A few more ruminations from Sunday... The reader - a Yorkshire woman, her accent gave it away - spoke on the NT passage containing 'once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God' (once I've unpacked my concordance - along with all my other books - I might be able to give you a reference for that). Her most memorable illustration in a good sermon was this: just as celebrity memorabilia acquires great value simply through having belonged to someone famous, so also we as children of God have immense value simply through belonging to Him. As so easily happens to me even in a good sermon, the next paragraph or two was unfortunately obscured by a reverie triggered by this one thought: recalling a Radio 1 DJ explaining how being a fan of the late Kenneth Williams had inspired him to acquire almost all of the great man's possessions from his godson, as they were yet to be auctioned. He admitted that having KW's old clothes stashed away in his attic was a little creepy. I'll say. But you get my point (hopefully).
The closing worship brought another surprise. Out of the corner of my eye I'd noticed him unfurling a very large lilac banner; the next thing I knew, a man, probably in his early forties, came dancing down the aisle, rotating this banner helicopter fashion, round his head in a rippling silken figure of eight, then at the front of the church round his body in a whirling fluttering column... concluding the dance with other worshipful body gestures.
Now back at St Silas in Glasgow, I've seen several younger members of the congregation use banners, and I think its undoubted visual grace makes it a valuable contribution to worship. But what impressed me particularly here was, frankly, the bloke's age. I mean how many men in their forties can you imagine doing this? Kind of breaks a few basic markers of the traditional 'masculine image' if you ask me. I guess it could easily have been uncomfortable and 'cringey' to watch, but it wasn't; it was powerful and moving. It could only be so, of course, because the guy was actually pretty good at it - and, I learned, he only did it occasionally, when he felt led by the Spirit. In other words, don't necessarily 'try this at home':). Still, for my first church service in Bradford, quite an experience to be part of. Well done sir.
I also didn't mention having chatted with some friendly folk over coffee, including one Mavis, married to one Errol (they don't make names how they used to). I'll be exploring some other churches Sunday evenings (I went with my house-mate to St Peter's in Shipley this one just gone). But those bells of Holy Trinity pealing within a stone's throw have a come hither beckoning embrace that may be hard to resist on a Sunday morning (could be a different story if I wasn't a church-goer!).
I noticed the Lord Clyde pub is named after 'possibly the most famous British soldier of the mid-nineteenth century'. There you go. Since then I've also noticed The Wrose Bull, The Swing Gate and The Balloon and Basket. At the top of the road, corner of High Street/Town Lane junction, also sits the 'Towngate Fisheries', proudly displaying it's banner 'Winner Best Fish and Chip Shop Yorkshire area 2007'. This is quite a place.
In due course I'll share more of what I'm actually doing with Whistling Frog Productions. For the moment, putting finishing touches to my first newsletter. Also pondering a possible first programme idea, based around BBC1's 'The Apprentice'. 'You're hired'? (not my line, I admit).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
44 comments:
Bruce-
your last line sent me off on a tangent thinking of things that rhyme with hired. I think it would be good to do a programme around the idea of the Apprentice, but where the catchphrase is "you're tired" or "you're mired". What do you think? :-)
The sermon sounded like a very feel-good message.
You're talking about pubs a lot, I've noticed. Is this going to be a Sunday-morning-in-the-church, Sunday-afternoon-in-the-pub kind of thing?
Thanks Jonathan, I'll put your ideas in the melting pot...
Re mentioning all these pubs, to be honest I just like their names (not to say I'm not partial to the odd tipple). But no, I doubt I'll be settling into the routine you describe...
so also we as children of God have immense value simply through belonging to Him.
Do you then think non christians are of lesser value?
Good question Billy. No, I don't think that. As an illustration, it has limitations in expressing spiritual reality. I guess I view everyone as being on some kind of spiritual journey, broadly either towards living more for self or for God, whether recognised by the person as such or not. Every person has great worth being created in God's image. And I believe we ultimately each have the capacity either to grow into relationship with God, or away from God... and so to progressively gain or lose our value...
But there's some theology involved here, and I need to get back to work. I'll share more insight if it comes to me, or perhaps someone else will.
The whole god's image thing is somewhat controvertial. Is our inate "bad" side part of that? (again coming down to questions concerning evolution and not creation).
How do you think people lose worth. My worth is not dictated by what I believe. Do you feel you are of less worth in times of doubt? I know that is true of some believers.
In my more spiritual moments
what is important to me is trying to value people as I believe God values people.
The people who crucified Christ did not recognise who he was.
I try to recognise who people are, even if some people don't recognise themselves to be created by God I believe people are created by God and valued by God equally.
So showing people a non-subjective and non-judgemental respect is important to me.
The value God places upon people is written in a universal language on the body of Christ.
I think Matthew 9:13
explains who God values.
