RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to Brainstorming Ideas

00:07, 29th March 2024 (GMT+0)

Theology for Kori.

Posted by MittensFor group 0
Mittens
GM, 195 posts
Fri 27 Sep 2013
at 14:19
  • msg #1

Theology for Kori

Outline:

Story / faith walk of Chris.

Truth hurts
1) The simple, uncomplicated gospel.  "Irresistable grace."
2) Doubts about eternal security.  "Persistance of saints"
3) Questions about Theodicy.  "Total depravity"
4) Christian double-speak.  "Limited atonement."
5) Fractured responses, "experts" who don't have answers.
6) Reformed Doctrine, a bitter pill to swallow.
7) Family crisis.
8) Deeper appreciation for undeserved grace / total depravity.
9) Continuing struggle.
Mittens
GM, 196 posts
Fri 27 Sep 2013
at 15:03
  • msg #2

Re: Theology for Kori

Mittens
GM, 198 posts
Fri 27 Sep 2013
at 23:28
  • msg #3

Re: Theology for Kori

I remember the day I sold my soul to Jesus.  I was in grade school.  Cornerstone Christian Achademy in Fayetteville, North Carolina while Dad worked at Fort Bragg.  It probably wasn't the first time I'd heard or even understood the gospel, but for some reason this time it sank deeper than just understanding.  I knew about Heaven and Hell.  I saw them in the cartoons often enough.  Heaven is where good cats' nine lives go.  Hell of course has dog devils to torment bad cats with pitchforks.  I guess what I understood for the first time in that classroom was that Jesus took the punishment instead of me.  A done deal.

All I had to do was pray, "I'm sorry for being bad, thank you for suffering in my stead," and mean it.  So I did.  Simple as that.  That day I spontaneously became a door-to-door evangelist and went around the neighborhood asking, "Are you Christian?" with dreams of some day becoming a medical missionary who would help heal wounds and wounded hearts.  This remained my life's goal for a very long time.

But by the time I was in the 5th grade I was having doubts.  "What if I didn't really mean it when I prayed the sinner's prayer.  What if I didn't really believe.  Sure belief is all there is needed to make it to Heaven, but how do I know if I really believed?  Better safe than sorry.  I'll pray that prayer again, this time with more feeling."  So I did.  On many occasions.

By middle school the bigger questions were hitting.  "Why does God allow rape?  Isn't he all-knowing?  Isn't he all-powerful?  Isn't he good?"  I was baptized and confirmed into the church, but whenever I mustered up the guts to ask an adult in the church, I got answers like, "God is great and powerful.  God is good and wants us to be good and wants us to love him.  But he chooses to not force us to be good.  He allows us all to make our own choices.  Because if he didn't we'd all be just robots.  Love cannot be forced."

So God allows rape because... of love?!  This made no sense to me and it still doesn't.  This was the first taste I had of what I've come to call, "Christian double-speak."  If *I* had the knowledge and power to prevent horrible, monstrous people from doing horrible, monstrous things, *I* totally would.  And I'm just a kid.  I'm not even as cool as a police man who would chop that badguy's head off!  ( http://axecop.com/ )  Isn't God cool too?  Didn't he flood the whole world to stop the badguys?  And send them to Hell?  Love.  Psh.  Yeah, right.  They've got a crazy idea of what love is if it includes looking the other way while someone is screaming for help.

But if I questioned the answer, I didn't get anywhere.  "God is good."  "Evil exist because people are sinful."  "It was the Devil's fault."  "Just take it on faith" was one phrase that drove me nuts.  Dad's answers didn't much appeal to me either.  One, Romans 9:20 "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?"  (My interpretation: I'm not allowed to question God?!  What happened to God saying, "Come let us reason together," in the scripture?  Isaiah 1:18)  Two, "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi," "What is legitimate for Jove (Jupiter), is not legitimate for the ox."  For one, I don't like being compared to a cow.  For another, I don't like borrowing a saying from another religion to plug the holes in my own.

