Christianity and Science/Medicine

[Superman DO]

Of course, this dilemma has been around since the times of Galileo and Copernicus, but for several years, I have had a personal struggle in this war. While I have no idea how appropriate this thread is for SDN, but I cannot turn to my family, or even my fiancee, due to their dogmatic view of Christianity. Hopefully, a few of your can provide some enlightening opinions on that matter. . . .

I was raised in the Bible Belt, and naturally, I was fed the Christian doctrine my entire childhood. I was unwavering in my beliefs, and blindly assumed them to be true because that was all I ever known; however, as I have grew older, I have really questioned everything that has been told to me. I do not see this as a bad thing, and we ought to question what as been told to us, whether that is religion or information being delivered to us in our classes. Of course, this has not set well with my family and my fiancee.

I would consider myself an Agnostic. My mind is constructed to doubt and ask questions, and to base my beliefs on logic and evidence. It is not that I do not want to trust those values and beliefs that were instilled into me when I was younger, I just need logic and evidence to validate them. So much of Christianity is based on blind faith and that the Bible provides unquestionable truth; yet, it provides no physical evidence to back up its belief system. My scientific mind just cannot do that. . .how do you people of faith also embrace science? I do not intend this statement to bash you or start some flame war. . .I just really am looking for answers.

Also, has anyone been apart of a committed relationship in which your views disagree with those of your significant other's? What about with your family? How do you manage it? Anyways, sorry that this was so long, I just really need some enlightenment about some things. Thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TheTinker]

I am a practicing Catholic who also questions a lot; I feel like it helps strengthen my beliefs. The only advice I can give you is this: if you are close with any doctors, ask them for their views about faith and science. I was close with the chief of surgery at a local hospital, asked him about this, and was really happy with his answer!

 

[Poliscidoc]

Of course, this dilemma has been around since the times of Galileo and Copernicus, but for several years, I have had a personal struggle in this war. While I have no idea how appropriate this thread is for SDN, but I cannot turn to my family, or even my fiancee, due to their dogmatic view of Christianity. Hopefully, a few of your can provide some enlightening opinions on that matter. . . .

I was raised in the Bible Belt, and naturally, I was fed the Christian doctrine my entire childhood. I was unwavering in my beliefs, and blindly assumed them to be true because that was all I ever known; however, as I have grew older, I have really questioned everything that has been told to me. I do not see this as a bad thing, and we ought to question what as been told to us, whether that is religion or information being delivered to us in our classes. Of course, this has not set well with my family and my fiancee.

I would consider myself an Agnostic. My mind is constructed to doubt and ask questions, and to base my beliefs on logic and evidence. It is not that I do not want to trust those values and beliefs that were instilled into me when I was younger, I just need logic and evidence to validate them. So much of Christianity is based on blind faith and that the Bible provides unquestionable truth; yet, it provides no physical evidence to back up its belief system. My scientific mind just cannot do that. . .how do you people of faith also embrace science? I do not intend this statement to bash you or start some flame war. . .I just really am looking for answers.

Also, has anyone been apart of a committed relationship in which your views disagree with those of your significant other's? What about with your family? How do you manage it? Anyways, sorry that this was so long, I just really need some enlightenment about some things. Thanks

I also was born in the "bible belt", I was raised baptist and was a bible beating baptist at that. Hell I also go to a Baptist undergrad. My entire family is baptist and I have the exact same problem as you so don't feel that your alone. I just take what others say at face value, if I am home I will go to church with my family and sit through the 2 hours and attempt to understand or even believe. My ex finance was a die hard bible beating baptist and as you can see from the "ex" title it didn't work. That wasn't because of the faith part but for different reasons. My mom is fine with my questioning faith and as for my dad we really never talk about it.

I think you have to be your own person and live the way you want to live. I live my life being nice/good to people. I believe in a higher power of some sort but I dont follow the bible's version of what happened.

So the moral of the story is that if you approach your parents or significant other and talk to them about it they should understand you and will probably except you.

 

[Firewalkwithme]

Of course, this dilemma has been around since the times of Galileo and Copernicus, but for several years, I have had a personal struggle in this war. While I have no idea how appropriate this thread is for SDN, but I cannot turn to my family, or even my fiancee, due to their dogmatic view of Christianity. Hopefully, a few of your can provide some enlightening opinions on that matter. . . .

I was raised in the Bible Belt, and naturally, I was fed the Christian doctrine my entire childhood. I was unwavering in my beliefs, and blindly assumed them to be true because that was all I ever known; however, as I have grew older, I have really questioned everything that has been told to me. I do not see this as a bad thing, and we ought to question what as been told to us, whether that is religion or information being delivered to us in our classes. Of course, this has not set well with my family and my fiancee.

I would consider myself an Agnostic. My mind is constructed to doubt and ask questions, and to base my beliefs on logic and evidence. It is not that I do not want to trust those values and beliefs that were instilled into me when I was younger, I just need logic and evidence to validate them. So much of Christianity is based on blind faith and that the Bible provides unquestionable truth; yet, it provides no physical evidence to back up its belief system. My scientific mind just cannot do that. . .how do you people of faith also embrace science? I do not intend this statement to bash you or start some flame war. . .I just really am looking for answers.

Also, has anyone been apart of a committed relationship in which your views disagree with those of your significant other's? What about with your family? How do you manage it? Anyways, sorry that this was so long, I just really need some enlightenment about some things. Thanks

Just like you mentioned, this is quite a challenging topic. I was born and raised Pentecostal, grew up and loving the Sciences as well, and even get questioned a whole lot on how I deal with the two. This is what I tell them and what I'll say to you. Yes, we're all human and we're bound to question the nature of things. Most of us are bound by what we see in order to believe, therefore, do no question those who actually do have faith and are bound by it. And please, don't call it "blind faith" it's called faith for a reason!

Science and Religion are meant to go hand in hand. Even the famous Einstein himself said "Science without Religion is lame. Religion without Science is blind." These two are meant to complement each other. God made man in His image and likeness, He even placed humans above all, principalities, powers, even His angels. I'm not trying to be 'preachy' here, but it only makes sense that God would give us humans the ability to understand this complex world we live in. In a way, we as intelligent human will continue to discover a lot about a world and nature because God has given us the ability to do so and understand, not to question His existence.

 

[Bayonetwork]

My mind is constructed to doubt and ask questions, and to base my beliefs on logic and evidence. It is not that I do not want to trust those values and beliefs that were instilled into me when I was younger, I just need logic and evidence to validate them. So much of Christianity is based on blind faith and that the Bible provides unquestionable truth; yet, it provides no physical evidence to back up its belief system. My scientific mind just cannot do that. . .how do you people of faith also embrace science?

First of all, never base your personal faith on what other people tell you. Your salvation is entirely between you and God, no one else. Its ALL about God and your relationship with Him.

Secondly, Christianity is not based entirely on blind faith, just because you can't physically see God does not mean he doesn't exist. Can you see gravity, radiowaves, feelings, or the rest of the infinite universe? No you cant yet I don't suspect you question their existences either, nor take them for granite.

Just think, we are somehow standing on an enormous (yet infinitesimally small) planet that is rotating at 1000+ mph, which is then orbiting around the Sun at over 67,000 miles per hour. Earth is also sitting in an infinite universe. If anything functionally was different about earth even by a fraction, we would not be here. Yet we think this is all normal. It somehow evolved this way. The very fact we are standing here living, breathing, interacting is nothing short of a miracle, yet we still have the audacity to claim it all "JUST STARTED OUT OF NOTHING."

