Can you explain why you have faith in your religion? (1 Viewer)

[Cliff Clavin]

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread

But completely expected.

 

[proninja]

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread

But completely expected.

Sad but true

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread

But completely expected.

Sad but true

Kind of. But it's also sometimes helpful to talk about. I think sometimes there are differences of opinion because there are a lot of facets to God. It's pretty clear in Psalm 5:5 (NLT)

5Therefore, the proud may not stand in your presence, for you (God) hate all who do evil.

But we Christians believe the same God loved people enough to send his son Jesus to die for them. All people. Including the ones doing evil.

So there's a lot there. And I surely don't claim to have it all lined out. The older I get the more I think it's best to think that way.

J

 

[Spanky267]

I have faith for the same reason many others have mentioned. I believe in science. But I look at the world and the universe and find it hard to believe that all of it happened randomly without someone or something at the switch. If I gather all the ingredients to make a cake and throw them in the oven I dont get a cake. But if I combine and mix the ingredients properly I get a cake. Thats how I see the universe. Carefully constructed. But I also dont believe that a God would create this vast universe solely for the inhabitants of our tiny planet. So in that respect I believe that we are not alone in the universe.

I also believe that God asks us to come to him of our own free will. I grew up in a home where we werent the most faithful Christians. My mom is a Lutheran from Canada and my dad was a Catholic from Cuba. To say that either of them was a bible thumper or pious would be a gross overstatement. My brother and I went to mass a couple of times with my Grangmother. We started going to church semi regularly when I was about 8 or 9. We went to Lutheran churches. We went fairly regularly until I was 15 or 16. My brother and I did go through confirmation. But I havent regularly attended chruch in the 25 years since. But I believe in God and believe that my relationship with him is personal. It may also be illogical or irrational to others, even other Christians.

I also reject the notion that its my duty to "love" on people until they see the truth of God. This is something that is espoused by the evangelical churches. I believe people have to arrive at their connection to God in their own way. If I am to do anything then it is to live my life and serve the lord in the way that he wants me too.

Sorry that I'm not as articulate as others. Just expressing what I believe on the topic.

 

[Fiddles]

what happened to cross eyed?

 

[proninja]

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread

But completely expected.

Sad but true

Kind of. But it's also sometimes helpful to talk about. I think sometimes there are differences of opinion because there are a lot of facets to God. It's pretty clear in Psalm 5:5 (NLT)

5Therefore, the proud may not stand in your presence, for you (God) hate all who do evil.

But we Christians believe the same God loved people enough to send his son Jesus to die for them. All people. Including the ones doing evil.

So there's a lot there. And I surely don't claim to have it all lined out. The older I get the more I think it's best to think that way.

J

Oh, definitely. When Paul was outlining the qualifications for a deacon there's a reason he called it "the mystery of the faith." There's a lot I don't/can't understand - which is frankly a very appealing thing to me. When I look at the intellectual history of the faith and some of the giants whose work we stand on I am very encouraged. Peter said that some of scripture is "hard to understand" and some of those very issues are the issues that those without faith want exact answers to, and unfortunately I just don't have all of them.

I get frustrated at fundamentalists who want to take every bit of the bible literally as if their own interpretation of it is inerrant. Much more so than snarky atheists even. But me yelling at them in front of a guy like Otis asking good questions just doesn't seem like it would be all that productive. But I definitely see where you're coming from, and don't think that I'm unwilling to engage on any of these issues.

Sort of related is why I appreciate Tim Keller so much. A strong theological conservative who supports evolution, and isn't quite as dogmatic as some about issues the bible isn't dogmatic on.

 

[The Commish]

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread

But completely expected.

Sad but true

Why is this "bad" though?? In science it's encouraged to question and challenge position. Why isn't it the same with religion?

 

[proninja]

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread

But completely expected.

Sad but true

Why is this "bad" though?? In science it's encouraged to question and challenge position. Why isn't it the same with religion?

The reason I wasn't a fan is context. I have zero issues discussing tough issues, and am not terribly dogmatic on some things that many people consider very important. But when you've got a guy like O asking questions, it probably isn't the best time for a doctrinal tangent. Sort of like how there's nothing wrong with being naked (I do it every day to shower), but probably not good if you're picking your kid up from school.

