Wireman · 31-35, M
The Bible has been changed do much, on the other hand science mostly follows the money.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Wireman The Bible (and Talmud on which the OT is based) is NOT a scientific text-book and does not try to be. It's barely even a history-book. It merely gives its writers' religious and political beliefs.
Science does NOT "mostly follow the money" except where huge companies employ scientists to push some single line for the companies' own ends, as we saw with smkoing.
That prostitutes science.
The natural sciences are far less at risk from such commercial prostitution, because there is no advantage in them for the stock-market spivs.
These sciences are at some risk of either money-led prostitution or downright condemnation by the organisations I call the "commercial creationists", whose motives are neither science nor theology but making money from ignorance and control.
Science does NOT "mostly follow the money" except where huge companies employ scientists to push some single line for the companies' own ends, as we saw with smkoing.
That prostitutes science.
The natural sciences are far less at risk from such commercial prostitution, because there is no advantage in them for the stock-market spivs.
These sciences are at some risk of either money-led prostitution or downright condemnation by the organisations I call the "commercial creationists", whose motives are neither science nor theology but making money from ignorance and control.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
You have fallen into a trap by worrying about a totally pointless and meaningless conflict concocted by a minority but influential fringe-Christian lobby for its own reasons. Reasons I think go beyond mere theology.
Fossils do not "disapprove" of anything; nor themselves disprove anyhting. It's what they show that counts. They help prove natural time and events - set going by God, so Christians believe - are far greater, grander and more beautiful than the unknown writer of the Book of Genesis could have imagined.
Beliveing in God does NOT demand taking everything in the Old Testament so literally.
Its books were written by tribal priest-kings and prophets to convey a particular message to their own society that genuinely could not comprehend how natural processes work. No-one could, some 4 millennia BCE.
The writer clearly also missed the obvious, very unpleasant as well as absurd result of taking literally, the Adam and Eve and later Noah, myths.
I wonder if these stories were written as part of a sort of "Year 0" policy to help their followers reject and forget their pre-Abrahamic ancestry, whose main religion was the Persian, Zoroastrianism. Together, these books, written over the several centuries BCE, show the Ancient Hebrew leaders were trying to weld their disparate, semi-nomadic tribes into a cohesive society, and their most effective way was to devise a monotheist faith that suited their people. It likely drew on much older beliefs while conveniently forgetting the origins.
There is no reason you cannot believe in a God credited with creating everything natural while also learning what He did and how.
Religion simply says "God did it". Not when, not how. Not even why, really, other than God wanting Something To Do.
The natural sciences - astronomy, geology, palaeontology, biology - seek to understand how and when it happened. Not by whom (these sciences are anyway international, bridging all faiths and none). Not why. No-one can say "why"!
Indeed, even without believing in the Judaeo / Christian / Muslim god called "God", I regard those who take the Book of Genesis, the Flood story, etc. literally, in the light of modern knowledge, as unwittingly demeaning the very Deity they think they are defending, and denying vast swathes of His works.
^^^^
As for your love life, I am afraid the most believing in God can do there is give you some sort of emotional support - which is one reason religions exist.
Fossils do not "disapprove" of anything; nor themselves disprove anyhting. It's what they show that counts. They help prove natural time and events - set going by God, so Christians believe - are far greater, grander and more beautiful than the unknown writer of the Book of Genesis could have imagined.
Beliveing in God does NOT demand taking everything in the Old Testament so literally.
Its books were written by tribal priest-kings and prophets to convey a particular message to their own society that genuinely could not comprehend how natural processes work. No-one could, some 4 millennia BCE.
The writer clearly also missed the obvious, very unpleasant as well as absurd result of taking literally, the Adam and Eve and later Noah, myths.
I wonder if these stories were written as part of a sort of "Year 0" policy to help their followers reject and forget their pre-Abrahamic ancestry, whose main religion was the Persian, Zoroastrianism. Together, these books, written over the several centuries BCE, show the Ancient Hebrew leaders were trying to weld their disparate, semi-nomadic tribes into a cohesive society, and their most effective way was to devise a monotheist faith that suited their people. It likely drew on much older beliefs while conveniently forgetting the origins.
There is no reason you cannot believe in a God credited with creating everything natural while also learning what He did and how.
Religion simply says "God did it". Not when, not how. Not even why, really, other than God wanting Something To Do.
The natural sciences - astronomy, geology, palaeontology, biology - seek to understand how and when it happened. Not by whom (these sciences are anyway international, bridging all faiths and none). Not why. No-one can say "why"!
Indeed, even without believing in the Judaeo / Christian / Muslim god called "God", I regard those who take the Book of Genesis, the Flood story, etc. literally, in the light of modern knowledge, as unwittingly demeaning the very Deity they think they are defending, and denying vast swathes of His works.
^^^^
As for your love life, I am afraid the most believing in God can do there is give you some sort of emotional support - which is one reason religions exist.
dale74 · M
Yes and no, depends on your religion Catholic chruch has long accepted divine evaluation. I met this guy at a lecture series john haught has several books on the topic...
https://www.discovery.org/a/52/
https://www.discovery.org/a/52/
MoveAlong · 70-79, M
I hope you have overcome or stopped having hallucinations. If you have I would encourage you to always go with logic over faith.
Logic has led me to discount the biblical version of creation. I can't say that the universe is not the product of intelligent design but I don't accept that the god of the bible had anything to do with it.
Logic has led me to discount the biblical version of creation. I can't say that the universe is not the product of intelligent design but I don't accept that the god of the bible had anything to do with it.
peterlee · M
Spend time each day in His presence. This can be through prayer, listening to his word (Bible) or with positive people.
This is the core message of Genesis.
This is the core message of Genesis.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@peterlee Exactly although I don't believe any of the Bible was "written" via some sort of Divine "Dictaphone". Its assorted books simply state their authors' religious beliefs but they did have strong secuilar reasons for writing them. It's for us to choose to believe in their stories, their God, any other deity or none.
Believing in some super or supra-natural deity creating and operating the Universe while also trying to understand how it works is fine. Sadly though, some warp their own belief in that creative God into demanding ignorance of His creation for merely mortal ends.
Believing in some super or supra-natural deity creating and operating the Universe while also trying to understand how it works is fine. Sadly though, some warp their own belief in that creative God into demanding ignorance of His creation for merely mortal ends.