church

Post Reply New Topic

OK... Assuming that the Big Bang theory is correct, that means the Earth would have enjoyed a long process of cooling in its formation. Given geological age, at least as best as we know how to measure it (or think we can measure it), we find that the origin of life--the primordial ooze, so to speak--occurs roughly immediately after the Earth had settled down. How can it be that the conditions were SO perfect that life on Earth matches the age of the Earth? Just looking at statistics, it's just not naturalistically probable. Is life really as old as the Earth?

Statistics do not affirm this. The kind of evolution that would have to happen that brings us to this point would take so much more time if it arises from a simple roll of the dice--pure chance, that is. That means that the Earth would have to be much, MUCH older than what the geological evidence says.

My belief remains that some kind of SUPERnatural influence would have to intervene. I don't want to go further with that because it's too I.D. for my comfort. But at any rate, there is no 100% conclusive evidence as to the age of the Earth or the universe, whether you argue from a purely scientific or purely creationist angle. All you have is a best guess based on the resources you have. Unfortunately, neither of us are able to actually go back and witness the creation to know for certain. Even if we could, I have an idea what would happen. If you're right, all I'd do is adjust my position to say, well, God DID do it that way. Cool. If I'm right, you'd probably dismiss your experience as an illusion or hallucination resulting from the effects of time-travel. The Bible shows this kind of behavior to be consistent with believers and unbelievers.

Ah, cool. I wish more Christians would speak up on this forum. When only the Atheists speak, they tend to monopolize and make this place hostile and discourage freedom of speech, particularly the freedom of speech of anyone promoting Christianity. They tend not to care so much about Eastern religions or even Islam, but they really don't want Christians to have a voice. I think militant Atheists should have their reign ended in this subforum.

I would appreciate if you would clarify that you're reffering to militant atheists when stating intolerance for christian freedom of speach.

Speaking as a mostly observing atheist who reads this sub-forum.

Okay, please note the adjective I have put in bold and colored red in the above quote. ^

Here's a link: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

And in quotes also,



This passage is poetic in nature, but it refers to aspects of creation such as the existence of stars, the order of the universe, that there are laws and so forth. Not the best verse to bring to this type of subforum, since *militant* atheists will play word-games and dwell upon the poetic nature of the passage to a tangential extreme.

Bringing it back to your question -- this has been a struggle for me too. I'm just not wired as outwardly social, regardless of "where" I happen to be, be it with church gatherings or anywhere else. In the last year or so I've gotten better at recognizing what my gifts and talents are and how to work within that as best I can.

Personally, I'm quite content during festive worship services to sit in the back row, shut out all the stimuli and quietly think about God. He's looking at the heart anyway, so if I don't have that worked out then all the external piety in world won't really matter.

I've also found that small study or prayer groups of 3-5 people will also provide a much greater opportunity to know one another on a personal level and make more genuine emotional connections. I don't do small talk very well, but (possibly part of the AS?) I do have a tendency to jump right into the deep topics with little or no problem. This seems to be welcome in most small group bible studies I've been a part of.

I've always hated going to church. With the exception of Sunday School, which I could tolerate, I never enjoyed attending any church service. I hated sitting there for an hour while listening to a guy at a podium talk. Sometimes my mom would compromise and let me go home after Sunday School; other times, she would not.

I'm sure I'll probably get shot down by both sides of the controversy with what I'm about to say, but I'm going to say it anyway. The more I learn about both science and religion, the less contradiction I see in the creation of the universe. The Bible just says in what order God created everything. It doesn't say how or when or how long it took. What's described by science actually fills in the details quite well. I mean, if the hot, dense state of the early universe before the big bang isn't "without form and void", I don't know what is.

Exactly.

I personally don't think that's how the universe was created, but the Bible doesn't EXACTLY disprove it, either. The Bible only says "God created..." Perhaps the means through which He brought forth creation is irrelevant.

I don't know. I wasn't there! I like the thought of an all-powerful Creator that can speak a universe into being just as easily as flipping a switch. That's just something we all have to figure out for ourselves. I think the only REAL way is wait until we get to the "other side" and ask God Himself.

Does the Bible speak of the universe at all? Wat I have seen is that it is concerned with, at most, the solar system. It mentions the stars but they are not particularly significant and there is no mention of galaxies. Light, it seems, was created before the Sun which I find, to say the least, rather odd.

I don't think the Bible mentions the word "universe," or if there was a Hebrew concept of it, I don't recall ever seeing that word as a translation of it.

I think what the Bible was trying to describe in terms of creation was simply referring to what the people of that time, we'll just say during Moses' time, could grasp and understand. I don't know what Moses would have written if he'd lived TODAY, but on the other hand writing for the time he lived would have been perfect because the terms in which he wrote were simple enough to be understood across any number of generations.

That's where we get geocentrism versus solar centrism. All people can observe is all they can see... The Sun appears to move across the sky, as does the moon. The stars change positions throughout the year. People of that time couldn't have figured out anything beyond that, regardless of what they "might" have thought or hypothesized.

