PDA

View Full Version : Pat Robertson Disputes 6000 Year Old Earth



Calis
11-29-2012, 06:12 PM
I don't post here often, but I was looking for thoughts on this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/pat-robertson-creationism-earth-is-not-6000-years-old_n_2207275.html

I have my own thoughts on Pat Robertson, but I found it very interesting that he stated this.

bilbo79
11-29-2012, 08:49 PM
Welcome to the 21st Century Pat

The Voice
11-29-2012, 08:55 PM
What? The world is not 6000 years old?

Barry Morris
11-29-2012, 09:55 PM
What? The world is not 6000 years old?

Nah, just one of those myths you guys swallowed!!! :) :) :)

The Left Sock
11-30-2012, 12:29 AM
Myth? ......right!

"Was chronology of importance to the biblical writers? Indeed it was. Does the Bible speak, then, in any sense, concerning the age of the Earth or the age of humanity on the Earth? Indeed it does. I am not suggesting, of course, that one can settle on an exact date for the age of the Earth (as did John Lightfoot [1602-1675], the famed Hebraist and vice-chancellor of Cambridge University who contended that creation occurred the week of October 18 to 24, 4004 B.C., and that Adam and Eve were created on October 23 at 9:00 A.M., forty-fifth meridian time [see Ramm, 1954, p. 121]). I do contend, however, that the Bible gives a chronological framework that establishes a relative age for the Earth—an age confined to a span of only a few thousand years. The material that follows presents the evidence to substantiate such a conclusion."

http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=111

Barry Morris
11-30-2012, 08:34 AM
The idea that this is what Christians commonly believe is the myth. Sure some guy did some figuring back in 1650. So what??

It occurs to me that in 49 years of being a Christian, I have never, ever heard this mentioned in a church, anywhere. And I've been to dozens of different denominations and hundreds of meetings.

It's not as accepted as you might like.

bilbo79
11-30-2012, 09:31 AM
The idea that this is what Christians commonly believe is the myth. Sure some guy did some figuring back in 1650. So what??

It occurs to me that in 49 years of being a Christian, I have never, ever heard this mentioned in a church, anywhere. And I've been to dozens of different denominations and hundreds of meetings.

It's not as accepted as you might like.

Ken Ham, Author and president of the Creation Museum seems to think the Earth is about 6000 years old. He calls Pat Robertson's teachings "Destructive". On the other side the Pope accepts the theory of evolution.

I think we need to find some kind of common ground, can we all agree at least that gay people are the cause Hurricanes?

Barry Morris
11-30-2012, 12:05 PM
Ken Ham, Author and president of the Creation Museum seems to think the Earth is about 6000 years old. He calls Pat Robertson's teachings "Destructive". On the other side the Pope accepts the theory of evolution.

I think we need to find some kind of common ground, can we all agree at least that gay people are the cause Hurricanes?

Well, if you would present some scientific proof, we might discuss it.

hobo
11-30-2012, 12:18 PM
http://reluctant-messenger.com/Lost-Doctrines-Christianity006.htm

Barry Morris
11-30-2012, 12:20 PM
http://reluctant-messenger.com/Lost-Doctrines-Christianity006.htm

Interesting read.

The Left Sock
11-30-2012, 01:13 PM
"The idea that this is what Christians commonly believe is the myth."

So, the fight over evolution vs. creationism in the education system is just the result of a few disgruntled 'young earthers'?

Sorry, your statement is erroneous. All evangelicals believe the Bible is the literal word of God, and in the Bible, the generations since Adam are very clearly denoted. So, either you believe the Bible is a really good read but factually untrue, or you are just blowing smoke.

I smell smoke.

Bluesky
11-30-2012, 01:16 PM
The idea that this is what Christians commonly believe is the myth. Sure some guy did some figuring back in 1650. So what??

It occurs to me that in 49 years of being a Christian, I have never, ever heard this mentioned in a church, anywhere. And I've been to dozens of different denominations and hundreds of meetings.

It's not as accepted as you might like.

This is untrue. I heard the theory ALL MY LIFE. And still hear it.

There is a sharp division between YEC and OEC (Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists). Young earthers insist that unless you adopt their view, all is lost, and you can hardly be called a Christian.

So on one hand, we have Ken Hamm, Answers in Genesis, etc who advocate YEC, and then you have the High Ross devotees who believe in an Old Earth, but do still hold to special creation (vs theistic evo).
Then you also have the biologos crowd, who subscribe to theistic evolution ie the belief that God started the process and designed things such that species will evolve..