Jimmy, does god value apostates and those who blaspheme against the holy spirit? Does he value those whom he will cast in hell because he did not choose them for salvation?
Every person has great worth being created in God's image.
This has never made any sense to me... “image” and “likeness” – does this mean God is also a talking monkey just like man? I think it does (but I doubt a Christian could agree)
So this causes a problem doesn’t it, the Christian believe God is perfect, but how can a perfect being have a body (the one we are created in the image of) – and a rubbish body like man at that?
Man is not perfection, and neither is any body, so you need a spirit not of the flesh... so the “image of God” is not of the body or of the flesh, but of the mind maybe but then how can God have walked in the Garden of Eden? How did God come down as flesh as Jesus (unless Jesus was not flesh, it depends on who you believe) problems, problems – reinterpretation after reinterpretation. Why can’t God biography be clear?
So what we really have is an evolving God, a god created by man, but once created evolves to fit its environment where only the strongest will survive (and the fighting is done by man even in thought or with weapons)
And since I mentioned the “perfect God” (can their be any other?) why would a perfect God need or want to create imperfect beings, and imperfect stars, planets and the such like?
Doesn’t sound very perfect to me... so do we have an imperfect God? Again, this doesn’t make sense.
Problems, problems... Am I taking this thinking about religion seriously enough for you Bruce? I’ve not even asked for any evidence, just trying to make sense of the information provided :)
Cheers
Lee
In regard to spending Sundays in the pub, sometimes I think the church made me an alcoholic, which is the one thing I will always be grateful to it for ;-).
Lee, what possible merit can there be in exploring a "why would a perfect God need or want to create imperfect beings?" line of thought? Off the top of my head, you could note that creation was an act of love (not-existing is abstract and ,for what it is, perfect) : gratitude people owe to their parents is not necessarily sentimental or devoid of value.
ryan
Something
you have to understand about creation is that for us or to us creation is ongoing it is not finished yet it is not complete.
The present pains intrinsic in creation are like the birth pains of a completeness and a perfection to come.
God is eternal, although to us in time creation is ongoing, to God in eternity creation is complete and perfect.
Hi Ryan,
what possible merit can there be in exploring a "why would a perfect God need or want to create imperfect beings?" line of thought?
Well, you’re the Christian… you tell me :)
I thought religion explained the “why” and science the “how”?
Off the top of my head, you could note that creation was an act of love (not-existing is abstract and ,for what it is, perfect) : gratitude people owe to their parents is not necessarily sentimental or devoid of value.
Love? Then why make us imperfect? Why make us suffer? This isn’t love.
And if it is to receive “our love”, why does God need the love from creatures that to him are little more than ants?
Any comment on the evolving God? Seems rather man-made doesn’t he?
Religion has a problem…
Lee
Hi Jimmy,
you have to understand about creation is that for us or to us creation is ongoing it is not finished yet it is not complete.
So you do understand evolution after all :)
Though, why a perfect god (or indeed merely a loving one) would chose evolution is of course beyond me – but this is why so many Christian’s reject evolution.
But not you Jimmy with you latest response?
The present pains intrinsic in creation are like the birth pains of a completeness and a perfection to come.
Pain? So again – not perfect or all loving. The hoops and twists the theist has to force their mind are amazing.
God is eternal
This is your assumption – though it sounds a lot like infinite to me, and this causes further problems – why now and why create a sun with mankind spinning around for a maximum of a mere 10 billion years, it doesn’t have to be this way for a perfect God.
The problem remains…
although to us in time creation is ongoing, to God in eternity creation is complete and perfect.
Can you show any perfection in the world today? Nope? So God created something imperfect – why?
You are merely making excuses for your so-called perfect God, but of course this is what the Christian has been doing for nearly 2,000 years when Jesus’ prophecy failed.
It is sad, really sad… why not try and explain the universe with the simplest of answers, and not invent one that creates only further questions?
Lee
you have to understand about creation is that for us or to us creation is ongoing it is not finished yet it is not complete.
That's not what genesis says. We are however still evolving.
God is eternal, although to us in time creation is ongoing, to God in eternity creation is complete and perfect.
Why do you believe this?
Off the top of my head, you could note that creation was an act of love
I dont see how. Many more will perish in hell than are saved (supposedly). Was the creation of pathogens an act of love?
So God created something imperfect
I asked this on Jonathan's blog. What does a perfect being gain to his already complete perfection by creating something imperfect?
Do I detect a difference of opinion between Jimmy and Ryan here. Am I correct that one of you sees creation as an act of love and the other that it contains inherent pain?
Billy
Christ said "Unless a grain of wheat dies it remains alone but if it dies it bears fruit"
The death of Christ was also the birth of a new creation.
From eternity this creation already exists.
It is nothing at all to do with evolution, it is about stepping from flesh into spirit, and will be accomplished or completed in the blink of an eye.
