Theology, Science, and Origins

[Pats]

So what is a Christian to do?

I hear a lot of TEs say things like, “Theology should not super cede the scientific evidence. If the evidence is contrary to the theology, that interpretation of the scripture is in error.”

This would seem to make good logical sense. However, there are many factors a person has to take into consideration.

The way were raised sort of “hard wires” us sometimes. It is very difficult to take on the task of altering some of the beliefs we were raised with.

For instance, I was raised for many years as a YEC. When I came to this forum, I honestly expected to find some of the arguments I couldn’t find to back up my position as a creationist for some debates a friend and I were having. When I didn’t find those “water tight” arguments so many YECs claim there are against evolution, I started taking another look at things. Not to mention, the many ways there really are to interpret Scripture.

It was very eye opening and a little puzzling that I didn’t realize so many Christians held the TE position. I have studied much about other religions, but not nearly as much as I thought.

I thought I really could start taking a second look at the scientific basis for evolution, continue studying the ways Scripture is interpreted, and continue forming a theological stance on it.

Problem is, I’ve been raised all my life to believe the story of creation as depicted in Genesis is literal. Words are used to teach this, “believing in the Bible, believing in Genesis.” As if, interpreting things a different way is somehow disbelief.

I can know all of this in my head, yet feel like I’m doing the equivalent of peering into a dirty magazine when I read information on evolution. It’s like something inside me says, “It’s wrong.” I know some Christians would argue that it’s the Holy Spirit or God’s still small voice.

But what if it’s just because I was raised to think these things for 20 some years!?

I don’t know. I hope this makes sense. I’d enjoy your input. And advice on some books that deal with the theology of this issue. It seems to me, unless I have it settled in my mind that evolution can be theologically acceptable, I’ll have this nagging in my mind.

---Pats

 

[LewisWildermuth]

It was a water tight case once that birth defects were a sign of Gods displeasure with the family or the individual with said birth defect. This was theologically sound and based on reasonable interpretations of the scripture. However, with advancements in medicine and science in the understanding of birth defects, this position becomes less theologically sound in the light of physical evidence to the contrary. This has not stopped some people from still believing birth defects to be a sign from God.

When I became a Christian I was flooded with YEC teachings, and it took a long time for me to break that cycle of thought. When I finally did, I was not left without faith, but with a stronger faith and awe of Gods creation.

Yes people can be “programmed” to believe things that are not true and finding the truth can feel like a sin at first. That is why I believe Jesus commanded us to test all things, without continual testing we cannot discern if some past teaching or new teaching is good or not. Some teachings are good for a certain level of knowledge, but when one gains further knowledge, that teaching may become harmful. It is up to us to test things continually so that we can tell the difference between what was once a good teaching and what still is a good teaching.

If we fail to continually test we will forever be stuck in a rut and not growing in our faith and knowledge of God and what God has created. Lightning rods would still be tools of the devil, millions would still be dying of easily preventable diseases, and our idea of God would still be the vengeful sky deity as He was portrayed in sections of the OT, not the personal and loving God we worship today.

 

[shernren]

I'm struggling too with the issue of how I can interact meaningfully with a Christian who is theologically resistant to evolution, in a way which edifies, in the context of the origins issue. How do I view the person?

Is his/her faith weaker? But I cannot say that without the evidence of works, and I don't believe anybody has ever had less works because of YECism.
Is his/her faith at the same level, just different? But it feels wrong to be so relativist, since the person believes things which I clearly believe are wrong with evidence which convinces me.
Is his/her faith stronger? I don't think that is the kind of faith the Bible commends.
Or do I refuse to make a value judgment on the strength of his/her faith? But I may not know how to work towards edifying someone I cannot assess.

For now, I believe that Christianity is so much bigger than origins theology, and that if/when God uses me to edify a brother or sister, He can do it in so many other areas if I cannot find a suitable conclusion in this one place. I remind myself that only 2 chapters in the Bible are specifically about creation, while all the chapters in the Bible are about Jesus. But I know that I can't dodge this forever. Even in myself I have some struggles, particularly with the role of Adam and his historicity in the Christian faith.