But I very well could be wrong on that, and seeing Christians kick these things back and forth in a humble way could be encouraging to him, so he realizes we aren't all his worst stereotype.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Are we at the point where the otherwise pleasant discussion gets derailed by people arguing over whose interpretation of the Bible is correct?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Are we at the point where the otherwise pleasant discussion gets derailed by people arguing over whose interpretation of the Bible is correct?

I don't think so. Minor break as the Christians huddle and have a short slap fight. We're back now.

J

 

[The Commish]

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread

But completely expected.

Sad but true

Why is this "bad" though?? In science it's encouraged to question and challenge position. Why isn't it the same with religion?

The reason I wasn't a fan is context. I have zero issues discussing tough issues, and am not terribly dogmatic on some things that many people consider very important. But when you've got a guy like O asking questions, it probably isn't the best time for a doctrinal tangent. Sort of like how there's nothing wrong with being naked (I do it every day to shower), but probably not good if you're picking your kid up from school.

But I very well could be wrong on that, and seeing Christians kick these things back and forth in a humble way could be encouraging to him, so he realizes we aren't all his worst stereotype.

Your last sentence is the crux of the whole thing I guess. It's certainly an interesting dynamic we see here in the FFA. Personally, I think it's healthy to challenge each other. It strengthens knowledge, understanding and position. It's always puzzled me why it's seen as a bad thing in the context of theology but not in other arenas.

 

[theglorydays]

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread

But completely expected.

Sad but true

Kind of. But it's also sometimes helpful to talk about. I think sometimes there are differences of opinion because there are a lot of facets to God. It's pretty clear in Psalm 5:5 (NLT)

5Therefore, the proud may not stand in your presence, for you (God) hate all who do evil.

But we Christians believe the same God loved people enough to send his son Jesus to die for them. All people. Including the ones doing evil.

So there's a lot there. And I surely don't claim to have it all lined out. The older I get the more I think it's best to think that way.

J

I agree with you, that's why the grace of God is so amazing, instead of justice grace is shown to sinners. The grace of God is only amazing in light of His holiness, justice and righteousness.

 

[datonn]

I have faith for the same reason many others have mentioned. I believe in science. But I look at the world and the universe and find it hard to believe that all of it happened randomly without someone or something at the switch. If I gather all the ingredients to make a cake and throw them in the oven I dont get a cake. But if I combine and mix the ingredients properly I get a cake. Thats how I see the universe. Carefully constructed. But I also dont believe that a God would create this vast universe solely for the inhabitants of our tiny planet. So in that respect I believe that we are not alone in the universe.

I also believe that God asks us to come to him of our own free will. I grew up in a home where we werent the most faithful Christians. My mom is a Lutheran from Canada and my dad was a Catholic from Cuba. To say that either of them was a bible thumper or pious would be a gross overstatement. My brother and I went to mass a couple of times with my Grangmother. We started going to church semi regularly when I was about 8 or 9. We went to Lutheran churches. We went fairly regularly until I was 15 or 16. My brother and I did go through confirmation. But I havent regularly attended chruch in the 25 years since. But I believe in God and believe that my relationship with him is personal. It may also be illogical or irrational to others, even other Christians.

I also reject the notion that its my duty to "love" on people until they see the truth of God. This is something that is espoused by the evangelical churches. I believe people have to arrive at their connection to God in their own way. If I am to do anything then it is to live my life and serve the lord in the way that he wants me too.

Sorry that I'm not as articulate as others. Just expressing what I believe on the topic.

Spot on...minus he part that I had to strike through...as you're every-bit as articulate as most of us wind-bags in the FFA.

FWIW, most of my Christian friends just assume I'm "fallen." Because I'm not out there punching people bloody with my Bible...telling others how wrong they are (compared to me/us). Because I only sit through a Lutheran church service (usually liturgical...a bunch of worship-by-numbers crap that has little to nothing to do with one's relationship with God) maybe 5-6 times/year. Because I have many friends who are (gasp) atheists, deists, muslim, hindu, etc. I think it's sad...how so many people think you can't be a "real" Christian unless you put on your Sunday best, mumble "and also with you" 3-4 times/service, and judge other people who don't look/think/walk/talk/act/worship like you do 24/7/365. But that's their own crosses to bear...not mine. My relationship with God is not their concern. Nor is the way I choose to worship, or who I choose to hang out with, or how I teach my kids truth.

 

[Zow]

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread

But completely expected.

Sad but true

Kind of. But it's also sometimes helpful to talk about. I think sometimes there are differences of opinion because there are a lot of facets to God. It's pretty clear in Psalm 5:5 (NLT)

5Therefore, the proud may not stand in your presence, for you (God) hate all who do evil.