1 Corinthians 15:49-54
Billy wrote:-
I asked this on Jonathan's blog. What does a perfect being gain to his already complete perfection by creating something imperfect?
I have been thinking the same… it seems the Christian “answer” never answers the whole, only part of the problem (and even then, sometimes not very well).
As I said, nothing but excuses for nearly 2,000 years…
(Of course, this is where Bruce will be complaining that I do not take the subject seriously… the problem is, I do, and the more I learn, the more it doesn’t make sense. This is a problem that is ignored by the faithful)
Do I detect a difference of opinion between Jimmy and Ryan here. Am I correct that one of you sees creation as an act of love and the other that it contains inherent pain?
Well, when the Christian just makes it up as they go along, why should we expect them to be the same – we wouldn’t. What you see is what you would expect for a man-made creation.
Don’t you just love it :)
Lee
Jimmy wrote:
Christ said "Unless a grain of wheat dies it remains alone but if it dies it bears fruit
Erm… now I’m no biologist, but “if it dies it bears fruit” doesn’t sound right to me… does the seed die before it grows into “fruit”… I don’t think so, but what do I know?
Methinks though Jesus is wrong again… what do you think? Surly not?
Lee
Lee, I pointed out on Jonathan's blog that I recognise in a sense you take it VERY seriously; perhaps a little too much so! You can call it 'excuses for 2000 years' if you like, but let's face it, if Christianity (C) is as intellectually bankrupt as you seem to think, it's odd how worldwide it is thriving and growing; including in the sphere of thought and reflection. Lies and fictions that have no basis in reality tend to die; C shows no signs of doing so. 'Religion' generally (taken in its most positive sense, without the negative connotations) and other religions share common ground here; ie, man's spiritual quest is universal and timeless, suggesting as a phenomenon it has a basis in reality.
I am mulling another post addressing some key points relating to this discussion, so watch this space; but I'll be sticking by my intention not to get embroiled in back and forth debate, so don't be disappointed. I think perhaps we have different preferred learning styles; you prefer to learn through debate, I prefer reading good books.
I sense a little frustration Lee, and I'm wondering why this is.
Here's a broad perspective of mine. I don't think that by your current approach you will ever be satisfied that there is anything in C or religion. That mere human intellectual reasoning can comprehend God and ultimate truth is recognised within the Christian perspective itself as impossible. Th gospel is in the NT called a scandal to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks (ie it collides with human intellectual categories) 'but to those who believe, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the wisdom and power of God'. To you 'believe' means blind irrational faith; to a Chrsitian, it means the gift of faith, which one needs to be open to receive in order to gain spiritual revelation and an understanding of God. That's to my mind part of why the recent vein of
debate has come to seem pointless; don't take this in any way as patronising, just take it as my view if you like, but I'd rather give more attention to praying that you and others wd be brought to a place in your life and experience where you're open to the gift of faith.
In my view, trying to work it all out and have it sussed in your head merely by intellect is wagging the dog of reality by the tail of reason. Reason and logic are good tools, but, to respond to one of your points above, THEY are only part of the picture of how man should wisely respond to reality.
Hi Bruce,
Sorry, what is to follow is a point by point break down – I want to be “short” but also to respond to all your points.
(Live football is on soon)
I pointed out on Jonathan's blog that I recognise in a sense you take it VERY seriously; perhaps a little too much so!
Oops… missed that sorry :)
I’ve been busy at work so only glance at the comments at the moment.
I take the investigation serious, its fun, but not the outcome – this will be whatever it will be - and since life (and your God if He exists) gives us no certainty apart from “death and taxes”, we both will only truly know the answer when we are dead. Such is life… however, I know as a betting man which way the dice seem to be falling.
but let's face it, if Christianity (C) is as intellectually bankrupt as you seem to think, it's odd how worldwide it is thriving and growing;
This is a logical fallacy Bruce – the belief in alien landings are increasing, does this make them more true? The belief in pseudoscience and crack-pot ideas are increasing in the UK (as believers in Christian decreases), do you buy into this as well?
Also, the bit you fail to recognise, the belief in this current version of Christian you have is NOT the same version as 500 years ago, 1000 years ago 1500 years ago…
The religion is evolving, this suggests to me that it is made-man – have you ever considered that?
I think however what religion offers, for many, is a great promise and people want to believe in the promise – even if the evidence is against them. It is a great conman trick, the best there ever was.
Lies and fictions that have no basis in reality tend to die;
They just change their colours… 150 years ago fairies got the blame for everything, now it seem to be little grey aliens – tomorrow? Who knows what people will believe in… mankind is a very superstitious being and “jumps” when it hears bumps in the night.
C shows no signs of doing so.
The “understanding” of the bible has change over time – it had to as science and mankind learnt more.
So in this sense, the Christianity of 500 years ago is dead… it has evolved into something else.