It seems Soc is more familiar with the foibles of the evangelical world than you are.

Although I must admit, YEC is not as popular with the 20-something crowd.

Hans
11-30-2012, 05:20 PM
In order for Bible accounts to be present, you need the written word.
Anything before the written word was not written down.

Bluesky
11-30-2012, 05:35 PM
Can you please explain that further Hans?

Barry Morris
11-30-2012, 07:34 PM
This is untrue. I heard the theory ALL MY LIFE. And still hear it.

There is a sharp division between YEC and OEC (Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists). Young earthers insist that unless you adopt their view, all is lost, and you can hardly be called a Christian.

So on one hand, we have Ken Hamm, Answers in Genesis, etc who advocate YEC, and then you have the High Ross devotees who believe in an Old Earth, but do still hold to special creation (vs theistic evo).
Then you also have the biologos crowd, who subscribe to theistic evolution ie the belief that God started the process and designed things such that species will evolve..

It seems Soc is more familiar with the foibles of the evangelical world than you are.

Although I must admit, YEC is not as popular with the 20-something crowd.

Untrue?? Curious how many times you've discussed it in church. I NEVER have, NOR have I heard it preached on or explained.

Sock knows what the general non-believer knows. It's perfectly obvious.

Barney Rubble
11-30-2012, 08:58 PM
A scientist walks down a beach & sees a sand castle.
He wants to find out when it was made so he takes a sample & finds that it is millions of years old.
????

Just because the rocks are millions of years old does not refute an early created earth.


This isn't "fighting" science. Actually most beliefs on how the planets were created, now, help creationism.

Barry Morris
11-30-2012, 10:10 PM
"The idea that this is what Christians commonly believe is the myth."

So, the fight over evolution vs. creationism in the education system is just the result of a few disgruntled 'young earthers'?

Sorry, your statement is erroneous. All evangelicals believe the Bible is the literal word of God, and in the Bible, the generations since Adam are very clearly denoted. So, either you believe the Bible is a really good read but factually untrue, or you are just blowing smoke.

I smell smoke.

I smell, once again, a lack of any real knowledge about bible truth.

The Left Sock
12-01-2012, 12:30 AM
You must be typing in a very small room.

Bluesky
12-01-2012, 09:38 AM
Untrue?? Curious how many times you've discussed it in church. I NEVER have, NOR have I heard it preached on or explained.

Sock knows what the general non-believer knows. It's perfectly obvious.

SB, if you've never heard it discussed, then you don't get out much :). I remember YOUR church being a part of a conference held on creationsim. They brought Duane Gish up to be a speaker. Course that was back in the mid 90's.

It is not taught from the pulpits because it is a very controversial topic. Certainly not an essential one, but at the popular level, it is very divisive. The fundamentalists among us want to make this a sina qua non.

Barry Morris
12-01-2012, 01:05 PM
Duane Gish?? I remember some meetings at White Pines.

"Don't get out much" is a joke because of my work. I am in all kinds of churches, all the time, and I'm often asked where I'm going to church now. Same place for 42 years.

Ya know, my belief is that sometimes Christians worship theological knowledge in the same way atheists worship science. And fundamentalists make way to many thing "absolutely essential" to Christian belief, when not a one of them really fully understands WHAT they believe.

That's why my bottom line is trusting God.

Barry Morris
12-01-2012, 01:29 PM
Just saw a quote on Facebook.

"The bible never says "figure it out". It says "Trust God". He already has it figured out!!"

Bluesky
12-01-2012, 02:34 PM
Duane Gish?? I remember some meetings at White Pines.

"Don't get out much" is a joke because of my work. I am in all kinds of churches, all the time, and I'm often asked where I'm going to church now. Same place for 42 years.

Ya know, my belief is that sometimes Christians worship theological knowledge in the same way atheists worship science. And fundamentalists make way to many thing "absolutely essential" to Christian belief, when not a one of them really fully understands WHAT they believe.

That's why my bottom line is trusting God.

Now you've hit a nerve.
This your subtle way of saying, "Don't ask so many questions. Just close your eyes and believe." It's what I heard all my life. I have fought that attitude all my life. And it is precisely why I do what I do.

I wish that sometimes you simply answered a question with "I don't know". You would gain a lot more credibility with that answer rather than your very confusing answers.

I dare you to publicly ask for a show of hands in your own church: "How many of you believe that God created the earth less than 10,000 years ago, and in 7 24 hour days?"

And then ask the question: How many of you believe that belief in the young earth model creationism is essential for orthodoxy? Although you know your people better than I do, you might be surprised at the response.