I know I will have to face this someday, and learn how to love more and more in all that I do - even if it has to be hard love. Love never fails.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I remember vividly when my brother let it slip that he accepted evolution. He'd moved to another province to work at a museum, and this just showed how they'd successfully brainwashed him. I prayed for him incessantly, thinking he'd basically slipped off the face of the Christian earth. A few years later, I found myself accepting why an old earth made a lot of sense, and in another few years I even thought that evolution may be a possibility, at least if God were behind it. My own journey through that territory was scary, but it helped me to know that my brother had navigated parts of it already, and I could see now that he'd done so without losing his faith and love for God. I still pray for him, but now as a brother both physically and spiritually.

My acceptance of the age of the earth came from studying various lines of evidence (ice cores, so-called "polystrate" fossils, dating methods, etc.) while my acceptance of evolution came after studying the early chapters of Genesis more deeply than I had before. I didn't come to think that Genesis pointed to evolution, but rather that it made room for what nature reveals about itself, and once this roadblock was removed, evolution became far easier for me to accept. For a while it still seemed ridiculously improbable, but if God was behind it and working through it, I couldn't see how odds could foil his purposes.

Problem is, I’ve been raised all my life to believe the story of creation as depicted in Genesis is literal. Words are used to teach this, “believing in the Bible, believing in Genesis.” As if, interpreting things a different way is somehow disbelief.

It may be good to look at how inconsistent this viewpoint is when considering the rest of the Bible after the first chapters of Genesis. It helped me to see how portions of the Bible that are less controversially considered historical record differ quite a bit from the Genesis creation accounts. I wrote a short essay at another site that deals with this and other issues, and is footnoted with some passages that demonstrate what I'm talking about.

And advice on some books that deal with the theology of this issue.

I highly recommend The Genesis Debate: three views on the days of creation, edited by David Hagopian. It sidesteps the evolution question (all the presenters reject it and affirm inerrancy), but the framework view presentation within it is quite good, and since the book is primarily about biblical interpretation and not science, the presenters' views on science issues don't matter too much. The framework view basically frees one to accept the revelation within creation on its own merits, without needing to reject some of it on theological grounds.

 

[Willtor]

I know exactly what you mean, Pats. For myself, my family and friends have always said that I "march to the beat of my own drum" but that doesn't mean that I'm not emotionally moved by dramatic changes of perspective, or that they do not continue to affect me, even now. Beyond that, in trying to help friends out of cults, I have occasionally gone to cult meetings (never alone; not recommended for any lurkers). At every stage of preparation, I had "the voice" questioning whether this was the right thing to do, and "didn't I know better" than to walk into a meeting of unintentional wolves. Was it the Spirit or was it me? I think it was me, but either way I was glad for it. At least, in all my efforts, I hadn't become emotionally numb or shattered.

I don't know if you're interested in advice, or whether you just want some empathy. If not, consider this the end of my post. Otherwise,

Willtor's Advice: Don't study evolution, right now. Don't consider yourself a TE. Spend some time in the patristic writings to supplement your devotionals. Discover and rediscover the nature of theology.

The simple fact is, if evolution has occurred/is occurring, then it is so. Either way, humanity has endured countless generations without realizing it. As with all studies of nature, I think the Church fathers would call it a vanity. It is not merely tangential, but skew to what is necessary for knowing God in Christ. If you are not edified by studying evolution, and if you are not called to study it, then don't. At this time, it will only act as a detriment. Focus, instead, on the Character, Will, and Commandment of God. This will never fail to edify.

 

[Pats]

Thanks for your inputer, Shernren. Although, I don't understand. I don't seem to have trouble interacting meaningfully with others who possess entirely different view points on spirituality than mine, including those who are not Christians. How can we share our faith and beliefs with others? spread the good news? If we cannot interact with those who believe something we do not.

Thanks everybody for your input.

