• 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!

Ways to discourage a child's interest in organized religion

RevDeac06 said:
Science can't answer "why." So, yea, there would be a point - community, ultimate concern (borrowing from Tillich), and connection to the source of all that science explains.
Click to expand...

Whoa. #Disagree re: science can't answer why. Will elaborate later but Timbergen's foit questions is a place to start.
 
WakeandBake said:
ok. But when science does explain everything then God is left as just the creator of science, right? Will the organized religion serve any purpose but to offer faith-based answers to the question of what happens when we die?
Click to expand...

What would this even look like? How would we know that science had explained everything? Surely not through science.
 
ChicdeaC said:
Whoa. #Disagree re: science can't answer why. Will elaborate later but Timbergen's foit questions is a place to start.
Click to expand...

Agree with the idea of knowing the whys of evoluation- thinking more of the "why does something exist instead of nothing." Science may one day be able to fully explain the Big Bang, maybe even what happened before the Big Bang (if that proves to be possible), but that doesn't squeeze God out of the picture. I'm not necessarily talking about the first mover argument, but rather, there can be a why behind the how of science. Time could prove me wrong, but I don't see science explaining the why of emotions or love. There can be biological/sociological explanations, but those, imo, are only a piece of the puzzle.
 
RevDeac06 said:
2 comments -

1) only the misinformed say the Bible is the word of God. That's Jesus. The Bible isn't a transcription of or perfect summary of Divine Will.

2) Seriously? God of the gaps argument? That's Busch league.
Click to expand...


That's an interesting opinion, especially seeing that in passages such as Mark 7 Christ quoted texts from the Old Testament and referred to them as "the Word of God". Perhaps the Word of God did not Himself understand what the Word of God actually is? Or, maybe, there is the Word of God incarnate and the Word of God inscripturated.
 
mebanedeac said:
That's an interesting opinion, especially seeing that in passages such as Mark 7 Christ quoted texts from the Old Testament and referred to them as "the Word of God". Perhaps the Word of God did not Himself understand what the Word of God actually is? Or, maybe, there is the Word of God incarnate and the Word of God inscripturated.
Click to expand...
Or, maybe, Mark didn't have a tape recorder, nor was he aware of what would be later written by John and revealed by the Holy Spirit.

ETA- The point is really simple- what do you worship? A book or God? If the Bible is seen as the Word of God (as the Qur'an is seen in Islam- meaning inerrant, final, infallible, perfectly capturing God's mind/will) then it becomes, by definition, a part of God (namely, God's speech). Traditionally, it has not been held that the Bible is a transcript of Divine speech, but when we treat it as the Word of God, we start down the wrong path. I'm actually fine with calling the Bible the word of God, but we just need to be precise with our understanding of that attribution. And I think there is a deeper meaning and beauty in Scripture when we read it not as a perfect book worthy of worship, but instead as a book that tells the story of the relationship between God and God's people- told from the perspective of people who struggle (mightily) to convey their understanding of God based on their experiences of the Divine. In other words, there is deeper Truth when we don't obsess about truth vs fiction.
 
Last edited:
I could see that actually cause Oprah was fucking pissed when her unauthorized biography came out.
 
Every Protestant denomination has historically confessed the Bible to be the specially given Word of God. An example would be the Westminster Confession of Faith:

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6]
 
I think the emphasis on Scripture is a means of control by those in power. If we can define and confine God to the Bible, we rule God. Which is why, imo, the better understanding is that the Bible points to God. The Bible is a sign post, not a hitching post.
 
Because I believe the Scripture to be the mind of God, I will stop here in keeping with 2Tim. 2:24.

Peace.
 
Oh it is authorized? Well, fuck. Then, if I were God, I would've given my ghostwriter a little more face time. He got, like, almost everything wrong. Maybe God was fucking with him? Like, it was one of those journalists who kept banging on his door and wouldn't leave him alone? I could see that. Not fully authorized, not fully unauthorized. I think Oprah had one like that too.
 
I'm thoroughly confused why this interaction was stopped. Seemed to be no hostility.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I'm thoroughly confused why this interaction was stopped. Seemed to be no hostility.
Click to expand...

Realization that they will never see eye to eye and agreeing to disagree. Politics board could use a lot of this. Not a coincidence that neither of these two are lawyers.
 
Satanism advocates practicing a modified form of the Golden Rule. Our interpretation of this rule is: “Do unto others as they do unto you”; because if you “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and they, in turn, treat you badly, it goes against human nature to continue to treat them with consideration.You should do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but if your courtesy is not returned, they should be treated with the wrath they deserve.
Click to expand...
..
 
Last edited:
RevDeac06 said:
Agree with the idea of knowing the whys of evoluation- thinking more of the "why does something exist instead of nothing." Science may one day be able to fully explain the Big Bang, maybe even what happened before the Big Bang (if that proves to be possible), but that doesn't squeeze God out of the picture. I'm not necessarily talking about the first mover argument, but rather, there can be a why behind the how of science. Time could prove me wrong, but I don't see science explaining the why of emotions or love. There can be biological/sociological explanations, but those, imo, are only a piece of the puzzle.
Click to expand...

Chaos theory.
 
Take them to a backwards fire and brimstone baptist church for a few years. Worked on me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top