But we Christians believe the same God loved people enough to send his son Jesus to die for them. All people. Including the ones doing evil.

So there's a lot there. And I surely don't claim to have it all lined out. The older I get the more I think it's best to think that way.

J

I agree with you, that's why the grace of God is so amazing, instead of justice grace is shown to sinners. The grace of God is only amazing in light of His holiness, justice and righteousness.

Probably because God is too busy killing innocent people with disease, FAS, etc.

 

[matuski]

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread

But completely expected.

Sad but true

Why is this "bad" though?? In science it's encouraged to question and challenge position. Why isn't it the same with religion?

Can your God's position change in response to question and challenge?

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

As religious threads go, this one is actually really good. Thank you to all for the responses. This is basically just my blackdot.

I am frankly embarrassed that it took me until my 30's to become a freethinker. And I think this feeling of shame or the overall negative connotation attached to atheism in this country is why many continue going through the motions of church (this includes me). I think thats a problem. In many parts of the country revealing this is akin to coming out of the closet as a homosexual.

Oldie but a goody IMO:

[SIZE=medium]"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] ...Stephen F Roberts[/SIZE]

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

My comment is this "thought" experiment I read somewhere. If all religions completely disappeared, it is highly unlikely, well impossible, that the same belief systems would redevelop over the years. New religions might develop, but they would be entirely different from the existing sects we have now. On the other hand, if all science based knowledge also disapperead, over time the EXACT same principles would be rediscovered. This tells me all I need to know about any religion. It is made up!

I like this. Thank you for sharing.

 

[theglorydays]

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread

But completely expected.

Sad but true

Kind of. But it's also sometimes helpful to talk about. I think sometimes there are differences of opinion because there are a lot of facets to God. It's pretty clear in Psalm 5:5 (NLT)

5Therefore, the proud may not stand in your presence, for you (God) hate all who do evil.

But we Christians believe the same God loved people enough to send his son Jesus to die for them. All people. Including the ones doing evil.

So there's a lot there. And I surely don't claim to have it all lined out. The older I get the more I think it's best to think that way.

J

I agree with you, that's why the grace of God is so amazing, instead of justice grace is shown to sinners. The grace of God is only amazing in light of His holiness, justice and righteousness.

Probably because God is too busy killing innocent people with disease, FAS, etc.

Innocent according to what standard?

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread

But completely expected.

Sad but true

Why is this "bad" though?? In science it's encouraged to question and challenge position. Why isn't it the same with religion?

Can your God's position change in response to question and challenge?

No, this is His response But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?... (Romans 9:20 ESV)

 

[Gr00vus]

I look at the world and the universe and find it hard to believe that all of it happened randomly without someone or something at the switch. If I gather all the ingredients to make a cake and throw them in the oven I dont get a cake.

If you did that enough times you might actually end up with a cake. Our world is just one result among an incredibly large number of possible results, none of which require sentient guidance to bring about.

 

[matuski]

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread

But completely expected.

Sad but true

Why is this "bad" though?? In science it's encouraged to question and challenge position. Why isn't it the same with religion?

Can your God's position change in response to question and challenge?

No, this is His response But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?... (Romans 9:20 ESV)

About the 5th time we have seen the "he is too mysterious/complicated for you to understand" response.

But to follow.. it would appear you directly contradict your fellow Christian above. Imagine that...

 

[shader]

I look at the world and the universe and find it hard to believe that all of it happened randomly without someone or something at the switch. If I gather all the ingredients to make a cake and throw them in the oven I dont get a cake.

If you did that enough times you might actually end up with a cake. Our world is just one result among an incredibly large number of possible results, none of which require sentient guidance to bring about.

Well that is your opinion. Quite obviously many others disagree, not only when discussing the earth, but also the universe, the physical laws that make up the universe, etc.

 

[shader]

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread

But completely expected.

Sad but true

Why is this "bad" though?? In science it's encouraged to question and challenge position. Why isn't it the same with religion?

Can your God's position change in response to question and challenge?

No, this is His response But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?... (Romans 9:20 ESV)

About the 5th time we have seen the "he is too mysterious/complicated for you to understand" response.

But to follow.. it would appear you directly contradict your fellow Christian above. Imagine that...

I agree the "too mysterious" response is inadequate. Also, the fact that there are countless denominations is why you see debate and bickering among many religious people.

