5 ms·

You're a practicing Christian, I don't know many, can you indulge my curiosity? Do you believe in the literal truth of the bible, creationism, the big bang? I a

You're a practicing Christian, I don't know many, can you indulge my curiosity? Do you believe in the literal truth of the bible, creationism, the big bang? I am a scientist and I doubt I'd ever be convinced to follow a religion whose followers believe in some stories and myths that are essentially anti-scientific. I don't mean to be harsh or barbed, I'm just saying I'd view the book as a mythological artifact from 2000 years ago, and not set of morals for viewing the world, especially when that set of morals includes stoning adulterers or not wearing a diverse set of fabrics in my clothes. Maybe it's possible to pick and choose things like be kind to others, golden rule, don't focus on possessions and wealth, focus on making good. But how is that exclusive to the Christian faith? To me, I find those moral goods very easy to employ with absolutely no faith in the less credible activities going on in the bible. I hope this a not mean response, I just view the Bible as an inherently different document than most Christians, I think, and I want to establish dialogue outside of my little bubble.

emodendroket 8y ago
Fundamentalists and literalists are a very small minority of Christians and their movement is more or less a reaction to science/the Enlightenment that didn't really exist in any significant strength before the 19th Century (and honestly it's hard to square with a careful reading of the Bible, which contradicts itself in ways that present problems for literal readings). Even as far back as Augustine you have Christians writing "obviously don't deny objective reality because it could be read as in conflict with a Bible verse." So no, I'm not into Young Earth Creationism or any of that. I won't claim it's impossible to comport yourself morally without being an adherent of any religion, but the Christian faith offers a more comprehensive framework to think about our relationship to the world and other people that I think is valuable.
- WhompingWindows 8y ago
  Oh ok, thank you for your response. What are some examples of what the Christian faith offers you, the comprehensive framework?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - lostcolony 8y ago
    Again, not op, but, it gives me a reason to pick the altruistic option rather than the selfish one, when I can 'morally' justify both. For instance, beggar on the street. I can feel morally okay by saying "They might not really be in need, just doing this to get extra money; I'll donate to organizations dedicated to helping homeless instead". But from my Christian perspective it changes, "Why am I judging this person's need? Who knows how much those organizations will help this individual person, who is here now, asking for help. Maybe they don't need it, but maybe they do. Would I rather risk a mouth going hungry, or risk 'wasting' giving a dollar to someone who has enough?", and I give the dollar. Or better yet, say "Wait, why is my time so valuable? Am I really in so much of a hurry? Why don't I see if I can buy this person a meal and talk to them for a bit". Now, I can certainly see people aligning their basic axioms to arrive at this same decision without an appeal to religion...I just know that for me, I wouldn't. Without a belief in a God who I know values them as much as me, and wants me to help them, I have no reason to push back against my own selfish rationalizations. I might still donate, but then it's just to absolve myself of any guilt I might have (which is also the goal of the rationalizations, really). For me, the belief in God compels me to move past just absolving my guilt, and instead leads me to ask how I can show love. You might make the case that this is just another form of guilt, and maybe it is (certainly, doing nothing leaves me feeling just as guilty), but it feels qualitatively different. A begrudging giving of a dollar compared with actually engaging with the person leads to two very different feelings, and I know I never choose the latter without an appeal to religion. Again, for me; YMMV.
    - WhompingWindows 8y ago
      Thanks for your response, I am cherishing the open dialogue that is definitely outside of my bubble. I see your personal viewpoint, but what about the aggregate? Taking Christianity as a whole, I believe it's fair to characterize it as being used for many extremely violent acts, such as the nominal justification for crusades, for religious wars in Europe (catholic vs protestant, for instance), or for the suppression of free speech and scientific advancement (galileo, evolutionary theory, the big bang, and so forth). To me, in the aggregate, it seems that these negatives have balanced off or perhaps outweighed the potential good works of practitioners who otherwise would not have performed good works.
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  this definitely depends on where you are. In the US, 1 in 4 are evangelical [0].. and 24% believe the bible is the literal word of god [1]. 0. Pew paper, no longer available.. so wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20090304020453/http://pewforum.org/publications/surveys/green-full.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20090304020453/http://pewforum.o... There's probably more up to date poll on this somewhere though. 1. http://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx http://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-beli...