Have you any idea what Christianity “was” from the 1st century to the 4th? I doubt you would recognise it, and neither would Jesus I suspect (if that was his real name).
'Religion' generally (taken in its most positive sense, without the negative connotations) and other religions share common ground here; ie, man's spiritual quest is universal and timeless, suggesting as a phenomenon it has a basis in reality.
How can you remove the “negative connotations”? It would be great if you could.
Look, religion is good for some people, and very bad for others – some need it, some do not. None of this makes it true.
I am mulling another post addressing some key points relating to this discussion, so watch this space; but I'll be sticking by my intention not to get embroiled in back and forth debate, so don't be disappointed.
Excellent stuff, and no problem if you don’t want the “back and forth debate” – so long as you don’t mind me replying as I do :)
I think perhaps we have different preferred learning styles; you prefer to learn through debate, I prefer reading good books.
I think the best way to learn anything is to try and explain what you think you know to somebody else… you could call this a debate :)
Try and explain what you think is true to somebody, and if the idea holds water, it will make sense to the other person. If it is shot full of holes by the other person, maybe it is time to rethink your ideas – it is that simple with me.
So you are spot on… I enjoy reading, but I’m slow at it (only just passing my English GCSE all those years ago) It’s the debate for me, because it forces me to read to keep one step ahead.
I sense a little frustration Lee, and I'm wondering why this is.
Oh dear, I hope not… maybe just a little more focussed and condensed due to the lack of comments from me.
I had also just finished listening to a 3-hour public lecture on the early Christian church and sin so wanted to test some of the ideas… hope I didn’t come across aggressive or anything?
Here's a broad perspective of mine. I don't think that by your current approach you will ever be satisfied that there is anything in C or religion.
You could be right… but why am I wrong in my approach?
That mere human intellectual reasoning can comprehend God and ultimate truth is recognised within the Christian perspective itself as impossible.
Some say that mankind will never be able to understand the universe and the physical laws that it follows – they may be right, but I don’t see why science should just stop looking and praise God?
Should mankind and science just stop looking, if so why?
To you 'believe' means blind irrational faith;
No, I believe the sun will raise tomorrow, this belief is rational and based on evidence.
I’m of course against “blind irrational faith” as a means to finding any form of truth but the one you already believe in… its rubbish and I think you agree.
to a Chrsitian, it means the gift of faith, which one needs to be open to receive in order to gain spiritual revelation and an understanding of God.
So is “faith” in God more important than “evidence” for God?
I think the bible teaches that it is faith – what do you think?
However your prescribed logic is faulty – it requires for me to believe first, in “order to receive”. Have you heard of the emperor and his new clothes? He had to believe in them too before he could “see” the fine cloth :)
That's to my mind part of why the recent vein of
debate has come to seem pointless;
You may be right again – though I am interested, as I have said, in knowing “why a Christian believes”... Can you convince me it is based on something more than wishful thinking and not a trick?
I am open in hearing what it is, I’ve been looking since I went to college (and that is a long time now) and it seems people are merely convincing themselves… which is great for some – not for me.
but I'd rather give more attention to praying that you and others wd be brought to a place in your life and experience where you're open to the gift of faith.
I guess I should thank you for the prayers – so thank you.
The “gift of faith” – I’ve asked you the value of faith before, you have not been able to answer it. This should start to make you think.
So you pray… has anything “amazing” happen?
(Do you know million to one events happen 9 times out of 10 – according to Terry Pratchett, on this note I heard from one statistician that a million to one events happen more than once a month – just think of the last time that car didn’t hit you when you crossed the road half-thinking of something else)
In my view, trying to work it all out and have it sussed in your head merely by intellect is wagging the dog of reality by the tail of reason.
That’s a great sound bite…
Reason and logic are good tools, but, to respond to one of your points above, THEY are only part of the picture of how man should wisely respond to reality.
And the other’s are…?
Must go… enjoy your day…
Football in an hour.
Man U Vs Chelsea.
I want a 5-5 draw and 3 red cards.
That's worth praying for :)
Lee
Christ said "Unless a grain of wheat dies it remains alone but if it dies it bears fruit"
Dont remember that one. Physically, this is an impossibility, so Jesus is either talking rubbish or is not referring to physical phenomena. My question is about physical "creation". If you believe what you just wrote, then surly that means god was wrong when he was satified with creation andthat man kind was always going to sin. Therefore god is either not capable of or did not want to make a perfect creation. Neither is consistent with the idea that god is pefect. How could something imperfect come from something perfect? To do so makes the perfect being imperfect.
From eternity this creation already exists.
You have no evidence of this claim. Do you? It therefore makes it invalid in discussion. You have to justify this statement or you are building houses on sand to use a biblical analogy.
It is nothing at all to do with evolution, it is about stepping from flesh into spirit, and will be accomplished or completed in the blink of an eye.