Sadly, I wasn't faithful enough to really dig deep into the scripture.  Tried a number of times to go cover-to-cover but tended to give up around the endless "beget" section.  I had more fun books to read, like, Lord of the Rings or the Narnia series.  So instead I carried a bitter grudge against God and Christianity into my college years.  On my pastor's recommendation, I went to his alma mater, Messiah Christian College.  Pastor Paul was a very practical, no-nonsense type that was more interested in helping people than splitting hairs over doctrine.  Someone I respect.  So I had high hopes for the school he learned at.

Didn't get better answers there, really.  Questions on the reliability of Scripture are answered readily enough being that the Bible is the most reliable historical document in the world with hundreds of times more documented proof for Jesus' life than George Washington's.  http://www.amazon.com/Evidence...stians/dp/0785243631  I can believe God is real readily enough.  God is good?  Not so much.

When I came home and complained about my unanswered Theodicy questions to Dad, "How can God not be held accountable for allowing evil?  Isn't it his fault people are the way they are?  He made them, after all!" he offered me a book on reformed doctrine.  In it I read that the Bible teaches both that God is in complete control of everything that happens, good or bad, AND that even though sinners can't change their fate, they are still responsible for their sin.  These two apparently disparate ideas are both true according to scripture.  The book then pointed to a famous Bible story of Joseph to illustrate the point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._of_Jacob)#Narrative

Then, when Joseph found out that the brothers that had betrayed him were afraid of him getting back at them, he said, "Do not be afraid, for am I in God’s place?  As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

( http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...-21&version=NASB )

A more intriguing answer than I've ever seen before, but still not satisfactory.  Because it was still God who sent the famine that Joseph says people were saved from.  I came up with metaphors of Superman pushing people off buildings in order to swoop down at the last second to save them.

Then there's the whole story of Jesus' sacrifice.  Without getting too much into the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo about "Jesus is both the son of God and is God in human form all at the same time," it still doesn't make sense to me for someone to a) allow their own son to be tortured and murdered in order to forgive the murderers, or b) allow themselves to be tortured and murdered for the same reason.  So is God/Jesus a sadist?  A masochist?  Both?  Seriously taboo questions.  He could have chosen to make the price for entering Heaven something as simple as "do more good deeds than evil."  That's what most folks figure will get them into Heaven anyway, so why not?

Well they say the truth hurts.  Jesus claims, "I am the truth," and has been called, "The man of suffering," so that's consistent.  If I'm honest with myself, my objection to evil is the same as my objection to suffering.  Evil causes suffering and that's why I hate it so much.  But if I reject everything that causes hurt as evil, I must also reject truth.  It was looking like I had to dig a little deeper and swallow a bitter pill if I were find the answers I was looking for.

What I was hung up on all this time was my idea of "good."  My idea was that comfort is good, not suffering.  Suffering is bad.  But I wasn't about to accept that if ignorance is bliss and lies are comforting that I must welcome ignorance and lies as "good."  So I had to go back and reevaluate what "good" really means.

The dictionary defines "good" as being "of high quality" and as "correct or proper."  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good  In other words, it's a measure of meeting a standard.  Now if truth is a measure of coinciding with reality, truth is good - meeting the standard being what is real - even if the truth makes me hurt.  If I want to believe in what is good and true, I must conform my mind to what is real.  And the painful reality of life is that suffering is a part of life.  Why?  The Bible teaches that Jesus is truth, and is The Man of Suffering.  The truth hurts.  The reality of life is suffering.  I had stumbled upon the first noble truth without realizing.  An unhappy truth, noble or not.

So if "good" and "truth" were all about meeting a standard, by what standard would I measure He who sets the standards?  As an American, all my life I've been sold on the idea of Lex Rex, The Law is King.  No one is above the law, not even the President.  But God sure doesn't obey his own Ten Commandments.  "'Thou shalt not kill.'  Hey, God.  Remember that one?  Try it sometime."  Yet the saints of the Bible never make this point.  Why?  What am I missing?

Let's try the other commandments.  "Thou shalt not lie."  "For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." - 2 Thessalonians 2:11  "And if the prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the LORD, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel." - Ezekiel 14:9  Marvelous.  So not only does God lie, but he condemns those he uses to lie in the same breath.

