"Currants Bw..."

[HCZ_Reborn]

Religion deals in revealed truth. By its very nature it cannot avoid conflicting with science. Any religion will consider its message good for all time, and therefore it will naturally contradict science which forever is changing as our understanding changes and development.

I’ve just stopped myself there. Because I think this is where the division lies. If you believe in God (the monotheistic Abrahamic one for the sake of argument) you will believe that God created the universe and thus every scientific concept that comes with that. If you don’t, you believe that Christianity was written by people in Bronze Age Middle East who had almost no understanding of the world around them let alone a cosmological understanding.

Now it’s fair to say whichever one of those explanations is true, and I don’t think you need guess at which one I think is true that Christianity as an institution rather than a belief system has had to adapt to the cultural and scientific changes of an ever changing world

If you read Hitchens God is not Great on Why Religion Poisons everything (slightly antagonistic title ) he speaks fondly of this old lady who was his primary school teacher and how she explained that it was proof of God’s divinity that he made all the plants a restful colour like Green rather than something more strenuous on the eyes. Where as Hitchens as a little boy thought this was plainly nonsense and it was far more likely that the eyes have to adapt to their environment

[Letters]

Religion deals in revealed truth. By its very nature it cannot avoid conflicting with science. Any religion will consider its message good for all time, and therefore it will naturally contradict science which forever is changing as our understanding changes and development.

I don't see it like that at all. Yes, science develops over time and changes our understanding of the Universe. As I noted in my preach, that may change the way we understand certain passages of Scripture. I used Galileo as the example, the heliocentric model changes the way we understand certain verses (e.g. "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved" - Psalm 104:5).
If I'd been born 500 years ago I'd probably believe that early Genesis was literally how things happened - 6 literal days of creation. Now I don't believe that. Because science. But the truths that Genesis reveals - that we are a creation, that we were created by God for relationship with Him, that our rebellion spoiled that relationship with God - those persist.
The only reason there's an issue is that some Christians still seem to think that Genesis should be read like a scientific text. To me they're missing the point of the writing - which is to reveal those truths.
It's not in the scope of Christianity to talk about how the universe began in the sense of the mechanics of it.
It's not in the scope of science to talk about whether there's a God or whether we have a purpose.

I’ve just stopped myself there. Because I think this is where the division lies. If you believe in God (the monotheistic Abrahamic one for the sake of argument) you will believe that God created the universe and thus every scientific concept that comes with that. If you don’t, you believe that Christianity was written by people in Bronze Age Middle East who had almost no understanding of the world around them let alone a cosmological understanding.

You're creating a false dichotomy there. I believe God created the universe.
I also believe that Scripture was written by people in the Middle East who had almost no understanding of the world around them let alone a cosmological understanding. I do believe those writings are inspired by God but there's no contradiction between those two things.

Christianity as an institution rather than a belief system has had to adapt to the cultural and scientific changes of an ever changing world

Absolutely. And it's not something we've been very good at - again, Galileo being put under house arrest.
I think it's something we've got better at, but my father in law still appears to be dragging his heels, he occasionally posts memes about evolution which show a depressing ignorance of the subject.

If you read Hitchens God is not Great on Why Religion Poisons everything (slightly antagonistic title ) he speaks fondly of this old lady who was his primary school teacher and how she explained that it was proof of God’s divinity that he made all the plants a restful colour like Green rather than something more strenuous on the eyes. Where as Hitchens as a little boy thought this was plainly nonsense and it was far more likely that the eyes have to adapt to their environment

Well she sounds sweet, but a little simple and misguided.
A bit like my father in law

[HCZ_Reborn]

But that poses the question, if you accept that scripture is man made (albeit divinely inspired) and that similarly any alteration to that religion’s ethos is also man edited. Does it not rather either relegate God to being a rather irrelevant figure either that or give people the incredible opportunity to claim that they are an instrument of God?

[Letters]

But that poses the question, if you accept that scripture is man made (albeit divinely inspired) and that similarly any alteration to that religion’s ethos is also man edited.

When you say ethos. I've said my understanding of early Genesis is different from how I'd have read it a few centuries back. But I don't think my understanding of the important message of that passage would be different.
My belief that I'm a creation and was created by God for a purpose is far more significant than whether the earth is a few thousand years old or billions of years. The latter doesn't actually matter - I mean, it does in the sense that truth is important, but whether we have a purpose fundamentally changes our understanding of our identity. The age of the rock we happen to live on really doesn't. Which is why I don't really understand why some Christians have such a bee in their bonnet about it.

