Why do people stay religious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I stay religious because I believe to the very core of my existence that my religion is true. I and most religious scholars also believe our faith is compatible with modern science (which has absolutely nothing to say on the existence or non-existence of God).

Quote me one religious scholar who believes any faith is compatible with modern science.

John Walton's view was espoused by most professors I knew at Wheaton, and the science profs all believed in the Big Bang. Don't think you can honestly call anyone who taught at Moody and Wheaton liberal (though a few crazy insane conservative types try, especially the political ones).

“Concordists believe the Bible must agree—be in concord with—all the findings of contemporary science. Through the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity.”

For example he puts forth an argument from ancient Mespotamian culture that Genesis 1 isn't really about exactly how God created the earth, but rather about why God did it and that he made it work.

“Instead of offering a statement of causes, Genesis 1 is offering a statement of how everything will work according to God’s purposes. In that sense the text looks to the future (how this cosmos will function for human beings with God at its center) rather than to the past (how God brought material into being). Purpose entails some level of causation (though it does not specify the level) and affirms sovereign control of the causation process.”

“If we follow the sense of the literature and its ideas of creation, we find that people in the ancient Near East did not think of creation in terms of making material things—instead, everything is function oriented. The gods are beginning their own operations and are making all of the elements of the cosmos operational. Creation thus constituted bringing order to the cosmos from an originally nonfunctional condition. It is from this reading of the literature that we may deduce a functional ontology in the ancient world—that is, that they offer accounts of functional origins rather than accounts of material origins.”

(https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-1-as-Ancient-Cosmology/dp/1575063840)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Walton

Creation stories are a man made construct to provide meaning and sense. They've been around since the first humans invented storytelling.

And, thats it. They're just stories. Made up ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I stay religious because I believe to the very core of my existence that my religion is true. I and most religious scholars also believe our faith is compatible with modern science (which has absolutely nothing to say on the existence or non-existence of God).

Quote me one religious scholar who believes any faith is compatible with modern science.

John Walton's view was espoused by most professors I knew at Wheaton, and the science profs all believed in the Big Bang. Don't think you can honestly call anyone who taught at Moody and Wheaton liberal (though a few crazy insane conservative types try, especially the political ones).

“Concordists believe the Bible must agree—be in concord with—all the findings of contemporary science. Through the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity.”

For example he puts forth an argument from ancient Mespotamian culture that Genesis 1 isn't really about exactly how God created the earth, but rather about why God did it and that he made it work.

“Instead of offering a statement of causes, Genesis 1 is offering a statement of how everything will work according to God’s purposes. In that sense the text looks to the future (how this cosmos will function for human beings with God at its center) rather than to the past (how God brought material into being). Purpose entails some level of causation (though it does not specify the level) and affirms sovereign control of the causation process.”

“If we follow the sense of the literature and its ideas of creation, we find that people in the ancient Near East did not think of creation in terms of making material things—instead, everything is function oriented. The gods are beginning their own operations and are making all of the elements of the cosmos operational. Creation thus constituted bringing order to the cosmos from an originally nonfunctional condition. It is from this reading of the literature that we may deduce a functional ontology in the ancient world—that is, that they offer accounts of functional origins rather than accounts of material origins.”

(https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-1-as-Ancient-Cosmology/dp/1575063840)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Walton

Creation stories are a man made construct to provide meaning and sense. They've been around since the first humans invented storytelling.

And, thats it. They're just stories. Made up ones.

You provided a statement of your own belief, with no proof. It's valid for you to have your own beliefs, but has no impact on the correctness of anyone else's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I stay religious because I believe to the very core of my existence that my religion is true. I and most religious scholars also believe our faith is compatible with modern science (which has absolutely nothing to say on the existence or non-existence of God).

Quote me one religious scholar who believes any faith is compatible with modern science.

John Walton's view was espoused by most professors I knew at Wheaton, and the science profs all believed in the Big Bang. Don't think you can honestly call anyone who taught at Moody and Wheaton liberal (though a few crazy insane conservative types try, especially the political ones).

“Concordists believe the Bible must agree—be in concord with—all the findings of contemporary science. Through the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity.”

