Northwest Indiana Discussion

Northwest Indiana's Leading Discussion Forum
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:33 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: If anyone has questions or wants to talk religion...
PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:19 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:58 am
Posts: 38
Location: Valparaiso, IN
Hey, if anybody out there has questions about God or religion or just feels like chatting about spiritual stuff, I'm open to it. :)

I'm the pastor of a 4-year-old church of the Christian variety that meets in Valparaiso. (Click the www link under this post for the church's website.) That doesn't mean I have answers for every question, obviously, but I love hearing what other people are thinking about God and life and all that.

Peace!
Rich Schmidt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: God
PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:09 pm 
The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly speech for the altars and hearths has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a supernatural being, will no longer be tempted to find the mere appearance of himself, a non-human being where he seeks and must seek his true reality.


The foundation of irreligious criticism is this: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is indeed man's self-consciousness and self-awareness so long as he has not found himself or has already lost himself again. But, man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man -- state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, it enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.


Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.


The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.


Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.


It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:08 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:58 am
Posts: 38
Location: Valparaiso, IN
Huh.

I wasn't expecting God to plagiarize Karl Marx.

:D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:26 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:58 am
Posts: 38
Location: Valparaiso, IN
And I guess that's the end of that conversation. :roll:

The offer still stands. I check in here on these forums a few times a week, so feel free to start a thread here, drop me a Private Message, or email me if you want to talk. I like to listen & learn as much as I can. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: The Bible
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:56 pm 
The worldwide scientific research community has discovered that no known hypothesis other than evolution can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of life on earth. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences.

The concept of an all powerful god is an interesting concept, however god as presented in the bible does not make any sense. The bible is a great book of stories but when examined from a scientific approach does not make any sense. It might have made sense to the ignorant people in the time it was written, but when you examine it with a modern eye it is clear that it is not the word of the creator of the world. Science does a better job of explaining the creation of man and the world then god snapping his fingers. Once you begin to examine the bibles stories with a knowledge of science you realize that most of them are fairy tales. Once you reach the conclusion that some of it is nonsense, you have to discount the entire book.

The entire basis of Christianity is the bible. Once you reach the conclusion that the bible is a fairy tale, it is easy to dismiss the concept of Christianity.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:08 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:58 am
Posts: 38
Location: Valparaiso, IN
Thanks, iceman, for joining the conversation. Though, if you're going to quote people, it's usually good to cite your sources. (Your opening paragraph can be found here with only one small variation.)

Let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Tell me if I'm misunderstanding you here. (And I might be... I'm in a bit of a rush getting ready for church. :))

1. Scientists are convinced that evolution (macroevolution) is the best explanation for how the world came to exist in its present form. All scientists basically agree on this.

2. The Bible tries to give a different explanation for the creation of humanity, the earth, and everything ("god snapping his fingers"). So it must be wrong, a "fairly tale." If the creator of the world had written it, he would have described/explained its creation correctly.

3. If the Bible is wrong (a fairy tale), then you can dismiss Christianity, because Christianity is based on the Bible.

Is that basically what you are saying? If so, it makes perfect sense, and you're not the only one to reason it out like this (obviously). And I'll agree that if 1 and 2 are true, then 3 is true, too.

Fortunately for me, I believe that 1 is only slightly incorrect (perhaps just incomplete) and that 2 is missing something, too. Both make sense the way you said it... It's just that there's another option for both. And, no, I'm not talking about "Well, if the Bible says it, then I don't care what no scientists say!" That's not really an option for thinking adults, is it?

I'm really sorry that I don't have more time now... I'll come back to it soon. In the meantime, could you tell me if I'm reading you right?

Thanks!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:02 pm 
Good overview of my thought process...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:37 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:58 am
Posts: 38
Location: Valparaiso, IN
Cool. I'm glad I'm hearing you right. :)

To keep my follow-up as brief as possible...

I, of course, believe that God created this universe we live in & all of us along with it. How did he do it? I don't know. That's beyond me. Genesis 1 portrays God as saying the word and *boom* there it is. Genesis 2 talks about God getting his hands dirty & forming human beings out of the dust of the earth. Two different ways of talking about how God got us here.

Do I take these as literal descriptions of how the creation process went down? I mean, if I had a video camera & went back in time to record it, what would I see? Who knows... Maybe it was as sudden as Genesis 1 makes it sound. Or maybe God took billions of years to spin the stars into space, etc. It doesn't matter to me either way. Both would give glory to God as being the origin & source of all that is. Whether he was a designer/architect exercising total control over every detail or whether he was more of an artist allowing the paints to mix & make new colors... either one is fine with me. I think there's some truth to both of those metaphors.

I understand the opening chapters of Genesis primarily as religious documents, not as scientific ones. To get at what they mean, what the authors were trying to say, you have to get inside the heads & cultures of people living in that part of the world at that point in time. What kind of God was this who was communicating with them & guiding them? What did he want them to know about him? And what did he want them to know about themselves? Those are the sorts of questions those chapters are trying to answer, not "How long did it take the earth & cosmos to arrive at their present state?" That's the kind of question that preoccupies our "modern" minds, and it just doesn't seem to be the kind of question they were asking at the time.

So, yes, the Bible's explanation is different than the scientific one. But it should be. It's interested in a different aspect of what it means to be human. The scientific explanation is interested in the physical processes and how they interact as events take place. The Bible's explanation is interested in why those events take place & in the people involved.

