[_ Old Earth _] God vs. Science

[turnorburn]

Then take it where it belongs, to a science forum. :wink:

 

[Jayls5]

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

He then said, "Well let's assume that Evil is not the opposite of Good and merely the lack of Good. It certainly begs the question why God would create anything that was not good if he was, in fact, ALL good."

At least that's what the professor would have said had he not been a straw man caricature of a retarded atheist professor with absolutely no conception of basic science.

 

[Guest]

Then take it where it belongs, to a science forum. :wink:

It is in the Christianity & Science forum... in addition to it being in the correct forum, it was already an existing topic, so I didn't make the topic I simply commented on it. If you believe that the author made a mistake categorizing the forum under which to post, then please address the author of this post.

 

[Guest]

: I misunderstood, we all know he didn't write it, he used the hand of man.

The Bible seems to speak in the name of God, often quoting him/her, but I can rarely agree that the majority of the content is even the word of God. It doesn't seem like God dictated the Bible to anybody, there are A LOT of portions where it's more like a History book, where the authors have provided us with an account of some event (David vs. Goliath, The Flood, etc.) unless quoting God (“God said,†or “Thus says the Lordâ€Â).

Again, I think that the keyword is inspired. The accounts in the Bible were not generally written down as they occurred. Rather they were told over and over again and handed down through the years before someone finally wrote them down. There was no Bible for the first 350 years of Christianity. The first official list of Scriptures was done in 393 at the Council of Hippo, then again in Carthage in 397 and 419. The Church did not infallibly define these books until the Council of Trent, when it was called into question by the Reformers, in 1556.

Partial criteria for determining the canon is as follows:

* special relation to God, i.e., inspiration;
* apostolic origin;
* used in Church services, i.e., used by the community of believers guided by the Holy Spirit.

In reality the Bible is an account of human relationships with God, that's why we see a lot of "God said" and "Thus says the Lord". Most of these stories were originally circulated by word of mouth, due to the high illiteracy rates, and finally were written down by some educated people.

It's pretty evident that God had no problem with people being Christian and not following the Bible for the first 350 years of Christianity, it was enough to believe in God and be a good Christian.

You draw your conclusions here.

 

[turnorburn]

You are from this time forward, Anathema Maranantha

 

[Guest]

You are from this time forward, Anathema Maranantha

Please refrain from saying such things to people. It is utterly disgusting that you would curse someone... you make Christians look bad: if you don't agree with someone you don't curse them. That's why Christianity gets a bad name, because of people like you Christianity becomes repulsive.

I would strongly suggest you take your words back, I will pray that God forgives you for your sin.

 

[turnorburn]

Those words stand, besides from your own hand you stated you don't believe the written word of God.

 

[Free]

*There will be no more name calling and flaming or this thread will be shut down.*

Thank you.

There was no Bible for the first 350 years of Christianity. The first official list of Scriptures was done in 393 at the Council of Hippo, then again in Carthage in 397 and 419. The Church did not infallibly define these books until the Council of Trent, when it was called into question by the Reformers, in 1556.

This is somewhat misleading, at best. The earliest canonical list is called the Muratorian Canon and is dated to the late 2nd century AD. It was a list written in response to Marcion's Gnostic canon and included 19 (likely 21) of the current books of the NT. Eusebius also had a canon (c. A.D. 323) which included 21-22 current books and disputed the remaining 5.

In A.D. 367 Athanasius complied his own canon, the first to which the term 'canon' was applied, and it contained the 27 books we have today in the NT, albeit in a different order. This canon was finalized and accepted at the Council of Carthage in 397, but with the current order of the NT.

That "the Church [the RCC] did not infallibly define these books until the Council of Trent" is very misleading and mere rhetoric in an attempt to undermine the authority of Scripture. It is irrelevant when the RCC infallibly defined "these books" considering the fact that the current NT canon has been around since 367 and most of it since the end of the 2nc century.

 

[Guest]

That "the Church [the RCC] did not infallibly define these books until the Council of Trent" is very misleading and mere rhetoric in an attempt to undermine the authority of Scripture. It is irrelevant when the RCC infallibly defined "these books" considering the fact that the current NT canon has been around since 367 and most of it since the end of the 2nc century.

That makes the Roman Catholic Church the editor of God's words, determining which ones can and which ones can't be in the Bible.

 

[Free]

That makes the Roman Catholic Church the editor of God's words, determining which ones can and which ones can't be in the Bible.

