Do you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible?

[Ham]

As far as God, the secrets of the universe, the answer to everything and all..

I think this little experience on a rather small, insignificant(?) piece of rock.. was worth everything it promised to be..

[Juan Cruz]

A thought from Eugene Peterson:

"Inerrancy, as commonly defined, does irreversible violence to the literary genres of the Bible..

[inerrancy} stands squarely on the view that the Bible is a collection of propositions, i.e. verses.

It is a recent innovation, appearing in none of the Reformation confessions.

The Bible's descriptions of truth are rich and diverse.

Inerrancy is a concept that has to be footnoted in too many ways to be useful."

Alleluia, here's a wonderful quote from a contemplative pastor.... he almost answered it as well as I did - lol

... he used honey instead of vinegar...

I use vinegar because I trow it might take something akin to smelling salts to revive some PFAL grads from their inculcated illusions.

I've decided to bop ' true believers' over the head with a lollipop - my keyboard is attached to my laptop. And besides, Herbie Popnecker would approve.

Edited July 17, 2008 by Juan Cruz

[waterbuffalo]

I must say that I believe that too. Yet, if we have evidence that our earliest human relatives bones were found in Africa and not in the biblical Garden of Eden (southern Iraq), that if the world's tectonic plates moved at such speed to place the continents where they are now the resulting devastation from earthquakes, volcanism and tsunamis would have done us in like the dinosaurs and the arguments that Creationists can make are becoming fewer and fewer...what does that portend for the biblical proposition that there was an Original Sin by one man that had to be expunged by a Redeemer?

Oeno, first of all, I wonder sometimes what your IQ is. You are very smart. That said, would you mind rephrasing that question in layman's terms? Thanks in advance. I'm confident that you've made some wonderful points that many could learn from, but got lost trying to separate the interesting information from the question.

[oenophile]

Oeno, first of all, I wonder sometimes what your IQ is. You are very smart. That said, would you mind rephrasing that question in layman's terms? Thanks in advance. I'm confident that you've made some wonderful points that many could learn from, but got lost trying to separate the interesting information from the question.

WB,

I think you are smarter than me. Here goes... the gathering evidence that points toward that life on this planet evolved as the most plausible explanation; which, if true, would render the biblical narrative of the Fall as not literal. If the Fall is not a literal event, why does Mankind need a Savior?

[cake]

...Belief, unlike knowing in the Cartesian sense, does not require tedious mathematical proofs and syllogistical arguments.

How about the converse argument? Are we unjustified in our disbelief of certain biblical narratives (Genesis Creation, the Flood) when they are contradicted by mounting empirical evidence?

...if we have evidence that our earliest human relatives bones were found in Africa and not in the biblical Garden of Eden (southern Iraq), that if the world's tectonic plates moved at such speed to place the continents where they are now the resulting devastation from earthquakes, volcanism and tsunamis would have done us in like the dinosaurs and the arguments that Creationists can make are becoming fewer and fewer...what does that portend for the biblical proposition that there was an Original Sin by one man that had to be expunged by a Redeemer?

This is such a well crafted argument that I felt the need to restate my original reply. No, I don't believe in biblical inerrancy. I fully agree with oenophile's point about belief. Belief only requires a concept to be accepted as viable to a greater or lesser degree in some person's mind in order to exist. This acceptance is fundamentally an emotional decision. Facts are much more demanding.

I began to question this semiotically and semantically, questioning the intrinsic inerrancy of the text in question. Here are my thoughts: Texts are comprised of words. Words are essentially symbols used, in their verbal and literal forms, to transmit information. They don't mean anything in and of themselves necessarily. Rather, they represent the concepts for which they are used to stand in for. Take the word for a Peach, for example. "Peach" is not a Peach, but say "Peach", and most people will understand what you mean... unless, of course, they've never touched or eaten one and "peach" only exists to them as a visual representation (as, say, a drawing or a photograph).

Semantic nit-picking? Perhaps not when you next take into account the question of translation. This is the expression of concepts for the purpose of transmitting information, and this can become problematic. For example, if you speak more than one language, you may know that concepts expressed in one language may not necessarily be obvious in another. Take the word "football" in English, and it's cognate "futbol" in Spanish, and you have the potential for misunderstanding: both words sound alike when spoken, but the sports being represented are quite different. My point is that there is are wider cultural, geographic, and even temporal contexts to be considered when examining texts, not just the other words immediately surrounding the ones in question.