"Thou shalt not envy."  "...I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God..." - Exodus 20:5

"Thou shalt not steal."

OK now we're on to something.  Can God steal?  "Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the highest heavens, the earth and all that is in it," Deuteronomy 10:14  Apparently not.  This smacks of an answer to the age-old question, "Can God create a rock he cannot lift?"  A simple logical puzzle to the assertion that God is all powerful.  The simple answer being no.  Being all powerful doesn't remove certain limitations.  Like the limitations of "there is nothing bigger than infinity" or "you cannot steal what already belongs to you" or "you cannot make a rock too heavy for you to lift."

So certain standards cannot apply to God.  "Thou shalt have no other God."  "Honor your father and mother."  "Thou shalt not commit adultery."  They just... don't apply.  So if God cannot meet the standard, doesn't that mean he cannot be "good" since "good" means meeting the standard?  Or...  am I applying the wrong standard?

But what else am I supposed to compare my God to?  Zeus?  Odin?  They don't look any more appealing.  How about Nature?  The impersonal forces that just somehow made the stars, the earth, life, love, and everything by random chance.  As much as I'd rather believe that there is no God than to believe that God would allow evil and suffering, I've never been able to make that one stick.  Is this an exercise in futility?  Am I trying to conform my mind to reality or am I just trying to force reality to fit into my tiny brain?

How does one decide on a standard anyway?  "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."  Wow.  Arbitrary.  Why not round off to 1/300,000,000 of a second?  And what a tiny, tiny sliver of a ray of light.  But there's probably some logical story behind it.  Like, it's the closest we can get to some concrete, predictable, tangible measure familiar to the human experience that doesn't change... much.  Relativity complicating things and all that.  Ancient measures were based off someone's arm length.  Probably someone important.  But when the old cubit rods wore out, they'd need a new guy to be the new standard for the new rods, and the old records of sizes of things would then be obsolete.

The Ten Commandments were based off someone important according to the Bible.  Someone concrete, predictable, and doesn't change from generation to generation.  Not very familiar to the human experience, though.  But a standard.  Like the metre, the Ten Commandments are apparently but a tiny, tiny sliver of the thing that it came from.  And like the metre, one cannot measure the fullness of the thing the Ten Commandments came from with such a measure.

So God is immeasurable.  Too big to fit into the human mind.  Cannot be accurately compared to anything in the human experience.  I gave up.

But the questions kept coming back.  There must be some way to understand.  "God is good," sure, if by "good" you mean he fits the God standard perfectly.  Which, of course, doesn't feel like it measures up to even the Human standard of "do no harm."  Why do Humans even do harm in the first place?  Often when they don't even want to.  Where did we get those nasty instincts?  The Bible says it came from the Tree of Knowledge in Eden which, by the way, God planted there.  The all-knowing knew Adam and Eve would eat that poison fruit and....  Waaait.  The Devil was right!

"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." - Genesis 3:5

Like God.  Knowing good and evil.  So knowing evil was an attribute of God since before the beginning.  Is evil a separate force?  Something that exists outside God?  The Bible claims that nothing exists outside God, so instead it must be a part of him.  At least, assuming evil is a thing that has existence.  No, evil is real.  It, like suffering, is a part of life.  Denying the existence of evil is silly.  It was always there.  Was suffering always there?

"All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast — all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world." Rev 13:8

The Man of Suffering was slain from the creation of the world?  Suffering has been a part of him all along?  Well no wonder it's a part of Humanity!  If we are "made in God's image," then it couldn't be any other way.  He couldn't make a creature bigger and better than himself!  God might be more human than I ever imagined.

Looking back, the evidence was everywhere in scripture.  God displaying a lot of human traits.  Anger, satisfaction, pride, regret, sarcasm, even sorrow.  All this time I was raised on the "God is good" mantra and assumed that it meant that to be "good" one had to be free of all the human flaws.  In fact, I had even reasoned for the existence of God because of how not-human he is.  Because all the man-made gods of old were just reflections of the humans who created them.  But now I'm faced with the uncomfortable evidence that the Christian God I was sold on, the all-loving Santa Clause in the sky, wasn't real in the least.  Wasn't what the scripture described.  The God of the Bible was much less soft and cuddly than the God of Sunday School.