Wiltor, no worries. I just decided one label I wore proudly for many years may not really suit me. I'm not in a hurry to jump into another one.

PS I realized today that given my current CF person, I should've entitled this thread, "Theology, Science, and Origins.... OH My!

 

[stumpjumper]

One of the issues that I have found is that most TE's believe in Genesis just as strongly as YEC's... They just usually believe it says, and was meant to say, something different than YEC's do. I believe it is historical in its own way...

It is just not and exhaustive history of our past and I do not read it literally. I still believe that it points to our current and past condition and our propensity to sin... In that sense it is completely true. Regardless, though, of whether or not one believes that Genesis 1-11 is literal history what matters now is how that portion of scripture affects your current view of God and your faith... I don't think the historicty or lack thereof really matters then in that regard...

Here is a good book that we read recently at our Church about applying those teachings in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible to our current life: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0787963879/104-8250801-9419123?v=glance&n=283155

 

[shernren]

Thanks for your inputer, Shernren. Although, I don't understand. I don't seem to have trouble interacting meaningfully with others who possess entirely different view points on spirituality than mine, including those who are not Christians. How can we share our faith and beliefs with others? spread the good news? If we cannot interact with those who believe something we do not.

I think my sentence was unclear. I meant this to be an important part of my statement:

how I can interact meaningfully with a Christian who is theologically resistant to evolution, in a way which edifies, in the context of the origins issue.

How do we talk meaningfully about origins, how do we connect in that area? For some YECs interacting with TEs the answer is quite simple, TEs have little or no faith, or TEs have less faith than me. And I have seen one or two TEs similarly hostile towards YECism - it's a deception, it's corrupting the Chrisian faith, it makes Christians look like idiots. The confrontational model, I'm up there and you're down here and you'd better come up or else! But I don't think this is an appropriate model for me to interact with YECism.

Then there is the acceptance model - you believe something different and you have a right to and I accept that. AiG practices it (inconsistently) when it talks of "frameworks", someone operating from an evolutionist framework has the right to believe in evolutionism given the evidence, someone operating from a Biblical framework has the right to believe in creationism. But I don't think so too.

So I'm not sure how to interact within the context of the origins debate. One thing I try to do here is to listen a lot, try to clarify definitions, see if I can understand the mindset and motivations of a creationist. Maybe there is some way in which evolutionism can satisfy these motivations, if communicated clearly in the right way. But it's an uphill process.

 

[Pats]

One of the issues that I have found is that most TE's believe in Genesis just as strongly as YEC's... They just usually believe it says, and was meant to say, something different than YEC's do. I believe it is historical in its own way...

It is just not and exhaustive history of our past and I do not read it literally. I still believe that it points to our current and past condition and our propensity to sin... In that sense it is completely true. Regardless, though, of whether or not one believes that Genesis 1-11 is literal history what matters now is how that portion of scripture affects your current view of God and your faith... I don't think the historicty or lack thereof really matters then in that regard...

Absolutely. I agree. I could see that even when I completely accepted YECism without a doubt. However, this is not the language many teachers and pastors of a YEC background use when teaching their people. Thus, this is not the way many YECs view the situation.

"The Bible says it, that settles it," is one. They say this, infering that a non-literal view of the scriptures is disbelief in the Bible. They use phrases like, "believing in Genesis," implying that TEs don't. That's what I'm refering to. It's a problem with some YECs I feel. That they're viewing brothers and sisters in Christ as somehow less than themselves for not interprating everything their way.

Here is a good book that we read recently at our Church about applying those teachings in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible to our current life: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0787963879/104-8250801-9419123?v=glance&n=283155

That looks good. Thanks. I recently borrowed Deeper than Darwin, from the library. They don't stalk God after Darwin. I even had to have Deeper than Darwin shipped to the Gilbert branch from Phoenix. Although Gilbert and Mesa public libraries will carry science books on evolution, they have no books on TE theology, it seems. It's not surprising. The government here has been taken over by Mormons. None of the religious books at the library seem to hold any theologies that really fly in the face of Mormons. Big shock there...