 

[Eminence]

I have faith because it does not make sense to me for all of this to spontaneously derive out of nothing. Every religion has its flaws because every religion was recorded and established by humans. The fact that Christianity or Judaism have a few holes doesn't mean there isn't a divine creator watching over his sandbox.

From what I've seen there is a good force and bad force in the world we live in. That might be a Universal construct or some type of weird frequency that exists between humans. You can call the good force Jesus and the bad force Satan if that helps you. You can even write the whole thing off as karma and call it a day if you'd like. It's all an interpretation of morality and social interaction that has been embellished over the years.

Do you think that it's human nature to speculate their ancestors and fabricate a story behind it? Just because the stories are wrong does not mean there isn't a spiritual connection out there. It means that a few humans thousands of years ago made a hypothesis and were incorrect. If anything, God probably views this as one big sandbox and lets us do what makes us happy. I doubt he's as judgmental as some religions make him out to be. He's probably happy if we're happy.

Em

 

[proninja]

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread

But completely expected.

Sad but true

Why is this "bad" though?? In science it's encouraged to question and challenge position. Why isn't it the same with religion?

Can your God's position change in response to question and challenge?

I'll take this question.

No. It can't. But human understanding of it certainly can. I think it is very important for Christians to take a posture of humility when they are talking about the bible's words. They are the words of God, and we very well could be misinterpreting them. I am therefore unwilling to be too dogmatic about things the bible is not dogmatic about. The idea that I would be saying "God says" when what God means is totally different is chilling to me, because then I would be directly contradicting God using his authority as my basis for authority.

There are parts of doctrine that my opinion of has absolutely changed. I believe God is telling us something different than what I used to believe. That doesn't mean God's position changed. That means my interpretation of it did. I think I was wrong then, but I very well could be wrong now. It bothers me how Christians will take a particular proof text and use that out of context to state something that the bible is not clear on unequivocally.

Let's use evolution as an example. The church saying that God created the world in six days based on the Genesis account seems reasonable in a world where the current body of work from science does not exist. But when you look at the body of work that science has done, that seems much more convincing to me than taking what God really was trying to communicate (that he made the world) and forcing a detail - six day creation - on top of the text. To me it doesn't seem unreasonable to say that I am more confident in the science behind evolution than I am my interpretation of the poetry in early Genesis, so my interpretation can and will change with time. This generally upsets both atheists and fundamentalists.

I also have little doubt that you won't find this remotely convincing. But I thought it was a good question other people might have, so I'd answer from my point of view.

 

[Gr00vus]

I look at the world and the universe and find it hard to believe that all of it happened randomly without someone or something at the switch. If I gather all the ingredients to make a cake and throw them in the oven I dont get a cake.

If you did that enough times you might actually end up with a cake. Our world is just one result among an incredibly large number of possible results, none of which require sentient guidance to bring about.

Well that is your opinion. Quite obviously many others disagree, not only when discussing the earth, but also the universe, the physical laws that make up the universe, etc.

It's not my opinion, it's the result of applying math (particularly probability) and understanding the results of the work of astro physicists along with a few other branches of science.

 

[The Commish]

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread

But completely expected.

Sad but true

Why is this "bad" though?? In science it's encouraged to question and challenge position. Why isn't it the same with religion?

Can your God's position change in response to question and challenge?

I'll take this question.

No. It can't. But human understanding of it certainly can. I think it is very important for Christians to take a posture of humility when they are talking about the bible's words. They are the words of God, and we very well could be misinterpreting them. I am therefore unwilling to be too dogmatic about things the bible is not dogmatic about. The idea that I would be saying "God says" when what God means is totally different is chilling to me, because then I would be directly contradicting God using his authority as my basis for authority.

There are parts of doctrine that my opinion of has absolutely changed. I believe God is telling us something different than what I used to believe. That doesn't mean God's position changed. That means my interpretation of it did. I think I was wrong then, but I very well could be wrong now. It bothers me how Christians will take a particular proof text and use that out of context to state something that the bible is not clear on unequivocally.

Let's use evolution as an example. The church saying that God created the world in six days based on the Genesis account seems reasonable in a world where the current body of work from science does not exist. But when you look at the body of work that science has done, that seems much more convincing to me than taking what God really was trying to communicate (that he made the world) and forcing a detail - six day creation - on top of the text. To me it doesn't seem unreasonable to say that I am more confident in the science behind evolution than I am my interpretation of the poetry in early Genesis, so my interpretation can and will change with time. This generally upsets both atheists and fundamentalists.

