Why would a good God design a world of death?

[er72]

Internal clues, literary style. Although I do deplore categorizing of "true" and "made up" - a historic-style narrative can be made up, and a poem can be stylized truth. And note, I said "Genesis ONE is a poem," not the entirety of Genesis. You simply can't look at it as a homogeneous document - as a matter of fact, point me to any work of literature that contains only one literary style within it. I'm assuming that if you have a psychology degree (another note, evolutionary psychology is quite different from evolutionary science), you had to take at least a few courses in literature as part of general education.

I'll get right on that. Anything else?

If you're truly interested, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview by Meredith Kline is a good place to start.

Noted.

 

[Melethiel]

Well, if I was going to become an atheist, then shouldn't you be trying to save me? (Of course, it's spurious to say so on your part, and assumes I'm going to accept your ideology you call evolution... and frankly, I don't see that happening.)

It's actually against the rules here, to accuse someone of that. Especially when they are saying otherwise. So... is that your final position on my walk with God (since you have chosen to be judge of my relationship with Christ, and to be judge of my soul)?

Here's what I think: Christians should stop judging other people who argue better than they do. The end.

Crow victory without engaging the argument...well done. I'm totally convinced you know what you're talking about now.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Well, if I was going to become an atheist, then shouldn't you be trying to save me?

Well most of the Christians here have been trying to presuade you there is some compatability between religion and evolution.

It's actually against the rules here, to accuse someone of that. Especially when they are saying otherwise. So... is that your final position on my walk with God (since you have chosen to be judge of my relationship with Christ, and to be judge of my soul)?

Erm, I'm taking the 5th.

Here's what I think: Christians should stop judging other people who argue better than they do. The end.

Indeed.

 

[er72]

Now that you've judged me, you have effectively ruled out anything you could have said.

So, have a good one.

 

[Mallon]

Dawkins is right.

Well, I suppose if you agree with Dawkins about the relationship between science and faith, you're bound to come to the conclusion that science explains away God. I'm sorry you find such a god-of-the-gaps theology convincing. I guess you have no choice but to reject science if that's the stance you take.

 

[er72]

Well, I suppose if you agree with Dawkins about the relationship between science and faith, you're bound to come to the conclusion that science explains away God. I'm sorry you find such a god-of-the-gaps theology convincing. I guess you have no choice but to reject science if that's the stance you take.

I can respect Dawkins, who holds a Ph.D in Biology and is a world-renowned author, speaker and professor, without necessarily agreeing with everything he says. He is right in some of his assertions, for a man walking out of the light, that is rather impressive. I give credit where it is due.

However, when considering others, who call themselves Christians, I hold them to a higher standard. As ones who are supposed to be God's ambassadours on this earth, I expect them to be blameless, respectable, wise, and to follow the teachings of Jesus. Unfortunately, my faith appears to be grievously misplaced in that regard, only further pushing me away from Christians and their religion.

 

[Melethiel]

Jesus never talked about evolution...

 

[Mallon]

I can respect Dawkins, who holds a Ph.D in Biology

You're not agreeing with his biology, though. In fact, you patently reject his biology. You're agreeing with his philosophy of science and his characterization of the Christian God, which he has zero formal training in. Few philosophers of science that I know take him very seriously in that respect (Michael Ruse comes to mind).

However, when considering others, who call themselves Christians, I hold them to a higher standard. As ones who are supposed to be God's ambassadours on this earth, I expect them to be blameless, respectable, wise, and to follow the teachings of Jesus. Unfortunately, my faith appears to be grievously misplaced in that regard, only further pushing me away from Christians and their religion.

Maybe you should place your faith in Christ rather than Christians.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I can respect Dawkins, who holds a Ph.D in Biology and is a world-renowned author, speaker and professor, without necessarily agreeing with everything he says. He is right in some of his assertions, for a man walking out of the light, that is rather impressive. I give credit where it is due.

However, when considering others, who call themselves Christians, I hold them to a higher standard. As ones who are supposed to be God's ambassadours on this earth, I expect them to be blameless, respectable, wise, and to follow the teachings of Jesus. Unfortunately, my faith appears to be grievously misplaced in that regard, only further pushing me away from Christians and their religion.