"How dare you, God.  How dare you be flawed.  Like me."  What an unpleasant truth.  That God cannot live up to the standards he set for me.  "Do as I say, not as I do."  How can I accept that?  And where do Christians get off telling me "God is love?"  How come God isn't held accountable for all the pain and suffering caused by natural disasters, much less all the villains he created?  Why did he bother creating us in the first place if suffering was all that was in store for us?

Not that I would do any better.  When I was a kid, I used to love building blocks.  First for the building, then for the knocking down.  Toy cars?  Build the race course so they would smash together!  Pen and paper?  Stories and drawings of robots fighting and destroying each other.  It was in my nature to build up in order to tear down.  So is that what life is?  God's a little kid who builds up for the fun of tearing down?  An author who writes a tragic story where the most the characters have to hope for is to just survive to the last chapter?

Suppose it is?  What can I do about it as a character on a page?  Can I call up out of the pages to the one writing the story, "Hey!  Stop writing such a dark story, or stop writing!"  But isn't that exactly what I believe is happening right now?  God, the author of all history, infinite in knowledge, knew each keystroke I would be writing this very moment.  Knew each and every angry word I would raise against him.  Yet there it is.  Is God writing this because he's angry with himself?  I know I get angry with myself when I take a long, hard look inside.

How would I react to the villain of my novel objecting to his defeat at the hands of the hero?  Would he have the right to accuse me of wrongdoing?  Of course not.  I created him to do and say whatever I please.  He belongs to me just like the paper and the ink I formed him from.  Yet every thing he does in that story came from my mind.  From my thoughts.  He is a part of me just as much as the hero is.  Who's side am I on?  I made the villain who killed the hero's family to motivate him to seek justice.  Yet even after the hero defeats the villain, the hero's family is still gone.  The pain is still there.  Even after the satisfaction of bringing the villain to justice, the hero would probably rather never have been written in the first place.  Would I regret writing the story?  Maybe.  But something inside me needed to.

It'd be silly for me to accuse Tolkein of murder, but I remember crying even when Boromir died let alone how upset I was over Gandalf.  As the author, Tolkein had the right to do with his creation whatever he chose, and nobody questioned that.  He could have kept them both dead, but I was sure happy to get Gandalf back.  So if I step out of the pages of life and look at it for what I believe it to be, it begins to make more sense how the saints of scripture tend not to accuse God of wrongdoing, even in the midst of suffering.

A bitter pill to swallow when I step back into the pages of the story of life.  But it adds up.  Scripture seems to support the idea.

"This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 'Go down to the potter’s house, and there I will give you my message.'  So I went down to the potter’s house, and I saw him working at the wheel.  But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.

"Then the word of the Lord came to me.  He said, 'Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?' declares the Lord. 'Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel.'"  Jeremiah 18:1-6

"What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!  For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.'  So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." - Romans 9:14-16

Where do I go from here?  Back to Jesus, I suppose.  God had written several chapters of his chosen people refusing to obey him and punished to the point of being occupied by Rome.  From there the story could have ended in the Earth ending in a cataclysm of fire, famine, disease, and asteroids.  The last verse of the Old Testament sure hints at that.

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:   And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."

But instead God writes his Marty Stu into the story.  Born to signs and angels and fulfilled prophesy.  Born to a
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:37, Fri 04 Oct 2013.
Mittens
GM, 203 posts
Mon 4 Nov 2013
at 20:26
  • msg #4

Re: Theology for Kori

Justice is defined by God, is not above God or it would be god.

Comparative morality.  "I'm not all that bad.  I could be much worse.  So I must be good."  Apply this to God and even one good thing from God means he's infinitely better than he could be.  Turned around, even one sliver of "bad" and he's infinitely worse than he could be.  When you look at day-to-day life, God is way more good than "Bad."  People just take day-to-day miracles and pleasures for granted and make a big deal out of the momentary suffering.  Like losing a loved one of 50 years.  "Better to have loved and lost," while true, is never a comfort to the one who just lost because they're focused on the loss at the moment.  Say it again in a few years and they'll agree.  People have issue with God because of their focus.  Is why it confuses the negative when someone says God is so good.

