I accepted science. Now life is half what it was.

[chevyontheriver]

Please Dont!
Just stay in the Word of God and listen to as many sermons as possible online.

Are you the guy that in another thread was arguing that the earth was flat?

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Are you the guy that in another thread was arguing that the earth was flat?

Yep!

And I'm in protest. Protestant.

 

[FireDragon76]

There are forms of Christianity that don't demand you have any particular belief about what the seven days of creation mean.

If those experiences of God were true for you then, there is no reason they could not be true for you now. Just find a different approach to being a Christian.

Personally, I think too much is made of science. Some aspects of life are not best explained by science.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yep!

And I'm in protest. Protestant.

So this guy is all depressed because he found out that what his faith taught him about the creation of the earth and the origins of life was a bunch of lies. Being more or less responsible he dumps his faith, but he finds he really misses Jesus. I mention to him that there are some Christians for whom science and the faith are not polar opposites, among them Catholics. That Gregor Mendel and Georges LeMatrie were both scientists and Catholics. I didn't even get to how many of the craters on the moon are named after Jesuit Catholic astronomers. You warn him away from the Catholic Church. But what you have to offer is only to listen to a bunch of online sermons to maybe drive out the demon of science. And you are a real flat earther. Are you a real one or is it just for fun, to see what a rise you can get out of people? Oh, and while we're at it, do you think Galileo was wrong or right? The Catholic Church belatedly said he was right.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

So this guy is all depressed because he found out that what his faith taught him about the creation of the earth and the origins of life was a bunch of lies. Being more or less responsible he dumps his faith, but he finds he really misses Jesus. I mention to him that there are some Christians for whom science and the faith are not polar opposites, among them Catholics. That Gregor Mendel and Georges LeMatrie were both scientists and Catholics. I didn't even get to how many of the craters on the moon are named after Jesuit Catholic astronomers. You warn him away from the Catholic Church. But what you have to offer is only to listen to a bunch of online sermons to maybe drive out the demon of science. And you are a real flat earther. Are you a real one or is it just for fun, to see what a rise you can get out of people? Oh, and while we're at it, do you think Galileo was wrong or right? The Catholic Church belatedly said he was right.

You lost me at "Jesuit Catholic astronomers"

Read their oath.

I'm out.

 

[chevyontheriver]

You lost me at "Jesuit Catholic astronomers"

Read their oath.

I'm out.

So no reply to the question about whether you are a real flat-earther or is it just for fun, to see what a rise you can get out of people? Can I take that to mean it's just for fun, to see if you can get a rise out of people?

 

[I'm_Sorry]

So no reply to the question about whether you are a real flat-earther or is it just for fun, to see what a rise you can get out of people? Can I take that to mean it's just for fun, to see if you can get a rise out of people?

No, Goodbye

I stand for the bible, many have died to get it into our hands.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, Goodbye

I stand for the bible, many have died to get it into our hands.

Not really. There's a lot of misconceptions about the middle ages, one is that anyone who tried to translate the Bible was put to death by the big bad Catholic Church. Which is why people often think that John Wycliffe was executed (he wasn't, Wycliffe died of natural causes and it was decades after his death that he was declared a heretic), or that Tyndale was executed by Catholics (he wasn't, Tyndale was executed by the British Crown, which was several years after King Henry had separated from Rome and declared himself head of the English Church), or that Martin Luther was executed (he wasn't, Luther died of health complications as he got older).

And until the moveable-type printing press nobody would have even thought of the idea of regular Christians having a physical copy of the Bible in their hands, all books (the Bible included) were meticulously hand-copied and thus were worth a literal fortune. You had to be an incredibly wealthy individual to own a copy of Scripture. It's only with the invention of the moveable type printing press that it even occurred to anyone that regular people could own books, and with mass production of books then also regular people could own their own copy of the Bible, assuming they were literate; which is also why literacy became a bigger deal in Europe.

There was never any conspiracy to keep the Bible away from regular people. The reluctance against translating the Bible into the common tongue in the West (this wasn't a problem in the East) wasn't helpful, but neither was there some great conspiracy to prevent regular Christians from having access to Scripture. The problem is that Scripture reading continued to be in Latin and unless someone knew Latin they couldn't understand what was being read--that was a point which the Reformers had, and also was adopted by the Counter-Reformation, which is why since Trent Rome has translated Scripture into the common tongue, such as the Douay-Rheims translation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[I'm_Sorry]

-CryptoLutheran

Start another thread? Happy to discuss. And I'm not saying you're wrong.