The Left Sock
12-01-2012, 04:16 PM
That's why they call it a 'leap of faith', because you have to jump over a huge pile of facts in your way, to land on the other side with your ideas intact.

Watched a very interesting documentary on the Mumbai terror attacks the other day. There were ten gunman, only one survived. The Indian police took him down to the morgue, and showed him the mutilated bodies of his buddies. The young man cried like a little girl, because he was promised by his mentors that they would all remain perfectly physically intact no matter what the infidels did to them, so they could still be handsome for the virgins they were promised in Paradise. He now knew he had been lied to, but not until after he had helped slaughter 170 innocent people. A little too late for him to find that nugget of truth - they executed him just a few days ago.

If you ever wonder why ignorant young men will strap on guns and bomb vests and willingly kill themselves for a cause, just look for the 'leaps of faith' they are being asked to make, before the mission started.

Ignorance is a killer. Religious ignorance leads to genocide.

Bluesky
12-01-2012, 05:13 PM
All kinds of faith contains a leap, somewhere along the path. One cannot exercise any faith without a leap. Including the faith of the atheist. Probably not so much with the true agnostic. He just shrugs his shoulders at most everything with an "I don't know". But even he will believe that the sun will rise in the east. That too is a step of faith.

Now a blind leap of faith is a horse of a different feather. But I recall an extensive discussion with Soc67 about that. He will still, of course, disagree with me, but I'm okay with that.

The Left Sock
12-01-2012, 05:48 PM
Sorry, but my beliefs don't involve taking a leap of any kind.

The Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path do not require a single supernatural belief of any kind; they are pure, rational, logical, indisputable guides to an enlightened way of living.

Reincarnation, on the other hand, is a leap of faith that I voluntarily bought into, because it is the only way for me to make sense of the larger picture of the thing we call life. However, a belief in reincarnation is not required for someone to consider themselves a student of Buddhism, so my original statement stands.

Barry Morris
12-01-2012, 07:18 PM
Now you've hit a nerve.
This your subtle way of saying, "Don't ask so many questions. Just close your eyes and believe." It's what I heard all my life. I have fought that attitude all my life. And it is precisely why I do what I do.

I wish that sometimes you simply answered a question with "I don't know". You would gain a lot more credibility with that answer rather than your very confusing answers.

I dare you to publicly ask for a show of hands in your own church: "How many of you believe that God created the earth less than 10,000 years ago, and in 7 24 hour days?"

And then ask the question: How many of you believe that belief in the young earth model creationism is essential for orthodoxy? Although you know your people better than I do, you might be surprised at the response.

Sorry, you could explain theological truth to me all day long, for the rest of my life, and it won't lead me one step closer to God than if I simply trust Him like a little child.

As to saying, "I don't know", that should be obvious. You could be the smartest man on earth, having memorized the bible, and trained in seminary for ten lifetimes, and you would STILL have to sometimes say, "I don't know". I don't stop learning, but I have the answers I need to be packed up, prayed up, ready to go up.

And I certainly don't see any profit in asking such a question of the people of my church. Division is easy, unity is not.

Barry Morris
12-01-2012, 07:19 PM
Sorry, but my beliefs don't involve taking a leap of any kind.

The Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path do not require a single supernatural belief of any kind; they are pure, rational, logical, indisputable guides to an enlightened way of living.

Reincarnation, on the other hand, is a leap of faith that I voluntarily bought into, because it is the only way for me to make sense of the larger picture of the thing we call life. However, a belief in reincarnation is not required for someone to consider themselves a student of Buddhism, so my original statement stands.

Of course your beliefs require a leap of faith.

Only God knows everything. Your leap of faith is in believing you know enough.

Bluesky
12-01-2012, 07:59 PM
Sorry, you could explain theological truth to me all day long, for the rest of my life, and it won't lead me one step closer to God than if I simply trust Him like a little child.

As to saying, "I don't know", that should be obvious. You could be the smartest man on earth, having memorized the bible, and trained in seminary for ten lifetimes, and you would STILL have to sometimes say, "I don't know". I don't stop learning, but I have the answers I need to be packed up, prayed up, ready to go up.

And I certainly don't see any profit in asking such a question of the people of my church. Division is easy, unity is not.

What is the difference between theological truth and just plain truth? If theological truth is truth, then "Christ died for your sins" is both theological and true.