Jesus never condemned the OT God.  Instead insisted on his worship.  And defined him as good.  Knew the Bible stories where God punished man very well.  The Passover celebrates the slaughter of countless firstborn and Jesus participated.  Never condemned Israel being commanded to slay the Canaanites.
Mittens
GM, 221 posts
Sat 8 Feb 2014
at 14:23
  • msg #5

Re: Theology for Kori

Chris, I understand that you're very passionate about your beliefs. That said, I'm not coming from a place of belief or passion, but of observational deduction. And I can't help but feel that you missed the point of what I was saying entirely. Science is based on what we, as humans, can observe and reproduce using controlled experiments. You cannot form a hypothesis without first setting aside all presupposed ideas and collecting observational data. Only after you've done that can you begin to formulate an idea on how a system came to be and make predictions about how it will behave in the future. The evolutionary model was arrived at using this scientific method. As we continue on as a species in our ability to observe the world around us, that model grows and changes with every discovery we make. This is why it should be taught as science. Creationism, on the other hand, starts with a supposition--this is inherently unscientific, as was stated in the very article you pointed me to in your email. Jesus can't really be used as an example, because he is (by your definition) divine and therefore not subject to the restrictions of our human powers of observation.

I think what you're arguing is that the evolutionary model is false. I don't really believe that it's true or false--I am suitably convinced that it is what happened based on the evidence supplied, but if other evidence comes along that makes a better argument, I'll change my mind. I'm okay with you or anyone else believing that it's false, but to say that it's not science is incorrect, as it was arrived at using scientific methods. It is science by definition. Creationism was not arrived at using the scientific method, therefore it should not be taught as science. Whether or not it is truth is irrelevant. You seem to be arguing that whatever we teach needs to be absolutely true. I would argue that nothing can be 100% verifiable as true, therefore a separation is required when teaching different subjects. A solution to this problem would be, again, to educate people in philosophy, which deals with the nature of truth and knowing. Then, teach science as science (as in, the method of actually performing scientific experiments, some of which necessitates using the evolutionary model as a basis ie: genetics, geology, tectonics), and cosmology (creationism, evolution, etc) as cosmology. If someone then wants to use scientific method to try to prove their presupposed ideas, let them. That's all fine and well. But to argue the semantics of truth in a scientific methodology class would subvert the learning environment. It's better left to philosophy.

These discussions are often enjoyable but I've felt myself very frustrated over the last day or so. I feel like this is ultimately a useless debate, because I'm the only one who would actually change his mind if supplied with convincing evidence. You may see that as admirable because you believe it ultimately makes me susceptible to your message. I see it as admirable because it makes me open to new ideas and possibilities. I feel like you have shut yourself off. Like you use semantics as a defense system for justifying something that you believe absolutely. It's exhausting to only debate the meaning of words because meaning is different for everyone, no matter how much you'd like there to be a concrete meaning for everything. These are tough things for me to say, because sometimes being honest means that you might say something hurtful to someone you care about. Know that my intent here is not to harm you in any way, simply to make my feelings known--something that I often have trouble doing.

Why is it so important that creationism be taught as science? The short answer is, I think, because you and others like you believe it to be so. Why is it so important that evolution be taught as science? Because the scientific community, in general, used scientific methods to arrive at the laws and theories that make up the evolutionary model, and use those same laws and theories to extrapolate how the world currently works and will work in the future. Because it is science. Not because it is truth. There's a big difference. If you, as I think you do, hold the bible to be ultimately true, then what's the harm in separating science from your cosmological model? None at all, in my opinion. Because we don't have to assert that it is absolutely true, just that it is true insofar as we can currently observe and predict.
Mittens
GM, 222 posts
Sat 8 Feb 2014
at 14:23
  • msg #6