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    I feel like this is one of those things that people say but, when push comes to shove, don't actually believe. Does anyone actually believe in the firmament described in the creation story?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - therealdrag0 8y ago
      When you're premise is "the bible is true" and "god can do anything", then what's not to believe? Most Christians I grew up with don't even think about it, they just accept it all.
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        They believe the Earth is surrounded by water, and the water is kept out because the Earth is enclosed in a solid dome? There are obvious challenges to this idea familiar to even school children.
lostcolony 8y ago
Not the poster, but as a Christian, no, I find the idea of the Bible being taken literally as rather surprising, and a rather recent invention. Just on the face of it, there are 'books' in the Bible meant as history, books meant as 'self-help', despondent mullings on the meaning of life, a love letter, personal recountings, letters written to others...these are all kinds of authors and approaches here, and so it strikes me as silly to take all of them literally. I mean, Jesus is quoted as saying "Go tell that fox", when speaking of Herod; there is no other mention of Herod being anything other than human. Clearly, if the Christian message is to be taken as truth, it shows that God is able to speak in metaphor (as well as interesting translation differences; for instance, the word for 'day' in the creation story is a word with a number of translations ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom ) So, how do things that seem antiquated apply now? Well, some parts of it -are- antiquated, in that they were meant for a specific time, and not now. Chesterton had a number of beautiful assertions in his book Orthodoxy, to the effect that Christianity is necessarily paradoxical, because -people- are paradoxical. To take that here, from my perspective (and there are many) morality can be both absolute and relativistic; what is 'good' is absolute, but what is treated as 'good' at a given time is relative to that time. You know that slavery is evil, but could you go back 4000 years and convince people of that? No. You would just alienate them, and likely get yourself killed. But you -could- convince them to at least treat their slaves better. You could design a moral code that would in time lead to them stopping slavery, by just introducing the idea that slaves are humans, with rights. If we credit the idea there is a God, and that evolution is a thing that that God uses, then the idea of allowing a moral idea to evolve into a fuller fulfillment of itself, over time, as people think, and talk, and develop, is an unsurprising thing for that God to do. As to stoning adulterers, and a number of similar things; don't misunderstand what was a legal code with a moral one. Yes, it was influenced by morals (same as our own law is), but the punishment was a legal code to be adopted by a people, and was a symptom of the time. No Christian but the most fundamental would say we, now, should adopt stoning as the appropriate punishment for adultery. Interestingly, the Bible makes it clear "the wages of sin (is) death", but that that's a moral issue between man and God. Any actual judgement indicated to be carried out between men is toward a legal system, and its rationale is much the same as our own, to prevent people from doing it and/or to allow for carrying out some semblance of imperfect justice (since flawed man judging flawed man will necessarily be imperfect). Similarly, many of the Old Testament rules were particular to the context of the time, and can only be understood in understanding the culture at that time. For why not wearing a diverse set of fabrics, have a look here - https://www.gotquestions.org/different-types-of-fabric.html https://www.gotquestions.org/different-types-of-fabric.html
cdoxsey 8y ago
Also not the poster, but I'll put in my 2 cents. I believe in inerrancy, which sometimes means literalism, but sometimes doesn't, because it comes down to intent. The Bible isn't a science textbook, so there's room for allegory and hyperbole, but it can only go so far, so some issues, like "was there a real Adam and Eve", or "was there a flood that wiped out all of humanity except Noah and friends" would, in my view, cross that boundary, and so I do believe they happened. Underneath this worldview are presuppositions about the nature of reality. Christians believe in a natural order - that the world works in a certain way - and that God created it that way and sustains it. But that doesn't rule out God's ability to interfere with his creation. Since, in the Christian understanding, such events are unusual, they aren't discoverable via Science. So Christianity is anti-scientific only if you believe the only real knowledge is scientific knowledge (logical positivism). There are serious philosophical problems when it comes to this worldview, even if you're not religious. (It doesn't do a particularly good job of explaining science itself for example) I highly recommend "Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism" by Alvin Plantinga for a serious philosophical approach to this problem. As to your second point about morality. I actually agree with you. In my view the Bible is not really about morality, in the sense of a bunch of rules and guidance for life, but rather the Bible presents a grand narrative about the nature of the world we live in: - We were born good and free but Adam and Eve through their sin brought ruin and death to all creation and drove a wedge between us and God. - Not satisfied to see us destroyed, God came up with a plan to save us instead. - That plan starts with Abraham and the nation of Israel, but is all intended as a foretaste of the ultimate fulfillment to be found in Christ. - Christ, as the second Adam, pays the penalty for Sin, thus allowing the severed relationship with God to be re-established, and freeing humanity from the power of sin and death - Christians live near the end of this story, in the "already" and "not yet" before Christ comes again So morality is important, but not so much for the rules, but for what it tells us about God. In the Protestant tradition, the purpose of the law is in 3 parts: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Gospel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Gospel) 1. "[W]hile it shows God's righteousness . . . , it warns, informs, convicts, and lastly condemns, every man of his own unrighteousness" (2.7.6). 2. It functions "by fear of punishment to restrain certain men who are untouched by any care for what is just and right unless compelled by hearing the dire threats in the law" (2.7.10). 3. "It admonishes believers and urges them on in well-doing" (2.7.12-13). And its that first part which is so vital. The laws exist to show how sinful we are and why we need a savior.
castlecrasher2 8y ago
I'm not who you replied to but am also Christian, specifically LDS. For context, we believe the Bible to be the word of God, so far as it is translated correctly. In my opinion, it's a mistake to think of biblical stories or any other stories for that matter as literal truth. For example, God created the world in six days and on the seventh He rested. But what is six days? Is it six 24-hour, Earth-space days? Is it six undefined periods called "days" so readers can digest it? There are so many details one can pick out and focus on, and we as humans are excellent at fixating on minute details that aren't important. The problem with this of course is that any organized religion will have misconceptions that are true-ish. What I mean by that is best explained by a phrase tossed around a lot in the LDS church: "Christ is perfect but His servants are not," and topics such as personal modesty are often conflated with being righteous. What I'm getting at with all this is that if you truly dive into Christ's teachings and the rules he strictly taught are few and far between; most teachings are the parables that are good life lessons on serving others. The parable of the ten virgins is an excellent example. Basically, it's a metaphor that suggests that half of God's people will be unprepared for His coming. Okay, that's easy, but what does unprepared mean? Well, Christ taught that we need to be baptized. Alright, but what else do I need to do? Well, he taught that rich man he should give up everything and follow Christ. Uh, but I have a family to support and feed, and I'm pretty sure I can't do that. I'll figure out what I can do to serve my spouse and children and family and neighbors and do that. That's what I find being a disciple of Christ is about. The Gospel is essentially 1) faith in Christ, 2) repentance, and 3) baptism. Everything else is about you figuring out what it is for you to be a better person for those around you, and that makes you a servant of God.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  This explains things I think better than I was.
russnewcomer 8y ago
Obviously, there are many different ways to view the Bible and Christianity. As another practicing Christian, I'd say that the most important thing to understand that the Bible is about the revelation of Jesus, and the book is through and through about revealing his nature, character, and way of interacting with the world. If you talk to or read most orthodox theologians (and by this I mean, not 'church leaders' but those who study and write about belief and doctrine and are generally accepted as largely non-heretical), you'll find a surprisingly wide view of the 'literal' nature of scripture, but a significant agreement on the essential nature of the teachings of Jesus. The moral side of the Bible is a side affect of growing closer to, and following the teachings of, Jesus. I'd also say that one of the things that non-fundamentalist Christians have done particularly poorly in popular culture in the last 30 years is discuss how the Bible we have was written to a different culture than ours, and taking it 'literally' means stripping it from much of the intended meaning. You asked about creationism and the big bang, here's a book you could possibly be interested in, by a scholar of Genesis, discussing how the text of Genesis is not intended as a scientific document. It's called The Lost World of Genesis One, by John Walton (https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043 https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0...).

