be inspirational and even delightful poetry has nothing to do with its congruence to reality and understanding of the nature of the universe. That confusion is one of the more cockeyed ideas to arise.

[quote="ruveyn"]

Nonsense.

The gospels are essentially fiction and not very good fiction either.

[quote]

This is an opinion. The possibility that it is correct must be admitted, but asserting it as anything more than an opinion is overreaching. You cannot wave away the gospels as fictional any more than a Christian can provide objective proof that they are indeed records of eye witness accounts.

It's quite satisfactory to leave them in speculative limbo.

But you're subjecting religion to the desires and whims of men who use religion to achieve worldly success or jockey for positions of power and authority. What happens when religious practices extend so far beyond the core principles of the religion itself? It ceases to be what it was.

The plain fact is that if the teachings and practice of a church are not Biblically supported, if church leaders are not acting in accordance with how the earliest disciples lived out their faith, then the authority of such a body is compromised. I'm not pretending the church I attend and work for is perfect by any means. But I find it difficult to find any conflict between what it teaches and what the Bible actually says--a few exceptions, of course, such as our pastor's mispronunciation of the word "brood" this morning. You can't give a fair assessment of Christianity based solely on the worst cases; and even then the worst cases are representative of teachable moments over time that have worked together to remind Christians of God's purpose, ultimately working for the greater good. And that's not just a purely Christian feat, either. Consider that, with some exception such as human trafficking, slavery is largely non-existent throughout the world. People in general are somehow aware that such things are wrong and work against those things. It's not atypical that some lesson is learned to start with in order to initiate change. Christianity is no different, and it is unfair to accuse Christians of past atrocities that we have ceased to perpetuate. I think more often we tend to stick closer to scripture. The more often this happens, the easier it is to see Christianity in a positive light.

Assuming we're being fair, of course. True believers in Christ have a long history of being denied equity, and it seems hardly likely that this will change.

Since, as you readily have acknowledged, there is very little uniformity over the wide spectrum of Christianity, not only in between different sects but even within special sects, there is no way to speak sensibly about Christianity in general. To broadly claim that all the nastiness has disappeared over he horizon into the past is either out of a preference to be unaware or an outright lie. Especially considering your statement of wide variation in the various components with no indication that somehow there is solid gold to be revealed somewhere under all that muck.