And the only way you can listen to truth and it not change you is if you choose to ignore it. Truth is what it takes to be transformed. Spiritual growth is the plan for the Christian life, and if you aren't growing, you are not learning "theological truth". Or you are learning it academically, but not applying it.


packed up, prayed up, ready to go up.
Soundbear, you seem to be representing a cliche kind of Christianity that just rubs the wrong way sometimes.

and as to your last sentence, BINGO. You proved my point. It is a divisive issue.

Barry Morris
12-01-2012, 08:35 PM
"... cliche kind of Christianity..."

Same thing had crossed my mind.

"Truth is what it takes to be transformed."

IMO. Trust is what it takes to be born again, truth (learning) is what it takes to grow in Christ.
But I suppose we're taking past each other again.

The Left Sock
12-02-2012, 12:14 AM
"Of course your beliefs require a leap of faith.

Only God knows everything. Your leap of faith is in believing you know enough."

I can't argue with someone who doesn't have a workable definition of what 'leap of faith' actually means. Further, claiming that a God you took a leap of faith to believe in is the only one in possession of the truth involves a double-leap into Disneyland.

First you create a God who knows everything, and then you create a humanity that never will know everything. Yet, your beliefs compel you to try and get to know this God, who you have stated is unknowable.

Good luck with all that!

Bluesky
12-02-2012, 06:27 AM
SB, herein lies your problem - you are separating trust from truth. It isn't an either/or. It`s both/and.

Trust is something that grows as one who is being trusted is found to be true. I trust my wife more fully today than I did 40 years ago.

People who are abused or betrayed will hardly trust their abuser.

Bluesky
12-02-2012, 06:30 AM
I too have my difficulties with how SB expresses himself, but you amplify the confusion by misrepresenting his position.

You say:
Yet, your beliefs compel you to try and get to know this God, who you have stated is unknowable.

God is not completely knowable. But Christianity has always held that He has revealed Himself to us to a certain extent in the Scriptures, and in them has said that it is His desire that we know Him.

Barry Morris
12-02-2012, 12:45 PM
SB, herein lies your problem - you are separating trust from truth. It isn't an either/or. It`s both/and.

Trust is something that grows as one who is being trusted is found to be true. I trust my wife more fully today than I did 40 years ago.

People who are abused or betrayed will hardly trust their abuser.

Trust grows, no doubt. But as a child trusts it's mother, we are to trust God, without depending on an increasing knowledge of the truth to come to Him. We already have the relationship.

Herein lies the problem of the evangelical church, It all too often has a hard tome accepting that "babes in Christ" are actually saved.

Barry Morris
12-02-2012, 12:50 PM
"Of course your beliefs require a leap of faith.

Only God knows everything. Your leap of faith is in believing you know enough."

I can't argue with someone who doesn't have a workable definition of what 'leap of faith' actually means. Further, claiming that a God you took a leap of faith to believe in is the only one in possession of the truth involves a double-leap into Disneyland.

First you create a God who knows everything, and then you create a humanity that never will know everything. Yet, your beliefs compel you to try and get to know this God, who you have stated is unknowable.

Good luck with all that!

Interesting you didn't actually address my statement. And if I lack a definition of a leap of faith, you do to.

As I said, your leap of faith is that you know enough to deny the existence of God. And I really don't believe that thinking that something cannot come from nothing is a leap of faith.

Also, I have to believe that Christians take "leaps of faith" all the time, when they would be just a well off to stand still and trust God.

Barry Morris
12-02-2012, 12:52 PM
....God is not completely knowable. But Christianity has always held that He has revealed Himself to us to a certain extent in the Scriptures, and in them has said that it is His desire that we know Him.

He wouldn't be much of a God if finite man could know Him fully.

He gave us enough for this life, and the promise to see Him face to face one day.

Westender 3
12-02-2012, 02:53 PM
Soundy, you remind me of the Teller in this video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PqUwr5eNpA

Hans
12-02-2012, 04:46 PM
Can you please explain that further Hans?

If it is not written down as it happens, or shortly after the event, the story becomes incorrect and subject to change as it is handed down from generation to generation.

Barry Morris
12-02-2012, 08:32 PM
Soundy, you remind me of the Teller in this video.....


Not much I disagree with in his statements. Makes the joke kinda fall flat.

Barry Morris
12-02-2012, 08:35 PM
If it is not written down as it happens, or shortly after the event, the story becomes incorrect and subject to change as it is handed down from generation to generation.

And that's a solid guarantee?? :) :) :)

Obviously not, since when a science is applied to bible information, such as archeology, it keeps coming up with confirmations.

Seems to be a problem with your assumtions, Hans.