For example he puts forth an argument from ancient Mespotamian culture that Genesis 1 isn't really about exactly how God created the earth, but rather about why God did it and that he made it work.

“Instead of offering a statement of causes, Genesis 1 is offering a statement of how everything will work according to God’s purposes. In that sense the text looks to the future (how this cosmos will function for human beings with God at its center) rather than to the past (how God brought material into being). Purpose entails some level of causation (though it does not specify the level) and affirms sovereign control of the causation process.”

“If we follow the sense of the literature and its ideas of creation, we find that people in the ancient Near East did not think of creation in terms of making material things—instead, everything is function oriented. The gods are beginning their own operations and are making all of the elements of the cosmos operational. Creation thus constituted bringing order to the cosmos from an originally nonfunctional condition. It is from this reading of the literature that we may deduce a functional ontology in the ancient world—that is, that they offer accounts of functional origins rather than accounts of material origins.”

(https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-1-as-Ancient-Cosmology/dp/1575063840)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Walton

Creation stories are a man made construct to provide meaning and sense. They've been around since the first humans invented storytelling.

And, thats it. They're just stories. Made up ones.

You provided a statement of your own belief, with no proof. It's valid for you to have your own beliefs, but has no impact on the correctness of anyone else's.

Do you have proof that the Bible's story of creation is correct? My belief is based on what we know about science -- which is common knowledge, as least among educated people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I stay religious because I believe to the very core of my existence that my religion is true. I and most religious scholars also believe our faith is compatible with modern science (which has absolutely nothing to say on the existence or non-existence of God).

Quote me one religious scholar who believes any faith is compatible with modern science.

John Walton's view was espoused by most professors I knew at Wheaton, and the science profs all believed in the Big Bang. Don't think you can honestly call anyone who taught at Moody and Wheaton liberal (though a few crazy insane conservative types try, especially the political ones).

“Concordists believe the Bible must agree—be in concord with—all the findings of contemporary science. Through the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity.”

For example he puts forth an argument from ancient Mespotamian culture that Genesis 1 isn't really about exactly how God created the earth, but rather about why God did it and that he made it work.

“Instead of offering a statement of causes, Genesis 1 is offering a statement of how everything will work according to God’s purposes. In that sense the text looks to the future (how this cosmos will function for human beings with God at its center) rather than to the past (how God brought material into being). Purpose entails some level of causation (though it does not specify the level) and affirms sovereign control of the causation process.”

“If we follow the sense of the literature and its ideas of creation, we find that people in the ancient Near East did not think of creation in terms of making material things—instead, everything is function oriented. The gods are beginning their own operations and are making all of the elements of the cosmos operational. Creation thus constituted bringing order to the cosmos from an originally nonfunctional condition. It is from this reading of the literature that we may deduce a functional ontology in the ancient world—that is, that they offer accounts of functional origins rather than accounts of material origins.”

(https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-1-as-Ancient-Cosmology/dp/1575063840)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Walton

Creation stories are a man made construct to provide meaning and sense. They've been around since the first humans invented storytelling.

And, thats it. They're just stories. Made up ones.

You provided a statement of your own belief, with no proof. It's valid for you to have your own beliefs, but has no impact on the correctness of anyone else's.

Do you have proof that the Bible's story of creation is correct? My belief is based on what we know about science -- which is common knowledge, as least among educated people.

If you don't understand that trying to use science to disprove (or prove!) the existence of a diety is a category error after all the times it's been carefully explained here, I don't know what to tell you.

I am actually agnostic as to the how of the universe being created. Modern science tells us one story - a good one based on good evidence - but parts of it will probably be eventually overturned as our scientific knowledge expands.

That has zero, and I do mean zero, impact on my belief in God and the Bible. As shown in the quotes I pulled above, there are ways to have a very high view of the authority of the Christian Scriptures and believe that harmonizes just fine with modern science.