I don't understand this: one the one hand you're disappointed that Christians seem to be 'favouring science above God' and rejecting the Bible, and on the other hand you say you respect Dawkins because he's a scientist who doesn't 'sit on the fence' - despite the fact I've mentioned he's too lazy to actually try and study theology.

So is being a scientist who bears a petty grudge against religion more admirable than being a Christian who reconciles evolution with faith?

 

[er72]

You're not agreeing with his biology, though. In fact, you patently reject his biology. You're agreeing with his philosophy of science and his characterization of the Christian God, which he has zero formal training in. Few philosophers of science that I know take him very seriously in that respect (Michael Ruse comes to mind).


Maybe you should place your faith in Christ rather than Christians.

You believe one needs to have "training" to know God? This is why I am not a religious person. (I can imagine that other posters who accused me of not being a "Christian" are saying 'I knew it!' as we speak. Too bad for them, being religious is not synonymous with being a follower of Jesus Christ.)

Anyhow, I'm not a philosopher, and frankly, the phrase "philosopher of science" sounds plain bizarre to me. Science is one branch of existence. A very bare-bones, naturalistic field that has nothing to do with the supernatural. Philosophy, however, is entirely subjective (unlike science, which is entirely objective as much as possible), so combining the two is an odd Frankenstein creature that ought not to exist. The same is true for combining science with religion or 'faith'. They are entirely separate fields.

I have asked questions in how to even try combining science and faith, and all I have heard is "You can't interpret Genesis literally." And my response is simple: Then what *am* I to take "literally?" Since I'm being told to pick and choose what to believe (as dictated by science), I say why stop there? Why not just reject the entire Bible itself?

And if I had to have faith in any Christians as an example of how to live, or what to believe, I would turn into anything but a Christian tomorrow! I'm with Gandhi on his thoughts towards Christians. I praise atheists because at least they are CONSISTENT in their beliefs. Christians are all over the place and follow Jesus whenever it is convenient for them, at best. The rest of the time, they couldn't care less. It's embarrassing.

 

[Melethiel]

Theology is not the same as "being religious..."

Believe it or not, Christian doctrine has been very carefully defined over the millenia by people who were far better Christians than any of us. We would all do well to learn from them.

Theology is also necessary to understand if anyone is going to seriously try to argue against religion - something that Dawkins fails to do.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I praise atheists because at least they are CONSISTENT in their beliefs.

Clearly you have never been down to the Society section. You'll see a huge range of various atheists beliefs there - some are moaning self-indulgent nihilists, some believe in helping others and minimising suffering as much as possible and some are Buddhists (yup, they count too). They have a wide range of political, philosophical and personal beliefs. The only thing they agree on is that there is no God.

 

[er72]

Theology is not the same as "being religious..."

Believe it or not, Christian doctrine has been very carefully defined over the millenia by people who were far better Christians than any of us. We would all do well to learn from them.

Theology is also necessary to understand if anyone is going to seriously try to argue against religion - something that Dawkins fails to do.

I completely disagree.

And I wouldn't exactly call misogynists and self-mutilators to be "better Christians than we." But whatever.

Religion collapses on its own head, when one studies enough of it. To "carefully define" or "formulate" any man-made dogma and creed is not an achievement in spirituality. It is simply a way of consolidating one's religious hierarchy that you've established. Religion is (often, though, not always) a business. Obviously one needs a coherent set of tenets to appeal to people and to maintain the flow of time.

You can do well to learn your dogmas, creeds, church councils, doctrines, additions to the Bible, man-made formulae and whatnot, but in the end, that has little to do with knowing God.

 

[Mallon]

You believe one needs to have "training" to know God?

Certainly. The Bible regularly speaks about the training and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:4) -- in fact, the Bible explicitly tells us that's why it was written (2 Tim 3:16). Yet you and Dawkins appear to agree that the Bible was written to teach us about science and history, which is why you both feel that the Bible must be rejected if science contradicts it.

 

[Melethiel]

And I wouldn't exactly call misogynists and self-mutilators to be "better Christians than we." But whatever.