I think my sentence was unclear. I meant this to be an important part of my statement:

how I can interact meaningfully with a Christian who is theologically resistant to evolution, in a way which edifies, in the context of the origins issue.

How do we talk meaningfully about origins, how do we connect in that area? For some YECs interacting with TEs the answer is quite simple, TEs have little or no faith, or TEs have less faith than me. And I have seen one or two TEs similarly hostile towards YECism - it's a deception, it's corrupting the Chrisian faith, it makes Christians look like idiots. The confrontational model, I'm up there and you're down here and you'd better come up or else! But I don't think this is an appropriate model for me to interact with YECism.

Yes, this is a different thing altogether from an adult like debate.

Then there is the acceptance model - you believe something different and you have a right to and I accept that. AiG practices it (inconsistently) when it talks of "frameworks", someone operating from an evolutionist framework has the right to believe in evolutionism given the evidence, someone operating from a Biblical framework has the right to believe in creationism. But I don't think so too.

The "my beliefs are ok for me and your beliefs are ok for you" relativity thing is a little too wordly for my blood, too.

So I'm not sure how to interact within the context of the origins debate. One thing I try to do here is to listen a lot, try to clarify definitions, see if I can understand the mindset and motivations of a creationist. Maybe there is some way in which evolutionism can satisfy these motivations, if communicated clearly in the right way. But it's an uphill process.

I think you've answered the question yourself. Interacting meaningfully with Christians of opposing theologies within the context of those theologies should be our goal in participating in forums like OT, IMHO.

You can think some one is wrong, and speak the truth to them in love. This is what Jesus modeled.

 

[theFijian]

It was a water tight case once that birth defects were a sign of Gods displeasure with the family or the individual with said birth defect. This was theologically sound and based on reasonable interpretations of the scripture. However, with advancements in medicine and science in the understanding of birth defects, this position becomes less theologically sound in the light of physical evidence to the contrary. This has not stopped some people from still believing birth defects to be a sign from God.

Who on earth thought birth defects were a judgement from God and that this had any kind of theological basis?! Surely John 9 is enough to kick that idea into touch!

In response to the OP, I'd say it's vital to understand the natue of revelation. We can speak of God's two books of revelation: the Book of his Word (Scripture - special revelation) and the Book of his Works (Creation - general revelation). It is important to remember that both are of God and both reveal something about the nature of God.

Through our studying special revelation we build up a theological understanding of God; through studying general revelation we build up a scientific understanding of God's work of Creation. Both our theology and our science are works of man and can err and will err.

I think it's clear from history that Science has informed and shaped our theology on many occasions.

The other thing to try to grasp is the concept of Methodological Naturalism and Scientific method (see threads in the main forum). To look for natural causes for natural phenomenon not to deny God's hand in creation but simply the aknowledgement that God can and does work through nature to fulfil his will. Emplying the scientific method is nothing more than fulfilling the creation mandate to 'fill the earth and subdue it'.

 

[Alchemist]

Hey Pats,

It is certainly a struggle to accept things that you have been told are wrong for much of your life. Though my "deconversion" from young-earth creationism was rather sudden, I too found it very difficult to accept evolution, especially when all of my Christian friends, and the congregation at my church were telling me evolution was a lie. Often, I wondered even if Christianity made sense at all, when so many people disagreed with it. And that got me thinking... well, if my church was wrong about evolution, why not other things? Why does my church teach that women can't teach, when the Scriptures say that can? Why does my church not recognise infant baptism? Why does my church teach the Trinity, when I can't find it anywhere in Scripture?

I think the thing that got me through it was a realisation: I could be wrong. So often I hear people saying that they are right, "because the Bible says so". Indeed, I have said the same thing in the past. But when we say this, do we really mean to say that we actually know everything that Bible says? The thing is, evolutionary creationists, gap theorists, old earth creationists, young earth creationists, intelligent design theorists... they all say the Bible proves their opinion. But only one of them can be right. The earth can't be 6000 years old, and 4.5 billion years old at the same time!