On a more personal level we have this thing called love. We can experience it in many different ways, we all desire it in some way or another, yet we cannot physically touch it or give a biological or physiological reason as to how it works, it just exists. In addition, love is something we are entirely dependent on something else for. Love is also something we cant quite seem to ENTIRELY fill up on. No matter how much some people love their significant others, they still feel there could be just a little more to be had.
Who created love and why is it here? Has it always been here? Could it exist without hate? Would it be the same if we didn't have our own free will to pursue it?

What makes sense to me is that God is love (and also the creator of the universe), and out of love we have been given everything we need in order to love Him back. And that is ALL he requires of us.

If you had the power to create anything and do anything you could ever imagine, would you do it alone or would you want someone to do it with?

 

[Superman DO]

It is nice that I am not the only one who has personal battle raging on inside of them. I do not have a problem in the existence of a God, nor do I have a problem with God coming down in the form of a mortal to die for the moral imperfections of humanity. I even do not have a problem with a divine being being able to resurrect himself from the dead. After all, it would all be considered Divine. I guess what I have the most problem with is the Bible itself. . . it bothers me that the collection of the books were voted upon by some council 300 years after the establishment of Christianity. It also bothers me that the descriptions of Jesus were written some 30 years after his death by individuals who we are told received their words from God. After all, and this is in no means an offense to Mormons, but the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith supposedly being enlightened from God, yet Christians would write this off as some hodge podge. The Bible is an integral cornerstone to the Christian faith, but yet, I have such a hard time believing the truth of it. How can I possibly be affiliated with a religion that I have known my whole life when I find such problems with part of it's foundation. It definitely is not that I do not want to, I just find it illogical.

I also find it hardly fair that God presented himself physically so frequently in the ancient days, yet, why am I not blessed with seeing a talking, burning bush or angels? Now, I know that life is not fair, but why can I not have physical evidence too? I also wonder what if I am wrong about all the questions that I may have and it may just screw me in the end. Sometimes, I wonder if I should just take Pascal's wager and rid myself of this plague that has tortured my mind for the past few years. Thanks for all who have commented so far.

 

[Melicopter]

You cannot prove or disprove God with science. You may be able to disprove certain dogma you were raised with, but that's another story.

At the end of the day, it is easier for me to believe that everything came from something than that everything came from nothing. That simple. The rest? I choose what to have faith in and understand that I may be wrong.

As for the relationship, I would wait until you know where you stand before getting married. I have different views on religion than my husband and it is very hard. Even with my loose interpretation of my faith, it is very hard to share a life with someone with a drastically different worldview. VERY HARD. If she's conservative? Yikes. I would definitely rethink that, or just put it off while you figure out where you stand. You cannot pretend to be something you're not, and neither can she. Marriage is sharing of a life, and if she thinks life is about God and you don't, then you have to wonder what you'll actually be sharing in.

 

[JaggerPlate]

They aren't mutually exclusive IMO. I know religious, agnostic, and atheist docs. Frankly ... I fall into the agnostic leaning toward atheist category, but my parents are pretty religious, and, again, I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[StIGMA]

Hey bud- I have definitely fought with what you are talking about. I came to science first and Christianity second. I am currently working toward medicine and science (PhD) so I can't even try to avoid this!

There are a few things for me -
1) I do not feel science and Christianity are contradictory. Christianity is a personal religion (of course practiced as a group), and every Christian finds Christ on their own (or rather, Christ finds you and you submit). Do not be discouraged by how others tell you to practice (unless it is an obvious contradiction to scripture, which working as a doctor/scientist is not).
2) I consider medicine/science a job. We are commanded to work while we are on earth. My LIFE however is lived through my Christianity. I am a christian 100% of the time, a doctor/student part of the time. It follows that whatever beliefs I have as a Christian outweigh what I believe as a scientist.
3) Personally, I fully understand evolution, science, etc. and I can make the same conclusions based on evidence as any other scientist -- ie: when I am done training, I will be a fully competent physician and scientist. I can thus understand evolution and how it affects medical science (which it is clearly present in almost every scientific process) but still accept my Christianity as fact. I will teach my kids both, but I will also instruct them why to hold scripture to a higher standard. I do not think evolution/talking about it is sinful, and God may very well have worked through this mechanism. That is for you to discover through the Holy Spirit personally - not for people trying to discourage you. Fact is, we will not know this until we meet the Father himself.

Re: why Jesus was so present in those ancient days but not as present now; well, many pastors will say that the majority of people, even around the Holy Land, did not see Jesus. He was very present to some people, but very absent to a majority of people around that time. He almost exclusively associated with Jews around that time. Miracles also are talked about often in scripture, but over the years that Jesus was with his disciples, were they really that frequent? I have even been told that when Jesus fed the 4000 and also when he fed the 5000, that those people may not have even recognized a miracle took place! He proved himself, but he did not need to prostitute himself out to do so (as the Jewish people in Judges so frequently did to false idols). God is frequent in scripture, but as for active roles, not common in many people's lives as far as overt exposure (ie: the burning bush example). God is present when you look for him ie: in the plagues of Egypt. Why did God do the plagues -- was it to free the slaves? NO! God did not need to do so many plagues to free them, he could have freed them much simpler. It was to make God's glory known to the Egyptians and to the Jews. Everything is in the context of making His glory known -- and what I love about science is that nature itself screams of an architect, which I consider evidence of God's glory.

If you have specific questions that you would like to talk deeper about, please send me a PM! Please pardon my hastily written thoughts.

 

[Firewalkwithme]

I also find it hardly fair that God presented himself physically so frequently in the ancient days, yet, why am I not blessed with seeing a talking, burning bush or angels? Now, I know that life is not fair, but why can I not have physical evidence too? I also wonder what if I am wrong about all the questions that I may have and it may just screw me in the end. Sometimes, I wonder if I should just take Pascal's wager and rid myself of this plague that has tortured my mind for the past few years. Thanks for all who have commented so far.

Here's a quote for you by Albert Camus:
"I'd rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than to live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."

 

[StIGMA]

Here's a quote for you by Albert Camus:
"I'd rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than to live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."

Not to stir any arguments, but that quote is woefully inadequate for a Christian (or person of any faith) on many levels. First, it implies that the only reason to follow religion is for a selfish pursuit of something in the future. Second, it implies that God has nothing to offer us in this life. Third, it is unspecific as to how to live as if there is a God. This may be interpreted in myriad ways.

Walking day-to-day as a Christian, thoughts of being a Christian solely to inherit something later do not cross my mind. On a personal level, I see God clearly working in my life, which stimulates further actions on my part. I grow day to day by studying scripture/living life/struggling with these ideas as well as other parts of life, and I pray through these things. A preacher (hopefully) does not primarily reach out to people by preaching hell. Rather, preaching Jesus through love, forgiveness, brotherly kindness, etc. are much more stimulating (and accurate) topics. We preach Christ, a new life apart from sin, and a personal relationship with God in this life -- all looking forward to the things to come (but not skipping these things, which make Christianity a daily practice ie: 'If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it.'

Paul preached that anyone who wants to live a Godly life will be persecuted. Christianity, past the initial stages of faith/submission, is not easy.

And everyone else who reads that quote may have different ideas of what living like there is a God means to them. It is depressing that people could ponder this question for a second, pretend to believe in a God, and then not pursue any further questions. Religion, of any faith, is quite fascinating.