The "universe" or "cosmos" as far as they were concerned didn't extend beyond what they were able to see. Even if God had revealed more than that to Moses, for example, shown him the creation through a dream of vision, Moses would have struggled at describing it.

The stories COULD have been passed down from generation to generation from Adam, and we know from other cultures with oral traditions that a tremendous effort is made from priest to acolyte to faithfully retell the stories. I think this is more likely what happened. We know that Moses was a prophet, but I don't think God "revealed" Creation in any profound way so much as instructed Moses to write what he knew (other than what God spelled out, of course, like the Decalogue).

Or, what seems more likely to me, the Bible was written by people who had no conception of the actual universe and how it works and the writing is a reflection of that. To assume God had no idea about the actual universe with all its significant parts is most unlikely. If the Bible had revealed some of the more modern discoveries such as solar fusion or even the existence of galaxies I might put more credence in its divine inspiration.

Its amazing at what an adverse reaction "iamnotaparakeet" is having with the mere notion that somebody go through a process of theological introspection.

Truly demonstrates how frail faith is.

The Bible wasn't written for prophet's for the sake of the prophet, nor did God inspire its writing for His own sake. If God is assumed to be omniscient, then obviously it follows He understands the entirety of His on creation.

But put it in today's terms. The state of one's soul and eternal spiritual destiny supersedes any importance we give to the natural world. There are STILL people that have very poor or very little education. If you try to fill them up with all the details of the physical universe in terms of the mechanics of how that universe functions, etc., etc., they're lost LONG before you present the Gospel to them. The Bible was written in simple terms ALMOST EVERYONE of any background could understand. You don't need a Ph.D. to interpret it for yourself. Teaching a class on quantum mechanics is a completely different story.

On the other hand, someone who is better educated and able to assertively discern truth is unlikely to fall into some of the traps lesser educated people do. That's why there have been so many disasters involving cults because of a charismatic leader who knew just enough about the Bible or spirituality (or claimed to, anyway) to be dangerous: Branch Davidians, Manson Family, Heaven's Gate, Jonestown--not necessarily all claiming to be Christian, but they all do have so much in common. Uneducated people are more likely to be taken in by this if they fail to become actively engaged by a church that does preach correct Biblical doctrine.

Actually... Come to think of it, Sand, you might enjoy this website: http://www.reasons.org

It's a Christian apologetics website dedicated to scientific explanations or justifications of Christian beliefs and the Bible. I don't PERSONALLY buy into a lot of what they have to say because of it's anti-Creationist angle--an all-powerful Creator doesn't NEED His creation to carry out what He wants. They're a lot more accepting of the kind of ideas you hold, yet they use God's creation to affirm His existence rather than deny it. It's very interesting. I'm just pathetically too undereducated to really follow it.

I am neither a scientist nor well versed in anything like quantum mechanics. There is nothing particularly complex in galaxies or even in the fusion that powers the Sun and any five year old could comprehend the existence of both. Those old guys several thousand years ago were neither simpletons nor lacked the basic abilities we have today to understand the architecture of the universe. They were merely frightfully ignorant and figured a ghostly magician was as good a way as any to create the universe with hocus pocus. Today we see magicians doing unbelievable things but we are aware that they are just entertaining and very clever fakers. Those guys way back when believed in magic so a God that worked His ways with magic seemed as good a way to create the universe as any other. The church still talks about "miracles" which is a religious way to refer to magic. People who believe in magic are dupes. There is no other way to say it. If there is a God there is no reason why He should dupe bright people into believing in magic.

There are fine lines dividing the areas of illusion, magic, and miracle. Illusion we all know. Magic is a human attempt to bring forth the supernatural or manipulate nature according to one's own supposed supernatural powers, abilities, or a faith in some unholy "god" that one may manipulate into doing one's bidding. Miracle, as Christians believe it, is God's direct intercession on the behalf of His followers. One significant feature that separates an act of God from evil magic is God does not have to be "invoked," so to speak, but may simply be asked. Illusionists, in total contrast to either of the two, don't mind if some of their secrets are revealed, e.g. Houdini, who flat out TOLD his audiences he was a big fake and STILL wowed them with this talents.

Moses once engaged in a contest against Pharaoh's magicians. For a brief time they could match, move for move, the effects that Moses appeared to bring about until God caused something to happen that Pharaoh's men could not undo. Even they had to concede that what they were dealing with were far beyond their powers. That's because Moses wasn't clever or a magician. He only did what God told him to do. Therefore, it wasn't Moses that worked the miracles, but God Himself.

Were those people thousands of years ago ignorant of things we regard as common sense? Sure, but not out of choice: They just didn't have the same resources that it took thousands of years to develop. The Bible had to be written the way it was because what was written could be understood not only by the people of that time, but this time as well. Interestingly, the Bible stands neutral on scientific matters. The Bible might be seen as a source of information on God and the development of His relationship with mankind. Science, by contrast, is mankind's attempt at explaining his world as best he can see it. Science is separate and apart from God and has NOTHING to do with Him. Trying to explain God in scientific terms is difficult at best. There is NO way for science to either confirm or deny the existence of God, and therefore one's own personal affirmation of God rests in his faith.