The Left Sock
12-02-2012, 09:27 PM
Okay, here's the goods on the whole 'leap of faith' thing:

A leap of faith occurs, when a person is compelled to buy into an idea that runs contrary to an established reality in the world, that is accepted by most human beings, and substantiated with scientific fact.

For example, the idea that the world is roughly 6,000 years old. Dinosaur bones are being dug up all over the world, demonstrating that there was a world that existed long before humans came around. Geology is a well-established science, with the entire oil industry dependent on their ability to understand rock formations, how they came into being, how they developed, and where oil is most likely to be found, hundreds if not thousands of feet in the ground.

The oil we use to drive our cars is nothing more than the organic remains of plant and animal life that perished over millions of years of existence, seeping into the ground, collecting in geologic formations, tapped by modern man, and utilized as a fuel for most of our energy needs. Yet, despite this overwhelming preponderance of evidence, church-goers will fill up their gas-guzzlers with the essential oil of million-year old dinosaurs, then drive off to their Sunday service, where they talk about the 'absolute truth' that the entire world is only 6,000 years old.

That, is a complete leap of faith. Actually, it's utter insanity, but I won't blend psychiatry with religion, because religious folks tend to think that psychiatry is the work of the devil.

You can go on and on. There are hundreds of leaps of faith in the Bible, stories told as truth that have no bearing on classical reality. Perhaps the most flagrant violations of what we understand as reality are the many miracles reportedly to have been performed by Jesus. Not only did he apparently rise from the dead, he was also reported to have resurrected a number of dead people along his journeys. These people weren't 'fresh' - they had been dead for a while, while family members sought out Jesus, which if you are familiar with ancient travel, would have taken days to accomplish, and then more days for Jesus to travel back to the home of the 'recently deceased', in order to perform these miracles. But alas, Jesus shows up, and poof! The dead guy, probably stiff as a board and a breeding ground for maggots, just pops up like yesterday's toast! Good as new!

So, you can think what you want about Jesus and the Resurrection, whether he was actually dead, or in a state of limbo, or non-human so that he could reverse the injuries received as part of the Crucifixion, but you really have to take a leap of faith that he ran around reviving ordinary, mortal dead people who had become landing pads for houseflies, baking in the desert sun, with no refrigeration to keep them cool, until they could be attended to.

So, here you have two fantastic leaps of faith you have to make, in order to buy into Christian theology. In fact, in order to proclaim the entire Bible as the infallible, inerrant direct word of God, you will need to make hundreds of these leaps. I suppose that once you make a few really big leaps, they get a little easier, and once you've made enough of these, what's a few more?

So, keep driving your dinosaur-juice-mobiles to the public library, where you can feast on archaeological finds that prop up your fragile leaps of faith, and call it 'confirmation'.

I'm not anti-God at all. I'm a proponent of Intelligent Design, which means I do believe that there is some intelligence at play in the construction of the universe. I am, however, anti-nonsense, so for me to remain open to the concept of Intelligent Design, means I must maintain a rational grip on reality while seeking the truth, and this leads me to the only conclusion that I can realistically draw: there may be a God, but if Intelligent Design is to remain a plausible theory, the Bible is nothing more than fanciful mythology, yarns spun to bolster a set of beliefs, constructed by an ancient and superstitious race of people, who acted more out of fear and mystery, than a detailed historical account of reality.

Hans
12-02-2012, 09:58 PM
And that's a solid guarantee?? :) :) :)

Obviously not, since when a science is applied to bible information, such as archeology, it keeps coming up with confirmations.

Seems to be a problem with your assumtions, Hans.

What?

Barry Morris
12-02-2012, 10:00 PM
What?

Who!!!

Barry Morris
12-02-2012, 10:10 PM
Sock, I read all you say and have to say this. My point of view, you understand.

I'm glad you believe in intelligent design, because that is the one thing I can believe in 100 percent. Everything else you mention is for me NOT 100 percent, in other words, "How could that be??"

BUT.

That lack of understanding, that inability to say I believe 100 percent, does NOT mean I will deny what I read in the bible. Miracles by definition fall outside our everyday reality. If they didn't they would just be ordinary events, wouldn't they?

One more thing. "...where you can feast on archaeological finds.." Why don't YOU go to the library and find information on archaeological finds that completely and unequivocally disprove a bible event??

Enjoy.

The Left Sock
12-02-2012, 10:23 PM
I don't need to go to the library, for one simple reason:

- I either buy into the idea that it is the actual word of God, or I conclude that it is fanciful documents depicting the Jewish struggle for meaning.