emodendroket 8y ago

Fundamentalists and literalists are a very small minority of Christians and their movement is more or less a reaction to science/the Enlightenment that didn't really exist in any significant strength before the 19th Century (and honestly it's hard to square with a careful reading of the Bible, which contradicts itself in ways that present problems for literal readings). Even as far back as Augustine you have Christians writing "obviously don't deny objective reality because it could be read as in conflict with a Bible verse." So no, I'm not into Young Earth Creationism or any of that. I won't claim it's impossible to comport yourself morally without being an adherent of any religion, but the Christian faith offers a more comprehensive framework to think about our relationship to the world and other people that I think is valuable.

WhompingWindows 8y ago
Oh ok, thank you for your response. What are some examples of what the Christian faith offers you, the comprehensive framework?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- lostcolony 8y ago
  Again, not op, but, it gives me a reason to pick the altruistic option rather than the selfish one, when I can 'morally' justify both. For instance, beggar on the street. I can feel morally okay by saying "They might not really be in need, just doing this to get extra money; I'll donate to organizations dedicated to helping homeless instead". But from my Christian perspective it changes, "Why am I judging this person's need? Who knows how much those organizations will help this individual person, who is here now, asking for help. Maybe they don't need it, but maybe they do. Would I rather risk a mouth going hungry, or risk 'wasting' giving a dollar to someone who has enough?", and I give the dollar. Or better yet, say "Wait, why is my time so valuable? Am I really in so much of a hurry? Why don't I see if I can buy this person a meal and talk to them for a bit". Now, I can certainly see people aligning their basic axioms to arrive at this same decision without an appeal to religion...I just know that for me, I wouldn't. Without a belief in a God who I know values them as much as me, and wants me to help them, I have no reason to push back against my own selfish rationalizations. I might still donate, but then it's just to absolve myself of any guilt I might have (which is also the goal of the rationalizations, really). For me, the belief in God compels me to move past just absolving my guilt, and instead leads me to ask how I can show love. You might make the case that this is just another form of guilt, and maybe it is (certainly, doing nothing leaves me feeling just as guilty), but it feels qualitatively different. A begrudging giving of a dollar compared with actually engaging with the person leads to two very different feelings, and I know I never choose the latter without an appeal to religion. Again, for me; YMMV.
  - WhompingWindows 8y ago
    Thanks for your response, I am cherishing the open dialogue that is definitely outside of my bubble. I see your personal viewpoint, but what about the aggregate? Taking Christianity as a whole, I believe it's fair to characterize it as being used for many extremely violent acts, such as the nominal justification for crusades, for religious wars in Europe (catholic vs protestant, for instance), or for the suppression of free speech and scientific advancement (galileo, evolutionary theory, the big bang, and so forth). To me, in the aggregate, it seems that these negatives have balanced off or perhaps outweighed the potential good works of practitioners who otherwise would not have performed good works.
rgbrenner 8y ago
this definitely depends on where you are. In the US, 1 in 4 are evangelical [0].. and 24% believe the bible is the literal word of god [1]. 0. Pew paper, no longer available.. so wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20090304020453/http://pewforum.org/publications/surveys/green-full.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20090304020453/http://pewforum.o... There's probably more up to date poll on this somewhere though. 1. http://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx http://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-beli...
- emodendroket 8y ago
  I feel like this is one of those things that people say but, when push comes to shove, don't actually believe. Does anyone actually believe in the firmament described in the creation story?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - therealdrag0 8y ago
    When you're premise is "the bible is true" and "god can do anything", then what's not to believe? Most Christians I grew up with don't even think about it, they just accept it all.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      They believe the Earth is surrounded by water, and the water is kept out because the Earth is enclosed in a solid dome? There are obvious challenges to this idea familiar to even school children.

