TSR Christian Society

Original post by King_Duncan

Heh, I'm pretty sure I know that same person (the only second year physicist who regularly attends CU). Small world!

oh, i doubt he goes to the cu, i meant he's at jesus college.

EDIT: and seriously can it or to take it to PM with the evolution argument.

or I'll mention hitler and you'll have to stop..... screw it HITLER

Now shut it.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 2782

Facticity

Original post by Alex-jc123

I am not 'selective'. I do not pick and choose from the Bible. For example, I have never fornicated and never will, and I believe the word of God to be the only 100% certain thing on earth.

You obviously have not studied philosophy or psychology. 'Wisdom' is not infallible in human beings, so evolution is not a fact. Human beings were blessed with some wisdom, yes, but not infinite wisdom as that would override faith, would it not?

What other 'scientific claims' do I hold to be true? :s

Actually I have studied psychology, and I currently study philosophy and do university logic courses..... I think you are presuming too much of me again. The same as the example to do with the atom which I showed before....And my parents are theologians....... I think I can say I have studied up on these issues to some degree.

I did not say you pick and choose from the bible. However, I do not think anyone in the entire world can claim to live according to the bible in every practise. For example:

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16

Clear example. You do not go around stoning anyone that uses the Lord's name in vain or I am sure even on the slightest occasion you have blasphemed. If not, I apologize however I do not think anyone can claim to live perfectly according to the Bible. A lot of things in the Bible demand the death or severe punishment of sinners, however I am quite sure you have neither punished someone as such nor wish to kill or hurt someone. It is folly to do so, however I do not think (and I think 99.99% of christians would agree) I am not disobeying God by not stoning someone.

Who said evolution is "infinite wisdom", I think you abusing the very foundation of linguistic philosophy here, which if you have studied philosophy as you attacked me for, would know that this is highly fallacious. Language is a descriptive tool not a universal qualifier. You cannot throw around such a phrase when in fact the very concept of "infinite wisdom" is vague. If we had infinite wisdom, I do not think I would even need to try to convince you of evolution.....

Override faith? Why does it override faith? Unless you are claiming to have more faith than everyone who is theistic and believes in evolution, I do not think such a statement has linguistic or theological meaning. I do not think anyone (if they are truly faithful) would make such a claim as to be better than others, would they? Rather meekness, no?

Everyone holds many scientific claims to be true without even taking them for granted. I am sure you do not think the world to be flat, or do not think that the world is composed of aether as an element. I am sure you know of the intricate and delicate balance of the earth's position in our solar system, I am sure you are aware of the complexities of the human genome and the plethora of chemical reactions occurring in the body. All of which we have mapped. We can create DNA, we can edit DNA, we can regrow human tissue, we can cure fatal diseases, we can cure genetic conditions, we can control the body using chemicals. Do you falter before taking some paracetamol> No. Why? Because you trust in science that it is correct. Deny it as we might, we rely and trust in science. As Nietzsche once said, "I have done this - says memory. I could not have done this - says pride. Eventually memory yields."

Now, I am not saying put your faith in science, merely that you take science as fact. Science is my corporeal reality, God is my universal truth. There is a significant difference. God can engineer humans to evolve or engineer things to work differently. Assuming we cannot understand the chemical processes we are made up of, is simply ignoring the obvious is it not? We have already mapped the entire human genome, according to you, something like that is wrong and should not exist. Why is it (if we can understand the EXACT make up of mankind) can we not understand the chemical reactions? Because that is all evolution is.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 2783

Facticity

Original post by rainbowbex

oh, i doubt he goes to the cu, i meant he's at jesus college.

EDIT: and seriously can it or to take it to PM with the evolution argument.

or I'll mention hitler and you'll have to stop..... screw it HITLER

Now shut it.

Sorry

I shall stop :yes:

Reply 2784

rainbowbex

Original post by Facticity

Sorry

I shall stop :yes:

Good.

How has your day been? I'm going home... :smile:

I think my parents would rather I came home a little less...

but, I'm starting to hate my flat.