So yes, I strongly believed in YEC. I thought evolution was against the Bible. I told everyone who would listen that evolution was unscientific. But my militant beliefs didn't change the fact that at the end of the day, I was wrong. That hurt, for sure. And it was hard, because having been a creationist my whole life, I found it very hard to accept things other than it. But I guess I realised, sometimes we make mistakes. Sometimes we accept things as truth, even when they are not. And despite the hardships, how much greater to come to know the truth about God and his majestic creation, than hide myself from it!

And that is the thing to remember Pats. Theology shouldn't be about abstract reasoning and debates. It should be about glorifying the One who allowed us not only to exist, but to come to get to know Him. We can rationalise, debate, and argue all we like. But at the end of the day, whether we think God created through evolution, catastrophes, or simply speaking things into existance, it means nothing unless we believe it, and apply it to our daily lives, like all aspects of theology.

So I guess what I'm saying is, don't study evolution because you want to satisfy your mind, or just find something that "makes sense" for you. Study science because you want to glorify God, and want to love Him the best that you can. Then you will realise that it is Him that gave you the mind to think with, and using your mind, with love, to learn more about the world around you is not a bad thing, but something that can glorify God!

God bless ,
Nick

P.S. Here is a link to two articles for you on the more theological side. I apologise if they seem anti-Protestant at times; the articles were written by an Eastern Orthodox priest and deacon for an Orthodox audience. But I think they do an excellent job at explaining why science and Christianity do not conflict, and why theistic evolution is fundamentally different from atheism.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/ort_creation.htm

 

[steen]

I came from the other end. Solid science background, Solid Lutheran, Danish upbringing and a leaving Faith behind when I felt it was to dogmatic and out of touch with reality.

Now, I have been rediscovering my faith over the last decade or so, accepting that just because I saw a lot of what I considered to be lies, it wasn't God's fault.

But it has given me a different perspective on YEC. I see YEC as basically having robbed me of 15 years of a relationship with God, and I am angry about it. I am still bitter and am having a hard time showing any kind of patience when the claims against science are running high and fast. It just pushes to many buttons. It bothers me when YEC make the same claim time after time, even though it has been disproved. It bothers me when YEC tries to make arguments about science, showing that they have absolutely no clue at all what the science says to begin with

It angers me when YEC deliberately make the same claim time after time even after they are presented with evidence that they asked for to begin with. My only way to handle this is to put people on ignore. Else, I fear my anger comes back in full force and I will reject everything that YEC stands for. I don't want to reject God because of YEC, but it is hard sometimes. When I directly observe what I see as flat-out deception, flat out bearing false witness, then I really am not having a good day.

So people struggle over this from many different directions. The C&E debate really is a flashpoint that drives people in both directions.

 

[Mallon]

No matter what you label yourself, Pats, I admire your willingness to ask questions and to challenge yourself.
My position on the issue of origins has long remained a fuzzy one, and has only lately come to crystallize. I was raised Lutheran, and taught the fundamental 6-day creation model in Sunday School. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on which side of the fence you're on), I never outgrew my interest in dinosaurs and everything prehistoric. I went on to study science and palaeontology in highschool and university, and began exposing myself to the science of evolutionary theory. It didn't take long before I realized the explanatory power behind the theory, but I was hesitant to let go of my belief in the possibility of a young earth for fear that I might somehow unintentionally smite God or lose my faith. Then I read a book, coauthored by both a Christian palaeontologist and a Christian pastor, that taught me that it is possible to subscribe to evolution AND have an edifying relationship with God at once. I've mentioned it here before, and I hope I'm not beating a dead horse by mentioning it here again, but that book was Paradigms on Pilgrimage by Stephen Godfrey and Christopher Smith. I'm looking forward to finally meeting Stephen this fall at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology where I can thank him for opening my eyes!

 

[Pats]

theFijian, Alchemist, steen, and Mallon

I can't possible post all of the responses that come to mind. So, I'll sum up...