Consider that this text contains a collection of writings that range in age from something like 1500 to 4000 years. It contains chronicles that represent relatively wide geographic areas, it likely represents the writings of more than one ethnic group, and it most certainly represents more than one language group over all that time. It has been the subject of multiple translations in ever more distant geographic locations into languages that are increasingly dissimilar from those of earlier manuscripts which themselves were translations of now-dead tongues... And it has been the subject of multiple editorial efforts that were undoubtably informed by geopolitical pressures of the day, to say nothing of economic considerations of the times in which they were undertaken...

I think an any argument for inerrancy becomes increasingly problematic as one considers more of these questions. Of course, to paraphrase oenophile who so aptly argued the point, belief requires no proof, and (I add) it doesn't necessarily welcome questions. I, on the other hand, find oenophile's last question there a very inviting one indeed. I'm really curious to see if anybody else is interested in pursuing it.

[George Aar]

I, on the other hand, find oenophile's last question there a very inviting one indeed. I'm really curious to see if anybody else is interested in pursuing it.

Oh, not to any great extent, as I think I"ve pretty much "been there, done that" enough already. Without an uncritical acceptance of The Bible as some sort of spiritual roadmap in life, on it's own it just doesn't interest me much.

Other questions I sorta mulled over during my transition from Buhleever to vile, worthless, apostate:

If God really wants all men to be saved, why not be a little more transparent in what The Truth actually is?

If God is really so loving and all, why would He set things up so as to have to have a freaking HUMAN SACRIFICE in order for His will to be fulfilled?

If I punch Jimmy in the mouth and then become a Christian, I guess I'm forgiven for that sin, but what the hell good does Christ's DEATH do for Jimmy's teeth that I knocked out (feel free to extrapolate further in that regard)?

Religion just makes less and less sense to me the older I get. I don't hate God, or "His" word, I just doubt the existence or veracity of same.

Why should what we believe be so crucial to our salvation, but what we do be so irrelevant?

I'm sorry, I don't dislike anyone because they're Christian or Buddhist or Islamic or whatever, I just can't join in the exercise, as it makes no rational sense. It just doesn't, sorry...

[Mister P-Mosh]

Take the word "football" in English, and it's cognate "futbol" in Spanish, and you have the potential for misunderstanding: both words sound alike when spoken, but the sports being represented are quite different.

Not to try to nit-pick too much, but this is an invalid example. "futbol" originated from the English term "football", otherwise in Spanish it would be called "balo de pie" or something. In fact, the term "football" or "footie" is the proper term for what we call soccer in English. We are the only English-speaking country to refer to our modified rugby as "football", while everyone else calls soccer "football." It's probably easiest to call our sport "American football" so when you talk to people from other countries, they know what you're talking about.

[cake]

Not to try to nit-pick too much, but this is an invalid example. "futbol" originated from the English term "football", otherwise in Spanish it would be called "balo de pie" or something. In fact, the term "football" or "footie" is the proper term for what we call soccer in English. We are the only English-speaking country to refer to our modified rugby as "football", while everyone else calls soccer "football." It's probably easiest to call our sport "American football" so when you talk to people from other countries, they know what you're talking about.

P-Mosh: I see your point, but I'd like to say that I was trying to raise some questions with that example... In fact, etymologically, football appears originate in Middle English (1350s to 1400s sometime - I'd have to do some further digging to find out more), and it appears in various forms in other languages as cognates: in Spanish as "fútbol" or as "Fußball" in German... and it's not entirely clear when it was adopted by them. English itself is swimming with cognates, words borrowed or adopted from other languages or branched and evolved that have, as cognates, continued to evolve over time. Also, the US isn't the only English speaking country to refer to American style football as merely "football"... I know what you're saying, but this was actually the heart of what I was trying to convey... I used the cognates football and fútbol as recognisable words that sound alike but which carry the possibility for misunderstanding precisely because of that similarity. Location and audience determine the context.