No, not really. There were four main criteria in determining which books to canonize:

1. Apostlicity
2. Catholicity
3. Orthodoxy
4. Inspiration

So once again your words are misleading. The RCC, or CC, didn't "edit" God's words. There were many books written and the four above criteria (perhaps more) were used to determine which were most likely the words of God. It isn't a matter of "which ones can and which ones can't be in the Bible", it's a matter of which ones ought to be and which ones ought not be in the Bible.

You seem to be a man of science so I'm sure you can appreciate using certain criteria as a basis for determining the truth or error of a certain matter and being able to draw a conclusion based on the given evidence.

 

[Orion]

I think what dogon is eluding to is that, regardless of the mechanics of it all, a group of men still decided whether or not a text may have been of God or not. I have no idea how many were involved with this process, but I can't imagine that did it completely perfectly.

I also see much of the OT as more of a historical document, or even commonly told stories, maybe even some exagerations. They WERE common folk, after all, and had to have received this information from someone else who knew the story, as I'm sure illiteracy was very common back in OT times.

This is not to say that "science wins". I believe that which we humans have labeled as "God" does exist and had a part in our creation.

 

[Guest]

This is not to say that "science wins". I believe that which we humans have labeled as "God" does exist and had a part in our creation.

Good point there! What Christians don't understand is that Science is not trying to stop people from believing in God. Science does not have a "secret agenda" of removing God from the minds of people, but rather providing an explanation for the state of our surroundings. If the findings of science contradict what is in the Bible, then I'm sorry to say that, but I think that the Bible must be revised. If the Bible is wrong it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, it just means that somebody screwed up!

As I said, my theory of creation goes as such: God created life by making the first living cell. God designed the cell to multiply and evolve, then the cells did exactly what they were "programmed" to do . From then on it's history... Now, I may be wrong, but I surely don't believe that the Bible is "more right"!

Again, this is my personal opinion, and I understand if people don't agree with it... just take it as it is.

 

[Dunamite]

Why does it have to be God vs. science? Why can't it be God and Science?

You don't turn your brain off and stop asking questions just because you are a Christian. In the past many great scientists also believed in God. Today many great scientists also believe in God. They are not mutually exclusive.

Science glorifies God because it explains the complexity of the universe and it should fill us with wonder and appreciation of God. Since the dawn of history we have learned lots, but nothing which would preclude the existence of God. Science has always produced more questions than answers and it will continue to do so.

Cheers,
Dunamite

 

[Free]

In the past many great scientists also believed in God. Today many great scientists also believe in God. They are not mutually exclusive.

As some have argued, modern science only exists precisely because of the Christian convictions of earlier scientists.

 

[Guest]

In the past many great scientists also believed in God. Today many great scientists also believe in God. They are not mutually exclusive.

As some have argued, modern science only exists precisely because of the Christian convictions of earlier scientists.

I don't necessarily agree with this argument because Christianity hurt modern science as much as it helped it... Even now many Christians don't agree with science but that's not to be said that we should all agree with science anyway. On the contrary, science relies on people challenging the existing theories. If enough evidence is provided to show that one such theory is incorrect then it will be corrected, in essence science is self-correcting.

Another reason why you it doesn't make sense to use the Bible as a means to argue against science is because the people who wrote the bible lacked the vocabulary to describe God's miracles. If you show a modern car to a person in 200 B.C., and you try to have a person of that time describe how it was made in one page, without even knowing what brakes, engine, pistons, tires, navigations systems, airbags and all the other things in the car are, then they will have a hard time giving an accurate account of what the car is and how it was made. Even you have the most capable engineer who worked on that car describe how the car was created, it would still take more than one page. It takes more than one book to describe how a car works, then it's pretty amazing to see Genesis describe nothing less but the entire Universe being created by God in 30 passages. I don't mean to be Mr. Obvious here, but a stupid car has nothing on God creating the Universe, Earth, life, etc. Again, to re-iterate, God might have told us more (which is evident by the existence of Scripture outside the Bible), but due to the lack of vocabulary and understanding of God's work it was probably not accurately described by the people who wrote it down.

If you want to learn about Medicine you don't pick up a Finance book, you pick up a Medical book. If you want to learn about Christian Theology, you don't pick up a Computer Science book, you pick up the Bible.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

CCC 159 - Faith and science:
"Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."

SOURCE:
Catechism Of The Catholic Church:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1 ... 3.htm#art2