Re: Theology for Kori

I may have been a bit indelicate earlier when I said I don't think creationism should be taught in schools. I think it has a place, however, you and I most likely differ on our opinion of where it is. What I meant was, I don't think it belongs in a science classroom, because creationism isn't science. I think it should be taught as philosophy, social science, maybe even cosmology, but not as science. I'm not going to bog you down with all the reading I've done, but I'll give you the most pertinent snippet:

For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

    consistent (internally and externally)
    parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
    useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
    empirically testable and falsifiable
    based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
    correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
    progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
    tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)


Creationism cannot be tested or falsified, cannot use controlled, repeatable experiments, and most definitely is not correctable or tentative. This is the backbone of science, not the model that science has arrived at through use of these processes, which you refer to as Darwinism.

I'm going on an assumption here that you think this scientific method and the resultant cosmology are akin to a religion. I would argue that they couldn't be more different. Religion requires that you believe your system to be absolutely correct and infallible. Science starts with "I have no idea" and moves to "I think I've got it but I could be wrong." Never does it move into the arena of the absolute. Creationism starts with the assumption that it is correct and attempts to disprove other models, which is why it fails as a scientific theory, but excels as a religious belief.

In my classes on religion and philosophy I was always able to excel, whether or not I believed in the truth of the things I was studying or arguing. When you study anything, be it philosophy, math, or science, you need to begin with the assumption that the facts you are reading are true in that system. Not necessarily true for you personally, but in the system you will be working with. From there, you can go on to excel in anything. If we taught this idea to students, how empowering would that be? How many issues would this solve when it comes to teaching science AND religion? I know we talked about it earlier, but I think even more important than teaching either a scientific or religious cosmological model to our kids, we should be teaching them philosophy. From there, they can figure out how to think critically, then supply them with all the information and let them make their own decisions about what makes sense and what doesn't.

I'll leave you with something neat. After the debate, there were 22 questions posted online to Bill Nye from creationists. A different scientist took them up and answered them quite beautifully, in my opinion. Check it out, it's pretty cool stuff.

https://medium.com/p/8712e42fbb0d

Message sent before I could add the link, so here it is
Mittens
GM, 223 posts
Sat 8 Feb 2014
at 14:24
  • msg #7

Re: Theology for Kori

I'll have to check out that link! Thanks! And thanks for the email. All very good points. If only every atheist thought as you did. But it's been my experience that, aside from yourself, everyone I've met who believes in evolution believes themselves absolutely correct and infallible (which is, sadly, just human nature in general) and some of them will go out of their way to disprove other models (such as creationism). So by your definition here, most atheists I met are religious about it. That said, if I take these defining terms and pull humans out of the equation, then I agree it isn't a religion. Not saying it's impossible for a human to not be religious about whatever they believe, just saying it's rather rare.

Something I liked about Bill Nye was that he frequently welcomed anyone to correct him and "If you do, I'll be excited! I'll embrace it!" This is the kind of scientist that is consistent with what you are saying. You and I may not agree about how the Universe was formed, but that doesn't mean we can't both have fun learning why we believe what we believe. For that matter, this kind of thing actually educates me more on my own beliefs just as much as it educates me on yours. I hope I do the same for you. No matter how educated anyone is, there is always something new to learn. And I agree with Bill Nye in that such a fact is very exciting. :)

Now all that said, bear in mind I'm no scientist. I doubt I could ever talk at you and Chris' level when it comes to science. But that doesn't make the facts I receive any less fun to explore.
Mittens
GM, 224 posts
Sat 8 Feb 2014
at 16:02
  • msg #8

Re: Theology for Kori

Things assumed:
- Lengthy, thoughtful replies indicate:
  "This topic is worth my while."
  "I consider you worth the time and effort to communicate with."
  "I respect your intelligence and therefor expect you to understand what I write."
  "The exchange of ideas with you has value."

Thank you.  I will return the compliments.