I began thinking of another example, and I hope you'll bear with me: it's a concept that doesn't translate quite as easily. In Japanese, the commonly used word for soccer is サッカー (sakka) as opposed to the more official フットボール (futtoboru)... again, cognates, and in this case, they're closer in meaning to their (American) English counterparts, but you'll notice the Japanese that I used here: the character set is Katakana, often (though not exclusively) used to render "gairaigo" (the closest translation would be "loaned words") phonetically. Gairaigo is a concept describing a foreignness - the necessity for which isn't always apparent to many English speakers (no matter what dialect) since we have no particular cultural need, or mechanism, to use such a signifier to mark foreign terms as being of-foreign-origin (with the increasingly rare exception of itallicising "foreign" expressions, for example "Argument for sheer pleasure was his raison d'être"). My point is that I can translate "gairaigo" as "loaned words", but it won't necessarily explain the culturally implicit need for marking such words as gairaigo to somebody for whom that is not a cultural necessity.

I can hear the yawns now... Well, a fun example might be trying to translate the relatively common Québécois "colline de binne" (chalice of beans) as an epithet. You might ask "How is that an epithet? What makes it a 'bad word'?" This was my point about translation. This concept doesn't translate neatly (though it always cracks me up, it's so deliciously irreverant, pardon the pun). To get it, you have to think what might constitute an obscenity (so to speak) to a Catholic. Saying "damn it" would be a sort of near hit in English, but not really. It's not obscene in any conventional sense (to an English speaker) but to a Québécois French person, it rather is. Even within dialects of the same language, there are problem words and concepts: ask a native British English speaker how much more obscene "bloody" sounds to them than it does to a North American English speaker.

Edited July 19, 2008 by cake

[waysider]

Yikes!

It's all Greek Aramaic to me

.

[George Aar]

Honto ne!

Nihongo de dekimasu ka?

(Uh, you misspelled "sakka" though, {I think you've spelled "sekka" - a good painter, but not a sport})

At any rate, anybody who speaks a little Japanese is O.K. in my book (and maybe just a little bit better than everybody else, I think)...

[cake]

Honto ne!

Nihongo de dekimasu ka?

(Uh, you misspelled "sakka" though, {I think you've spelled "sekka" - a good painter, but not a sport})

At any rate, anybody who speaks a little Japanese is O.K. in my book (and maybe just a little bit better than everybody else, I think)...

ありがとう!

[George Aar]

Doitashimadange!

(I've gotta get my hiragana keyboard back)

Joji yori

[oenophile]

Cake,

I for one am not yawning and it is evident that you perked George's attention with your conversation in Japanese. My mom was a student of the history of the English language. She would read long passages of Beowulf to us in Middle English. I recall in 2000 she was invited by the pastor to read familiar Bible verses such as John 3:16 in Middle English but even more fascinating was her description of the changes the language that happened after the Norman Conquest in 1066. For instance, our modern English word for beef comes from the French word, boeuf while the word for the animal, "cow', is a derivative from the Anglo-Saxon word. The same holds true for "mutton", "poultry" and "pork", etc. Her explanation was that the Norman nobleman who brought these meats to their tables referred to them in their Norman French dialect while the conquered Anglo Saxon field hands continued to use their language to describe the living animal in the field.

It is also interesting to note that many of our so called four letter words are of Anglo Saxon origin. One wonders if the vulgar connotation was assigned to these words by the Norman parents when little Pierre came in from playing with Anglo Saxon kids in the street and used the new words he had just learned.

Edited July 19, 2008 by oenophile

[rascal]

Hey oen... I`d like to share the perspective of my neighbor. ...retired methodist minister, one time member of the house of representatives, missionary to china...attorney...etc.

What if...the bible was simply an account of how God dealt with a particular group of people at a particular time in history? Or that if he really did inspire men to write ...wouldn`t it have had to have been in a form understandable and acceptable...(ie greatly simplified) for sheep herders. Would he be confined to the capacity to understand and comprehension of a sheep herder of 5000 years ago with people of today who have a greater understanding of mathematics, science, biology, astronomy, etc.

I have to wonder if maybe God deals with us in an ever changing way depending on our ability to comprehend and understand. Is he only limited to the parameters within which we ourselves establish?