And despite the Ken Ham's of this world, there are plenty of Christians out there who believe this way. There are even more - probably the majority these days - somewhere in the middle between an evolutionary view of creation and a literal 7 day interpretation.

https://biologos.org/common-questions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I stay religious because I believe to the very core of my existence that my religion is true. I and most religious scholars also believe our faith is compatible with modern science (which has absolutely nothing to say on the existence or non-existence of God).

Quote me one religious scholar who believes any faith is compatible with modern science.

John Walton's view was espoused by most professors I knew at Wheaton, and the science profs all believed in the Big Bang. Don't think you can honestly call anyone who taught at Moody and Wheaton liberal (though a few crazy insane conservative types try, especially the political ones).

“Concordists believe the Bible must agree—be in concord with—all the findings of contemporary science. Through the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity.”

For example he puts forth an argument from ancient Mespotamian culture that Genesis 1 isn't really about exactly how God created the earth, but rather about why God did it and that he made it work.

“Instead of offering a statement of causes, Genesis 1 is offering a statement of how everything will work according to God’s purposes. In that sense the text looks to the future (how this cosmos will function for human beings with God at its center) rather than to the past (how God brought material into being). Purpose entails some level of causation (though it does not specify the level) and affirms sovereign control of the causation process.”

“If we follow the sense of the literature and its ideas of creation, we find that people in the ancient Near East did not think of creation in terms of making material things—instead, everything is function oriented. The gods are beginning their own operations and are making all of the elements of the cosmos operational. Creation thus constituted bringing order to the cosmos from an originally nonfunctional condition. It is from this reading of the literature that we may deduce a functional ontology in the ancient world—that is, that they offer accounts of functional origins rather than accounts of material origins.”

(https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-1-as-Ancient-Cosmology/dp/1575063840)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Walton

Creation stories are a man made construct to provide meaning and sense. They've been around since the first humans invented storytelling.

And, thats it. They're just stories. Made up ones.

You provided a statement of your own belief, with no proof. It's valid for you to have your own beliefs, but has no impact on the correctness of anyone else's.

There is no need to to provide links to human history. Pick a creation story, and one that is not based on the Bible. Once you remove your religious blinders, you will understand them in their true historical and cultural context.

Nearly every civ has some version of a creation story. No need to disprove all of them.

You want to say that the story of Manu and Yemo is true? What about Enuma Elish or Atum. How about the Rig Veda?

You blindly assumed the post was about the creation myth from Genesis.

Go ahead. Provide links to each if the aforementioned that show they are "true".

Use your friggin noggin next time - no links necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I stay religious because I believe to the very core of my existence that my religion is true. I and most religious scholars also believe our faith is compatible with modern science (which has absolutely nothing to say on the existence or non-existence of God).

Quote me one religious scholar who believes any faith is compatible with modern science.

John Walton's view was espoused by most professors I knew at Wheaton, and the science profs all believed in the Big Bang. Don't think you can honestly call anyone who taught at Moody and Wheaton liberal (though a few crazy insane conservative types try, especially the political ones).

“Concordists believe the Bible must agree—be in concord with—all the findings of contemporary science. Through the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity.”

For example he puts forth an argument from ancient Mespotamian culture that Genesis 1 isn't really about exactly how God created the earth, but rather about why God did it and that he made it work.

“Instead of offering a statement of causes, Genesis 1 is offering a statement of how everything will work according to God’s purposes. In that sense the text looks to the future (how this cosmos will function for human beings with God at its center) rather than to the past (how God brought material into being). Purpose entails some level of causation (though it does not specify the level) and affirms sovereign control of the causation process.”

“If we follow the sense of the literature and its ideas of creation, we find that people in the ancient Near East did not think of creation in terms of making material things—instead, everything is function oriented. The gods are beginning their own operations and are making all of the elements of the cosmos operational. Creation thus constituted bringing order to the cosmos from an originally nonfunctional condition. It is from this reading of the literature that we may deduce a functional ontology in the ancient world—that is, that they offer accounts of functional origins rather than accounts of material origins.”

(https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-1-as-Ancient-Cosmology/dp/1575063840)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Walton

Creation stories are a man made construct to provide meaning and sense. They've been around since the first humans invented storytelling.

And, thats it. They're just stories. Made up ones.