There were looots of cans of worms opened, so I want to list and label them then give a brief response.  It's what nerds do.  (Note: Please do not infer that my brief responses are final responses.  Only 'Answering best I can in limited time' responses.)
-----
Topics Tim covered:
- The typical Evolutionist believes themselves absolutely correct and infallible.  This is human nature.
   will go out of their way to disprove other models (such as creationism).  (Implied: in order to prove the first point.)
[Chris agrees, wishes it weren't so.  Agrees Kori, Bill Nye, and author of "22 questions" are refreshing exception to the rule.  Would add the video about "faith in video games" and the reaction to it is a prime example.]
- Typical atheists are religious about it.  [Chris agrees, finds it ironic.]
- take these defining terms and pull humans out of the equation, then I agree it isn't a religion.  (Implied: In practice, just about everything winds up part of a belief system religiously held.)  [Chris agrees.]
- I liked about Bill Nye that he frequently welcomed anyone to correct him.  (Implied: it is better to be corrected than to remain wrong.)  [Chris agrees.]
- I'm no scientist  [Chris disagrees.]

*Pushes up glasses*  Aaaactually... *Looks up the meaning*
a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems

Huh.  That uh...  I guess Tim was right....  *Looks again*
1:  a person learned in science and especially natural science :  a scientific investigator

Aha!  I knew I could accuse Tim of being a scientist!  He enjoys watching all kinds of science shows!  About nature, astro physics, technology, quantum physics... and so on.  Tim is very much a scientist / lover of science!  (I'm reminded of when a talented or skilled person says, "I'm no artist...")
-----
Topics Kori covered:
From 1st Email:
- I don't think Creationism belongs in a science classroom [Chris disagrees, Attempted to explain why in 1st email.  Considers this an intolerant stance.  Anecdotes to follow.]
- Creationism isn't science [Chris disagrees, very briefly touched on]
  For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be: (Very specific criterion)
  [Chris agrees.  Wishes the standard were applied constantly.  Points out that there's a difference between "scientific theory" and "science."]

sciĀ·ence
noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or TRUTHs systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

This is the meaning of Science I'm focusing on.  Science is systematic truth and method to arrive at truth.

- scientific method and the resultant cosmology are not religion.  [Chris agrees.  A shame that Tim is right that in practice this tends not to be the case.]
- Religion requires that you believe your system to be absolutely correct and infallible, Science does not.  [Depending on semantics, could agree or disagree.  Repeats that in practice, people make science a religion.]
  Creationism starts with the assumption that it is correct and attempts to disprove other models, Science does not.  [As above]
- When you study anything, be it philosophy, math, or science, you need to begin with the assumption that the facts you are reading are true in that system. Not necessarily true for you personally.  [Chris would likely do well to apply this]
- more important than teaching science or religion to kids is teaching philosophy.
  Benefits: thinking critically, making their own decisions.  [Chris agrees]
- 22 questions from creationists answered beautifully is neat. [Chris agrees]

From 2nd Email:
Soooo many cans of worms.  I'd be just quoting the entire thing to list them all.  So I'll try and condense things as best I... can (pun intended):
- I can't help but feel that you missed the point of what I was saying entirely [Will touch on this]
- Jesus (by your definition) is beyond the scope of Science.  [Agree, but will contradict self later.]
- I think what you're arguing is that the evolutionary model is false. [In all likliness.  Would need a cascade of new evidence to be convinced otherwise.]
  To say that it is not Science is incorrect. [Semantics.  By the definition I found, untruth is not science regardless of how it is arrived at.]
- nothing can be 100% verifiable as true, therefore a separation is required when teaching different subjects.  [Agree with first part.  Not sure about 2nd.]
- some Sciences necessitate using the evolutionary model as a basis [Disagree]
- To argue the semantics of truth in a science class would subvert the learning environment [Arguing is, in fact, disruptive.]
- It is important to teach Evolution as science because it is science. Not because it is truth. There's a big difference. [Points again to "Science is systematic truth and method for finding truth."  That is a very small part of why I claim Evolution is not science.  More on this in future email, perhaps.]

quote:
These discussions are often enjoyable but I've felt myself very frustrated over the last day or so. I feel like this is ultimately a useless debate, because I'm the only one who would actually change his mind if supplied with convincing evidence. You may see that as admirable because you believe it ultimately makes me susceptible to your message. I see it as admirable because it makes me open to new ideas and possibilities. I feel like you have shut yourself off. Like you use semantics as a defense system for justifying something that you believe absolutely. It's exhausting to only debate the meaning of words because meaning is different for everyone, no matter how much you'd like there to be a concrete meaning for everything. These are tough things for me to say, because sometimes being honest means that you might say something hurtful to someone you care about. Know that my intent here is not to harm you in any way, simply to make my feelings known--something that I often have trouble doing.