lostcolony 8y ago

Not the poster, but as a Christian, no, I find the idea of the Bible being taken literally as rather surprising, and a rather recent invention. Just on the face of it, there are 'books' in the Bible meant as history, books meant as 'self-help', despondent mullings on the meaning of life, a love letter, personal recountings, letters written to others...these are all kinds of authors and approaches here, and so it strikes me as silly to take all of them literally. I mean, Jesus is quoted as saying "Go tell that fox", when speaking of Herod; there is no other mention of Herod being anything other than human. Clearly, if the Christian message is to be taken as truth, it shows that God is able to speak in metaphor (as well as interesting translation differences; for instance, the word for 'day' in the creation story is a word with a number of translations ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom ) So, how do things that seem antiquated apply now? Well, some parts of it -are- antiquated, in that they were meant for a specific time, and not now. Chesterton had a number of beautiful assertions in his book Orthodoxy, to the effect that Christianity is necessarily paradoxical, because -people- are paradoxical. To take that here, from my perspective (and there are many) morality can be both absolute and relativistic; what is 'good' is absolute, but what is treated as 'good' at a given time is relative to that time. You know that slavery is evil, but could you go back 4000 years and convince people of that? No. You would just alienate them, and likely get yourself killed. But you -could- convince them to at least treat their slaves better. You could design a moral code that would in time lead to them stopping slavery, by just introducing the idea that slaves are humans, with rights. If we credit the idea there is a God, and that evolution is a thing that that God uses, then the idea of allowing a moral idea to evolve into a fuller fulfillment of itself, over time, as people think, and talk, and develop, is an unsurprising thing for that God to do. As to stoning adulterers, and a number of similar things; don't misunderstand what was a legal code with a moral one. Yes, it was influenced by morals (same as our own law is), but the punishment was a legal code to be adopted by a people, and was a symptom of the time. No Christian but the most fundamental would say we, now, should adopt stoning as the appropriate punishment for adultery. Interestingly, the Bible makes it clear "the wages of sin (is) death", but that that's a moral issue between man and God. Any actual judgement indicated to be carried out between men is toward a legal system, and its rationale is much the same as our own, to prevent people from doing it and/or to allow for carrying out some semblance of imperfect justice (since flawed man judging flawed man will necessarily be imperfect). Similarly, many of the Old Testament rules were particular to the context of the time, and can only be understood in understanding the culture at that time. For why not wearing a diverse set of fabrics, have a look here - https://www.gotquestions.org/different-types-of-fabric.html https://www.gotquestions.org/different-types-of-fabric.html