 

[FutureCTDoc]

As someone who came from a more religiously liberal portion of the country down in to the bible belt, the change has been shocking. People refuse to believe in evolution and believe the earth is only 5000 or so years old. That sort of religion and science can't easily mix. However, more religiously liberal beliefs and science can and do mix. I'm Jewish, I believe in God, however I don't take the Torah literally. Why? The science is flawed. Evolution and a metaphorical view of creation are not mutually exclusive, however to take the 7 days account is wrong. Faith and reason can go hand in hand. However fundamentalism and reason cannot. Superman, doubting is a sign of intelligence, I hold that anyone who has not seriously contemplated and ruminated over the issues of religion and has taken them up unquestioningly to be a fool. Questioning all of this is important. Faith without reflection is the sign of an idiot. While not all people doubt, at least contemplating the implications of faith is important.

As to biblical literalism, it has been outmoded since St. Augustine of Hippo said
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation. – De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [408]
and
With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.– De Genesi ad literam, 2:9

What Augustine is saying is that the bible is an excellent source of moral instruction, however when the scientific implication fly in the face of knowledge they should be viewed metaphorically rather than in the literal sense.

​

​

 

[JaggerPlate]

Here's a quote for you by Albert Camus:
"I'd rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than to live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."

I highly, highly disagree with this ...

I'd rather live my life like a rockstar and apologize later, than abstain from everything awesome - justifying it because I'll go to "heaven" - and rot in the ground with everyone else.

 

[roadrunr]

Here's a quote for you by Albert Camus:
"I'd rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than to live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."

reminds me of a sign i saw at a church once, it said "turn or burn".
i'd rather not beleive in something out of fear that if it is true i will be punished for all of eternity just for not believing. i too was raised christian but even when i was younger i always questioned everything. at some point i realized i didnt have a single reason to believe other than i was raised in that particular religion. i dont know which religion is right, or if there is a right one. maybe they are all different interpretations of the same supreme being. maybe there is no god. i have no way of knowing.

as far as science and religion go, i think they should be kept seperate. believe what you want, but when it comes to science, personal beliefs should be put aside and answers should be sought objectively. the scientific process ends whenever you try to interject god.

 

[roadrunr]

Of course, this dilemma has been around since the times of Galileo and Copernicus, but for several years, I have had a personal struggle in this war. While I have no idea how appropriate this thread is for SDN, but I cannot turn to my family, or even my fiancee, due to their dogmatic view of Christianity. Hopefully, a few of your can provide some enlightening opinions on that matter. . . .

I was raised in the Bible Belt, and naturally, I was fed the Christian doctrine my entire childhood. I was unwavering in my beliefs, and blindly assumed them to be true because that was all I ever known; however, as I have grew older, I have really questioned everything that has been told to me. I do not see this as a bad thing, and we ought to question what as been told to us, whether that is religion or information being delivered to us in our classes. Of course, this has not set well with my family and my fiancee.

I would consider myself an Agnostic. My mind is constructed to doubt and ask questions, and to base my beliefs on logic and evidence. It is not that I do not want to trust those values and beliefs that were instilled into me when I was younger, I just need logic and evidence to validate them. So much of Christianity is based on blind faith and that the Bible provides unquestionable truth; yet, it provides no physical evidence to back up its belief system. My scientific mind just cannot do that. . .how do you people of faith also embrace science? I do not intend this statement to bash you or start some flame war. . .I just really am looking for answers.

Also, has anyone been apart of a committed relationship in which your views disagree with those of your significant other's? What about with your family? How do you manage it? Anyways, sorry that this was so long, I just really need some enlightenment about some things. Thanks

being with someone with different views is only a problem if you're not tolerant of eachothers views. you need to be able to be honest with her and not have to pretend to believe what she does. if she cannot accept being with someone with different beliefs, you do have a serious problem. i watched a friends marriage fall apart for this reason. He converted to mormonism for her, he read the book of mormon and for 3 yrs he really tried to believe. but he really didnt, and at some point you just cant pretend anymore. sad part is he had two kids when they got divorced and she moved out of the state w/ the kids.

 

[randomusername]

I haven’t ever really had a sincere struggle with what you’re talking about, but I do understand what you’re talking about as the thoughts do occasionally come to mind. It sounds like you have no problem accepting that Divine things have or could occur, and that a lot of the doubt comes from issues with church practices and lack of tangible evidence.

As far as the church practices go, you just have to remember that they, as you’ve pointed out, are institutions of men, and that men are fallible creatures. People may very well have included parts of biblical history that didn’t actually occur and left out vital parts that did. Problem being, we’ll never know for certain during this lifetime.

As far as the doubts, I was actually sitting in church a couple of weeks ago (after a multi-year hiatus from attending church while I learned to deal with the fact that churches are manmade and that it was up to me to come up with my own interpretations and figure out how I needed to live my own life without the input of others) and the preacher flat out said that it was perfectly normal to question your faith, that he himself at times found himself questioning things, but that at the end of the day, all it ever did was make his faith stronger.
In regards to there being a lack of tangible evidence or miracles for you, I guess it really boils down to what you think qualifies as evidence and a miracle? Just like there isn’t any evidence to support the existence of God or the accurateness of any religion, there isn’t any evidence to not support the existence of God or the accurateness of any religion. Whichever way you decide to go, you’re going on the faith that either A) There is a God and you’re practicing the correct religion B) There is a God but you don’t know if you’re practicing the correct religion C) There isn’t anything to convince you that God exists and religion (aside from something like Buddhism) is of no use to you D) Something I’ve failed to think of.
In regards to miracles, what qualifies as a miracle? Do only things as extraordinary as a talking-burning bush count as a miracle? Or, does something as "commonplace" like a bullet missing a vital organ or blood vessel by millimeters count as a miracle? Again, this boils down to your own interpretations of what counts as a miracle.

Personally, when it comes to my faith and medicine, I can’t even contemplate how there would be an issue. The major issues that tend to turn faith/religion against science/non-religion (not saying that there aren’t people from religious and non-religious backgrounds on both sides of the debates, because there are) in medicine are things such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia. For those issues, there really isn’t any fool-proof guiding light because it boils down to how you interpret the beliefs of your religion or what you just feel like is the more morally-correct position.

As for science and my faith, I admittedly was raised that they can go hand in hand, but, also as I’ve aged and reflected on it, I still believe they can go hand in hand. I see no reason why God couldn’t have created everything and I see no reason why modern-life couldn’t have arisen through evolution. I mean, the Bible never says how God created anything, just that he did. Also, my understanding is that even in the Christian community, there is much debate as to how long all of this actually took to take place, and here’s the kicker, they don’t know and science can only estimate. Ten years from now, science will be estimating a different number and Christians will still not have a unanimously-decided answer. The only thing that would clear up all of the confusion for certain would be if God appeared and answered the question or if we found a giant inscription in the Earth saying “Made in China, XXXX……. BC.”

What works for me doesn’t work for others and vice versa, and what works for us may not, and dare I say, probably won’t work for you. Ultimately, you just have to do a lot of reflection, thinking (maybe even for years), and perhaps reading arguments from both sides by people more learned than SDNers before you can figure out where you stand one way or another.
Best of luck to you with this, as I know it’s a weighty topic to have on your mind.

 

[tele turnin]

Great question that I am sure many have had to deal with. I echo what many others have said and don't see a conflict with science and religion. As I have learned more about science and how everything works together I am more convinced that somebody out there (God) knew exactly what he was doing when he created all and the subsequent laws that govern the physical universe.