You provided a statement of your own belief, with no proof. It's valid for you to have your own beliefs, but has no impact on the correctness of anyone else's.

Do you have proof that the Bible's story of creation is correct? My belief is based on what we know about science -- which is common knowledge, as least among educated people.

If you don't understand that trying to use science to disprove (or prove!) the existence of a diety is a category error after all the times it's been carefully explained here, I don't know what to tell you.

I am actually agnostic as to the how of the universe being created. Modern science tells us one story - a good one based on good evidence - but parts of it will probably be eventually overturned as our scientific knowledge expands.

That has zero, and I do mean zero, impact on my belief in God and the Bible. As shown in the quotes I pulled above, there are ways to have a very high view of the authority of the Christian Scriptures and believe that harmonizes just fine with modern science.

And despite the Ken Ham's of this world, there are plenty of Christians out there who believe this way. There are even more - probably the majority these days - somewhere in the middle between an evolutionary view of creation and a literal 7 day interpretation.

https://biologos.org/common-questions

Who's trying to prove or disprove a dirty? The poster said to prove the Bible was true.

Go ahead and prove the Bible is true. While you are at it, prove that unicorns are real. They use the same line of evidence and reasoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I stay religious because I believe to the very core of my existence that my religion is true. I and most religious scholars also believe our faith is compatible with modern science (which has absolutely nothing to say on the existence or non-existence of God).

Quote me one religious scholar who believes any faith is compatible with modern science.

John Walton's view was espoused by most professors I knew at Wheaton, and the science profs all believed in the Big Bang. Don't think you can honestly call anyone who taught at Moody and Wheaton liberal (though a few crazy insane conservative types try, especially the political ones).

“Concordists believe the Bible must agree—be in concord with—all the findings of contemporary science. Through the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity.”

For example he puts forth an argument from ancient Mespotamian culture that Genesis 1 isn't really about exactly how God created the earth, but rather about why God did it and that he made it work.

“Instead of offering a statement of causes, Genesis 1 is offering a statement of how everything will work according to God’s purposes. In that sense the text looks to the future (how this cosmos will function for human beings with God at its center) rather than to the past (how God brought material into being). Purpose entails some level of causation (though it does not specify the level) and affirms sovereign control of the causation process.”

“If we follow the sense of the literature and its ideas of creation, we find that people in the ancient Near East did not think of creation in terms of making material things—instead, everything is function oriented. The gods are beginning their own operations and are making all of the elements of the cosmos operational. Creation thus constituted bringing order to the cosmos from an originally nonfunctional condition. It is from this reading of the literature that we may deduce a functional ontology in the ancient world—that is, that they offer accounts of functional origins rather than accounts of material origins.”

(https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-1-as-Ancient-Cosmology/dp/1575063840)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Walton

Creation stories are a man made construct to provide meaning and sense. They've been around since the first humans invented storytelling.

And, thats it. They're just stories. Made up ones.

You provided a statement of your own belief, with no proof. It's valid for you to have your own beliefs, but has no impact on the correctness of anyone else's.

Do you have proof that the Bible's story of creation is correct? My belief is based on what we know about science -- which is common knowledge, as least among educated people.

If you don't understand that trying to use science to disprove (or prove!) the existence of a diety is a category error after all the times it's been carefully explained here, I don't know what to tell you.

I am actually agnostic as to the how of the universe being created. Modern science tells us one story - a good one based on good evidence - but parts of it will probably be eventually overturned as our scientific knowledge expands.

That has zero, and I do mean zero, impact on my belief in God and the Bible. As shown in the quotes I pulled above, there are ways to have a very high view of the authority of the Christian Scriptures and believe that harmonizes just fine with modern science.

And despite the Ken Ham's of this world, there are plenty of Christians out there who believe this way. There are even more - probably the majority these days - somewhere in the middle between an evolutionary view of creation and a literal 7 day interpretation.

https://biologos.org/common-questions

Who's trying to prove or disprove a dirty? The poster said to prove the Bible was true.

Go ahead and prove the Bible is true. While you are at it, prove that unicorns are real. They use the same line of evidence and reasoning.