But not here.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not looking to debate,but a creator,all powerful creator,intelligent beyond belief wouldn't care whether I believed in him or not. He wouldn't create a hell for disbelievers

We might want to consider something here about the implication of the term 'creator,' because the way in which it is used in your statement above is a little ambiguous.

When you say 'creator,' it might make a difference to the nature of our assessment of the extent to which we think this creator would or would not care about us if He is, say, not only a 'creator' of the universe, but in some capacity also the 'creator' of human life--especially if He is aware of His creation of human life.

It might be more accurate to say that, sometimes, we tiny human beings may feel--perhaps very strongly based on our experiences--that the 'creator' doesn't care about us. But, we would be expressing feelings on an individual basis, and our expressions may or may not carry universal implications for the rest of humanity. And our feelings may or may not reflect the actual state of the matter.

Just something to think about.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[No.5]

This post is more of a lament than anything else. All I'm saying is that I felt life was better back when I believed.

I would say that lament is valid. There are many atheist philosophers who have seen the logical outworking of their worldview and proceeded in all honesty to paint a bleak picture. But it does seem to be more than a lament. Could it also be an S.O.S signal from the depths of the heart? I believe there is a way to respond to that signal; by being brave enough to question our assumptions. That includes all worldviews. Only the truth can pass the test of truth.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I would say that lament is valid. There are many atheist philosophers who have seen the logical outworking of their worldview and proceeded in all honesty to paint a bleak picture. But it does seem to be more than a lament. Could it also be an S.O.S signal from the depths of the heart? I believe there is a way to respond to that signal; by being brave enough to question our assumptions. That includes all worldviews. Only the truth can pass the test of truth.

Anthony Flew is one of those people who was an atheist philosopher and finally came around to believing in God. Maybe not a Christian in the end, but he did change his mind. It was a big deal because he was such a leading atheist and prominent intellectual.

 

[octo99]

I would say that lament is valid. There are many atheist philosophers who have seen the logical outworking of their worldview and proceeded in all honesty to paint a bleak picture. But it does seem to be more than a lament. Could it also be an S.O.S signal from the depths of the heart? I believe there is a way to respond to that signal; by being brave enough to question our assumptions. That includes all worldviews. Only the truth can pass the test of truth.

Honestly,no. What faith I once had is shredded.

I'll simply try follow Jesus' example of engaging in loving-kindness.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Honestly,no. What faith I once had is shredded.

That's a shame. I'll actually call it a tragedy. That it was a faith so built upon a rejection of a part of the truth so that for you to follow truth in that rejected area you felt compelled to dump the whole faith. I'm not blaming you. I'm sure there were a lot of well intentioned people in every corner of the story. And that's why it is a tragedy. A rejection of the truths of creation has led to an unbelievable religion.

Two things. First, Creationism is not traditional. Creationism didn't really exist until the 1800's. It is a neology. Christians all along were fully capable of treating the Genesis accounts of creation as allegorical. St. Augustine is but an example of this. He would have looked at you strange if you insisted on a young earth creation. Creationism only became a dogmatic thing for a portion of Christians in the 19th century and later. One can be fully orthodox in the Christian faith and NOT be a Creationist. Except that Creationism has now become dogmatic for maybe 40% of Christianity, predominantly Fundamentalists and evangelicals, who see everyone else as some sort of flaming liberal.

Second, following the example of Jesus, if that's what you can do right now, will indeed be a good thing. But keep checking back to the gospels so you can see who that example of yours really is. Because He asks the fundamental question, which is "Who do you say that I am?" And the answer is way more than just a kind person. If, in your obvious attraction to Jesus, you find yourself drawn to more, you might find that the same Jesus you thought you knew a while back is still calling you, pointing you to a more thoughtful faith, one older than the 1800's, where science and faith really do not conflict.

 

[zippy2006]

This post is more of a lament than anything else. All I'm saying is that I felt life was better back when I believed.

What did you find most beneficial about Christianity? What scientific discoveries do you believe contrast most strongly with Christianity?