I like how what you mentioned about the bible being put together 300 years after Christ by a large group of men. I am sure that they did the best that they could, but at times I wonder what books/writing may not have made the final vote and what may have unfortunately been lost to us.

I would like to clarify this quote a little bit:

After all, and this is in no means an offense to Mormons, but the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith supposedly being enlightened from God, yet Christians would write this off as some hodge podge.

Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon. It was actually written from 600BC-421AD by people that inhabited the American continent and in it is a written history of God's dealings with these people. What Joseph Smith did through the power of God was translate those records into what we now know as the Book of Mormon. The writings in it were completed some 1400 years before his birth. We also believe the Bible to be the work of God and that both contain the everlasting gospel of Christ. I consider myself a Christian and have read both the Bible and the Book of Mormon many times. I recommend reading both, as they both testify of Christ and both contain many valuable teachings and answers.

 

[bnp07]

The Science of God and The Hidden Face of God are two great books to read for pondering the relationship between science and faith. They are written by a Jewish physicist from MIT.

 

[Daniel565]

Title: The Language of God
Author: Francis Collins - Head of the Human Genome Project & Current Head of the NIH

The author is a devout Christian, and arguably delivered the greatest scientific achievement in modern history - the sequencing of the human genome. While I'm not a Christian, I still hold Doctor Collins in very high regard.

My chief personal reason for not adhering to the current Christian belief system is because I don't accept that fully human and fully divine are compatible. You cannot be both limited and unlimited at the same time. Other than that, I feel that the book is excellent.

 

[FrkyBgStok]

It is good your questioning it. Many people believe simply because they are afraid of going to hell. When you shake this you can look at the stories for what they are worth. When this happens, you see al religions are the same, and they all parallel the myths that came before them. So if you choose to have faith, that's fine. If not, cool.

To the poster saying " if you don't choose God, you better be right."- that logic is severly flawed. If that is how you're living, then logically you need to find the religion that has the worst hell.

People claim the bible is the word of God yet no other book has caused the amount of confusion the bible does. It isn't. It is simply a book with a threat that science can't compete with. The point is, if you do have faith, do it because you think it's right, not because of fear.

And yes, religion is blind faith. We can't see gravity and electromagnetic waves, but we can scientifically prove they exist. We can't do this with a god. So believe whatever YOU want, not what someone says you need to. Religious debates can't be won be either side, so there is no sense in bickering. But question everything (science included). When you question, you seek knowledge only to find wisdom.

 

[ilovebiology]

First of all, never base your personal faith on what other people tell you. Your salvation is entirely between you and God, no one else. Its ALL about God and your relationship with Him.

Secondly, Christianity is not based entirely on blind faith, just because you can't physically see God does not mean he doesn't exist. Can you see gravity, radiowaves, feelings, or the rest of the infinite universe? No you cant yet I don't suspect you question their existences either, nor take them for granite.

Just think, we are somehow standing on an enormous (yet infinitesimally small) planet that is rotating at 1000+ mph, which is then orbiting around the Sun at over 67,000 miles per hour. Earth is also sitting in an infinite universe. If anything functionally was different about earth even by a fraction, we would not be here. Yet we think this is all normal. It somehow evolved this way. The very fact we are standing here living, breathing, interacting is nothing short of a miracle, yet we still have the audacity to claim it all "JUST STARTED OUT OF NOTHING."

On a more personal level we have this thing called love. We can experience it in many different ways, we all desire it in some way or another, yet we cannot physically touch it or give a biological or physiological reason as to how it works, it just exists. In addition, love is something we are entirely dependent on something else for. Love is also something we cant quite seem to ENTIRELY fill up on. No matter how much some people love their significant others, they still feel there could be just a little more to be had.
Who created love and why is it here? Has it always been here? Could it exist without hate? Would it be the same if we didn't have our own free will to pursue it?

What makes sense to me is that God is love (and also the creator of the universe), and out of love we have been given everything we need in order to love Him back. And that is ALL he requires of us.

If you had the power to create anything and do anything you could ever imagine, would you do it alone or would you want someone to do it with?

I completely agree...I go to a private Christian University, so I'm blessed to have my professors and friends on the same level as me with how I feel about science and Christianity. I would recommend the books Science vs. Religion: The 500 Year War. Also, the movie Expelled with Ben Stein is great! It's hard sometimes trying to balance our scientific brain with our faith, but at the same time, the more classes I take, the more I see God in everyone and every thing!

 

[csmmedic]

Perhaps a read of the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins can provide you with some insights. I actually came out of that book a little more agnostic then atheist, sort of the reverse of Dawkin's intentions. However I have little tolerance for dogmatism. It is a deal breaker for me because it breads ignorance and bigotry.

The sections of NOMA (non-overlapping magesteria) should be particularly interesting to you. They are (in my opinion the failed) theories that science and religion are separate, ask separate questions, and can exist together without contradiction.

I have also read a book by David Myers (a psychologist who writes undergrad textbooks for pysch classes) that was very insightful. It had a title read something like "a friendly letter to skeptics and atheists". He is a Christian and a scientist, so this book may be more helpful to you then Dawkin's.

 

[csmmedic]

First of all, never base your personal faith on what other people tell you. Your salvation is entirely between you and God, no one else. Its ALL about God and your relationship with Him.

Secondly, Christianity is not based entirely on blind faith, just because you can't physically see God does not mean he doesn't exist. Can you see gravity, radiowaves, feelings, or the rest of the infinite universe? No you cant yet I don't suspect you question their existences either, nor take them for granite.

Just think, we are somehow standing on an enormous (yet infinitesimally small) planet that is rotating at 1000+ mph, which is then orbiting around the Sun at over 67,000 miles per hour. Earth is also sitting in an infinite universe. If anything functionally was different about earth even by a fraction, we would not be here. Yet we think this is all normal. It somehow evolved this way. The very fact we are standing here living, breathing, interacting is nothing short of a miracle, yet we still have the audacity to claim it all "JUST STARTED OUT OF NOTHING."

On a more personal level we have this thing called love. We can experience it in many different ways, we all desire it in some way or another, yet we cannot physically touch it or give a biological or physiological reason as to how it works, it just exists. In addition, love is something we are entirely dependent on something else for. Love is also something we cant quite seem to ENTIRELY fill up on. No matter how much some people love their significant others, they still feel there could be just a little more to be had.
Who created love and why is it here? Has it always been here? Could it exist without hate? Would it be the same if we didn't have our own free will to pursue it?

What makes sense to me is that God is love (and also the creator of the universe), and out of love we have been given everything we need in order to love Him back. And that is ALL he requires of us.

If you had the power to create anything and do anything you could ever imagine, would you do it alone or would you want someone to do it with?

This is a particularly weak post from someone who probably is a premed or med student. All of your claims can be explained very easily by physics and the evolutionary mechanism that allows humans to recognize patterns. Because all the proposals you make for the existence of god can be just as easily, if not more easily, explained by science, makes them all moot.

The OP is struggling with the intersection of science and religion, and your post really does nothing but expose the dogmatic attitude of many religious people.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

God this debate... Realistically the Christian Dogma is that of believing the bible is the infallible word of God. By believing this your going to see major problems when you have people saying that their was a worldwide flood and that the earth it flat.
Frankly I see nothing wrong with believing in God and Jesus. But if you truly believe in the bible well then your more or less in a position where you have factual evidence versus a book written by human of which derives 30% of its mass from the Egyptian book of the dead and the other amount from a poly blend of Zoroastrianism. It simply is contradictory.