Does that make sense at all? It's been a little while since I've had this conversation with anyone, so I'm not sure how clearly I'm expressing myself... :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:16 am 
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question. I came across an interesting article on the Internet that addresses the issue of creationism and evolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html The article is a discussion of Noah’s Ark and it’s place in modern science. The interesting aspect of the story of Noah is that it was fairly specific in terms of describing the ark and the animals that went in it. When analyzed with the knowledge of modern science it does not add up. There was a quote in the article that is relevant to our discussion:

Does a global flood make the whole Bible less credible? Davis Young, an Evangelical and geologist, wrote [p. 163]:
"The maintenance of modern creationism and Flood geology not only is useless apologetically with unbelieving scientists, it is harmful. Although many who have no scientific training have been swayed by creationist arguments, the unbelieving scientist will reason that a Christianity that believes in such nonsense must be a religion not worthy of his interest. . . . Modern creationism in this sense is apologetically and evangelistically ineffective. It could even be a hindrance to the gospel.
"Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done. . . ."
Another Christian scientist said, "Creationism is an incredible pain in the neck, neither honest nor useful, and the people who advocate it have no idea how much damage they are doing to the credibility of belief." [quoted in Easterbrook, 1997, p. 891]

What does not make sense to me is that if you start to dismiss stories in the bible as fables or fairy tales not based on actual events it seems easy to dismiss the entire bible as not the word of the divine creator. After all if some of it is nonsense why not believe it all is?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:59 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:58 am
Posts: 38
Location: Valparaiso, IN
No problem. I'm glad for the conversation. :)

This is from the opening paragraphs of that article you linked to:
Quote:
Two kinds of flood model are not addressed here. First is the local flood. Genesis 6-8 can be interpreted as a homiletic story such that the "world" that was flooded was just the area that Noah knew. Creationists argue against the local flood model because it doesn't fit their own literalist preconceptions, but I know of no physical evidence contrary to such a model.


If that model is true, I have no problem with it. On the other hand, if scientists 50 years from now discover overwhelming evidence of a global flood, then I'm OK with that, too. :)

I can understand your frustration. Like you said, "if you start to dismiss stories in the bible as fables or fairy tales not based on actual events it seems easy to dismiss the entire bible as not the word of the divine creator. After all if some of it is nonsense why not believe it all is?"

One of the difficulties we have as we approach the Bible is that it's really, really old. :) It's not a form of literature that we encounter everyday (like a novel, a magazine article, a self-help book). But it is similar in some ways to other forms of literature from the time... Anyway, when we read it through our modern lens, as I mentioned before, we're sometimes asking questions of it that it never intended to answer. I think the Flood story could fit under that category. It's definitely trying to say some things about our relationship with God & how he has promised to act toward us. It's not so definite that it's trying to say something about global geology.

Of course, there are some (sometimes calling themselves "Creation Scientists" or "Young-Earth Creationists") who are trying very hard to make a modern-literal reading of Genesis fit with modern scientific thinking. They tend to rely heavily on the idea of a global, catastrophic flood to explain how the earth came to look like it does... And it's an interesting attempt. It's just that thorough scientific investigation doesn't tend to support their model.

But there are many, many others who find very little difficulty combining a strong faith in God and confidence in the truth of Scripture (understood on its own terms) with confidence in moden scientific inquiry. The two don't have to conflict.

Does that make sense? It boils down to not dismissing something as "nonsense" just because it's trying to convey truth in a different way than our modern methods of scientific truth. An examle often used is to think of how a poetic anniversary card or love song to your wife may express truths in a very different way than a newspaper report or scientific journal article...

Is this helpful at all?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:05 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:58 am
Posts: 38
Location: Valparaiso, IN
I've finally finished reading that whole article you linked to... and also finally noticed that the part you quoted was from an evangelical geologist, Davis Young. I have a couple of books by him from a grad class I took on the book of Genesis several years ago. He's just one example of a Christian who takes both the Bible and science seriously. He believes in creation (the belief that God created the earth/universe/us/etc.) but not in "creationism"/Creation Science/Flood Geology/etc.

And right about that quote is this one:
Quote:
In fact, is there any reason at all why the Flood story should be taken literally? Jesus used parables; why wouldn't God do so, too?


Which is a much more concise way of saying what I tried to say earlier... Some stories in the Bible are meant to illustrate a point & not meant to be read as modern/historical/news/science reports.

Which leads to the interesting & sometimes challenging work of figuring out which parts are meant to be read which way... :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:19 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:04 am
Posts: 330
Location: La Porte, IN
....


Last edited by NeoRayden on Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:31 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:11 am
Posts: 14
Location: Pluto
“Religion is the opiate of the people!”

Karl Marx


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 4:33 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:58 am
Posts: 38
Location: Valparaiso, IN
Dirk Diggler wrote:
“Religion is the opiate of the people!”

Karl Marx


That's certainly an interesting quote of his... And there have been some times and places in history where that observation has been pretty accurate (religion and religious leaders keeping "the people" pacified and subservient to those in power)... but why would we take Marx's word on this? We don't trust him to guide us in most other areas of life... unless you're a Marxist, I guess. :)

Oh, and yes, it's 4:30 on a Sunday morning... I have to be up stinkin' early on Sundays! :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:46 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:11 am
Posts: 14
Location: Pluto
I’m certainly not a Marxist either. However he does raise some interesting points.

With all of the ways in which religious leaders and politicians around the world have abused “religion” throughout history, it chips away at the credibility of religious teachings and religious leaders today.

In modern times with the terrorists in the Middle East blowing up innocent people in the name of Allah to the catholic priests molesting little boys it all makes you wonder.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group