This is the important part I wanted to focus on.  But I feel like there isn't enough time to give a fair answer even after having woke up early and spending half the morning.  In summary, I do not want Kori to be frustrated.  Replace "I" with "I too" in most of the above paragraph and you'll know I share your feelings to some extent.  I hope that your feelings have not been hurt by my candidness.  Mine have not been hurt by yours.  I, like Tim, find value in even rational disagreement.

We were chatting in the car on the topic and Tim was recounting being a kid in school.  "I'm frustrated that because Evolution was crammed down my throat in the public school, I missed out on enjoying the field trip of a lifetime.  Because Dinosaurs were so connected to the 'millions of years' mantra, I believed them to be a fabrication.  So when I went to the dinosaur exhibit at the Smithsonian, rather than be awed at these amazing creatures, I was annoyed that I was being presented with a colossal sham.  Now that I'm older and understand that I don't have to accept the 'millions of years ago' mantra to appreciate dinosaurs, looking back I'm saddened that I was robbed of the opportunity to enjoy that trip."

Me: "And if you dared question Evolution, the teacher would just point at the text book.  You can't argue with a text book."

Tim: "If the teacher didn't automatically resort to, 'Who's the teacher here and who's the student.'  But yeah.  If you try and argue with the text book, 'So now you think you're smarter than the PhDs who put this book together?'"

I remember an entire semester in one of my classes being 'Evolution rulez!'  This meant there was no option to opt out.  My objections fell on deaf ears.  I was faced with multiple choice tests asking how many millions of years ago a T-Rex lived that didn't allow for my convictions.  "Spit upon your Bible by affirming the lies you've been taught, or you'll get an 'F,'" was the loud-and-clear message.  So I caved, lied, and gave the answer the test was looking for and kept my 4.0 GPA.  Bothers me to this day.

A friend of mine confessed, "I would like to someday become a pastor, but I can't.  Because science has disproven the Bible, and I love science."

Me: "What?!  No it hasn't!  Have you even looked into..."

"Yes it has.  End of discussion."

So what does the Bible say about science?  By semantic progression, "Jesus is truth," "Science is systematic truth," I arrive at Science is Jesus studied rigorously.  Reading through the scripture, I find that while Jesus is above the laws of science, he is the author of them.  Jesus made science, and like a work of art it is a reflection of the heart of the artist.  I worship Truth, Truth is my God.  Science is systematic truth, so in a sense Science is my God.  The Bible is totally in favor of science.  I get irritated when "Science vs. God" semantics are used, because they're inaccurate and discriminatory.  Not only are they very much compatible and in total agreement, they are so closely tied that they are very nearly one in the same.  There is no "vs."

What's more, I find the pot calling the kettle black to be the norm.  "Christians are close-minded, end of discussion."  "There is no evidence to support the Bible, nevermind there has never been a single observed example of Evolution."  "Christians are silly to believe themselves right and all else false.  They should know that I'm the one who is right and all else is false."  "Faith is incompatible with science, I believe that I am the universe made self-aware."  On and on and on.  I have yet to find a single accusation leveled against people of faith that isn't also true of the ones making the accusations.

Aaand I've run out of time.  I was going somewhere with this.  Like, "Sure is nice to have someone who disagrees with me who doesn't berate my faith, or insult my intelligence, or close their ears when I try to answer.  I think there is hope yet that progress toward a methodology for sane exchange of ideas can be arrived at."
This message was last edited by the GM at 17:29, Sat 08 Feb 2014.
Sign In