Pp can't prove the Bible is true, he just wants to think it is, because then he will go to heaven when he dies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I stay religious because I believe to the very core of my existence that my religion is true. I and most religious scholars also believe our faith is compatible with modern science (which has absolutely nothing to say on the existence or non-existence of God).

Quote me one religious scholar who believes any faith is compatible with modern science.

John Walton's view was espoused by most professors I knew at Wheaton, and the science profs all believed in the Big Bang. Don't think you can honestly call anyone who taught at Moody and Wheaton liberal (though a few crazy insane conservative types try, especially the political ones).

“Concordists believe the Bible must agree—be in concord with—all the findings of contemporary science. Through the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity.”

For example he puts forth an argument from ancient Mespotamian culture that Genesis 1 isn't really about exactly how God created the earth, but rather about why God did it and that he made it work.

“Instead of offering a statement of causes, Genesis 1 is offering a statement of how everything will work according to God’s purposes. In that sense the text looks to the future (how this cosmos will function for human beings with God at its center) rather than to the past (how God brought material into being). Purpose entails some level of causation (though it does not specify the level) and affirms sovereign control of the causation process.”

“If we follow the sense of the literature and its ideas of creation, we find that people in the ancient Near East did not think of creation in terms of making material things—instead, everything is function oriented. The gods are beginning their own operations and are making all of the elements of the cosmos operational. Creation thus constituted bringing order to the cosmos from an originally nonfunctional condition. It is from this reading of the literature that we may deduce a functional ontology in the ancient world—that is, that they offer accounts of functional origins rather than accounts of material origins.”

(https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-1-as-Ancient-Cosmology/dp/1575063840)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Walton

And important to note that this is not a modern 20th century concession to science. St. Augustine recognized that the biblical creation account was highly symbolic 1600 years ago. Yes, Little-House-on-the-Prairie-looking ignorant Baptists are going to have a different take. But they hardly represent the mainstream of 2000 years of Christianity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I stay religious because I believe to the very core of my existence that my religion is true. I and most religious scholars also believe our faith is compatible with modern science (which has absolutely nothing to say on the existence or non-existence of God).

Quote me one religious scholar who believes any faith is compatible with modern science.

John Walton's view was espoused by most professors I knew at Wheaton, and the science profs all believed in the Big Bang. Don't think you can honestly call anyone who taught at Moody and Wheaton liberal (though a few crazy insane conservative types try, especially the political ones).

“Concordists believe the Bible must agree—be in concord with—all the findings of contemporary science. Through the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity.”

For example he puts forth an argument from ancient Mespotamian culture that Genesis 1 isn't really about exactly how God created the earth, but rather about why God did it and that he made it work.

“Instead of offering a statement of causes, Genesis 1 is offering a statement of how everything will work according to God’s purposes. In that sense the text looks to the future (how this cosmos will function for human beings with God at its center) rather than to the past (how God brought material into being). Purpose entails some level of causation (though it does not specify the level) and affirms sovereign control of the causation process.”

“If we follow the sense of the literature and its ideas of creation, we find that people in the ancient Near East did not think of creation in terms of making material things—instead, everything is function oriented. The gods are beginning their own operations and are making all of the elements of the cosmos operational. Creation thus constituted bringing order to the cosmos from an originally nonfunctional condition. It is from this reading of the literature that we may deduce a functional ontology in the ancient world—that is, that they offer accounts of functional origins rather than accounts of material origins.”

(https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-1-as-Ancient-Cosmology/dp/1575063840)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Walton

And important to note that this is not a modern 20th century concession to science. St. Augustine recognized that the biblical creation account was highly symbolic 1600 years ago. Yes, Little-House-on-the-Prairie-looking ignorant Baptists are going to have a different take. But they hardly represent the mainstream of 2000 years of Christianity.

What I don't understand is that if a person can rationalize that some parts of the Bible are not true, then why can't they see that all of it is not true? All of it is myth. Same as reading about Zoroaster, Zeus, or Harry Potter.

[Anonymous]

Just the fact that you used the phrase “religious” tells me all I need to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just the fact that you used the phrase “religious” tells me all I need to know.