1 Corinthians 15:49-54
See both responses above.
but let's face it, if Christianity (C) is as intellectually bankrupt as you seem to think, it's odd how worldwide it is thriving and growing; including in the sphere of thought and reflection.
Substitute islam (the world fastest growing religion) and tell me if you think that still works as an argument. There are certainly parts of islamic morality we would both agree are wrong, so, do you think your statement passes as a defense?
Lies and fictions that have no basis in reality tend to die; C shows no signs of doing so.
Do they? Do you believe all the hindhu myths? Buddhism is non theistic too, so what do you make of that?
Christianity and islam have progressed under the sword and indoctrination. That is why they hold their prominent positions. Can they both be true?
'Religion' generally (taken in its most positive sense, without the negative connotations) and other religions share common ground here;ie, man's spiritual quest is universal and timeless, suggesting as a phenomenon it has a basis in reality.
This is the no true Scotsman fallacy. What about people who are not on a spiritual quest?
That mere human intellectual reasoning can comprehend God and ultimate truth is recognised within the Christian perspective itself as impossible.
That is just not true! Remember john saying "these things are written that you might believe"
"seek god with all your heart and mind" etc... However, if you believe you cant comprehend it, then you have no way of knowing if it is true.
This however is strange as you have tried to argue for god's existence in the past.
to a Chrsitian, it means the gift of faith, which one needs to be open to receive in order to gain spiritual revelation and an understanding of God.
Trouble is, that works for hypnosis and brain washing too. Why have I not recieved this gift? And saying I was not open will not get you very far. You are blaming the skeptic here for not believing. This is a classic when the person making the claim has no evidence.
but I'd rather give more attention to praying that you and others wd be brought to a place in your life and experience where you're open to the gift of faith.
How is that going to work? I lived that lie, so whay are your prayers going to do?
My big toe nail is hanging off just now. I'll think of you when I tear it off - it will do as much good as prayer :-)
How can you possibly claim that belief in an intellectually unknowable god (another evolved religious view) is not a demonstration of irrational faith. How do you evaluate whether your prayers have been answered for example? Thought? If so, then you contradict yourself. Assume they are answered? if so, that is irrational.
Lee
God gave us reason for a reason(!); imperfect responses to revealed truth do not invalidate the latter. God doesn't "need" love in the pejorative sense. I would reiterate - for the millionth time - that the fact theology is not a hard science (neither is psychology/psychiatry) but this does not invalidate it for what it is.
Chelsea were lucky, I thought. If only Ferguson had started with Ronaldo and Tevez.
I would reiterate - for the millionth time - that the fact theology is not a hard science (neither is psychology/psychiatry) but this does not invalidate it for what it is.
However, that does not validate them.
Theologians cant agree on many hot issues. Why not?
PS I've told you a million times not to exagerate :-)
Hi Ryan
God gave us reason for a reason(!);
You have no reason to assume this :)
imperfect responses to revealed truth do not invalidate the latter.
“revealed truth”? Please explain/show what truth has been revealed.
Following your logic...
If your response is imperfect, then your response is imperfect – Simple really.
So since the response from the Christian is imperfect (i.e. they don’t agree with even with themselves at times) so this means the Christian response is imperfect.
This does not invalidate God as you say, but it does invalidate the claims made by many Christians.
So is God perfect? If so, as Billy pointed out, then making imperfect beings and universe contradicts this claim.
If God is not perfect, then isn’t Christian, at its core, wrong?
And let’s not forget, since the testable claims made by a Christian have been invalidated by empirical means, I would not trust the claims by a Christian that are untestable – this is just common sceptical sense.
God doesn't "need" love in the pejorative sense. I would reiterate - for the millionth time - that the fact theology is not a hard science (neither is psychology/psychiatry) but this does not invalidate it for what it is.
What is it then?
I’ve summed it up as merely “making excuses for what have been proven wrong”...
Can you explain why not only do two theologians not agree, they can not offer anyway to determine which one of them is correct (or wrong).
Science or not, this is “bad thinking” to trust it is anywhere close to getting at the truth.
Chelsea were lucky, I thought. If only Ferguson had started with Ronaldo and Tevez.
I didn’t want either to win, in the premiership I follow Liverpool, so merely wanted Chelsea to lose 3 or 4 players through injury for the semi-final this week – it was nice though to see their players fighting between themselves to take a freekick.
And what is happening with Rangers? Are they trying to throw the league away?
Lee
If God is not perfect, then isn’t Christian, at its core, wrong?
One problem is that a christian can not define what perfect is as god's ways are supposedly beyond human understanding. Claiming that god is perfect is therefore a claim that they can't even begin to justify - it is blind irrational faith to claim so.
Discuss
Just some notes in response to Lee and Billy's comments - need expanding but I wanted to write new post first...