As far as accuracy?? Well I read a book where a fellow said that many of the accounts in the old testament are simply adaptations of older stories found else where. My memory is very fuzzy here, but it seems as if historically, judean prisoners were supposed scholars and required to translate them from cunioform (sp?) texts (fancy word for clay tablets I think) or some such thing, and this is where the stories about the flood, the tower of babylon, and such were learned.

I have to wonder if God really needed animals slaughtered in sacrifice, or did people THINK that was what God wanted because that is what everyone else was doing at that time to worship their Gods.

Did we really need a savior...or did we need a way that we could accept, in order to give up the laws. practices and concepts of ancient times?

Can God really not stand the sight of us without the technicalities of sacrifice? Or is he just having to work within the parameters of what we will accept and allow?

Just questions that come to my mind.

Edited July 19, 2008 by rascal

[Belle]

In a simple word, "no". I'm not even sure I believe that it was inspired by "God".

There were many scrolls not included in the Bible and that choice was made men - scriptures were copied by men - men who were not perfect - I have a lot of the same questions that Rascal has and see too many parallels in other religions/belief systems.

The more I learn about other beliefs, the more I see the Bible in a different light and saying things other than what we were taught it says. Furthermore, I think arguing over semantics and every jot and tittle is a waste of time and gets away from the main lesson which Jesus succinctly said (allegedly ) to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. Love your neighbor as yourself. On these hang all the law and prophets.

Bottom line - Love - this is also the bottom line in just about every other belief system/religion I've studied. The rest is just stuff to debate, discuss or argue about, no?

[oenophile]

Hey oen... I`d like to share the perspective of my neighbor. ...retired methodist minister, one time member of the house of representatives, missionary to china...attorney...etc.

What if...the bible was simply an account of how God dealt with a particular group of people at a particular time in history? Or that if he really did inspire men to write ...wouldn`t it have had to have been in a form understandable and acceptable...(ie greatly simplified) for sheep herders. Would he be confined to the capacity to understand and comprehension of a sheep herder of 5000 years ago with people of today who have a greater understanding of mathematics, science, biology, astronomy, etc.

I have to wonder if maybe God deals with us in an ever changing way depending on our ability to comprehend and understand. Is he only limited to the parameters within which we ourselves establish?

As far as accuracy?? Well I read a book where a fellow said that many of the accounts in the old testament are simply adaptations of older stories found else where. My memory is very fuzzy here, but it seems as if historically, judean prisoners were supposed scholars and required to translate them from cunioform (sp?) texts (fancy word for clay tablets I think) or some such thing, and this is where the stories about the flood, the tower of babylon, and such were learned.

I have to wonder if God really needed animals slaughtered in sacrifice, or did people THINK that was what God wanted because that is what everyone else was doing at that time to worship their Gods.

Did we really need a savior...or did we need a way that we could accept, in order to give up the laws. practices and concepts of ancient times?

Can God really not stand the sight of us without the technicalities of sacrifice? Or is he just having to work within the parameters of what we will accept and allow?

Just questions that come to my mind.

The epic of Gilgamesh is an ancient Sumerian account of the great flood. To quote a title of a book that I was required to read in a Ancient Near East history course in college, history begins in Sumer because it is there that we encounter the first written records of human civilization. Sumer was located in southern Mesopotamia in what is now southern Iraq. Civilization began there circa the late Sixth Millenium B.C. In fact, Abraham was a Sumerian.

Situated between the Tigris and Euphrates it is not unreasonable that the city-states that made up Sumerian civilization could have experienced a devastating flood that wiped out most of the inhabitants, thus giving rise to the epic of Gilgamesh or for that matter the Genesis Flood. Which begs us to ask the chicken or egg question.

[rascal]

That is it oen. There were other accounts one of them, of the tower of babel. I don`t remember the others.

Absolutely Bell. I am of the same opinion. Jesus said that the most important thing was love God and love your neighbor....as far as I am concerned ....nothing else matters, what brand or flavor of religion you chose, seems to me to be dictated by what you personally are comfortable with.

I have seen what I consider to be very spiritual people of all denominations and beliefs.

I think that God works within the parameters of what we allow....that our spirituality is determined directly by how well we apply love God and love your neighbor.

We have all seen first hand how spiritually bankrupt people can be whenever they place the priority on anything else...even studying scriptures.

Edited July 19, 2008 by rascal

[oenophile]

Bottom line - Love - this is also the bottom line in just about every other belief system/religion I've studied. The rest is just stuff to debate, discuss or argue about, no?