What exactly does it tell you? Please be specific. Thanks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I stay religious because I believe to the very core of my existence that my religion is true. I and most religious scholars also believe our faith is compatible with modern science (which has absolutely nothing to say on the existence or non-existence of God).

Quote me one religious scholar who believes any faith is compatible with modern science.

John Walton's view was espoused by most professors I knew at Wheaton, and the science profs all believed in the Big Bang. Don't think you can honestly call anyone who taught at Moody and Wheaton liberal (though a few crazy insane conservative types try, especially the political ones).

“Concordists believe the Bible must agree—be in concord with—all the findings of contemporary science. Through the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity.”

For example he puts forth an argument from ancient Mespotamian culture that Genesis 1 isn't really about exactly how God created the earth, but rather about why God did it and that he made it work.

“Instead of offering a statement of causes, Genesis 1 is offering a statement of how everything will work according to God’s purposes. In that sense the text looks to the future (how this cosmos will function for human beings with God at its center) rather than to the past (how God brought material into being). Purpose entails some level of causation (though it does not specify the level) and affirms sovereign control of the causation process.”

“If we follow the sense of the literature and its ideas of creation, we find that people in the ancient Near East did not think of creation in terms of making material things—instead, everything is function oriented. The gods are beginning their own operations and are making all of the elements of the cosmos operational. Creation thus constituted bringing order to the cosmos from an originally nonfunctional condition. It is from this reading of the literature that we may deduce a functional ontology in the ancient world—that is, that they offer accounts of functional origins rather than accounts of material origins.”

(https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-1-as-Ancient-Cosmology/dp/1575063840)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Walton

And important to note that this is not a modern 20th century concession to science. St. Augustine recognized that the biblical creation account was highly symbolic 1600 years ago. Yes, Little-House-on-the-Prairie-looking ignorant Baptists are going to have a different take. But they hardly represent the mainstream of 2000 years of Christianity.

What I don't understand is that if a person can rationalize that some parts of the Bible are not true, then why can't they see that all of it is not true? All of it is myth. Same as reading about Zoroaster, Zeus, or Harry Potter.

Did you ever take an English class? Do you understand that different literature genres express truth in different ways?

Did you ever take a history class? Do you understand that ancient Mesopotamian, Jewish, Persian, Greek, and Roman cultures in which the authors of the 66 books of the Bible lived were so wildly different from us that it takes study and work to put their words in the correct context?

It's funny how people (understandably, since I went to the school where the guy who wrote "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" taught) look down on Christians as unthinking without realizing that they reduce things to the absurd all the time themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I stay religious because I believe to the very core of my existence that my religion is true. I and most religious scholars also believe our faith is compatible with modern science (which has absolutely nothing to say on the existence or non-existence of God).

Quote me one religious scholar who believes any faith is compatible with modern science.

John Walton's view was espoused by most professors I knew at Wheaton, and the science profs all believed in the Big Bang. Don't think you can honestly call anyone who taught at Moody and Wheaton liberal (though a few crazy insane conservative types try, especially the political ones).

“Concordists believe the Bible must agree—be in concord with—all the findings of contemporary science. Through the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity.”

For example he puts forth an argument from ancient Mespotamian culture that Genesis 1 isn't really about exactly how God created the earth, but rather about why God did it and that he made it work.

“Instead of offering a statement of causes, Genesis 1 is offering a statement of how everything will work according to God’s purposes. In that sense the text looks to the future (how this cosmos will function for human beings with God at its center) rather than to the past (how God brought material into being). Purpose entails some level of causation (though it does not specify the level) and affirms sovereign control of the causation process.”

“If we follow the sense of the literature and its ideas of creation, we find that people in the ancient Near East did not think of creation in terms of making material things—instead, everything is function oriented. The gods are beginning their own operations and are making all of the elements of the cosmos operational. Creation thus constituted bringing order to the cosmos from an originally nonfunctional condition. It is from this reading of the literature that we may deduce a functional ontology in the ancient world—that is, that they offer accounts of functional origins rather than accounts of material origins.”