The leaps of faith required for me to buy into the first premise are overwhelming; I'm not willing to go there.

Therefore, I buy into the second premise, so I don't need to research archaeology to reinforce the idea that the Jews do indeed exist, and they have a history.

So, why would I go looking for proof that the Jews don't have a history? I am comfortable in my belief that they do indeed, exist. The Bible is quite likely scattered with remnants of real events, but what good does that do me, when I must dismiss a good chunk of it as mythological fancy?

Barry Morris
12-03-2012, 08:04 AM
You "must"??

Well, that's too bad.

I "must not" dismiss. 100 percent believe and understand?? No. But I have no reason to reject the idea that God might make known His power through miraculous events.

Bluesky
12-03-2012, 10:47 AM
Sock, what distinction do you draw between "leap of faith" and just plain "faith"?
Would you draw the line between the miraculous and the natural?

It sounds to me like you use the term, "leap of faith" to circumscribe those things that you believe to be unbelievable or too incredulous. In other words, that which cannot be empirically proven i.e. demonstrated by science. Is this correct?

The Left Sock
12-03-2012, 10:31 PM
Faith, according to my definition, is a combination of several factors, which when stated in a grocery list kind of way, may not give the real or full meaning to the term I am trying to describe. Faith incorporates hope, trust, and a general belief that 'good' can triumph in the world under the right conditions, but even that doesn't do it proper justice. So, I will take a shot at a couple of examples, to see if that clarifies things.

- A group of teens plot to break into a store, and steal some items. One teen backs away, and says he isn't going to do it. He knows he will face pressure from his friends, may even destroy his relationship with them, but when pressed for an answer, he just tells them, 'this feels wrong, I don't want to do it, and I don't think you should, either.' While they are having this discussion, a patrol car passes by, and they realize they were seconds away from getting caught in the act.

Some might say that God was acting through this kid. Some might say that God was teaching them all a lesson. To me, that is the 'leap of faith' part of the equation. The 'faith' part of it for me, is that the kid held out hope for himself that he was a better person than this, held out some hope for his friends as well. He trusted himself enough to speak up, at the risk of having his friends turn on him, but in the end, it looks as though his inner belief that good can triumph in the world, was reinforced by the way things turned out. His friends may go on to do other stupid things, but they are on different paths, and he cannot control what others ultimately decide to do. This kid has faith in something.

- An elderly woman living alone on a pension scrapes out $20 a month from her meager existence, and adopts a family down at the Soup Kitchen for the 'fresh food program', which delivers a box of fresh produce to a family every month. She herself can barely afford fresh produce, but she is careful, makes frequent trips to the stores, and watches for 'reduced for quick sale' items that she can eat. She feels strongly that children should experience the wonder of fresh food, and it warms her heart to think that she has the power to provide that, for children she will never meet.

This woman could suffer calamity at any moment. Her health is fragile, the prices of everything she needs keeps going up, but she believes that doing something good in this world is more valuable than tucking $20 a month away for a rainy day. Bad things might happen to her at any time, but she is not afraid. She hopes everything will work out, as they always have, and although she doesn't really count on anyone coming to her aid if things go badly for her, she trusts that the world will sort itself out, and that good will generally win out over evil, if not in her case, at least on a wider scale.

Sorry, no leap of faith in this one. This is just reality, and one good person living it, with unselfish faith.

dancingqueen
12-04-2012, 07:55 AM
A scientist walks down a beach & sees a sand castle.
He wants to find out when it was made so he takes a sample & finds that it is millions of years old.
????

Just because the rocks are millions of years old does not refute an early created earth.


This isn't "fighting" science. Actually most beliefs on how the planets were created, now, help creationism.

A very simple, yet often over looked perspective.

Bluesky
12-04-2012, 08:27 AM
Faith, according to my definition, is a combination of several factors, which when stated in a grocery list kind of way, may not give the real or full meaning to the term I am trying to describe. Faith incorporates hope, trust, and a general belief that 'good' can triumph in the world under the right conditions, but even that doesn't do it proper justice. So, I will take a shot at a couple of examples, to see if that clarifies things.

- A group of teens plot to break into a store, and steal some items. One teen backs away, and says he isn't going to do it. He knows he will face pressure from his friends, may even destroy his relationship with them, but when pressed for an answer, he just tells them, 'this feels wrong, I don't want to do it, and I don't think you should, either.' While they are having this discussion, a patrol car passes by, and they realize they were seconds away from getting caught in the act.

