Creationism

Post Reply New Topic

Not true. People in general are different, with different cultural backgrounds, different traditions, different philosophies, and so on. The fact that within Christianity there is so much diversity only means that there are more opportunities for such varied people to belong to it.

Also, the fact that such wide variance of opinion points to the fact that so many Christians ARE willing to engage in dialogue over the particulars of the religion and, in some cases, agree to disagree. You seem so fond of scientific reasoning. You are probably aware that there is no complete consensus within the scientific community. The fact that disagreement exists opens the door for further exploration and greater understanding. Diversity within Christianity is only evidence of Christian theology as an intellectual undertaking as well as a spiritual undertaking. The first churches were close enough to the source that there wasn't much reason for disagreement. The book of Acts and the Epistles show a gradual splintering of churches along regional lines. Revelation opens by discussing a small number of representative churches and their individual strengths and weaknesses.

In a perfect world, there'd never have been a need to even discuss the Bible. It would be merely an issue of acceptance, and people would simply do as Jesus instructed: Basically, take care of each other's needs and minister to the rest of the world. I see the Roman church as an attempt to unify all believers, but it has fallen to the corruptive nature of power and strayed from the basics through maintaining such a tightly centralized authority. I think perhaps in most areas of theology the Catholic church has cleaned up the mess of its doctrine, but they are, as much as anyone else, far from perfect. A tightly ritualized liturgy may succeed in uniting believers, but it also runs the risk of the rigid legalism that the earliest Christians were trying to escape.

But through those mistakes has come centuries of Christian intellectuals willing to question those practices and attempt to ascertain the truth of the Biblical text. And if there is a question as to what the truth really is, one need only read the Bible for himself. The only real difficulties of the Bible in terms of human theological debate are such things as predestination vs. free will/determinism. It should be obvious to anyone reading the Bible that if there IS such a thing as predestination, it does not preclude the will of a person to make choices. Judas Iscariot, for example, had a choice, and by chance it happened that Judas would be the one to betray Jesus. What Judas failed to understand was that what happened was inevitable, and his response in the aftermath could have been different. But even if Judas had NOT fulfilled the role of the one who would betray Jesus, it only meant that another of the 12 disciples would have done the same thing. Judas did not believe Jesus would be resurrected after 3 days, but neither did the rest of the disciples. And each in their own way was responsible for Jesus' death--Peter, for example, was willing to fight in the garden, but pretended not to even know Jesus at Jesus' trial. And since all happened according to a greater plan of salvation, predestination, what it means, and how it applies to us is a valid topic among Christians for debate. But whether you are pro-predestination or pro-free-will, neither side denies the necessity of the blood of Christ for atonement, the death, burial, and resurrection of the Savior, or the necessity for faith in the resurrection of Christ as requisite for a believer's salvation and reunification with God.

Variance in church life bridges the generational gap among Christians. While there is a certain timelessness about Catholic and even Methodist ritual that appeals to the young as well as the old, many younger Christians are attracted to worship styles that appeal to them culturally. The purpose of the church has always been to communicate culturally so that more people will be able to understand its message. A good example from the Bible is the teaching at Mars Hill. Apparently the Greeks were so concerned with appeasing all gods that they constructed an altar "to the unknown god" just in case they left anyone out. They were aware that something was missing in their relationship with the divine. They were then taught the identity of the "unknown god" as being the Father, and this opened the door to teaching the gospel of Christ. Indeed, Christianity spread RAPIDLY among the Greeks. In a similar way, current musical styles are present in the praise and worship of younger congregations, allowing them to express themselves in worship in their own unique way that also has the potential for the inclusion of older generations. If older congregants do not find that appealing (very likely many don't), there remain a plethora of more traditional church styles seeking to serve in those areas. In this way, Christianity seeks to include all people of all ages of every walk of life. That there is not a COMPLETE consensus among congregations is a positive thing in that Christians, even now, are still about the business of seeking Truth and are not satisfied by the edicts of one or more human institutional authorities.

I deny the correctness of the gospels. Loaves and Fish cannot materialize out of thin air. That would contradict the conservation of matter and energy. And if Jesus was really dead in his tomb for three days, his brain would have turned into a rotting gelatinous mass of tissue and he would have stayed dead. So either the entire thing is a story, or Jesus never died on the cross.