But in the end what do you care what I think. Religion is a topic of which what I and what other people say should be regarded as nothing. So listen to yourself, not to me or anyone in this thread. Because I think you already know the answer inside.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

All I know is I hate those damn mormon's that try to walk up and convert me in the middle of campus.

 

[sarahlopez]

I would definitely read THE EVOLuTION of a CREATIONIST!!!! It is awesome!!!! Just saying.....also a lot of Dr. Hovind's stuff is awesome too!!! I'm not saying you have to believe it but just give it a shot just like you would give the flip side of the coin a shot....with an open mind, that's all!

 

[FrkyBgStok]

"Dr." Hovind is in jail.

 

[WildcatsDoc]

God this debate... Realistically the Christian Dogma is that of believing the bible is the infallible word of God. By believing this your going to see major problems when you have people saying that their was a worldwide flood and that the earth it flat.
Frankly I see nothing wrong with believing in God and Jesus. But if you truly believe in the bible well then your more or less in a position where you have factual evidence versus a book written by human of which derives 30% of its mass from the Egyptian book of the dead and the other amount from a poly blend of Zoroastrianism. It simply is contradictory.

But in the end what do you care what I think. Religion is a topic of which what I and what other people say should be regarded as nothing. So listen to yourself, not to me or anyone in this thread. Because I think you already know the answer inside.

My only correction to your post would be this: Christianity is based around the idea that the Bible is the Word of God, which of course has varying meanings based on the person and denomination of Christianity of which you're speaking. It is not necessarily that it is "infallible", though the meaning of "infallibility" is varying once again depending on interpretation (infallibility of particular verse or infallibility of overall message meant to be gleaned from sound exegesis?). I think for many individuals, both non-Christians and Christians, the popular idea or model of Christian belief is a form of Biblical literalism. This form of understanding and interpretation however is not archetypal for the vast majority of Christians worldwide (Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglican). It really is quite a Western phenomenon found in conservative Protestant circles. This type of hermeneutics gets lots of airplay in the media and popular culture, but I really don't find it representative of how many, if not the majority, of Christians approach their understanding of God in the universe, at least those who have not been influenced by literalist approaches.

I'll add to the book recommendations as well: John Polkinghorne is a particle physicist and an Anglican priest who has written a lot on science and faith. Some books I suggest are Exploring Reality and Belief in God in an Age of Science.

The OP may also take some comfort in the fact that the Big Bang theory was originally proposed by a Roman Catholic priest (a monsignor actually). Science and faith are not incompatible.

 

[tndoc12]

Our God is an awesome God!

 

[andrewsmack05]

Superman DO, I can understand your doubts. But, let me ask you this. Do you believe that you know everything? If no, Do you believe you know half of everything? If no, then do you think God could exist in that half. Also, we can look inside our own bodies for an answer I believe. In our DNA, our genes our coded with information. Several bases, base pairings, and arrangement code for what is to be expressed or inhibited. This all is information. Information does not evolve. Someone had to put it there. Case in point, if you flew to the moon, and discovered that there was an outback steakhouse menu laying on the ground. You pick it up and discover all the types of food on the menu. Naturally you think how did this get here. But you must think that there is information there, someone had to have put it there. Wish I could elaborate more, I have an exam to tend to.

 

[Daedra22]

Even if gods exist, their existence does not validate any particular religion or give us insight into what such a being would think. Anything beyond accepting the possibility of a divine being is purely speculation based on subjective experiences. I abandoned my Christianity for a more open perspective of spirituality; I have my own "suspicions" about what gods might be like, but I do not claim to be certain about any of it. In a rational conversation, I generally act as if there are no gods, since there is no reason to do otherwise. Personal suspicions about spirituality should, I believe, generally be kept out of scientific processes. Even while I was a Christian I was able to do this pretty well.

 

[Bayonetwork]

Even if gods exist, their existence does not validate any particular religion or give us insight into what such a being would think. Anything beyond accepting the possibility of a divine being is purely speculation based on subjective experiences. I abandoned my Christianity for a more open perspective of spirituality; I have my own "suspicions" about what gods might be like, but I do not claim to be certain about any of it. In a rational conversation, I generally act as if there are no gods, since there is no reason to do otherwise. Personal suspicions about spirituality should, I believe, generally be kept out of scientific processes. Even while I was a Christian I was able to do this pretty well.

To add to that..what kind of God would it be if we could predict its exact nature and know exactly what it thinks and is capable of?

People love to get caught up in this "a loving God wouldn't let such and such bad thing happen?" In reality we have NOOOO idea as to the exact meaning of why certain things happen and we should be thankful for that. Gods nature is so far beyond my comprehension, not only because it has to be, but because if it wasn't, then why would I have any need to trust Him.

The big question is, do we really believe that what we believe about God is really real? Do we really believe God is who He says He is?

The good thing about it is that either God is a freaking crazy liar lunatic, or He simply is who He says He is, there is NO in between. In fact it would do God more justice if we believed He was a lunatic liar than somewhere in between.

 

[Daedra22]

To add to that..what kind of God would it be if we could predict its exact nature and know exactly what it thinks and is capable of?

People love to get caught up in this "a loving God wouldn't let such and such bad thing happen?" In reality we have NOOOO idea as to the exact meaning of why certain things happen and we should be thankful for that. Gods nature is so far beyond my comprehension, not only because it has to be, but because if it wasn't, then why would I have any need to trust Him.

The big question is, do we really believe that what we believe about God is really real? Do we really believe God is who He says He is?

The good thing about it is that either God is a freaking crazy liar lunatic, or He simply is who He says He is, there is NO in between. In fact it would do God more justice if we believed He was a lunatic liar than somewhere in between.

I'm not sure how that "adds" to what I said. You're assuming that there's one god, that this god somehow has male characteristics (referring to it as "Him") and that we need to "trust" what he "says." I did not mention trusting anything (actually, quite the opposite). Further, you also assume that gods would somehow care about what happens on earth, with your "why bad things happen" comment. Your point may be distantly related to mine, but I would rather not have my own opinions associated with your assumptions. Just to be clear.

 

[SunDevilDoc]

Religion and science are necessarily contradictory because to be religious you must be a dualist. In science, we know nothing exists other than quarks and other particles.

 

[Daniel565]

Religion and science are necessarily contradictory because to be religious you must be a dualist. In science, we know nothing exists other than quarks and other particles.

That's not strictly true. Here's why.

The field of science is filled with unprovable assumptions; For example,
you cannot prove that g=9.81 in all frames of reference. What you can do is have a set of observations that are consistant with your original assumption. And when you have loads of observations and most of them support your assumption, you fix up the original assumption & call it the Law of gravity.

Likewise, the Theist or Deist would argue that while difficult to definitively prove the prescence of a Deity, you can certainly point to observations in the Universe that are consistant with that assumption.

Also, there are many cases where you need to presuppose something which transgresses matter, time & space like the Big Bang - where time, matter and space themselves came into existance. I think that this entity that transgresses time, matter & space is what Deists & Theists refer to as God, Deus, Yahwe, Allah, etc.

Usually, the reply would then be - so what caused this first cause?
The answer is simply - A timeless entity cannot/does'nt need a cause, bcz the cause would have to come before the entity. If a Deity causes time itself, nothing comes before it. Here, the Cause-Effect relationship no longer applies.

If someone who holds the views presented above believes that the laws of nature are also the laws of God, then they can also believe that the mind is a perfectly "explainable" phenomenon, if they just had absolute knowledge. I don't think that's dualism.