Some might say that God was acting through this kid. Some might say that God was teaching them all a lesson. To me, that is the 'leap of faith' part of the equation. The 'faith' part of it for me, is that the kid held out hope for himself that he was a better person than this, held out some hope for his friends as well. He trusted himself enough to speak up, at the risk of having his friends turn on him, but in the end, it looks as though his inner belief that good can triumph in the world, was reinforced by the way things turned out. His friends may go on to do other stupid things, but they are on different paths, and he cannot control what others ultimately decide to do. This kid has faith in something.

- An elderly woman living alone on a pension scrapes out $20 a month from her meager existence, and adopts a family down at the Soup Kitchen for the 'fresh food program', which delivers a box of fresh produce to a family every month. She herself can barely afford fresh produce, but she is careful, makes frequent trips to the stores, and watches for 'reduced for quick sale' items that she can eat. She feels strongly that children should experience the wonder of fresh food, and it warms her heart to think that she has the power to provide that, for children she will never meet.

This woman could suffer calamity at any moment. Her health is fragile, the prices of everything she needs keeps going up, but she believes that doing something good in this world is more valuable than tucking $20 a month away for a rainy day. Bad things might happen to her at any time, but she is not afraid. She hopes everything will work out, as they always have, and although she doesn't really count on anyone coming to her aid if things go badly for her, she trusts that the world will sort itself out, and that good will generally win out over evil, if not in her case, at least on a wider scale.

Sorry, no leap of faith in this one. This is just reality, and one good person living it, with unselfish faith.

OK, thanks for this. You've expressed some good sentiments here which I partly share.However, in a previous post you defined leap of faith this way (and I think often the problem lies in our definitions)
A Leap of faith is ...
when a person is compelled to buy into an idea that runs contrary to an established reality in the world, that is accepted by most human beings, and substantiated with scientific fact.

There is no science (sociology is strictly speaking not a science) in the above, thus by your own definition you take a leap of faith when you make hope and faith and trust synonymous.

My point is that ALL faith requires a leap. Not a blind leap, but a leap nonetheless, because there is no empirical way to establish this. The very nature of faith requires it. Because it must hope "that established reality" doesn't always assert itself. Like the mother who refuses to believe that her abducted child is dead. Or the devoted wife who refuses to believe that her husband would cheat on her.

The Left Sock
12-04-2012, 10:27 AM
"thus by your own definition you take a leap of faith when you make hope and faith and trust synonymous."

It was not my intention to make these terms synonymous. Rather, they are ingredients that combine to form the greater concept that is 'faith'. Kind of like flour, sugar, and eggs combine to make a cake, the elements of hope, trust, and a belief that good has the ability to triumph, combine to form the larger concept of faith.

Sugar, flour, and eggs are not synonymous with each other, and not synonymous with cake. This is a rather weak analogy, but I hope it clarifies things.

As mentioned earlier, I used examples of faith rather than trying to rely on an operational definition, because we are getting to the upper levels of abstract thought here and the limitations of linguistics, coupled with my own limitations of expression, start to interfere with the process. It's really a theoretical construct, and probably an incomplete one.

Scoff
12-04-2012, 11:12 AM
Is it just me or are most religious discussions equal to a dog chasing his tail? Science > Religion ... no need for discussion on that. What's funny is some religious buffoon has to come on TV and tell other Christians that the world "may actually be more than 6000 years old."

I can't believe there are people this dense still present in the world.

If the Christians were smart someone would rewrite the bible and the ideology/theology etc for Christianity. It's apparent it was concocted hundreds of years ago without knowledge of scientific fact. People are getting smarter, they're asking more questions. If the Catholics want their brain-washing to continue they must "tighten up their story" and fill in the holes.

"claiming that bones excavated by scientists are a ruse meant to cause confusion among believers"
- That was a funny read ... does anybody have any other religious excerpts or interviews I can be amused by?

hobo
12-04-2012, 11:16 AM
Here is a funny read on science and religion

http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_010__Why_The_TOE_Exists__.html

The Left Sock
12-04-2012, 05:39 PM
When you attempt to combine science and religion, you're really stepping into the realm of philosophy. A lot of people run screaming into the night, to escape the whole subject of philosophy, but it's really nothing more than mankind's effort to make sense of the big picture, develop theories that make sense out of the chaos that surrounds us, and share these ideas around, in the hope that we can move forward as a species, rather than continue to beat on each other with rocks and sticks.