The Gospels are a story, a fairy tale, a fiction not a factual recounting of historical events.

ruveyn

Again, I re-iterate the point

Its a personal opinion of the individual known as Stephen Hawking. He is entitled to have a personal opinion, he is entitled to make public his personal opinion. People do that on a daily basis on twitter the blogosphere and other outlets of the mass media.

Sit back, put on a cat stevens record and chill.

Is Pink Floyd acceptable? I think I few turns of Dark Side of the Moon would be a nice diversion.

I would not deny Hawking his opinion. You recognize it as opinion for which you can be commended. But there are more than a few that use Hawking's opinion as a bludgeon for making their points.

You have to make up your own mind about whether the Gospels are true or not. One of the underlying problems of Christianity for many people is becoming a disciple does carry with it the consequence of leaving many aspects of life behind and starting over. The benefits far outweigh the risks, but I think too often most of us don't want to leave our past behind, nor are we really all that willing to abandon our comfortable status quo. You work hard your entire life only to find that either your wealth distracts you from following Jesus or Jesus distracts you from all your wealth. That's just one example, but you can replace the word "wealth" with pretty much anything and the underlying principle of self-denial still applies. On the one hand, as a musician, I've found the urge to buy expensive vintage equipment to be irresistible and have often wondered if I'd been better off just making do with the "latest-greatest" product from Japan (made in China) and cut costs. Oddly enough, the vast majority of projects I've started recently with the fancy equipment are aimed primarily for church use--such as the handbell duet my wife and I are doing in November and the overture I composed for bells and actual live orchestra to be performed in December. It very well could be I could be the next award-winning songwriter or film composer, but something just feels right about what I'm doing at the moment. A lot of people in general would experience a sort of inner conflict over a similar pricey investment and not work towards some material return on it, but I've found I'm happier the less my goals become material goals. It's not an easy task giving up everything for these kinds of beliefs, and I wonder sometimes whether most of us church-goers aren't WAY too comfortable in their secular and spiritual lives. I think because of what the Gospel demands of a believer, it isn't easy to "just believe," but the basic message of the Gospel is much easier to follow than other religions.

What is remarkable to me is supernatural activity is assumed to be false from the outset. Plain and simple, if you don't want to believe something, no one is going to make you, and no amount of miracles will convince you, anyway. You can't demand of God that He perform parlor tricks to convince you of His reality. The whole of the OT and the Gospels affirm this--God reveals Himself on HIS terms, not the terms of those who oppose Him. Yet the same kind of person who denies what thousands personally witnessed will also assume such things as, say, the Big Bang and other theoretical matters without a shred of proof that those things were ever real. This view favors an unnecessary naturalistic view in which, through no real evidence to the contrary, that divine intervention cannot possibly occur. In scientific circles, this kind of reasoning is considered bias. It's fascinating to me that scientific, mathematical, and theoretical fields seek or purport to be free of bias and yet certain individuals within those areas are themselves needlessly biased against the supernatural! Now, you can say that the purpose of science is to explore the natural observable universe. Well, that is true. But when data is presented in such a way as to say that this is evidence there is no God or that is evidence that there is no God when God is a spiritual entity, not a physical entity, and thus cannot be measured through scientific means, the person who uses physical data as "evidence" is making an assertion that crosses line between science and theology. Once again, such an assertion relies on anti-supernatural bias to make such claims.

Jesus, on the other hand, WAS the physical manifestation of God on earth. The Gospels give us data, or evidence, that Jesus was a physical reality and that He showed through scripture and the works of signs that He was who He said He was. The Gospels provide evidence that those signs and His teachings were enough to convince His followers and they believed Him enough to show the same signs to the rest of the world. Even some among the devout Pharisees who still clung to their customs and traditions believed. They saw the evidence and believed. The plain fact is that enough people were witnesses of Jesus and the Apostles that no more evidence was needed--we have the evidence in the form of the Gospels. We only have to decide whether we want to believe it or not.

He has more research and fact to back up his side than the theists have on their side. Plus that, creationism isn't a matter of "a deity created existence", it's a matter of "MY deity created existence as told by my book of myths". There's a slight difference. I actually say that I'm rather agnostic on that aspect of matters but what I'm not agnostic on is that the mythos of the bible, koran, tanakh, and whatever other books/collection of books describe "gods" are all wrong and those "deities" don't exist. And to claim that the laws of the universe are proof to a deity is absolutely absurd and beyond basic sense. The laws of the universe could have been different but still allowed for "life" in a completely different variance from what we know. Claiming a finely tuned universe is proof of a deity isn't evidence. Saying "we don't know" isn't proof either.