 

[Daniel565]

.

 

[jl lin]

First of all, never base your personal faith on what other people tell you. Your salvation is entirely between you and God, no one else. Its ALL about God and your relationship with Him.

Secondly, Christianity is not based entirely on blind faith, just because you can't physically see God does not mean he doesn't exist. Can you see gravity, radiowaves, feelings, or the rest of the infinite universe? No you cant yet I don't suspect you question their existences either, nor take them for granite.

Just think, we are somehow standing on an enormous (yet infinitesimally small) planet that is rotating at 1000+ mph, which is then orbiting around the Sun at over 67,000 miles per hour. Earth is also sitting in an infinite universe. If anything functionally was different about earth even by a fraction, we would not be here. Yet we think this is all normal. It somehow evolved this way. The very fact we are standing here living, breathing, interacting is nothing short of a miracle, yet we still have the audacity to claim it all "JUST STARTED OUT OF NOTHING."

On a more personal level we have this thing called love. We can experience it in many different ways, we all desire it in some way or another, yet we cannot physically touch it or give a biological or physiological reason as to how it works, it just exists. In addition, love is something we are entirely dependent on something else for. Love is also something we cant quite seem to ENTIRELY fill up on. No matter how much some people love their significant others, they still feel there could be just a little more to be had.
Who created love and why is it here? Has it always been here? Could it exist without hate? Would it be the same if we didn't have our own free will to pursue it?

What makes sense to me is that God is love (and also the creator of the universe), and out of love we have been given everything we need in order to love Him back. And that is ALL he requires of us.

If you had the power to create anything and do anything you could ever imagine, would you do it alone or would you want someone to do it with?

Hey bayonnet!


Time and Life can teach us a lot of things, if we let them.

Thing is, we are usually so self-consummed we mostly project what we want as what we believe. You are right though. It is not blind faith. There must be more to it. But then, sadly many people believe that history has no bearing on anything and cannot be viewed as reliable.

Time and Life will tell some.

I already know, and have since I was seven. Don't know it all by far; but I know enough to know that YHWH is who He says He is. So maybe others don't or some of us (if it makes some folks feel better to believe this) are just silly idiots. But how does someone even trust and believe in the person they stand up and say "I do" with? And that person is fallible? Many things of Christ and the Bible hold water historically speaking, but you will never prove it at this time in a laboratory; for this undermines the very nature of this kind of faith--trust that calls for love given by perfect love. Nevertheless, it's not blind faith if you understand it in multiple dimensions, so to speak.

No sense in arguing it one way or the other. I trust perfect YHWH. A person either will or he or she will not.

I say if the OP has an honest questioning about it; it's great to talk with others; but openly and expectantly take it before the SOURCE.

Sir Thomas Moore put it this way: "He will not refuse one who is so blithe to go to Him."



Anyone that has been skydiving or has flown in a plane or chopper or has driven on a crazy multi-laned highway day in and out can understand faith. I mean, is it blind faith to believe that most folks will strive to follow traffic laws and safe driving, or that the person's parachute will open and open on time, or that the plane or chopper won't have trouble and go down?

People do NOT have to reject reason to have faith.

With faith that is blind, there is no evidence of which to speak, or there is a refusal to look at or consider any evidence that may be avialable. Blind faith is an irrational faith, but authentic Christianity is NOT about blind faith.

God's nature that is revealed expects thought and reasoning from people. And to be 'blithe' to come to Him is really about being open to Him and considered the revealed possibilities.

It is not something however a person can be made to see.
Example, some judges will actuallly arbitrarily eliminate evidence under the guise of some rationalization. He or she may be aware of such evidence, yet he or she may refuse to look at the details of such evidence. We are often the same. We choose what we will see as evidence and what we will not, and then we make our determinations accordingly.

The God revealed in Scripture has in a very real way made each person a judge over what he or she will see and consider, and then each person may revise what they will review and consider, if they have time, or they will not. Regardless, each person will ultimately live with the consequences of what they choose to believe. And this is not even with regard to spiritual issues. It is often something that comes up in clinical practice of all things. For even EBP has its limitations and biases. So, it comes down to whose report you choose to believe, and decisions and consequences flow forth from there.

And life is all about decisions and consequences, and there ain't no getting around them. So all the rationalizations and dancing and avoidance in the world will never change this reality.

No one is getting out of this life unscathed by choices and consequences. Doesn't matter who they are.

I have seen death beds function often as lab benches of analysis for many.

The story of life as we know it here once closed is not re-openned. And when a person is finally made to face that sobbering reality, it is amazing how they take a different kind of stock of their lives.

 

[salazaar]

Religion and science are necessarily contradictory because to be religious you must be a dualist. In science, we know nothing exists other than quarks and other particles.

I disagree, in science we don't "know" anything. In science we assume based off systematic observation. Science does not omit the possibility of metaphysical substance it simply does not acknowledge it. Spiritual scientists simply make additional assumptions (the presence of metaphysical substance) that do not have any bearing on the lab.

Superman, I know what you are going through because I find myself in a similar situation. I question all the time, particularly where the Bible and denominational dogma is concerned. I think it is the duty of any man or woman of faith to challenge and question. That is what God gave us brains for, to think for ourselves. As a Christian, I have found that I grow spiritually and intellectually through debate with other believers. Your parents and fiancé sound a lot like my mom, who is greatly bothered by my critical approach to my spiritual life. We should get a beer in Kirksville before school starts up J
On the Bible, I think that the major problem comes from inappropriate interpretive models. Lots of people read the bible factually, assuming that every word is absolute truth, historically, scientifically, and physically accurate. I submit that the bible is meant to be read literarily accounting for genre. After all, the Bible is not one book but a collection of stories, letters, accounts, poems, songs and fables written by multiple authors from multiple backgrounds. Each genre must be acknowledged and approached as such in order to glean meaning. In the places where science seems to conflict with the Bible the tension is often alleviated when genre is accounted for. Stories can have truth but not be historically accurate. Genesis, when read factually, conflicts with itself right off the bat. Take a second to look at genesis one and two. These two chapters are two completely separate and mutually exclusive accounts for creation. Things happen in different orders, God’s methods are completely different, the language (thus presumably the authorship) is different, even the worldview varies. Genesis one suggests a flat earth with a dome over it immersed in water. One would be hard pressed to find a Christian who believes in that worldview. That said, Genesis is not a history or science text book and should not be read as one. If instead one reads genesis as fable, you can pull truths about morality and the nature of God from both stories and there is no conflict with science. I am sure that people disagree with me, but I have found that this approach to the Bible leaves less room for fundamentalism and more room for Christian scientists to alleviate tension.

 

[ilovebiology]

I disagree, in science we don't "know" anything. In science we assume based off systematic observation. Science does not omit the possibility of metaphysical substance it simply does not acknowledge it. Spiritual scientists simply make additional assumptions (the presence of metaphysical substance) that do not have any bearing on the lab.