I also have little doubt that you won't find this remotely convincing. But I thought it was a good question other people might have, so I'd answer from my point of view.

It's really not...it's a straw man as you illustrate in your initial sentence. Gravity doesn't/hasn't changed, but our understanding/discovery of it has. What happened at the universe's creation hasn't changed, but our understanding/discovery has. Same with personal relationships with God. He's constant. His teaching is constant. Our understanding is ever changing.

 

[shader]

I look at the world and the universe and find it hard to believe that all of it happened randomly without someone or something at the switch. If I gather all the ingredients to make a cake and throw them in the oven I dont get a cake.

If you did that enough times you might actually end up with a cake. Our world is just one result among an incredibly large number of possible results, none of which require sentient guidance to bring about.

Well that is your opinion. Quite obviously many others disagree, not only when discussing the earth, but also the universe, the physical laws that make up the universe, etc.

It's not my opinion, it's the result of applying math (particularly probability) and understanding the results of the work of astro physicists along with a few other branches of science.

Again, I disagree

 

[proninja]

It's really not...it's a straw man as you illustrate in your initial sentence. Gravity doesn't/hasn't changed, but our understanding/discovery of it has. What happened at the universe's creation hasn't changed, but our understanding/discovery has. Same with personal relationships with God. He's constant. His teaching is constant. Our understanding is ever changing.

I totally agree. But if I were not a Christian and I looked at a church that dogmatically proclaimed a 6 day creation account, I would laugh at them, and it would absolutely be an obstacle to me wanting to identify with them or trust them on much of anything. I think it is important that we admit when our interpretation of parts of scripture has likely been wrong even if the proof from of it comes from a different realm than the theological. And I don't think that's a black mark on the church.

I'll quote St Augustine here (with a cap doff to Jayrok who introduced me to the quote)

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

 

[matuski]

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread

But completely expected.

Sad but true

Why is this "bad" though?? In science it's encouraged to question and challenge position. Why isn't it the same with religion?

Can your God's position change in response to question and challenge?

I'll take this question.

No. It can't. But human understanding of it certainly can. I think it is very important for Christians to take a posture of humility when they are talking about the bible's words. They are the words of God, and we very well could be misinterpreting them. I am therefore unwilling to be too dogmatic about things the bible is not dogmatic about. The idea that I would be saying "God says" when what God means is totally different is chilling to me, because then I would be directly contradicting God using his authority as my basis for authority.

There are parts of doctrine that my opinion of has absolutely changed. I believe God is telling us something different than what I used to believe. That doesn't mean God's position changed. That means my interpretation of it did. I think I was wrong then, but I very well could be wrong now. It bothers me how Christians will take a particular proof text and use that out of context to state something that the bible is not clear on unequivocally.

Let's use evolution as an example. The church saying that God created the world in six days based on the Genesis account seems reasonable in a world where the current body of work from science does not exist. But when you look at the body of work that science has done, that seems much more convincing to me than taking what God really was trying to communicate (that he made the world) and forcing a detail - six day creation - on top of the text. To me it doesn't seem unreasonable to say that I am more confident in the science behind evolution than I am my interpretation of the poetry in early Genesis, so my interpretation can and will change with time. This generally upsets both atheists and fundamentalists.

I also have little doubt that you won't find this remotely convincing. But I thought it was a good question other people might have, so I'd answer from my point of view.

Are you saying your interpretation of the Bible changed.. or that your God changed his position on it?

 

[matuski]

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread

But completely expected.

Sad but true

Why is this "bad" though?? In science it's encouraged to question and challenge position. Why isn't it the same with religion?

Can your God's position change in response to question and challenge?

I'll take this question.

No. It can't. But human understanding of it certainly can. I think it is very important for Christians to take a posture of humility when they are talking about the bible's words. They are the words of God, and we very well could be misinterpreting them. I am therefore unwilling to be too dogmatic about things the bible is not dogmatic about. The idea that I would be saying "God says" when what God means is totally different is chilling to me, because then I would be directly contradicting God using his authority as my basis for authority.

There are parts of doctrine that my opinion of has absolutely changed. I believe God is telling us something different than what I used to believe. That doesn't mean God's position changed. That means my interpretation of it did. I think I was wrong then, but I very well could be wrong now. It bothers me how Christians will take a particular proof text and use that out of context to state something that the bible is not clear on unequivocally.