cdoxsey 8y ago

Also not the poster, but I'll put in my 2 cents. I believe in inerrancy, which sometimes means literalism, but sometimes doesn't, because it comes down to intent. The Bible isn't a science textbook, so there's room for allegory and hyperbole, but it can only go so far, so some issues, like "was there a real Adam and Eve", or "was there a flood that wiped out all of humanity except Noah and friends" would, in my view, cross that boundary, and so I do believe they happened. Underneath this worldview are presuppositions about the nature of reality. Christians believe in a natural order - that the world works in a certain way - and that God created it that way and sustains it. But that doesn't rule out God's ability to interfere with his creation. Since, in the Christian understanding, such events are unusual, they aren't discoverable via Science. So Christianity is anti-scientific only if you believe the only real knowledge is scientific knowledge (logical positivism). There are serious philosophical problems when it comes to this worldview, even if you're not religious. (It doesn't do a particularly good job of explaining science itself for example) I highly recommend "Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism" by Alvin Plantinga for a serious philosophical approach to this problem. As to your second point about morality. I actually agree with you. In my view the Bible is not really about morality, in the sense of a bunch of rules and guidance for life, but rather the Bible presents a grand narrative about the nature of the world we live in: - We were born good and free but Adam and Eve through their sin brought ruin and death to all creation and drove a wedge between us and God. - Not satisfied to see us destroyed, God came up with a plan to save us instead. - That plan starts with Abraham and the nation of Israel, but is all intended as a foretaste of the ultimate fulfillment to be found in Christ. - Christ, as the second Adam, pays the penalty for Sin, thus allowing the severed relationship with God to be re-established, and freeing humanity from the power of sin and death - Christians live near the end of this story, in the "already" and "not yet" before Christ comes again So morality is important, but not so much for the rules, but for what it tells us about God. In the Protestant tradition, the purpose of the law is in 3 parts: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Gospel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Gospel) 1. "[W]hile it shows God's righteousness . . . , it warns, informs, convicts, and lastly condemns, every man of his own unrighteousness" (2.7.6). 2. It functions "by fear of punishment to restrain certain men who are untouched by any care for what is just and right unless compelled by hearing the dire threats in the law" (2.7.10). 3. "It admonishes believers and urges them on in well-doing" (2.7.12-13). And its that first part which is so vital. The laws exist to show how sinful we are and why we need a savior.

castlecrasher2 8y ago

I'm not who you replied to but am also Christian, specifically LDS. For context, we believe the Bible to be the word of God, so far as it is translated correctly. In my opinion, it's a mistake to think of biblical stories or any other stories for that matter as literal truth. For example, God created the world in six days and on the seventh He rested. But what is six days? Is it six 24-hour, Earth-space days? Is it six undefined periods called "days" so readers can digest it? There are so many details one can pick out and focus on, and we as humans are excellent at fixating on minute details that aren't important. The problem with this of course is that any organized religion will have misconceptions that are true-ish. What I mean by that is best explained by a phrase tossed around a lot in the LDS church: "Christ is perfect but His servants are not," and topics such as personal modesty are often conflated with being righteous. What I'm getting at with all this is that if you truly dive into Christ's teachings and the rules he strictly taught are few and far between; most teachings are the parables that are good life lessons on serving others. The parable of the ten virgins is an excellent example. Basically, it's a metaphor that suggests that half of God's people will be unprepared for His coming. Okay, that's easy, but what does unprepared mean? Well, Christ taught that we need to be baptized. Alright, but what else do I need to do? Well, he taught that rich man he should give up everything and follow Christ. Uh, but I have a family to support and feed, and I'm pretty sure I can't do that. I'll figure out what I can do to serve my spouse and children and family and neighbors and do that. That's what I find being a disciple of Christ is about. The Gospel is essentially 1) faith in Christ, 2) repentance, and 3) baptism. Everything else is about you figuring out what it is for you to be a better person for those around you, and that makes you a servant of God.

emodendroket 8y ago
This explains things I think better than I was.

russnewcomer 8y ago

Obviously, there are many different ways to view the Bible and Christianity. As another practicing Christian, I'd say that the most important thing to understand that the Bible is about the revelation of Jesus, and the book is through and through about revealing his nature, character, and way of interacting with the world. If you talk to or read most orthodox theologians (and by this I mean, not 'church leaders' but those who study and write about belief and doctrine and are generally accepted as largely non-heretical), you'll find a surprisingly wide view of the 'literal' nature of scripture, but a significant agreement on the essential nature of the teachings of Jesus. The moral side of the Bible is a side affect of growing closer to, and following the teachings of, Jesus. I'd also say that one of the things that non-fundamentalist Christians have done particularly poorly in popular culture in the last 30 years is discuss how the Bible we have was written to a different culture than ours, and taking it 'literally' means stripping it from much of the intended meaning. You asked about creationism and the big bang, here's a book you could possibly be interested in, by a scholar of Genesis, discussing how the text of Genesis is not intended as a scientific document. It's called The Lost World of Genesis One, by John Walton (https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043 https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0...).