Superman, I know what you are going through because I find myself in a similar situation. I question all the time, particularly where the Bible and denominational dogma is concerned. I think it is the duty of any man or woman of faith to challenge and question. That is what God gave us brains for, to think for ourselves. As a Christian, I have found that I grow spiritually and intellectually through debate with other believers. Your parents and fiancé sound a lot like my mom, who is greatly bothered by my critical approach to my spiritual life. We should get a beer in Kirksville before school starts up J
On the Bible, I think that the major problem comes from inappropriate interpretive models. Lots of people read the bible factually, assuming that every word is absolute truth, historically, scientifically, and physically accurate. I submit that the bible is meant to be read literarily accounting for genre. After all, the Bible is not one book but a collection of stories, letters, accounts, poems, songs and fables written by multiple authors from multiple backgrounds. Each genre must be acknowledged and approached as such in order to glean meaning. In the places where science seems to conflict with the Bible the tension is often alleviated when genre is accounted for. Stories can have truth but not be historically accurate. Genesis, when read factually, conflicts with itself right off the bat. Take a second to look at genesis one and two. These two chapters are two completely separate and mutually exclusive accounts for creation. Things happen in different orders, God’s methods are completely different, the language (thus presumably the authorship) is different, even the worldview varies. Genesis one suggests a flat earth with a dome over it immersed in water. One would be hard pressed to find a Christian who believes in that worldview. That said, Genesis is not a history or science text book and should not be read as one. If instead one reads genesis as fable, you can pull truths about morality and the nature of God from both stories and there is no conflict with science. I am sure that people disagree with me, but I have found that this approach to the Bible leaves less room for fundamentalism and more room for Christian scientists to alleviate tension.

well said!

 

[DOxidant]

This might be the hardest topic to discuss.. seriously. This thread reminds of Loui Giglio's sermon. Please type Laminin (Cell Adhesion Molecule) on google image.

I can only speak for myself. My relationship w/ God motivates me to become a better individual ... so as a better a doctor

 

[sarahlopez]

Ok...you are right Dr. Hovind is in jail but everyone makes mistakes right.. i mean i definitely do not agree with what he did in not paying his taxes but some of his stuff on Creationism is pretty awesome....have you ever studied the debate??? It is pretty awesome!! I mean just like the basics for example...like why does only man have a conscience?? Where is the missing link?? and no neanderthal and java man and LUCy and all the rest of it have been proven to be false by evolutionists themselves...Why does nature obey an order (laws)?? Why is there a similar design in every creation?? (common Designer) How could something so complex evolve from a particle of dust...I mean to me it would seem like it would take much more faith to believe in evolution..or the absence of a close loving personal God...also how could such animals like the bombadier beetle have evolved when the missing links would have destructed their ownselves...and how come since the beginning of time the Bible said the earth is round and hangeth upon nothing and other such scientific facts like the stars are innumerable and every time It has been found out to be true...like the life is in the blood...yet stubborn mankind was draining human beings of their own blood thinking it was making them better in Washington's day?? How come every single culture could even knew that the spiritual existed but was falsely led into worshipping their own idols?? How come so many cultures have their own twisted tale of a worldwide flood??? study it out....there's the african version, the asian version, the australian version...the list goes on....how come any accurate dating goes back to only 10,000 years??? as far as actual historical findings of civilizations with artifacts and so on...How come fossils exist??? all over the world ?? how do fossils form but from a sudden catastraphic flood-like event?? Why are there clam shells and other ocean findings on top of mountains??? Why did Job describe the dinosaurs of being so powerful??? if he didn't live with them?? read it!!! Why are dinosaur footprints fossilized with human footprints in them dating back to the same time frame???? maybe because dinosaurs didn't live before humans...its sad that this world has to be so brainwashd with evolution because media is teaching it as fact when there really is no proof...there's just tooooo many facts pointing to God and what He did through the Lord Jesus Christ. God came in human form the Lord Jesus Christ to die on the cross for all of mankind because no one else could so that we didn't have to go to hell. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, but whosoever shall call upon his name shall be saved...It's so easy to be saved just put your whole trust in Him and ask Him to forgive you and save you...yea so what if this is all garbage to you and not true right...? i mean we will all die and go back to the dust and no longer exist....but what if it is....? those that have not been saved shall...be cast into the lake of fire for all of eternity....

 

[JustAGuy]

Lol

 

[salazaar]

Oh man. That was a rant if I ever heard one! I admire your devotion.

When I, as a Christian, look at the same kind of evidence along with radio-carbon dating and fossilized rock strata the hard-line young earth idea is a tough pill to choke down. I can still accept that God is the creator and built our universe from nothingness. I accept that constants like gravity may well have been tuned by God's divine works. It makes sense to me that a God that created a universe governed by mathematical laws and order would opt to operate within those laws to build our world and guide human evolution. If God does in fact have a plan, he could well have set that plan in motion simply by setting constants and flipping on an on-switch - setting into motion a set of infinite inevitable interactions that necessarily led to humanity here on Earth. Throughout time, God might fine tune and interact with his creation via miraculous intervention. That is where religion and spirituality come from.
I guess that I am trying to say that we as Christians cannot let our faith derail our objectivity in the sciences. Just because we find evidence that conflicts with the main stream theory or have unanswered questions as to certain discoveries we cannot invoke God as the catch all answer to scientific mystery. If we do so, we sell ourselves short and there is no reason to further study because we already have all the answers.
If there is one thing that science and theology have in common it is that followers of both thrive on questions. My whole spiritual journey is nothing but questions - whenever I find answers they lead to more questions. That is the mystery of faith and I am okay with knowing that I may never know the answers.

 

[Daedra22]

yea so what if this is all garbage to you and not true right...? i mean we will all die and go back to the dust and no longer exist....but what if it is....? those that have not been saved shall...be cast into the lake of fire for all of eternity....

By this logic you should be a member of every religion. All other versions of hell are equally as likely.

The thought of a medical professional who believes in the new earth theory is very disturbing to me. I have no qualms with religious doctors, but when it starts becoming dismissing scientific evidence, I get worried. There is healthy skepticism and then there is irrationality... it's that kind of thinking which has lead physicians and nurses to give out poor medical information based on religious beliefs. I've seen a lot of young women harmed by such things.

 

[Bleg]

I guess what I have the most problem with is the Bible itself. . . it bothers me that the collection of the books were voted upon by some council 300 years after the establishment of Christianity. It also bothers me that the descriptions of Jesus were written some 30 years after his death by individuals who we are told received their words from God.

A few comments:

• Don't judge a book by what others say about it. Read it first. You will find that many things claimed about the Bible are not in the Bible itself.
• The road to canonization of the current Bible books is long, tortuous, and quite interesting. For the most part, it appears the ancient "fathers" did an admirable job of separating the Gnostic writings from the other writings, which was primarily what they were trying to do with their canonization. (Gnosticism was an ancient heretical tradition in early Christianity. Peter and Paul and the other apostles fought against it, but after they died, it spread, and the later Christian leaders worked hard to identify it and stamp it out.)
• The Bible's Old Testament is largely identical with the Jewish scriptures, so the early Christian Church didn't have much to do with its inclusion. It is very old, very traditional, and actually some of the best ancient documents from the Middle Eastern world that we possess.
• If you're concerned about the ancient council creeds (Nicean, Athanasian), realize that they don't have anything to do with the Biblical texts. The creeds reflect the state of Christian religious thought at the moment they were adopted, and have little to do with the Bible (e.g. Trinitarian doctrine).

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just cautioning you to be careful and thoughtful in how you deal with such things. There are some worthwhile things in the Bible and in how you were raised. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

After all, and this is in no means an offense to Mormons, but the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith supposedly being enlightened from God, yet Christians would write this off as some hodge podge.

See the first comment above. Whatever its origin, no gold-digging illiterate farmboy wrote the Book of Mormon. But your point is well-taken; if larger Christianity writes off the Book of Mormon as a palpable fraud, how does the Bible fare any better? Here again, tread carefully. It's seemingly easy to identify when people are being stupid, but much harder to identify wisdom.