Let's use evolution as an example. The church saying that God created the world in six days based on the Genesis account seems reasonable in a world where the current body of work from science does not exist. But when you look at the body of work that science has done, that seems much more convincing to me than taking what God really was trying to communicate (that he made the world) and forcing a detail - six day creation - on top of the text. To me it doesn't seem unreasonable to say that I am more confident in the science behind evolution than I am my interpretation of the poetry in early Genesis, so my interpretation can and will change with time. This generally upsets both atheists and fundamentalists.

I also have little doubt that you won't find this remotely convincing. But I thought it was a good question other people might have, so I'd answer from my point of view.

It's really not...it's a straw man as you illustrate in your initial sentence. Gravity doesn't/hasn't changed, but our understanding/discovery of it has. What happened at the universe's creation hasn't changed, but our understanding/discovery has. Same with personal relationships with God. He's constant. His teaching is constant. Our understanding is ever changing.

If his teaching is constant, after 2000 years how much more change can you make to your understanding? You would think a God could be clear enough that after a couple/few millennia his followers would understand it by now?

 

[matuski]

It's really not...it's a straw man as you illustrate in your initial sentence. Gravity doesn't/hasn't changed, but our understanding/discovery of it has. What happened at the universe's creation hasn't changed, but our understanding/discovery has. Same with personal relationships with God. He's constant. His teaching is constant. Our understanding is ever changing.

I totally agree. But if I were not a Christian and I looked at a church that dogmatically proclaimed a 6 day creation account, I would laugh at them, and it would absolutely be an obstacle to me wanting to identify with them or trust them on much of anything. I think it is important that we admit when our interpretation of parts of scripture has likely been wrong even if the proof from of it comes from a different realm than the theological. And I don't think that's a black mark on the church.

I'll quote St Augustine here (with a cap doff to Jayrok who introduced me to the quote)

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

 

[Psychopav]

Our understanding of God changes person by person and moment by moment, in addition to any developing systematic theology.

 

[matuski]

Our understanding of God changes person by person and moment by moment, in addition to any developing systematic theology.

Your understanding is based on the Bible correct? How far along in the development of this systematic theology would you say we are ~2000 years into it?

Is Christianity one religion or is it a subjective one (changing person to person)?

 

[shader]

Our understanding of God changes person by person and moment by moment, in addition to any developing systematic theology.

Your understanding is based on the Bible correct? How far along in the development of this systematic theology would you say we are ~2000 years into it?

Is Christianity one religion or is it a subjective one (changing person to person)?

It started as one religion with one set of beliefs.

 

[proninja]

Our understanding of God changes person by person and moment by moment, in addition to any developing systematic theology.

Your understanding is based on the Bible correct? How far along in the development of this systematic theology would you say we are ~2000 years into it?

Is Christianity one religion or is it a subjective one (changing person to person)?

Christians are a diverse group that have a few beliefs that unite them. These can, for the most part, be found in creeds. It is important to define what Christians are united on, so this is actually a good question too.

The Nicene Creed is a good place to start for those who are curious. This is what unites Christians. These are the things that make you a Christian vs a different, non-Christian religion. You'll notice as you read through there that there are a ton of topics that aren't there. It doesn't speak to evolution, homosexuality, capital punishment, gender roles, the government's role in society, or any of the things that can and are hot button issues in the church today. Those are the things that we can (and do) disagree on. Ideally it will be more like brotherly disagreement, unfortunately it doesn't always play out that way.

Theology is not a finished study. Much like people still study philosophy, math, and science, we continue to study theology and we continue to learn from it. I'm not sure why we would expect theology as a discipline to be finished on a timeline we don't expect any other disciplines to be subject to. You wouldn't say "why haven't we figured out math, we've been studying it for thousands of years" or point to a disagreement on P versus NP as proof that math is somehow flawed simply because we don't know the answer (or if it can even be answered.)

Theology is hard. There is a lot going on. I am in some ways thankful for this because it gives a rich history of great minds that I can read and study from. But man, sometimes it would be nice if it were easy.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Otis, you are a UU.

Welcome to the club.

 

[Gr00vus]

I look at the world and the universe and find it hard to believe that all of it happened randomly without someone or something at the switch. If I gather all the ingredients to make a cake and throw them in the oven I dont get a cake.

If you did that enough times you might actually end up with a cake. Our world is just one result among an incredibly large number of possible results, none of which require sentient guidance to bring about.

