• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Evolution, Creation, and You

Pick the statement that describes you best

  • I subscribe to the theories of the big bang and evolution.

    Votes: 52 61.9%

  • I subscribe to a creation theory, or something close, as well as evolution.

    Votes: 19 22.6%

  • I believe in creation, but not evolution.

    Votes: 5 6.0%

  • Some other version of this, please specify.

    Votes: 8 9.5%
  • Total voters
    84
Deacaholic said:
Christians believe God was not created. He has always been and will always be.
Click to expand...

Which of course breaks a linear understanding of history. It seems to me that any linear understanding of history will have an inevitable chicken-egg dilemma.
 
DV7, Asking that is redundant. If you admit you have no idea where everything originally came from and then call the originator God, there is no reason to ask where that God came from. You have already admitted that you have no idea.
 
tjcmd said:
DV7, Asking that is redundant. If you admit you have no idea where everything originally came from and then call the originator God, there is no reason to ask where that God came from. You have already admitted that you have no idea.
Click to expand...

Right. But also, the idea is more that God is not created, so to ask a question like "where did God come from?" is like asking "what is the area of the circle-square." It just doesn't compute. In the West, we tend to think of God as some sort of thing, even if that thing is a deity- but, as evidenced by the Hebrew word for God (YHWH), God isn't a thing, but rather being/existence. Obviously not exactly the same, but something like the concept of Hindu Brahman, but in a personal/active way. But yea, we're not going get our heads around this one.
 
Rev, what's your position on living together before marriage?
 
RevDeac06 said:
Oh, that's a really nice offer, but I'm already married, and I don't really know you that well anyway.
Click to expand...

In all seriousness though- I'm fine with it, and can often make a lot of sense. Marriage (the Sacrament) isn't for everyone, and is a very holy obligation- I get that not everyone wants that. Though, I'd argue that living together and being married really are two very different things- so it's not quite genuine to view living together as a "trial" marriage, as I think the Sacrament really does change things (and not just legally).

Sex (like money), in my opinion, is a neutral thing- it can be good or bad, but it depends on how it is used. How we treat each other in all relationships, including sexual, is important. There are moral/just ways to have sexual relationships both inside and outside of marriage (though, if you're married, then I don't think you should be having sex outside of that relationship).
 
Interesting. I asked because I've been looking for a church having grown up Catholic and found one but on their website they had an "Ask Father John" section and a woman asked about her son living with his girlfriend and how she told him he had to confess his sins before going to mass.

Father John agreed that her son needed to immediately stop living with his girlfriend and go to confession before he could participate in Mass.

Really rubbed me the wrong way and obviously will not be attending that Church.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
Interesting. I asked because I've been looking for a church having grown up Catholic and found one but on their website they had an "Ask Father John" section and a woman asked about her son living with his girlfriend and how she told him he had to confess his sins before going to mass.

Father John agreed that her son needed to immediately stop living with his girlfriend and go to confession before he could participate in Mass.

Really rubbed me the wrong way and obviously will not be attending that Church.
Click to expand...

Confessing sins is never a bad idea (and I wouldn't call living with a gf a sin, I just meant in general), but yea, that rubs me the wrong way too. Western Christian thought has had a really unhealthy (and unbiblical) view of sex for literally thousands of years. Not sure where you're located, but check out an Episcopal Church (or if in Gboro, let me know and check out where I am).
 
tjcmd said:
This is kind of my problem with scientific atheism. It just can't explain the emergence of something out of nothing.

miracle-occurs2.jpg
Click to expand...

Science isn't content to sit on it's laurels, though. Science will continue to push back the veil until the unknowns are known. Just because we haven't figured it out yet, doesn't mean there isn't a logical, non-supernatural solution.
 
TWDeac said:
Science isn't content to sit on it's laurels, though. Science will continue to push back the veil until the unknowns are known. Just because we haven't figured it out yet, doesn't mean there isn't a logical, non-supernatural solution.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and the god of the gaps really should be exposed as a fraud. Might actually force those of faith to use their brains. As you'd expect me to say though- even if the veil is lifted, that doesn't eliminate God at all. The idea that God is a part of equation doesn't need to be true, perhaps God is the paper on which the equation is written (or some other enigmatic metaphor).
 
TWDeac said:
Science isn't content to sit on it's laurels, though. Science will continue to push back the veil until the unknowns are known. Just because we haven't figured it out yet, doesn't mean there isn't a logical, non-supernatural solution.
Click to expand...

But you also can't discount there being a super-natural solution. Pure scientific practice would say there is no answer one way or the other at this time.
 
TWDeac said:
Science isn't content to sit on it's laurels, though. Science will continue to push back the veil until the unknowns are known. Just because we haven't figured it out yet, doesn't mean there isn't a logical, non-supernatural solution.
Click to expand...

I'm probably not intelligent enough to phrase this well, but - from a metaphysical standpoint - isn't the problem with science that there is always another question to ask? I mean, we could have a complete understanding of the entirety of our physical universe from the moment of the big bang forward, but then the question is - what was going on immediately before that? It seems like, eventually, we'll get to something that we're simply not capable of contemplating, and some people choose to label that "God".
 
DeacinBama said:
I'm probably not intelligent enough to phrase this well, but - from a metaphysical standpoint - isn't the problem with science that there is always another question to ask? I mean, we could have a complete understanding of the entirety of our physical universe from the moment of the big bang forward, but then the question is - what was going on immediately before that? It seems like, eventually, we'll get to something that we're simply not capable of contemplating, and some people choose to label that "God".
Click to expand...

You mean the unmoved mover.
 
RJKarl said:
But you also can't discount there being a super-natural solution. Pure scientific practice would say there no answer one way or the other at this time.
Click to expand...
I think that would be by definition untestable.
 
Not is the supernatural being allows itself to be tested.
 
DeacinBama said:
I'm probably not intelligent enough to phrase this well, but - from a metaphysical standpoint - isn't the problem with science that there is always another question to ask? I mean, we could have a complete understanding of the entirety of our physical universe from the moment of the big bang forward, but then the question is - what was going on immediately before that? It seems like, eventually, we'll get to something that we're simply not capable of contemplating, and some people choose to label that "God".
Click to expand...

Since there are, and there always will be, questions that cannot be answered by science, I don't see any reason to discard the faith of my ancestors. It actually works very well as a practical guide to living in today's world, so why reinvent the wheel?
 
^That's good stuff to use against science vs religion folks, or people that say "well, God caused the Big Bang." But there can be multiple causes for the same event, or rather- science is one language and religion is another, but they speak of the same event and they both do so with truth.
 
tjcmd said:
Since there are, and there always will be, questions that cannot be answered by science, I don't see any reason to discard the faith of my ancestors. It actually works very well as a practical guide to living in today's world, so why reinvent the wheel?
Click to expand...

Hundreds of other religions/philosophies serve as a practical guide to living in today's world as well. I'm confident that, if we don't become extinct or blow each other up, we will make significant strides in shrinking scientific gaps over the next 500 years. This really isn't that much of a stretch If we look back on the last 100 years of scientific advancement. The science community won't hit a barrier and say, "Well, we are stumped. Must be god." Eventually, we might even reach the point where we can create our own universes. The sky is really the limit if we can proceed unimpeded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top