The Bible is an integral cornerstone to the Christian faith, but yet, I have such a hard time believing the truth of it. How can I possibly be affiliated with a religion that I have known my whole life when I find such problems with part of it's foundation. It definitely is not that I do not want to, I just find it illogical.

You can find almost unlimited quantities of discussion on this topic. You must be honest with yourself, but again, don't just go by what others have told you about the Bible. Read and study it yourself, and make your own determinations. Biblical commentaries are of very limited usefulness.

I also find it hardly fair that God presented himself physically so frequently in the ancient days, yet, why am I not blessed with seeing a talking, burning bush or angels? Now, I know that life is not fair, but why can I not have physical evidence too?

Who says you can't? But such things obviously aren't available for the casual asking, or else everyone would already have seen the burning bush. The Bible does talk about people receiving amazing, even supernatural, manifestations, but only after they had already proven themselves faithful (or else the manifestations destroyed them). I don't know of anything in the Bible that says you aren't allowed to have such things, too.

 

[HimeMomo]

I question the same thing. When I was young I went to a Christian School. Developed a disorder, dropped out of school, even though the last thing I remembered was being very faithful to God. I knew something wasn't right, when my parents converted me to Buddhism. Honestly, with all the talks about real religion or not, Buddhism, or any belief of any kind, whatever you believe in, and you feel that it create miracles, is the one you should stay with.

I don't like it when people say one religion is more true than another.

I would like to know why the Jewish people are the chosen people, what about the rest of the world?

I would like to know why Jesus did his miracles only in certain parts of the world, why not the whole world?

But even so, I discovered many interesting things about Christianity when I grew older. The Bible is fascinating. However, I am still more of a polytheist/open minded believer than anything else.

I am not sure if the Bible is the only thing I will trust, that is why keeping an open mind and questioning things is better.

Don't worry about not knowing, have faith in yourself and you will find your answers.

 

[Bleg]

I don't like it when people say one religion is more true than another.

Why? Does it bother you that some people like chocolate better than vanilla?

If someone believes that every religion is exactly as good as any other, then he probably would not belong to a certain religion, would he? But since people do belong to various religions, it's trivially obvious that they think there is something special about that religion. Nothing offensive there.

I would like to know why the Jewish people are the chosen people, what about the rest of the world?

According to the Bible, the Jews were chosen to receive the word of God and carry it forth to the world. Again, how is this offensive? It doesn't mean God loves Jews better than the rest of us, just that he chose them for a purpose.

I would like to know why Jesus did his miracles only in certain parts of the world, why not the whole world?

Probably because he lived only in a certain part of the world. I am confident that Jesus did whatever miracles he did in whatever parts of the world he found himself.

But even so, I discovered many interesting things about Christianity when I grew older. The Bible is fascinating. However, I am still more of a polytheist/open minded believer than anything else.

Please do not mistake holding a belief for being close-minded. Many of the most open-minded individuals I know hold strong (and varying) religious and philosophical beliefs, while many of the most hidebound, rigid, close-minded people I know hold to no particular belief system at all, instead picking and choosing whatever appeals to them at the moment.

 

[HimeMomo]

Some people are born into a religion that their parents and generations before them were in. Was that their choice? Not in the beginning, but maybe after they grew up and accepted the religion whole-heartily, then it is theirs.

God chose the Jews to carry out his wills, it sounds more like he intended to bestow his protection and power for the chosen ones, and he wants the Jews to love him back. Thus Judaism. Why aren't Christians, Jews? Because the old testament didn't really mention anything about it, the Christians started in the new testament.

Are you saying that people who are Jews are going to hell? Or vice versa people who are Christians are going to hell? How about mormons? They read a different book, are they going to hell? Who's right and who's wrong? There probably isn't a right and wrong but more of which one suits whoever better.


I like to keep an open mind. I was not saying how others who are devout are closed minded. I only referred to questioning your faith being open minded. If anyone accepts whatever he/she was told, that is closed minded. It's just better to explore and learn about the world.

Ps. To the person who originally posted this:

Check out "Songs of A Wanderer" (Chinese Christian PhD Biologist translated into English exploring about how he discovered Christianity through science and self-learning)

HyperSpace (Michio Kaku) - 10 dimensions of the universe, and many things you can't seem to see or feel but mathematics and quantum physics predicts its existence. Refer to Albert Einstein's relativity theory, which basically indirectly mean that if there was a GOD, he can create the world in 7 days (his time) but it took millions and trillions of years (our time) Different time frames, different conditions. Does not disprove God's existence, rather it enhances our understanding.

****And when I mean GOD, I mean GOD, not any particular religion's GOD, just GOD*******

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Why? Does it bother you that some people like chocolate better than vanilla?

If someone believes that every religion is exactly as good as any other, then he probably would not belong to a certain religion, would he? But since people do belong to various religions, it's trivially obvious that they think there is something special about that religion. Nothing offensive there.



According to the Bible, the Jews were chosen to receive the word of God and carry it forth to the world. Again, how is this offensive? It doesn't mean God loves Jews better than the rest of us, just that he chose them for a purpose.

Purpose and then the Holocaust happens. Where was god when 1 million children were gassed? Where was the land of milk and honey promised?

Probably because he lived only in a certain part of the world. I am confident that Jesus did whatever miracles he did in whatever parts of the world he found himself.

Yah, because god can only be in 1 place at one time.


Please do not mistake holding a belief for being close-minded. Many of the most open-minded individuals I know hold strong (and varying) religious and philosophical beliefs, while many of the most hidebound, rigid, close-minded people I know hold to no particular belief system at all, instead picking and choosing whatever appeals to them at the moment.

I don't find holding belief inherently bad. It's only a problem when you start shooting abortion doctors and ramming blazing flames into buildings. I believe religion is important. I think people can believe in god. But the problem is that god isn't what religion is about. It's about being in a group, and feeling safer and being enveloped in a culture which is your own. However because of this you have people like the pope causing the AID's epidemic in Africa worse.Then you have sheiks preaching to kids and brain washing them into believing that if they kill themselves they'll get 72 virgins.

Like i've said before. My problem isn't with god or belief itself. Its with the fact that religion is a institution which generates money and power. But then again, its almost always been about money and power.

 

[Bleg]

Are you saying that people who are Jews are going to hell? Or vice versa people who are Christians are going to hell?

What on earth are you talking about?

Perhaps you can point out to me where I mentioned anything about anyone going to hell. Please enlighten me. As far as I can tell, you brought this up out of nothing. (Hey, there's your ex nihilo creation!)

How about mormons? They read a different book, are they going to hell?

There you go again about people going to hell. Seems an unhealthy fixation. Do you actually know any Mormons, or anything about them? They read the same Bible other Christians read.

If anyone accepts whatever he/she was told, that is closed minded.

Anyone, huh? That seems a surprisingly rigid, close-minded attitude.

HyperSpace (Michio Kaku) - 10 dimensions of the universe, and many things you can't seem to see or feel but mathematics and quantum physics predicts its existence. Refer to Albert Einstein's relativity theory, which basically indirectly mean that if there was a GOD, he can create the world in 7 days (his time) but it took millions and trillions of years (our time) Different time frames, different conditions. Does not disprove God's existence, rather it enhances our understanding.

Believe whatever you like, but don't deceive yourself that Einstein meant any such thing. Einstein was effectively atheist, and his theory of relativity concerns gravitation and relative motion of massive particles and bodies. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how God may or may not have created things.