Well that is your opinion. Quite obviously many others disagree, not only when discussing the earth, but also the universe, the physical laws that make up the universe, etc.

It's not my opinion, it's the result of applying math (particularly probability) and understanding the results of the work of astro physicists along with a few other branches of science.

Again, I disagree

With what? Math? The work of astrophysicists and lots of other scientists?

 

[BobbyLayne]

Surprisingly, a pretty thoughtful discussion in this thread, I think.

Agreed, for the most part.

 

[Galileo]

First of all, let give props to so many who have actually participated in intellectual dialogue without allowing this to instantly degrade into the typical nonsense. Keep it up and we may just come to greater a understanding of each other!

I'll take this question.

No. It can't. But human understanding of it certainly can. I think it is very important for Christians to take a posture of humility when they are talking about the bible's words. They are the words of God, and we very well could be misinterpreting them. I am therefore unwilling to be too dogmatic about things the bible is not dogmatic about. The idea that I would be saying "God says" when what God means is totally different is chilling to me, because then I would be directly contradicting God using his authority as my basis for authority.

Serious question here as I think it is at the heart of Otis' original query... You have a fundamental belief that the Bible is the word of god albeit, your interpretation of the message continues to evolve. What is the basis of your belief in the bible being the word of god? What is it that convinces you that this book is actually the word of god.

 

[Otis]

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread

No but it's fun to watch

 

[Otis]

I have faith for the same reason many others have mentioned. I believe in science. But I look at the world and the universe and find it hard to believe that all of it happened randomly without someone or something at the switch. If I gather all the ingredients to make a cake and throw them in the oven I dont get a cake. But if I combine and mix the ingredients properly I get a cake. Thats how I see the universe. Carefully constructed.

Your misunderstanding of the universe starts right at the beginning of your post and it's that flawed logic that supports the rest. Imagine if you threw all the cake ingredients randomly into the oven billions and billions of times. Eventually you would get a cake. That's Darwin and nature. It doesn't have to be by "design."

 

[Otis]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

Because it's totally arbitrary. You devote your life to something not necessarily because you believe in this thing because it's "true" - it's something that was handed to you based nearly solely on where you were born and the parents you were born to. Doesn't that strike you as reason for doubt? If I were Omar up the street, I might be muslim; or if I were Joshua around the block, Jewish. It's (virtually) solely because of the fact that I happened to be born in one place and to one family that I have the beliefs that I have. That to me is a powerful reason to question things. I recognize that folks who are religious will likely tell themselves, and become comfortable with the notion that, they believe strongly in what they believe; that they arrived independently at their beliefs; and that they would probably have believed the same things under different circumstances. But I think the statistics show none of those are likely the case. And so why were your parents or grandparents "right"? Why not Joshua's grandparents? Omar's? These religions conflict, along with a host of others, and so they can't all be right.

It strikes me as a gaping, powerful hole in religious belief systems. I am curious to know whether and how religious people come to terms with that.

This goes back to my Doctor example earlier Otis. Does that make sense?

Some parents influence their children to become doctors. Some of the kids grow up and become doctors. Some don't.

Let's say you find yourself as a freshman in college having had no influence from your parents as to what to be, I think you'd look around at careers and if you considered being a doctor, you'd judge it solely on the merits of what it would mean to be a doctor.

Is the fact that some doctors were influenced by their parents to become doctors or some doctors were born in a state that produces a lot of doctors really something you'd worry about as you considered whether you wanted to pursue a career in being a doctor?

J

Joe,

Your doctor analogy isn't apt. In that context, a kid could choose to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a teacher, and there is no "right" answer. It's a decision like in choosing a religion, but no career choice is right to the exclusion of all others, and you don't have to hinge your life in an underlying factual premise that cannot be confirmed. Religion is different. You pick one, and to believe in one, you have to believe it's right, and therefore by definition all the others are wrong.

And to the influence question, when you're in high school and college, you are taught you can be ANYTHING. It's a menu and all of those options are open to anyone. Most religious households don't operate that way. I don't expect that in a Christian household parents would tell their kids to be Buddhist if they want (and give them the opportunity to learn it), or Jewish, or other. The reaction frequently would be more like another poster in this thread indicated-disappointment that the kids let the faith. The pressures and situation are so entirely different from a family who would love to see their kid be a doctor.