Christianity has been a very deep and meaningful part of my life for as long as I can remember. From about the age of 20, I started questioning my spiritual views, investigating the why's and wherefore's of what I believe and what I accept to be true, and why I do the things I do, religious and otherwise.

Since the time I feel that I finaly stretched my wings and a Christian, I embarked on a journey of exploration. I wanted examine my beliefs, see if they stood up to the test, and change those that don't.

As I explained to my 12 year old son, when I began to talk with him about my new views on origins, I am not going around changing what I believe. I am a Christian and I trust in God, beyond that, I have simply been on a journey of growing and learning, seeking out truth.

I hope I never decide that I've found all the answers

(There's more I have to say on this, but my brain hurts from not getting enough sleep lately, so I'll post more laters. )

 

[Q]

I came from the other end. Solid science background, Solid Lutheran, Danish upbringing and a leaving Faith behind when I felt it was to dogmatic and out of touch with reality.

Now, I have been rediscovering my faith over the last decade or so, accepting that just because I saw a lot of what I considered to be lies, it wasn't God's fault.

But it has given me a different perspective on YEC. I see YEC as basically having robbed me of 15 years of a relationship with God, and I am angry about it. I am still bitter and am having a hard time showing any kind of patience when the claims against science are running high and fast. It just pushes to many buttons. It bothers me when YEC make the same claim time after time, even though it has been disproved. It bothers me when YEC tries to make arguments about science, showing that they have absolutely no clue at all what the science says to begin with

It angers me when YEC deliberately make the same claim time after time even after they are presented with evidence that they asked for to begin with. My only way to handle this is to put people on ignore. Else, I fear my anger comes back in full force and I will reject everything that YEC stands for. I don't want to reject God because of YEC, but it is hard sometimes. When I directly observe what I see as flat-out deception, flat out bearing false witness, then I really am not having a good day.

So people struggle over this from many different directions. The C&E debate really is a flashpoint that drives people in both directions.

I would advice you to accept your past,as it is the path you had to take,we all have moments we would like to change past,but accepting it gives us freedom .
Jesus talked about focusing on now,not then or next,and it makes a perseft sense,as there is nothing we can do about past,and future is not guaranteed.

I think it would help if you realise,that YEC is based on faith,not science,so you can not mix those two together.

You can supply your knowledge and opinion if wanted,but you can't force it on anyone.People have their own paths and make their own mistakes,choices,etc...and it is good that way

 

[steen]

I would advice you to accept your past,as it is the path you had to take,we all have moments we would like to change past,but accepting it gives us freedom .
Jesus talked about focusing on now,not then or next,and it makes a perseft sense,as there is nothing we can do about past,and future is not guaranteed.

I think it would help if you realise,that YEC is based on faith,not science,so you can not mix those two together.

The problem is that the YEC don't remember that. I have a deep anger everytime I see YEC makes claims about how "science says .." or claim that "this is scientifically correct" or "The Bible is scientifically accurate" etc. I realize what YEC is about. That doesn't change their actions, though.

You can supply your knowledge and opinion if wanted,but you can't force it on anyone.People have their own paths and make their own mistakes,choices,etc...and it is good that way

And that would be fine and dandy, as long as they don't impose their false claims on me. Because that's right back to reminding me of how they pushed me away from God. It makes me want to give all religions the finger and go live with God alone, withdrawn from the lies and hypocricy.

(Sorry, didn't mean to highjack the tread and make it about me. I deal with my own demons myself.)

 

[Q]

The problem is that the YEC don't remember that. I have a deep anger everytime I see YEC makes claims about how "science says .." or claim that "this is scientifically correct" or "The Bible is scientifically accurate" etc. I realize what YEC is about. That doesn't change their actions, though.

It is up to them to sort their own problems,blind faith may seem wrong to you,but it suits others.
You can try to realise that your views are seen as attacks on what they believe in,what they see as perfect word of God.
Some people need to have that security,let them be,and
focus on your own path and how you can become an example of a christian-christlike person.