(https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-1-as-Ancient-Cosmology/dp/1575063840)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Walton

Creation stories are a man made construct to provide meaning and sense. They've been around since the first humans invented storytelling.

And, thats it. They're just stories. Made up ones.

You provided a statement of your own belief, with no proof. It's valid for you to have your own beliefs, but has no impact on the correctness of anyone else's.

Do you have proof that the Bible's story of creation is correct? My belief is based on what we know about science -- which is common knowledge, as least among educated people.

If you don't understand that trying to use science to disprove (or prove!) the existence of a diety is a category error after all the times it's been carefully explained here, I don't know what to tell you.

I am actually agnostic as to the how of the universe being created. Modern science tells us one story - a good one based on good evidence - but parts of it will probably be eventually overturned as our scientific knowledge expands.

That has zero, and I do mean zero, impact on my belief in God and the Bible. As shown in the quotes I pulled above, there are ways to have a very high view of the authority of the Christian Scriptures and believe that harmonizes just fine with modern science.

And despite the Ken Ham's of this world, there are plenty of Christians out there who believe this way. There are even more - probably the majority these days - somewhere in the middle between an evolutionary view of creation and a literal 7 day interpretation.

https://biologos.org/common-questions

Who's trying to prove or disprove a dirty? The poster said to prove the Bible was true.

Go ahead and prove the Bible is true. While you are at it, prove that unicorns are real. They use the same line of evidence and reasoning.

There are entire books dedicated to proving the Bible true and entire books dedicated to disproving it. I've seen a few cool places that harmonize the creation account with our modern scientific understandings, but I don't think anyone's going to prove the Bible is true OR false whole cloth because we don't have enough evidence. So both of us either believe or disbelieve based on other things than evidence.

As far as unicorns, interestingly enough I know of incredibly smart people who aren't willing to believe that they never existed - and they don't mean the argument that rhinos were the original unicorns, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I stay religious because I believe to the very core of my existence that my religion is true. I and most religious scholars also believe our faith is compatible with modern science (which has absolutely nothing to say on the existence or non-existence of God).

Quote me one religious scholar who believes any faith is compatible with modern science.

John Walton's view was espoused by most professors I knew at Wheaton, and the science profs all believed in the Big Bang. Don't think you can honestly call anyone who taught at Moody and Wheaton liberal (though a few crazy insane conservative types try, especially the political ones).

“Concordists believe the Bible must agree—be in concord with—all the findings of contemporary science. Through the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity.”

For example he puts forth an argument from ancient Mespotamian culture that Genesis 1 isn't really about exactly how God created the earth, but rather about why God did it and that he made it work.

“Instead of offering a statement of causes, Genesis 1 is offering a statement of how everything will work according to God’s purposes. In that sense the text looks to the future (how this cosmos will function for human beings with God at its center) rather than to the past (how God brought material into being). Purpose entails some level of causation (though it does not specify the level) and affirms sovereign control of the causation process.”

“If we follow the sense of the literature and its ideas of creation, we find that people in the ancient Near East did not think of creation in terms of making material things—instead, everything is function oriented. The gods are beginning their own operations and are making all of the elements of the cosmos operational. Creation thus constituted bringing order to the cosmos from an originally nonfunctional condition. It is from this reading of the literature that we may deduce a functional ontology in the ancient world—that is, that they offer accounts of functional origins rather than accounts of material origins.”

(https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-1-as-Ancient-Cosmology/dp/1575063840)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Walton

And important to note that this is not a modern 20th century concession to science. St. Augustine recognized that the biblical creation account was highly symbolic 1600 years ago. Yes, Little-House-on-the-Prairie-looking ignorant Baptists are going to have a different take. But they hardly represent the mainstream of 2000 years of Christianity.

What I don't understand is that if a person can rationalize that some parts of the Bible are not true, then why can't they see that all of it is not true? All of it is myth. Same as reading about Zoroaster, Zeus, or Harry Potter.

Did you ever take an English class? Do you understand that different literature genres express truth in different ways?