Lee, Cn expression evolves but core message remains. Man made things fade and die; it's a sign of C's power and divine origin that it adapts and is released afresh. 'evidence against Cns'. Consider new models of weighing evidence... believe in order to understand is indeed a line of thought in C tradition. I'm NOT saying you can't discuss C intellectually - but that this can only take you so far. Again, it's both and not either or. The value of faith: well, soaking in scripture and the character of Christ transforms me. Billy, imperfect from perfect. You're caught in abstracts. Prayer not a slot machine - need to think in bigger context of r-ship.
Bruce I dont think you have read some of my posts carefully, your notes just seem to be reiterating tour own position a position that I have stated why I disagree.
Did you get my post on how perfection is unknowable and therefore an irrational claim - or was that on Jonathan's blog - got another cold and did not sleep last night, so I'm a bit fuzzy today
Hi Billy,
One problem is that a christian can not define what perfect is as god's ways are supposedly beyond human understanding. Claiming that god is perfect is therefore a claim that they can't even begin to justify - it is blind irrational faith to claim so.
It doesn’t make sense to me... on this note, I’m back talking on that Redneck blog we were on in January (he invited me over via Jonathan’s site the other day)
Anyhow... He made precisely those two points, and I quote...
“God is not totally knowable, by definition”
followed later by
“because nothing and no one is perfect, except God, by definition.”
Of course I am challenging this – we will see where it goes.
------------------
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for getting back to me.
Cn expression evolves but core message remains.
And this core message is what? To follow Jesus right? This says very little on its own, so maybe you could help me learn more.
The teachings and interpretations change – this is a little more than merely “expression”.
Care to tell me something factual about Jesus?
Son Of God or God Himself?
Flesh or no flesh?
Did Jesus’ body come back after the resurrection or merely the spirit? Empty tomb or not?
Is there a Hell or not? Purgatory or not?
Did Adam and Eve really exist? What about Original Sin and evolution?
I’ve not even started on the other “facts” in the bible like 6 days of creation, Noah’s flood, tower of Babel, flat Earth and hail storms stored in warehouses etc etc etc...
Oh, and how do you get into heaven again :)
Man made things fade and die;
Only on this “imperfect Earth”... (the moon buggy for example will be fine for a few billion years yet I’m sure)
You know this line of thinking is how religious thought and philosophy began I think – out beyond the moon the universe was suppose to be perfect and unchanging. Here on the corrupt Earth everything decays...
it's a sign of C's power and divine origin that it adapts and is released afresh.
Do you really believe this?
Evidence of divine origin?
Then why should it need to adapt and change? Why wasn’t it right in the first place? God just got it wrong?
Isn’t an evolving religion is a man-made one, not a divinely created one?
Consider new models of weighing evidence...
OK... what are they?
I'm NOT saying you can't discuss C intellectually - but that this can only take you so far.
This suggests to me that there is a problem with Christianity – it has no explanatory power, but that doesn’t worry you.
Again, it's both and not either or.
How Quantum of you :)
The value of faith: well, soaking in scripture and the character of Christ transforms me.
A Muslim may say something similar about the Koran and Mohammed – does this “transformation” make it right, or merely a delusion?
Lee
Oh, and how do you get into heaven again :)
I'm sure wars have been started over this. The problem is that the bible is not entierly consistent on this and it appears differnt denominations/cults choose the bits they want. I can anticipate a response to this, but just ask how many doctrinal splits have taken place.
Hi Billy,
I'm sure wars have been started over this.
Which happens a lot when you cannot prove your position with evidence or a solid logical argument.
The problem is that the bible is not entierly consistent on this
You’re not wrong… and it was of course a loaded question on my part, I’ve already quote-mined the bible on this subject and posted the results before.
(Happy to do it again if it would entertain – just a simple ctrl+C ctrl+V)
and it appears differnt denominations/cults choose the bits they want.
Only for the last 2,000 years…
I can anticipate a response to this, but just ask how many doctrinal splits have taken place.
Which is a problem if the message is suppose to be God’s – why would a loving God want to create so much confusion?
Lee
Which is a problem if the message is suppose to be God’s – why would a loving God want to create so much confusion?
Which is a problem for an "evolving theology". As it happens, there are still christians who regect botany, zoology, genetics, geology, geography, history and astronomy amongst other things, and take genesis literally (probably "correctly" so). Their theology has not "evolved". The issue is important. I know I shouldn't, but I laugh at YEC claims (and I have looked into them). Such a belief makes it impossible to believe in their god. The more progressive types have to keep re-interpreting the bible and with nothing to valisate their claims against, they separate themselves from a testable hypothesis. I know this upsets Bruce, but to me, that is irrational.
'valisate' - that's a good word Billy. And I wouldn't say I'm too upset. I am though starting to think I should call this section 'Billy's comments'.
Bruce, brushwood thicket, Billy... this blog definitely has a b thing going on. But enough burbling, I'd better go have breakfast, brush teeth and then bolt for the bus.