Reply 2785

Original post by NJA

What do you say to Genesis 1 statements about plants & animals bringing forth after their kind and God calling that good, and finishing his work?

Amen?

What do you mean "literal", do you mean conforming to the modern definition of words?

"limited to the explicit meaning of a word or text"

Is there anything in the prophets or gospels that indicates that they didn't take the details literally?

Not that I can think of, but they didn't refer to Genesis to a huge extent (i.e. there's nothing there to suggest they ought to be taken literally either)

Apart from discussion of what "day" means in Genesis 1 & 2 what isn't literal?

I don't know exactly; more clearly, I don't think it was intended to be an historical account (that is, the first few chapters of Genesis).

[quote]You may not understand what happened wit the serpent, but that doesn't mean it isn't literal?

I know it doesn't, but that's not the reasoning I use.

With our post-enlightenment western minds we assume that "the beginning" must mean the start of physical creation but the mindset of the time has a different, non-physical-science based focus. It deals with the reality of God's plans and talks in a series of 10"generations of" (toledoths).

Genesis 1:1 - 2:4 is about the setting up of Earth to provide a home for mankind as a witness to man who should seek and find his maker, as Paul preaches in Acts 14:17

"he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness"

Genesis 1 is not an allegory, it is literally what happened. Luke 3 has a genealogy going back to Adam. I'm sure you believe the later people, including Jesus literally existed, do you suggest that he was descended from an imaginary Adam who didn't really exist to produce physival offspring?

Not imaginary in the sense of a confabulation or hallucination, no. Imaginary in the sense of not existing as an individual, historical person, probably. I have no idea what Luke thought of it, but don't consider that of immense importance.

The prophets, Jesus etc also refer to Adam, Enoch, Noah and later people in the same breath.

So?

Original post by Vanny17

Alright. But isn't the evolution theory against the Genesis creation explanation. In the Bible, species didn't evolve. Surely by disproving what the bible says, you are saying that the Bible is not factual. I know people would argue that since the Old testament said ''an eye for an eye'' it means we christains should presecute non- christains. This surely isn't true because the Bible is divided into 2 parts for a reason. OLD and NEW. I had to use that as an example to prove my consept. Surely, if you believe in science, you don't believe in everything in the bible then? Because evolution doesn't find the Genesis creation explantion ( I use explanation, not theory because it was part of the vital part of the Bible) to be true. It basis is the gradual formation of all living things in the universe.

I don't think it's against the Genesis explanation, no, because I don't think the beginning of Genesis was intended literally. Lots of things that are true aren't in the Bible. That doesn't mean they're not true.
I'm not disproving what the Bible says; I'm disputing the idea that the Bible was all intended to be taken literally.

Reply 2786

Facticity

Original post by rainbowbex

Good.

How has your day been? I'm going home... :smile:

I think my parents would rather I came home a little less...

but, I'm starting to hate my flat.

My day has been alright, just winding up on all my various pieces of coursework, so tiring :sigh:

How come you're going home? Ahh, I think my parents would rather I come home a lot more. We should swap :tongue:

Hmm, I don't know, living in a flat sounds cool. Though, obviously never having done so alone, I cannot say whether it would be or not. Do you not live with other students?

Reply 2787

Original post by Alex-jc123

Natural selection suggests that human beings are a result of a natural process whereby attributes are altered to suit survival. Therefore, if you choose to believe this as being acceptable in Scripture then you believe that humans were not actually created to be ultimately superior. Moreover, humans are created in God's image; science claims that life originally came from the sea, so is God a fish?

Superior in what sense? Ontologically, relationally...?
And no. The Bible claims that life originally came from dust, so is God a mud-monster?

The theory of evolution is a joke. It cannot even prove natural selection with birds, and scientists dig up a skeleton in Africa and judge it to be of millions of years old just because it has similar features.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Apparently, particular groups of human beings have existed in excessively cold climates; why do they not have some form of fur skin or natural shield against cold?

Like hair, you mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Qe1wgxDiEdU/TJ3kk1FsNaI/AAAAAAAACPY/l3cEzqUxYrE/s1600/KG_30th_Raj_Hairy_Ass_Arm.sized.jpg

Satan was the cause of sin and woe in the world, and he was just like people who believe in evolution: stubborn, arrogant and determined to assert human infallibility over the astronomically complex idea of creation (which science has not even fully explained).