Perhaps the Beatles were inspired when they sang the words, "love is all we need" on the Sargent Pepper's album.

[waterbuffalo]

Perhaps the Beatles were inspired when they sang the words, "love is all we need" on the Sargent Pepper's album.

Agreed, Oeno :-)

[geisha779]

Hi oenophile, how nice to talk to you!! Yes, I would have to say we would be unjustified in our disbelief of certain biblical narratives---or recheck the mounting evidence.:) If you and I can agree on a few things it would be GREAT!! I bet you anything that you are familar with the big bang theory? Putting aside the "Fudge Factor" and looking at the theory of relativity--Einstein--Arthur Eddington--no loophole. The expanding universe--Willem de Sitter--Hubbel checking it out---yada yada--The law of causality--big bang--beginning--a cause. The law of thermodynamics--an end. In other words-- We have something instead of nothing? Created--boom there it was, out of nothing--all you and I know--was once made.

God and the Astronomers is a great book to look at on this stuff-written by an agnostic BTW. The idea of a Genesis style creation supported by science!!

This stuff is still so way over my little right-brained mind.

Robert Jastrow the agnostic who wrote the book I mentioned ended it with this: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Quantum Physics doesn't explain it away--The Cosmic Rebound theory doesn't work--The more we learn the more stuck we are with that big bang idea.

I would just say recheck the data. Check out the Anthropic Principle! Mounting evidence that the universe is highly tuned to support--drum roll-- human life here on

earth.

Well, I love dinosaurs, I live in an area that is full of bones and tracks--right by my house you can walk to see them. As for your question, I could parrot all the theories to you--but I dunno. I will say--that there are amazing arguments for creationism--I tend to believe them. I am always awed at the wonder of the universe. The idea of the beginning--an end. The Alpha and Omega. Again, the question I ask is not when the universe was created but why? The idea that this all "fell into place" or that there was no intellegent design is just too difficult for me. A universe that exploded into being--life which has not been observed to spontaneously arise. The universe and over 100 life-enabling constants that support our little planet. The complexity of our make-up, Limited range changes. Something arising from nothing. Macro evolution is a hard pill for me to swallow--I vote intellegent design.

I am a seeker--I am also a Christian--and as such--I have been convicted of my own sin, let alone worrying about Adams original sin.:) I have a repentent heart. Why do I need one? Where did it come from? I didn't always have it. Why do we have a conscience? What is it that helps us distinguish between good and bad? Where do our laws come from? What ideas? Where did they come from?

I have a repentent heart because I have met the intellegent designer. If you stop to contemplate for just a bit the idea of such a designer who is outside His ever expanding -created universe, the idea that I might need to repent of my sins isn't so crazy. What kind of being could create this? Must be pretty amazing. Has to be Holy--it fits--it works--it makes sense that He must be beyond our finite created minds. IF IF IF --He made us--and IF IF IF--HE made the universe--He had to have a plan? He must have an idea of what He wanted to happen? A way to communicate Himself to us.

I just love watching Him and the plan unfold.

Not the when--but the why are the questions I tend to ask! Hope that helps!---Clear as mud--right?:)

[Mister P-Mosh]

Yes, I would have to say we would be unjustified in our disbelief of certain biblical narratives---or recheck the mounting evidence.:) If you and I can agree on a few things it would be GREAT!! I bet you anything that you are familar with the big bang theory? Putting aside the "Fudge Factor" and looking at the theory of relativity--Einstein--Arthur Eddington--no loophole. The expanding universe--Willem de Sitter--Hubbel checking it out---yada yada--The law of causality--big bang--beginning--a cause. The law of thermodynamics--an end. In other words-- We have something instead of nothing? Created--boom there it was, out of nothing--all you and I know--was once made.