Hi Billy,
Which is a problem for an "evolving theology".
For me the argument stops there... once you notice the bible doesn’t describe the universe, it is excuses from here on in.
As it happens, there are still christians who regect botany, zoology, genetics, geology, geography, history and astronomy amongst other things
If it goes against their core belief – they have to reject these other forms of knowledge. To accept them would break their faith.
It’s sad...
and take genesis literally (probably "correctly" so).
Well, I don’t see anywhere in the bible that says these stories are not fact. The flat Earth idea for example is repeated many, many times in the bible – erm, so the fundies can accept some things in the bible are wrong?
So to take the bible literally seems the “honest” thing to do... if not, the Christian is making excuses again for the errors in the bible and if they cannot justify their excuses – they really are just making it up as they go along.
Bruce wrote:
I am though starting to think I should call this section 'Billy's comments'.
Bruce, brushwood thicket, Billy... this blog definitely has a b thing going on.
Well, if you don’t want to (or don’t have time to) comment here, then what are we to do? Create our own Blog? Don’t be silly man...
Lee
Billy
You are not responsible for what other people believe.
Few people (scientists included) have the same opinions as others.
What is important is - what you believe.
Having a belief structure based on amusement about what other people believe is no kind of structure at all and it's expression is only the mumblings of emotional immaturity.
When we stand before God the question about what other people believe won't come up.
The question will be - "What do you believe?"
Jimmy, was there a point to your post?
A response to a comment someone made?
A comment based on some evidence perhaps?
Or are you just making accusations again - a sign of intellectual immaturity - I hope not.
I'm sure I posted a comment on this thread last week... erm.
Either it was too dull to post, or it got lost - or I forget to click publish (do that before while rushing at work).
I may have a copy of it.
Later
Lee
Hi Lee,
I hesitated to publish your comment, and wasn't sure about Jimmy and Billy's little exchange either. To be honest, language like 'excuses' to reflect Christian thinking shows such scant awareness and respect for the kind of thinking that is done by Christian theologians and scientists that frankly it's a barrier to me publishing that kind of comment. I've done so this time, but will likely refrain in future. If you've got a q or point, please make it respectfully. You know I'm not up for detailed debate, but maybe another reader will want to respond to something, and I may respond to some points myself.
Meanwhile I'll look out for reading material to recommend, aware you'd rather I read it first. I have to say from my point of view though, I think you'd get good engagement on the issues you raise from the science religion section of any decent library or bookshop. You could check out the Third Way link at the side - I'm a regular reader of this magazine - it may well have some interviews and articles on science that would interest you. They interview key opinion formers and have talked with RD among others.
Good thinking has to have a foundation of mapping out and asking with sufficient thoroughness the right qs - and it seems to me you need to explore more thoroughly the various routes to knowledge that have been explored down the ages. This may help avoid the caricatures of religious thought you posit, and reveal the limitations of the scientific materialist stance you adopt.
That's my view anyway.
Bruce,
Science may have limitations, but it is the best way to understand the universe. Vague appeals to other subjecive ways of understanting are meaningless unless you can show their worth. That is where supernaturalism fails. I have argued in the past that supernaturalism - even if it were real is intrinsically unknowable (if you want to use the god is not a genie defense). It therefore offers no evidence of itself to believe in - and certainly not to choose your version of it over a different vesrion of it.
I generally find christians avoid justifying supernaturalism as a valid paradigm. Do you not think this is essential - a simple yes or no will do.
Hi Bruce,
I hesitated to publish your comment...
To be honest, language like 'excuses' to reflect Christian thinking shows such scant awareness and respect for the kind of thinking that is done by Christian theologians...
I’m embarrassed now that I may have caused offence.
If you think my comments are being a little “raw” just tell me (like you have just done) and I will change my tone.
I am not easily offended on most matters, and you certainly cannot offend me talking about my “worldview”... you could call me stupid, ignorant, blind, whatever... you might be right and so I will take your argument onboard.
My mistake is in thinking other people think the same way about their worldview and are as “thick skinned” as me.
Sorry.
If you've got a q or point, please make it respectfully.
As I just said, I thought I was... but on reflection I can understand how it could come across all wrong and not as “respectful” as I could (and should) have been.
I will use the phrases like “Christian Apology” or “interpretation” next time I guess – yet my question remains that the “Christian Apology” (or explanation) has changed many times over the years – for as long as their has been a bible to read.
This raises questions to me which are unanswered.
(Is this tone better?)
Meanwhile I'll look out for reading material to recommend, aware you'd rather I read it first.
Cheers – any book (or website) that can resolve the issues I see with the theory of evolution and the Christian idea of original sin and a creator God would be perfect :)
I’ve heard of a book by Ken Miller, but it is quite old now and I don’t know if it is any good on the Christian views.