You keep missing my point. I have no problem with Hawking's statements. I simply take issue with how people use his statements in an Appeal to Authority. And he did not state "There Is No God", as far as I know. His statement was essentially that this universe does not need intention by a creator, that it can (did?) spontaneously erupt into existence without divine intervention. This in fact pointedly avoids the heinously unscientific question "does God exist?".

it kills me when people read "the gospel" and take the its statement (a creator is necessary) as fact. it seems, to me, that perspective would help. let's look at the basics and see which is the "unscientific" statement.

statement 1: "the universe exists. it was created by a deity."
statement 2: "the universe exists."

while i can see how it would be annoying to have anti-theists cite statement 2 as proof that statement 1 is incorrect, i can't help but point out that the difference between statements 1 and 2 is that statement 2 has removed the (unnecessary) second sentence.

then again..... i guess it might take too much "faith" to see it that way.

i think you're missing your point for your story. "the universe exists" is not an irrational claim. it is not necessary to say "god created the universe" to say "the universe exists." hawking didn't (and afaik, doesn't) state that god doesn't exist.

again, if you lack the "faith" to see how unscientific (not to mention, irrational) it would be to assume the existence (and intervention) of an extrauniversal organism is necessary to explain the existence of our universe, maybe you should read some holy books. i hear they're full of it.
(i mean faith, right? ...)

also:



saturday morning breakfast cereal is yummy. <-click for source.

[quote="waltur"]
i think you're missing your point for your story. "the universe exists" is not an irrational claim. it is not necessary to say "god created the universe" to say "the universe exists." hawking didn't (and afaik, doesn't) state that god doesn't exist.

I already acknowledged that Hawking is not claiming God does not exist.

Again, it is not Hawking nor his statement that I am taking issue with. It is with people that extend his statements beyond their meaning.

Admittedly Hawking id not deny he existence of God, merely that God was superfluous. I feel the same way. God is a fifth wheel. Not worth considering.

this is the implication referenced by people who "extend his statements beyond their meaning."

hawking is familiar with the process of proving something invisible exists and is worth considering. How certain are you that this is taking the statement beyond it's intended meaning? Maybe he really isn't sure on/doesn't want to argue about the existance of a deity but is trying to say that, as far as he can tell, a deity isn't necessary as "the laws of physics" do just dandy.

Well, it seems my goal in turning this from a thread in which creationism is simply mocked into one where it is actually discussed has proven successful.

GreenBlue: young earth creationism is not the only creationism. If you had actually been paying attention you would have noticed that I said:
[quote=Tensu]Not all creationists are evolution deniers[/quote]

Jono: not exactly: solipsism in the way which I apply it accepts the possibility that this particular reality is not truly real. Solipism merely states that our consciousness, and those things which we can rationalize by the existence of our consciousness, (I.E. without using our fallible senses) are the only things in which we can be truly know to exist. the rest we either theorize exists or believe exists. I generally use Solipsism as an argument against letting science be the end-all be-all governor of your life: in the event of a paradigm shift, you'll be in for a world of trauma.

Sand/Revyn: I would like to start out by also appologizing to you, Sand, as it seems I've misjudged you.

now that that's done, I find it interesting that in all their criticisms or early Christians, the romans never (to my knowledge) doubted the existence of Jesus, and that many non-christian historians wrote about Jesus as a factual person. furthermore, the Bible is very historically accurate and so geographically accurate that a British general used it to find strategic positions during WWII. I don't need any more evidence than that because religion is a different species than science and doesn't work the same way: it is enough that the history checks out, unlike say, mormonism.

Second, I think religion and politics are inseparable for different reasons than you understand: Religions are not conceived with a political agenda in mind, but rather a good politician will try to do that which is morally right, and that which is morally right is defined primarily by religion. while it's true Christianity says people should pay their taxes and not violently revolt against governments, it says that this is because they are a deterrent to thieves and murderers. The religion itself is very little concerned with politics other than the aforementioned role in giving answers on good and evil (why do I always spell answer awnser the first time I type it?)

Science does not claim to either confirm or deny that which is unobserved. If a phenomenon can be understood by observed conditions then those conditions are deemed sufficient. Hawking merely indicated that no unobserved conditions were necessary for the big bang. God is an unobserved phenomenon.