Comments on: A Robust Faith http://www.spiritualtramp.com/blog/2010/02/robust-faith/ Musings on Christianity Sat, 04 Feb 2012 09:00:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: spiritualtramp http://www.spiritualtramp.com/blog/2010/02/robust-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-3033 spiritualtramp Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:34:41 +0000 http://www.spiritualtramp.com/blog/?p=1099#comment-3033 Hi Scott's wife! Sure, cultures historically have come up with all manner of explanations for how everything got here. None of them involve what you and I call God. But in terms of the last 200 years I'd say that plenty of religious and non-religious types have been looking to see if they can determine how that happened. That doesn't have to "get rid of God". After all, even if we can determine what the process of the universe coming into being looked like, that doesn't take God's role as creator away. <br><br>The "truth of God" embodied in the Bible <b>must</b> be interpreted as any written work must. Even calling the creation account in Genesis literally true requires some interpretation. You must decide that it was a literal day for instance. That is interpretation. <br><br>I don't say that the creation account took place over more than six days just because science says so. I don't happen to agree with everything science says, but I do agree that this world is far older than 10,000 years. Given that, it seems that taking the Biblical account of creation as a story instead of as history makes more sense. Looking at evolution and its role in creation is just one more way of trying to understand what that creation looked like, the process that is.<br><br>I would say, that if what you interpret as God's truth doesn't match the science then examine what you understand as God's truth. The Bible isn't intended to be a science book. Shoehorning it into one does damage both to the word and to science. Hi Scott's wife! Sure, cultures historically have come up with all manner of explanations for how everything got here. None of them involve what you and I call God. But in terms of the last 200 years I'd say that plenty of religious and non-religious types have been looking to see if they can determine how that happened. That doesn't have to “get rid of God”. After all, even if we can determine what the process of the universe coming into being looked like, that doesn't take God's role as creator away.

The “truth of God” embodied in the Bible must be interpreted as any written work must. Even calling the creation account in Genesis literally true requires some interpretation. You must decide that it was a literal day for instance. That is interpretation.

I don't say that the creation account took place over more than six days just because science says so. I don't happen to agree with everything science says, but I do agree that this world is far older than 10,000 years. Given that, it seems that taking the Biblical account of creation as a story instead of as history makes more sense. Looking at evolution and its role in creation is just one more way of trying to understand what that creation looked like, the process that is.

I would say, that if what you interpret as God's truth doesn't match the science then examine what you understand as God's truth. The Bible isn't intended to be a science book. Shoehorning it into one does damage both to the word and to science.

]]> By: Leigh http://www.spiritualtramp.com/blog/2010/02/robust-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-3032 Leigh Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:31:16 +0000 http://www.spiritualtramp.com/blog/?p=1099#comment-3032 I am Scott's wife for the record - I don't have time to write as much as I would like as I am heading out the door. However, I would like to ask about the fact that "almost" (because you would argue that I can't possibly know all) all the cultures of the world have a creation stories. They have some kind of god, higher power, creator with which they credit their existence. Only in scientific cultures do we get rid of God and anything like him. I think that science has a place; however, the truths of God come first. Their are scientific facts and some assumptions that have given us great advancement in our world. But...as Christians, the truths as presented in the bible cannot be displaced or considered "interpretation" just because they don't match with scientific theory. If God's truth doesn't match the theory - change the theory - not the truth. I am Scott's wife for the record – I don't have time to write as much as I would like as I am heading out the door. However, I would like to ask about the fact that “almost” (because you would argue that I can't possibly know all) all the cultures of the world have a creation stories. They have some kind of god, higher power, creator with which they credit their existence. Only in scientific cultures do we get rid of God and anything like him. I think that science has a place; however, the truths of God come first. Their are scientific facts and some assumptions that have given us great advancement in our world. But…as Christians, the truths as presented in the bible cannot be displaced or considered “interpretation” just because they don't match with scientific theory. If God's truth doesn't match the theory – change the theory – not the truth.

]]> By: spiritualtramp http://www.spiritualtramp.com/blog/2010/02/robust-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-3031 spiritualtramp Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:19:54 +0000 http://www.spiritualtramp.com/blog/?p=1099#comment-3031 If I had faith that it was anything other than a strict (over)reaction to evolution then maybe I'd see it differently. I understand the truth in the context of a God based universe to include evolution. The only people that are attempting to define the universe without acknowledging God are the people that would be doing that anyway. Those people have existed for quite some time, even before Darwin first drew breath. "Mankind" in general hasn't always or ever accepted from the beginning that Jehovah was the foundational factor in the creation of our universe. If I had faith that it was anything other than a strict (over)reaction to evolution then maybe I'd see it differently. I understand the truth in the context of a God based universe to include evolution. The only people that are attempting to define the universe without acknowledging God are the people that would be doing that anyway. Those people have existed for quite some time, even before Darwin first drew breath. “Mankind” in general hasn't always or ever accepted from the beginning that Jehovah was the foundational factor in the creation of our universe.

]]> By: basilsands http://www.spiritualtramp.com/blog/2010/02/robust-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-3030 basilsands Thu, 25 Feb 2010 03:38:11 +0000 http://www.spiritualtramp.com/blog/?p=1099#comment-3030 I agree with the idea of searching out paths and moving through/around obstacles. Without such forward motion we would stagnate. Life is movement, both in time and in space. Without movement there is no life, only existence. <br><br>I find it interesting that you would consider creation science to be a bridge around evolution. Personally I think of it as the striving to understand truth in the context of a God based universe and see evolutionary science as an attempt to define the universe without acknowledging the existence of the foundational factor that until recently mankind has accepted from the beginning, God. I agree with the idea of searching out paths and moving through/around obstacles. Without such forward motion we would stagnate. Life is movement, both in time and in space. Without movement there is no life, only existence.

I find it interesting that you would consider creation science to be a bridge around evolution. Personally I think of it as the striving to understand truth in the context of a God based universe and see evolutionary science as an attempt to define the universe without acknowledging the existence of the foundational factor that until recently mankind has accepted from the beginning, God.

]]>