I have to say from my point of view though, I think you'd get good engagement on the issues you raise from the science religion section of any decent library or bookshop.
“Decent” is the key word there...
I was in my local book shop yesterday, as it happens, and found myself in the religion section by chance (I was just trying to keep out of the way with the pram while the wife was looking else where).
Apart from the obvious smile I got out of seeing Richard Dawkins book next to the bible, there wasn’t much to see.
(There was an awful toddler book – with cardboard pages – that I didn’t like at all...
I’ll quote:-
”I know Jesus loves me
I know Jesus loves me
I know Jesus loves me
Because the bible tells me so”
I’ll say no more...
)
You could check out the Third Way link at the side - I'm a regular reader of this magazine - it may well have some interviews and articles on science that would interest you. They interview key opinion formers and have talked with RD among others.
I’ll give it a go sometime... didn’t know what the link was to be honest.
Good thinking has to have a foundation of mapping out and asking with sufficient thoroughness the right qs
Oh you will have noticed I like to ask questions, no problem there :)
Though I disagree with the requirement of “sufficient thoroughness” – no question is invalid. Such as the childish question of “Who made God?”
It is the answer to any question that is more important. Do not blame the child who is asking the question :)
and it seems to me you need to explore more thoroughly the various routes to knowledge that have been explored down the ages.
Many of those historical avenues have been shown to be wrong or at least bring you to false conclusions.
The scientific method on the other hand has been improving knowledge for over 350 years...
I assume you would advise only the methods that have been proven to show “good results”? Which would those be then?
This may help avoid the caricatures of religious thought you posit, and reveal the limitations of the scientific materialist stance you adopt.
I have said many, many times now I understand the limits with the scientific method, but you have not shown/presented a better method to gain understanding of the known universe. (My faith question is still out there if you ever want to tackle it.)
When something is unknown to the scientific method – it is unknown to all. Unless you can prove me wrong?
That's my view anyway.
And I warmly welcome it :)
Thanks
Lee
Such as the childish question of “Who made God?”
.
That is not a childish question at all. It perfectly shows the inconsistency of the design argument. The whole theistic design argument needs the creater to have no designer to avoid an infinate regress - which is the only logical out come of the design argument. The idea that the designer must have always existed is a non sequitur. It is also inconsistent with the "reasoning" that a design need a designer.
I find it funny that a certain FCOS minister can not deal with this and ignorantly calls it the argument of a 6 year old.
Hi Billy,
I find it funny that a certain FCOS minister can not deal with this and ignorantly calls it the argument of a 6 year old..
But it is an argument of a 6 year old so I would agree with him there, but as I pointed out – you should not blame the child or question if you cannot answer it.
Either admit you do not know or answer the question, but never blame the question because your answers are lacking.
I was wondering if I should sign up to the FCOS, but I’m wasting enough time at on blogs as it is and if his responses to questions are merely in the style of the Ad hominem – what’s the point?
Lee
I'll just reply very briefly to Billy's supernaturalism q; I've a lot of unpacking of boxes still to do, what joy. I'll admit to being a little hazy as to what I think about the nature of 'miracles', and I will grant your q makes me pause to consider what I really think about how God is present, works and interacts in the world, ie whether solely through natural processes or sometimes in another way. This is clearly related to the god of the gaps q. But it's late and I feel like a bear of very small brain right now. I'll put it on the burner.
As ever, there will be writers combining science and religion expertise who have plenty to say on this beyond the 'science doesn't explain this so God did it' caricature you and Lee seem rather sold on (no offence!) if you want to dig them out... I do recognise Lee such works may not be readily available in your local store; I kind of wish you cd see the section on science and religion at the International Christian College in Glasgow or somewhere similar; that's the kind of reading material I'm talking about. Glasgow Uni library must have a similar kind of section.
Nighty night.
Bruce, again your reply is a personal attack.
Sheer volumes does not make something valid. Are you arguing that numbers = quality?
You have stuggled on this science religion thing before. It seems to me that it is a matter of faith for you. Note the difference in approach - Lee and I ask you to justify your position, not accuse you.
Do you have a scientific theory for us that religious faith has improved? Ask Peter if you want help - we dont mind - we just want some evidence of the claim.
Good luck with the unpacking - dont be like a mutual friend of our who we shall call Tony for convenience who left some laundry from Copenhagen in a bin bag (unwashed) for 5 years.
I wasn't aware of any personal attack there beyond calling myself a bear of very small brain! The bottom line is I still don't feel it's my main calling to debate this stuff.
Night again - and I'll try not to emulate your friend with the washing; I wonder what on earth it looked like.
Hi Bruce,
It was the use of the term caricature - it was admittedly subtle.
I think the question shold be "I wonder what it smelled like?" I'll leave that to your imagination. I don't care to re-live the experience.
Post a Comment