Did you ever take a history class? Do you understand that ancient Mesopotamian, Jewish, Persian, Greek, and Roman cultures in which the authors of the 66 books of the Bible lived were so wildly different from us that it takes study and work to put their words in the correct context?

It's funny how people (understandably, since I went to the school where the guy who wrote "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" taught) look down on Christians as unthinking without realizing that they reduce things to the absurd all the time themselves.

Are you now going to defend Harry Potter as truth?

Yes, you are unthinking if you can't see how absurd it is that myths are comparative, even the ones from the Bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I stay religious because I believe to the very core of my existence that my religion is true. I and most religious scholars also believe our faith is compatible with modern science (which has absolutely nothing to say on the existence or non-existence of God).

Quote me one religious scholar who believes any faith is compatible with modern science.

John Walton's view was espoused by most professors I knew at Wheaton, and the science profs all believed in the Big Bang. Don't think you can honestly call anyone who taught at Moody and Wheaton liberal (though a few crazy insane conservative types try, especially the political ones).

“Concordists believe the Bible must agree—be in concord with—all the findings of contemporary science. Through the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity.”

For example he puts forth an argument from ancient Mespotamian culture that Genesis 1 isn't really about exactly how God created the earth, but rather about why God did it and that he made it work.

“Instead of offering a statement of causes, Genesis 1 is offering a statement of how everything will work according to God’s purposes. In that sense the text looks to the future (how this cosmos will function for human beings with God at its center) rather than to the past (how God brought material into being). Purpose entails some level of causation (though it does not specify the level) and affirms sovereign control of the causation process.”

“If we follow the sense of the literature and its ideas of creation, we find that people in the ancient Near East did not think of creation in terms of making material things—instead, everything is function oriented. The gods are beginning their own operations and are making all of the elements of the cosmos operational. Creation thus constituted bringing order to the cosmos from an originally nonfunctional condition. It is from this reading of the literature that we may deduce a functional ontology in the ancient world—that is, that they offer accounts of functional origins rather than accounts of material origins.”

(https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-1-as-Ancient-Cosmology/dp/1575063840)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Walton

Creation stories are a man made construct to provide meaning and sense. They've been around since the first humans invented storytelling.

And, thats it. They're just stories. Made up ones.

You provided a statement of your own belief, with no proof. It's valid for you to have your own beliefs, but has no impact on the correctness of anyone else's.

Do you have proof that the Bible's story of creation is correct? My belief is based on what we know about science -- which is common knowledge, as least among educated people.

If you don't understand that trying to use science to disprove (or prove!) the existence of a diety is a category error after all the times it's been carefully explained here, I don't know what to tell you.

I am actually agnostic as to the how of the universe being created. Modern science tells us one story - a good one based on good evidence - but parts of it will probably be eventually overturned as our scientific knowledge expands.

That has zero, and I do mean zero, impact on my belief in God and the Bible. As shown in the quotes I pulled above, there are ways to have a very high view of the authority of the Christian Scriptures and believe that harmonizes just fine with modern science.

And despite the Ken Ham's of this world, there are plenty of Christians out there who believe this way. There are even more - probably the majority these days - somewhere in the middle between an evolutionary view of creation and a literal 7 day interpretation.

https://biologos.org/common-questions

Who's trying to prove or disprove a dirty? The poster said to prove the Bible was true.

Go ahead and prove the Bible is true. While you are at it, prove that unicorns are real. They use the same line of evidence and reasoning.

There are entire books dedicated to proving the Bible true and entire books dedicated to disproving it. I've seen a few cool places that harmonize the creation account with our modern scientific understandings, but I don't think anyone's going to prove the Bible is true OR false whole cloth because we don't have enough evidence. So both of us either believe or disbelieve based on other things than evidence.

As far as unicorns, interestingly enough I know of incredibly smart people who aren't willing to believe that they never existed - and they don't mean the argument that rhinos were the original unicorns, either.

Smart doesn't equal true. There are plenty of smart people who fall victim to conspiracy theories or to cults.

If they are that smart, then they should know better. Ask them if leprechauns, dragons, elves, wizards, and Santa are real too. At least Santa has a historical basis for the myth.