The problem is that you are trying to use science to justify your religious beliefs. That's fine for you, but you have to realize that doesn't work for everyone. Just because we don't know what exists outside of our universe, or prior to the big bang, that doesn't mean it was created by gods, or more specifically, it doesn't prove anything of the bible to be true. Even if we could prove that everything was created (which only creationists believe based on opinion and faith, not science), there's nothing to say it wasn't created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be touched by His Noodly Appendages.) There's also nothing to say that the universe isn't part of a cycle where universes explode, then collapse, then explode again, each with different physics and life happening differently each time. There are a lot of ideas out there, with no real answers and as of yet no way to know. What I do know, however, is that as our knowledge of science grows, our need for religion diminishes. We no longer believe that Zeus is throwing lightning spears at us when there is a thunder storm, we understand how the particles are charged in the clouds differently from the particles near the ground, and that they follow the laws of physics. We no longer believe the Earth is flat, that orbits of the planets are perfect circles, that the Earth is the center of the solar system, or any of the other "scientific" things the church told us in the past. As we discover the truth of nature and the universe, our religious beliefs change. We become less focused on religion as a real physical thing, and more of it as an abstract philosophical belief system. That's why the Yahweh of the old testament physically appeared in front of Moses, and why today's Christians talk about prayer and daydreams as the source of talking to their god.

[geisha779]

The problem is that you are trying to use science to justify your religious beliefs.

Intellegent design and creationism are not based on the bible----they are consistent with it.

Even if we could prove that everything was created (which only creationists believe based on opinion and faith, not science), there's nothing to say it wasn't created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be touched by His Noodly Appendages.)

Well, I hate to tell you this, but. . . . . . . . . . what do you think shook Einstein so much? He called it his greatest blunder--the theory of relaitivity--because. . . . why? It meant the universe was not static--it had a beginning. After going to Mount Wilson to look through Hubbles telescope--at the EVER EXPANDING universe--Einstein said--he wanted to know how God did it--Science does support a beginning--but if you or Richard Dawkins want to say it was aliens who seeded the planet--or "flying spaghetti monsters" be my guest.

Just because we don't know what exists outside of our universe, or prior to the big bang, that doesn't mean it was created by gods, or more specifically, it doesn't prove anything of the bible to be true.

I said science supports the bible's Genesis style creation narrative--and it does. I didn't make it up.

There's also nothing to say that the universe isn't part of a cycle where universes explode, then collapse, then explode again, each with different physics and life happening differently each time. There are a lot of ideas out there, with no real answers and as of yet no way to know.

This is called the Cosmic Rebound Theory and there is a bit that has caused many to discard it. There is no evidence for a Big Bang X infinity. There is a question of enough matter in the universe to pull everything back together over and over again. The universe seems to be expanding indefinitly. It also contradicts The Law of Thermodynamics --- assuming no energy would be lost with each contraction. I am not a "New Earth" kinda girl--why are we still here, if we were contracting and expanding? What caused the first big bang if this theory is true? We still have an original Big Bang and the idea of creation.

What I do know, however, is that as our knowledge of science grows, our need for religion diminishes. We no longer believe that Zeus is throwing lightning spears at us when there is a thunder storm, we understand how the particles are charged in the clouds differently from the particles near the ground, and that they follow the laws of physics.

Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind. I didn't say that Albert Einstein did. I just like it. Where did the "Law of Physics" come from? The flying Spaghetti Monster? Must be a very intellegent designer?

We no longer believe the Earth is flat, that orbits of the planets are perfect circles, that the Earth is the center of the solar system, or any of the other "scientific" things the church told us in the past.

Good! They should have read their bibles!

As we discover the truth of nature and the universe, our religious beliefs change

Yes -- agnostic astronomers are writing theistic quotations.

We become less focused on religion as a real physical thing, and more of it as an abstract philosophical belief system. That's why the Yahweh of the old testament physically appeared in front of Moses, and why today's Christians talk about prayer and daydreams as the source of talking to their god.

Except, I have seen people actually healed in the name of Jesus--and MANY real physical unexplainables--but hey. . . . call me a daydreamer--you could have said worse.

Edited July 23, 2008 by geisha779

[Mister P-Mosh]

Intellegent design and creationism are not based on the bible----they are consistent with it.

I see no evidence of this.

Well, I hate to tell you this, but. . . . . . . . . . what do you think shook Einstein so much? He called it his greatest blunder--the theory of relaitivity--because. . . . why? It meant the universe was not static--it had a beginning. After going to Mount Wilson to look through Hubbles telescope--at the EVER EXPANDING universe--Einstein said--he wanted to know how God did it--Science does support a beginning--but if you or Richard Dawkins want to say it was aliens who seeded the planet--or "flying spaghetti monsters" be my guest.