You would call great saints such as Paul, Polycarp, Ignatius, Augustine, Benedict, etc "misogynists and self-mutilators?" I really question whether you know what you are talking about or are just spewing atheist propaganda.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I completely disagree.

And I wouldn't exactly call misogynists and self-mutilators to be "better Christians than we." But whatever.

Religion collapses on its own head, when one studies enough of it. To "carefully define" or "formulate" any man-made dogma and creed is not an achievement in spirituality. It is simply a way of consolidating one's religious hierarchy that you've established. Religion is (often, though, not always) a business. Obviously one needs a coherent set of tenets to appeal to people and to maintain the flow of time.

You can do well to learn your dogmas, creeds, church councils, doctrines, additions to the Bible, man-made formulae and whatnot, but in the end, that has little to do with knowing God.

Because clearly you have studied the history of doctrine and can therefore make such an assessment. When you can tell me the difference between the Via Antiqua and the Via Moderna, or can tell me the differences between Monophysitism and Miaphysitism, get back to me on whether or not you think any of that stuff is useful. Because until you've actually studied it for yourself, you're in about as much position to say that as a person saying the moon is made of cheese because they've never been there.

 

[crawfish]

You believe one needs to have "training" to know God?

Certainly, you don't need training to "know God", but if there is no further to go then of what use is bible study or listening to a sermon?

This is why I am not a religious person. (I can imagine that other posters who accused me of not being a "Christian" are saying 'I knew it!' as we speak. Too bad for them, being religious is not synonymous with being a follower of Jesus Christ.)

While I agree somewhat, "religion" is simply "spirituality in community". You cannot fully experience God's purpose of your life if you are not part of a community. When you avoid "religion" because you want to avoid Christians, you sacrifice the power of God to work through you.

Too often, I see this as an excuse for Christians to avoid responsibility. They blame others, but in reality it is their feelings of superiority that are pulling the strings. Dealing with fallen people, particularly Christians, can be an act of humility.

I have asked questions in how to even try combining science and faith, and all I have heard is "You can't interpret Genesis literally." And my response is simple: Then what *am* I to take "literally?" Since I'm being told to pick and choose what to believe (as dictated by science), I say why stop there? Why not just reject the entire Bible itself?

Again - the bible is not a single book, it is a library of books. Not all books are written for the same purpose. There are multiple genres. They are written with unique worldviews, cultures, and literary methods. Just because I see that one verse is not literal history doesn't mean that another one is not as well.

And if I had to have faith in any Christians as an example of how to live, or what to believe, I would turn into anything but a Christian tomorrow! I'm with Gandhi on his thoughts towards Christians. I praise atheists because at least they are CONSISTENT in their beliefs. Christians are all over the place and follow Jesus whenever it is convenient for them, at best. The rest of the time, they couldn't care less. It's embarrassing.

Consistent? You don't know many atheists, do you? They are every bit as divided as we are; perhaps it's less noticeable because there are few organized groups of atheists. They are united in one thing: an unbelief in God. We should be united in our belief in Christ, despite any other differences we might have.

 

[theFijian]

You can do well to learn your dogmas, creeds, church councils, doctrines, additions to the Bible, man-made formulae and whatnot, but in the end, that has little to do with knowing God.

And who is this 'God' of which you speak? What is he like? Your problem is that to 'know' God you must find some way of defining what he is like, and when you try to define what he is like you have in an instant created your own creed. Creeds have been used by the church for centuries because it is widely understood that you cannot come to 'know God' without forumlating some statement of what God is like.

 

[yourstrulyjulie]

I had a college class at a Christian school about science and faith. They presented many views about creation and science, and basically let us decide which we believed. I definitely came out of the class seeing that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I see no reason that God can't have created the world and evolution, as long as you don't take Genesis literally. If you keep the mindset that God gives us the knowledge we NEED to know for salvation, rather than every detail, there is no conflict. What difference does it make to us if the world was created in 6 days or not? Why does it matter if the world is 6000 years old, or millions? All you really need to know is that God created it good, and that we need to trust him. Keep an open mind about science, and biblical interpretations, and do a lot of research before deciding that there is no way one can be a Christian and a scientist.

 

[Assyrian]

sounds like a good school