Does it not rather either relegate God to being a rather irrelevant figure either that or give people the incredible opportunity to claim that they are an instrument of God?

It's the latter. The Bible says that Moses spoke to God like people talked to each other.

[HCZ_Reborn]

This could lead down a very pointless cul de sac which is fine when I’ve got plenty of time but I’ve already lost an hour today to a power cut.

But I do kind of think these all very much service human appetites, the belief that God put you on earth for a purpose does seem to appeal to that human solipsism, that desire to be important or have a function. It’s clear that the question of a meaning of life does stretch well beyond the Christian faith.

Personally? Even from a philosophical stand point it’s never remotely interested me. I’m the product of cause and effect that being that unprotected sex brings about pregnancy and my non celestial purpose was that my parents wanted a second child.
I don’t think I was meant to be the fastest sperm, it just ended up that way. The purpose of my existence is not pre ordained although that in itself does pose an interesting segue way into the nature vs nurture argument and whether free will is an illusion (it is in the technical sense that your actions are limited by your physical environment, your physical ability and the extent of your understanding) - I can’t will myself to invent a Time Machine because I lack the capacity to make such a device or even the scientific comprehension to understand even in a theoretical sense if such a device is even possible

It’s probably just as well that you don’t take a literalist interpretation of Genesis given that people are recorded as living up to 900 years.

[WMUG]

I don't see it like that at all. Yes, science develops over time and changes our understanding of the Universe. As I noted in my preach, that may change the way we understand certain passages of Scripture. I used Galileo as the example, the heliocentric model changes the way we understand certain verses (e.g. "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved" - Psalm 104:5).
If I'd been born 500 years ago I'd probably believe that early Genesis was literally how things happened - 6 literal days of creation. Now I don't believe that. Because science. But the truths that Genesis reveals - that we are a creation, that we were created by God for relationship with Him, that our rebellion spoiled that relationship with God - those persist.

Isn't that a rather convenient way of shaping the words to suit your pre-existing worldview, rather than using the words to shape your beliefs?

That's hardly unique to Christianity, but it does seem a little fallacious, logically speaking.

[Letters]

Isn't that a rather convenient way of shaping the words to suit your pre-existing worldview, rather than using the words to shape your beliefs?

How do you mean?
Science has shown that the days of Genesis aren't literal, but it doesn't change the message of that passage.
Why does it matter how old the earth is? My understanding of that part of the Bible may be different in the light of modern science but it doesn't change "In the beginning God". It just changes when the beginning was.

[Letters]

This could lead down a very pointless cul de sac

That is kind of our thing

which is fine when I’ve got plenty of time but I’ve already lost an hour today to a power cut.

Where do you live, the 1970s? Who has power cuts these days?

But I do kind of think these all very much service human appetites, the belief that God put you on earth for a purpose does seem to appeal to that human solipsism, that desire to be important or have a function.

It does. Which doesn't mean that it isn't true (or that it is)

It’s clear that the question of a meaning of life does stretch well beyond the Christian faith.

Well, sure. It's what all religions are about really. This is where I see it as quite distinct from science and thus don't see they're in conflict.

It’s probably just as well that you don’t take a literalist interpretation of Genesis given that people are recorded as living up to 900 years.

Yeah. Someone at church did years ago try and make some argument for why that's all literal but I didn't really buy it.
I'm not sure what I think about Noah, while we're here. I'm happy to believe there was a flood but I don't believe it was a literal global flood in the way the Bible states.

[Letters]

Also

https://metro.co.uk/2024/04/04/physi...onth-20588327/



Not sure this should be legal - although I do have some sympathy for the view that some euthanasia should be allowed. Not convinced this is a good use case though.

[HCZ_Reborn]

How do you mean?
Science has shown that the days of Genesis aren't literal, but it doesn't change the message of that passage.
Why does it matter how old the earth is? My understanding of that part of the Bible may be different in the light of modern science but it doesn't change "In the beginning God". It just changes when the beginning was.

The argument (albeit shooting fish in a barrel) is that increased understanding has forced Christianity to go from literal meaning to “well the science isn’t there but the message still has meaning”

It’s the admission that Theology can only exist in broad brush generalities

If I was God, I’d give serious consideration to a re-launch exercise, rather than say no I’m sorry I gave my inspiration for my word to a bunch of semi literate imbeciles….im not doing it again.