I disagree here as well, because the theory of relativity has nothing to do with the big bang, and much less proving any religious texts.

I said science supports the bible's Genesis style creation narrative--and it does. I didn't make it up.

You've offered no evidence to support this.

This is called the Cosmic Rebound Theory and there is a bit that has caused many to discard it. There is no evidence for a Big Bang X infinity. There is a question of enough matter in the universe to pull everything back together over and over again. The universe seems to be expanding indefinitly. It also contradicts The Law of Thermodynamics --- assuming no energy would be lost with each contraction. I am not a "New Earth" kinda girl--why are we still here, if we were contracting and expanding? What caused the first big bang if this theory is true? We still have an original Big Bang and the idea of creation.

My point in raising the questions was to suggest that there are many theories, but there are no ways to prove what exists outside of our universe, and what happened before the big bang, or how it came to pass. If you want to attribute it to "intelligent design" then that is your choice, but it is nothing more than an opinion. It can't be wrapped up in the name of science.

Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind. I didn't say that Albert Einstein did. I just like it. Where did the "Law of Physics" come from? The flying Spaghetti Monster? Must be a very intellegent designer?

Here's another Einstein quote:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religous convictions, a lie

which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal

God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something

is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration

for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

You have to take Einstein's beliefs in context. He was essentially an atheist. In the text your quote comes from, he gives his definition of religion, along with some other things I will put in bold to give better context and relate back to the thread at hand:

At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.

You can see that he clearly defines religion not as a supernatural thing, but a way human beings think to keep ourselves within a moral framework. By his definition, atheists can be "religious" too, as can anyone who simply wants to work for the betterment of mankind.

Good! They should have read their bibles!

What is the chapter and verse that talks about the planets having an elliptical orbit?

Yes -- agnostic astronomers are writing theistic quotations.

They only appear that way to religious people that want them to be theistic. The term "god" can have many different meanings. To many asian religions, gods are just spirits that live in everything. To scientists like Einstein or Sagan, it is a shortcut for discussing nature. There are many different ideas about what gods are, so you can't really apply your beliefs to someone who uses the word without verifying first that they believe what you do. In the case of Einstein, it's easy to see that he didn't believe as you do.

Except, I have seen people actually healed in the name of Jesus--and MANY real physical unexplainables--but hey. . . . call me a daydreamer--you could have said worse.

Doctors have a much better track record than praying does. It seems like every few months you hear about a lawsuit from where some person dies because their family or religious group prohibits seeking medical care and instead wants to pray around them. Studies have also shown that the "power of prayer" serves no better than the power of "thinking positive" without praying. Additionally, the proponents of basically all major religious claim that people have been healed by their faith. What's to say that they didn't just get better through natural means, but you all attribute it to your religions?

Anyway, I don't mean to appear hostile to your religious beliefs, but I don't believe it, and I think you're incorrect about your attributions of scientific proof of Christianity. Still, I don't mean to be mean towards you, so don't take this post personally. I am debating ideas instead of people.

[Yanagisawa]

As I have tried to sift through the issues of the above discussion I have found the works of John Polkinghorne helplful as well. A delightful, thoughtful quantum physicist/Anglican clergyman. Also knighted but not called "sir" because as clergy he is not expected to take up a sword.

[geisha779]

As I have tried to sift through the issues of the above discussion I have found the works of John Polkinghorne helplful as well. A delightful, thoughtful quantum physicist/Anglican clergyman. Also knighted but not called "sir" because as clergy he is not expected to take up a sword.

Thanks for the heasds up--always looking for a good read,

Hi Mr Mosh

Sorry I have NO interest in derailing this thread. Chill out dude--my faith in Christ is no threat to your well being. You may not have a clue what is outside the universe---but speak for yourself---I do.

That seems to set your teeth on edge. ?? A Christian with an opinion. Too bad. Write me off as a daydreamer--roll your eyes--but spare me your enlightenment.

Don't expect me to fill you in on the irritating facts. I have a life--and no interest in what you believe. I was asked what I would say--I said it--that ends my part of

the discussion--unless something else catches my fancy--then this annoying Christian with an opinion might just speak up again.

Bet you spent alot of time on that post--huh?