Not going to lower myself to responding to this.

Reply 2788

Original post by Alex-jc123

Yes, Genesis is to be interpreted literally. The trouble is, many modern 'Christians' are judging the Bible with a liberal and media-influenced philosophical and theological view. What necessarily makes 21st Century concept of thought superior to that of all that has preceded it?

*Overwhelmed with sheer irony*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis#Ancient_Christian_Interpretations

To put it bluntly: we ain't the ones rejecting the ancients.

Reply 2789

Original post by Architecture-er

@Calumcalum, thank you for your in-depth answer, if I understood you correctly you basically said that Christ is opposed to suffering, as it stems from the devil and original sin, and trusting in God to alleviate it is the best thing to do, since we cannot hope to manage anything noteworthy ourselves (which I agree with). However when I talked with my friend it seemed more like she wanted to know why her mum in particular had to get stricken with cancer.
Some causes of death could be directly pertained to your actions in life (e.g. rock climbing or mountain-biking), it is the gift of free will which allows us to do dangerous things and experience life, but cancer isn't like that. It's basically a lottery of death, and I couldn't really think of a justifiable answer as to why her mum could've died from it. Any further pointers would be great (though you don't have to write a huge amount if you want to save some wear on your keyboard :biggrin:

)

It's not that we can't manage anything noteworthy, it's more that we can't expect to accomplish on our own what Christ accomplished: the complete victory over and destruction of evil. It seems to me that the primary potential benefit in knowing where sin came from would be in knowing how to 'nip it in the bud', as it were. But since we're so far beyond the 'bud', and evil is so out of control, we couldn't possibly win a victory over it in the same way as Christ did, so in that sense knowing where evil came from could be seen as not having that much use. The implication of this is that we are not told where evil came from, to save us wasting time trying to do what Christ did, when we're asked to instead collaborate with him and do our best, under his guidance, to control what we can control, and play our part in the battle against it (bear in mind, of course, that much of this is figurative, but I find these images helpful to understand it a bit more :smile:

).
In the case of particular afflictions, the idea is that, very often, we can't identify a cause. While there is some human involvement (e.g. if all humans behaved correctly from the start then there's a fair case for us having far more substantial treatment/maybe a definitive cure for cancer by now), it might simply be best to understand this as one of those trials we come across that is a result of evil in general which, as we said, has no *known*, identifiable cause/origin.

Original post by d123

I thought of this thread while I was out tonight, with some friends, all of whom are atheist. Towards the end of the night the conversation turned to religion, and most of them are fairly against it - making me feeling slightly uncomfortable, as I tend to just sit there in these debates though I feel like I should say something. I don't believe in pushing my faith down others throats or in trying to convert people - but if anyone has any advice for how to cope in situations like that, it'd be appreciated. At the moment, I tend to say 'I'm a christian, and it's important to me, but I totally understand what you're saying and agree with part of it' - as usually it's them railing against child abuse in the Catholic church, or fundamentalism, or people who deny science like evolution (which is why I especially thought of this thread).

How can you justify your faith to someone, without associating yourself with beliefs you don't accept, and without offending the person you're talking to? I'm not sure if justify is the right word here - but I suppose I'm wanting a way to make it clear what I do and don't believe in in a social situation where I'm the only Christian. I love these people, and so I think it's almost a matter of not wanting them to think less of me, which I know is awful - I'm not ashamed of being a Christian at all, but sometimes I almost act as if I am. I'm probably not explaining myself correctly here but if anyone can help out, I'd appreciate it.

I guess it depends what you're discussing, or what your main aim is. Is it, for example, to explain why you're a Christian/why there are good reasons for being a Christian, or just to give your faith-informed opinion on a sensitive matter (e.g. sex before marriage)? Or something else? :smile:

Original post by dreiviergrenadier

Apparently there's been a tenfold increase in rainfall in East London since 1960, was that caused by the influence of socialism and liberalism too?