We still tend to beat on each other with rocks and sticks, so I can understand why some people see no point in it. For me, it is a highly satisfying hobby. It won't ever lead to a job, it won't make the girls swoon over you, and world peace isn't likely to break out anytime soon, but there is something very rewarding in trying to make sense out of why we're here, and what we are supposed to do about it. Makes me feel a little less guilty about sucking up my share of oxygen on a daily basis.

Hans
12-04-2012, 06:25 PM
There does not always have to be a why. We are here because we are here, nothing else.

The Left Sock
12-04-2012, 06:31 PM
The most sophisticated computer the earth has ever seen, sits right on top of your shoulders. You have no desire to see what it is capable of?

That's like living beside a lake, and never bothering to go swimming. A sad and wasted existence, some would argue.

Hans
12-04-2012, 06:36 PM
Does there have to be a reason why we are here?

The Left Sock
12-04-2012, 07:02 PM
There doesn't 'have' to be a reason why we are here, but the fact that it's possible that there is a reason we are here, and we might have the capability to figure it out some day, energizes the crap out of some people.

You think people love the original Star Trek for the stellar acting, or the dazzling special effects? They love it because it pokes around in a clumsy way at the edges of what we know, and what is yet to be discovered. The 'unknown' is a drug that some of us can't get enough of.

Bluesky
12-04-2012, 08:52 PM
There does not always have to be a why. We are here because we are here, nothing else.

Are you saying that you know this for certain, that there is no why and that there is nothing else? After all, that statement is rather a dogmatic one. How have you come to know this?

Hans
12-05-2012, 06:12 AM
When would you know there is nothing else? Only when you accept there is nothing else. Otherwise you will always think there is something else.

Barry Morris
12-05-2012, 09:06 AM
When would you know there is nothing else? Only when you accept there is nothing else. Otherwise you will always think there is something else.

In other words, the leap of faith that something can come from nothing.

Hans
12-05-2012, 06:33 PM
No. It has nothing to do with faith.
Do you believe in an afterlife?

Barry Morris
12-05-2012, 09:52 PM
No. It has nothing to do with faith.....

Define faith, I think it fits very well. A sincere belief in something outside scientific proof.

Your other question is irrelevant to our discussion.

Hans
12-06-2012, 06:11 AM
If you believe in something else, why would it stop there? Why not believe in something else after something else?

Barry Morris
12-06-2012, 08:21 AM
If you believe in something else, why would it stop there? Why not believe in something else after something else?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

dancingqueen
12-06-2012, 10:58 AM
Just saw a quote on Facebook.

"The bible never says "figure it out". It says "Trust God". He already has it figured out!!"

And this is where I see religion as generally harmful to the human race.
Do you think God would put us here just so we can simply exist, or would he have put us here to live and experience life, learn and figure stuff out? If he just put us here to exist, well, he failed at that, so I will assume an all knowing being would have seen that coming, so we can rule that out, what's the alternative?
(added)
Sorry, been away from the boards for a bit and am bringing up older posts.

dancingqueen
12-06-2012, 11:03 AM
All kinds of faith contains a leap, somewhere along the path. One cannot exercise any faith without a leap. Including the faith of the atheist. Probably not so much with the true agnostic. He just shrugs his shoulders at most everything with an "I don't know". But even he will believe that the sun will rise in the east. That too is a step of faith.

Now a blind leap of faith is a horse of a different feather. But I recall an extensive discussion with Soc67 about that. He will still, of course, disagree with me, but I'm okay with that.

If a true agnostic would just shrug their shoulders, why is it I do so little shoulder shrugging? Would you suggest my beliefs are not agnostic, or perhaps you misunderstand an agnostic's attitude?

Bluesky
12-06-2012, 12:16 PM
How do I explain your non-shoulder shrugging? I dunno. Maybe arthritis?

dancingqueen
12-06-2012, 12:26 PM
I hope it's not arthritis... that would be awful!

Bluesky
12-06-2012, 12:46 PM
If a true agnostic would just shrug their shoulders, why is it I do so little shoulder shrugging? Would you suggest my beliefs are not agnostic, or perhaps you misunderstand an agnostic's attitude?

Perhaps I am using hyperbole as a figure of speech? I dunno.

dancingqueen
12-06-2012, 01:18 PM
What's the use in using a hyperbole as a figure of speech if it is not accurate?

Bluesky
12-06-2012, 02:34 PM
You must be bored. Are you looking for some adventure?

Barry Morris
12-06-2012, 04:39 PM
And this is where I see religion as generally harmful to the human race.... .

So do I, but that's a whole other argument.

Mind you, I would also classify atheistic communism as a religion, since it would have so many of the bad features of religion.

Again, other argument.