And that would be fine and dandy, as long as they don't impose their false claims on me. Because that's right back to reminding me of how they pushed me away from God. It makes me want to give all religions the finger and go live with God alone, withdrawn from the lies and hypocricy.

Why not see the positive side,that your time of searching actualy brought you to seek deeper and more personal faith.




Religions do not suit everyone,and I personaly would not subscribe to any religion,as those are simply other people perceptions of divine,other people interpretations.
This does not mean I would deny other people to choose the religion,path they find the best.

Anger and hostility come from fear,and fear is what steals your freedom.

 

[steen]

It is up to them to sort their own problems,blind faith may seem wrong to you,but it suits others.
You can try to realise that your views are seen as attacks on what they believe in,what they see as perfect word of God.

And their words are attacks on the Science that I live with. It goes both ways here. If creationists stopped making false claims and misrepresenting science, then there wouldn't be a problem.

Some people need to have that security,let them be,and
focus on your own path and how you can become an example of a christian-christlike person.

Ah, let them malign and don't talk back. be a good little boy and be seen but not heard? Or are you saying that creationists are so fragile that we have to let them be and pat them on the head and say "there, there" letting them live in their own delusions?

I don't see any other meaning in your words.

If a person frequents a discussion forum, then discussions take place. If people are not truthful in discussions, then these are not discussions. And when deny people their voice, their ability to defend their views and challenge those who that are seen as in error, then you censor them. When you do so one-sidedly, then there is a serious problem. Then that censorship becomes an issue.

Why not see the positive side,that your time of searching actualy brought you to seek deeper and more personal faith.

Has it? What it has shown me so far is stark dishonesty in religion.

Religions do not suit everyone,and I personaly would not subscribe to any religion,as those are simply other people perceptions of divine,other people interpretations.

Ah, forsake God? yes, I am close as it is becoming more and more clear what not forsaking God means.

This does not mean I would deny other people to choose the religion,path they find the best.

As long as they don't attack me or lie to me in the process.

Anger and hostility come from fear,and fear is what steals your freedom.

Did you tell that to the creationists?

 

[Q]

And their words are attacks on the Science that I live with. It goes both ways here. If creationists stopped making false claims and misrepresenting science, then there wouldn't be a problem.

Science is neutral,and human understanding of he world
is miniscule.Some people choose to ignore science and rather believe in something,others
decide to become fanatical about some scientific field,
would be nice if most people found a healthy balance,but human nature is different.
I have seen many formerly fundamental religious people become fanatical oponents of religion,it shows that it is personaliy rather than religion responsible for people actions.

Ah, let them malign and don't talk back. be a good little boy and be seen but not heard? Or are you saying that creationists are so fragile that we have to let them be and pat them on the head and say "there, there" letting them live in their own delusions?

Talking back and being aggressive and rude are not the same thing.I am all for discussion,but I disagree with name calling and attacking other people.

I don't see any other meaning in your words.

The meaning was,to be a positive example as christian,one has to become huble,patient and kind,rather than expect of others perfect behaviour,one has to work on their own behaviour first.

If a person frequents a discussion forum, then discussions take place. If people are not truthful in discussions, then these are not discussions. And when deny people their voice, their ability to defend their views and challenge those who that are seen as in error, then you censor them. When you do so one-sidedly, then there is a serious problem. Then that censorship becomes an issue.

Whne you joined here,you were asked to read the rules,and agree with them.
As long as you respect those,you have no worries.

Has it? What it has shown me so far is stark dishonesty in religion.

That is a progress too IMO.Religions have people behind,and one has to find often the hard way,that people like o preach,but don't like to live by their own preaching.

Ah, forsake God? yes, I am close as it is becoming more and more clear what not forsaking God means.

You seem to jump to conclusions too quickly.
Religions are human made concepts,and have very little
if anything to do with God IMO.

As long as they don't attack me or lie to me in the process.

Why do you keep worrying about others,instead of examining your own behaviour?
I am sure it would help you if you tried to replace anger with kindnes,hostility with patience,and pride with modesty.