Probably, damn Marxists :angry:

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 2790

Original post by Alex-jc123

I am not 'selective'. I do not pick and choose from the Bible. For example, I have never fornicated and never will, and I believe the word of God to be the only 100% certain thing on earth.

You obviously have not studied philosophy or psychology. 'Wisdom' is not infallible in human beings, so evolution is not a fact. Human beings were blessed with some wisdom, yes, but not infinite wisdom as that would override faith, would it not?

What other 'scientific claims' do I hold to be true? :s

Presumably many; would you accept, for example, treatment in a hospital?

Reply 2791

greeneyedgirl

19

Original post by rainbowbex

Good.

How has your day been? I'm going home... :smile:

I think my parents would rather I came home a little less...

but, I'm starting to hate my flat.

What's wrong with your flat? :jumphug:

Reply 2792

dreiviergrenadier

Original post by wind-swept

Thank you

I'm at Queen's - are you at Oxford? If which college/subject?

I'm at Christ Church, doing Law with LSE (currently doing the LSE bit), but i've been to Queen's quite a bit as my girlfriend's there. So if you see someone next year who regularly stands outside the main entrance, it may well be me :smile:

Also, does the CU have a physics faculty group? The current Christ Church rep is a physicist (and maybe even one of the freshers too).

How've you found it so far?

Reply 2793

yawn

Original post by Calumcalum

On what basis?

Ensoulment, amongst others such as Sacred Tradition as espoused by the Early Church Fathers.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 2794

Darkages

I am not a christian.

Be honest with yourself:

how many of yourself actually have read the true bible and not just a 'version' of it?

how many of you follow the precepts of what christianity teaches?

how many of you stick to it cos it is not all that hard to follow?
I mean you can eat pork and other meats, drink, be friendly and very sociable with the opposite sex, dress however you like. - it is a much easier religion to follow than islam or buddhism for example.

And all you have to do is believe jesus is god, bam! your sins are forgotten.

It is the most la dee da mainstream religion ever!!

Reply 2795

dreiviergrenadier

Original post by Darkages

I am not a christian.

Be honest with yourself:

how many of yourself actually have read the true bible and not just a 'version' of it?

how many of you follow the precepts of what christianity teaches?

how many of you stick to it cos it is not all that hard to follow?
I mean you can eat pork and other meats, drink, be friendly and very sociable with the opposite sex, dress however you like. - it is a much easier religion to follow than islam or buddhism for example.

And all you have to do is believe jesus is god, bam! your sins are forgotten.

It is the most la dee da mainstream religion ever!!

1) What do you mean by 'true Bible'?

2) Try loving your enemies :tongue:

Reply 2796

spacepirate-James

18

I had a religious epiphany recently.

And was wondering how one manages to speak to some sort of church-pastor dude to discuss religion in general.

In my head, influenced by TV, I'm thinking confessional box...

...except, I've never been into a church before. :erm:

Reply 2797

meatball893

11

Original post by Darkages

I am not a christian.

Be honest with yourself:

how many of yourself actually have read the true bible and not just a 'version' of it?

I'm assuming you mean the original texts. I'm afraid I don't know Ancient Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew/etc.. That's what translations are for. By reading a variety of translations, it is possible to discern pretty much exactly what was meant.

how many of you follow the precepts of what christianity teaches?

how many of you stick to it cos it is not all that hard to follow?
I mean you can eat pork and other meats, drink, be friendly and very sociable with the opposite sex, dress however you like. - it is a much easier religion to follow than islam or buddhism for example.

And all you have to do is believe jesus is god, bam! your sins are forgotten.

It is the most la dee da mainstream religion ever!!

The whole point is that it's impossible to follow! That's why we need Jesus! Look at Matthew 5, particularly from verse 21 onwards. Sure, it doesn't endanger our salvation if we do sinful things, but that doesn't mean that we're "allowed" to do them. Jesus and Paul and any of the letter-writers actively discourage sinful behaviour, and say that we should be striving for holiness.

Also Mt 10:38 - "Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me." This is anything but "la dee da."

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 2798

yawn