So I don't think that analogy applies. I suspect you and others would like to think you had that kind of unfettered free choice in choosing your religion, but it's awful uncanny that you (and most) happened to choose the same religion, of all the options out there, that your parents raised you in.

 

[Eminence]

If we are to the conclusion God exists, why would he allow multiple religions to pop-up on his planet?

 

[Otis]

If we are to the conclusion God exists, why would he allow multiple religions to pop-up on his planet?

So we'd have something to talk about on the Internet?

 

[Eminence]

The above is why I am convinced there can't be a God with consciousness akin to our own. I kind of think spirituality is something that exists between humans and not a 3rd party God.

 

[shader]

Our understanding of God changes person by person and moment by moment, in addition to any developing systematic theology.

Your understanding is based on the Bible correct? How far along in the development of this systematic theology would you say we are ~2000 years into it?

Is Christianity one religion or is it a subjective one (changing person to person)?

Christians are a diverse group that have a few beliefs that unite them. These can, for the most part, be found in creeds. It is important to define what Christians are united on, so this is actually a good question too.

The Nicene Creed is a good place to start for those who are curious. This is what unites Christians. These are the things that make you a Christian vs a different, non-Christian religion. You'll notice as you read through there that there are a ton of topics that aren't there. It doesn't speak to evolution, homosexuality, capital punishment, gender roles, the government's role in society, or any of the things that can and are hot button issues in the church today. Those are the things that we can (and do) disagree on. Ideally it will be more like brotherly disagreement, unfortunately it doesn't always play out that way.

Theology is not a finished study. Much like people still study philosophy, math, and science, we continue to study theology and we continue to learn from it. I'm not sure why we would expect theology as a discipline to be finished on a timeline we don't expect any other disciplines to be subject to. You wouldn't say "why haven't we figured out math, we've been studying it for thousands of years" or point to a disagreement on P versus NP as proof that math is somehow flawed simply because we don't know the answer (or if it can even be answered.)

Theology is hard. There is a lot going on. I am in some ways thankful for this because it gives a rich history of great minds that I can read and study from. But man, sometimes it would be nice if it were easy.

And what of those that don't believe the Nicene Creed?

 

[shader]

I look at the world and the universe and find it hard to believe that all of it happened randomly without someone or something at the switch. If I gather all the ingredients to make a cake and throw them in the oven I dont get a cake.

If you did that enough times you might actually end up with a cake. Our world is just one result among an incredibly large number of possible results, none of which require sentient guidance to bring about.

Well that is your opinion. Quite obviously many others disagree, not only when discussing the earth, but also the universe, the physical laws that make up the universe, etc.

It's not my opinion, it's the result of applying math (particularly probability) and understanding the results of the work of astro physicists along with a few other branches of science.

Again, I disagree

With what? Math? The work of astrophysicists and lots of other scientists?

Your interpretation of the science mostly.

 

[datonn]

Q: What if God or a Creator were a species, versus an individual "being," and said "species" visited Earth at multiple times, in multiple locations, throughout Earth's history?

Technically, the answer of Judaism vs. Christianity vs. Islam (and others) could be "yes." Not saying it is! Just saying...if you can stop thinking about God as an individual/being and more as a species from parts unknown, who has existed since before the Milky Way even came into being, some of those pesky lines/barriers between the various stories, historic accounts, and religions start to erode just a bit.

 

[Otis]

Q: What if God or a Creator were a species, versus an individual "being," and said "species" visited Earth at multiple times, in multiple locations, throughout Earth's history?

Technically, the answer of Judaism vs. Christianity vs. Islam (and others) could be "yes." Not saying it is! Just saying...if you can stop thinking about God as an individual/being and more as a species from parts unknown, who has existed since before the Milky Way even came into being, some of those pesky lines/barriers between the various stories, historic accounts, and religions start to erode just a bit.

Crazy as this seems, it actually feels easier for me to accept than what is written in religious texts.

 

[Otis]

Q: What if God or a Creator were a species, versus an individual "being," and said "species" visited Earth at multiple times, in multiple locations, throughout Earth's history?

Technically, the answer of Judaism vs. Christianity vs. Islam (and others) could be "yes." Not saying it is! Just saying...if you can stop thinking about God as an individual/being and more as a species from parts unknown, who has existed since before the Milky Way even came into being, some of those pesky lines/barriers between the various stories, historic accounts, and religions start to erode just a bit.

Crazy as this seems, it actually feels easier for me to accept than what is written in religious texts.