{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
1/30/2013 1:17:25 AM
9
I see a lot of reason in being an Athiest, but I stick to the 'clockmaker' model of Christianity. I believe that God crafted everything the Universe needs to run (physics, science, everything), then just gave us a little push. Evolution, the forming of stars and galaxies, everything works and the 'clock' runs. If something bad happens on Earth, the effect that has on the Universe is immeasurably small, and is like a clock running a nano-second fast. Not unless the effects get too great should there be any need to intervene. It's not the most sound belief, I know, but I think until we can ultimately disprove the possibility of a creator, I'll hold on to the belief that the creation of the Universe had some driving force behind it.
A God doesn't need to hold our hands through every hardship. If he did, what would that make us? We pride ourselves in our ingenuity and bravery, both of which result from bad situations. If God helped with everything, we would have no needs or wants for invention to fill. We would have no reason or motivation to excel and prosper as a species. I think God not fixing our problems ends up being better for humanity in the long run. Time continues infinitely in both directions, and there's no telling what the distant future would hold if our problems simply disappeared.
I guess think of it like this: There are two children in two very different families. One is the child of a wealthy couple, and is provided for constantly. The other is the child of a low-income family, and is often left responsible for taking care of themselves. Eventually, both decide to move out. The spoiled child instantly struggles on their own. His parents had told him what he needed to do to be financially stable, but doing those things was not as easy as he had expected. The other child had learned to be responsible with money, possessions, and food, and is able to successfully support themselves on their own.
A bit lengthy, but the point is that hardship is often the best way to teach, and necessity is often the best way to learn. Humanity as a whole learns and changes based on the suffering we, as a species, endure. Sometimes, evil has to happen for us to better ourselves.
I hope that came across how I wanted it to.
English
-
In your opinion, why would God have lied and said the Earth was only 6,000 years old? Or that Adam and Eve were the first humans?
-
In my opinion, which I share with most who have extensive studies in Christianity (professors), Genesis, and a good chunk of the Old Testament is highly metaphorical. The truth is that you can't seriously believe in Noah's Ark or Adam and Eve if you actually take the time to look at it. They are the most recognizable stories in the Bible, and both have very big, gaping flaws (especially with [url=http://www.skepticalmonkey.com/noahs-ark-flooded-with-facts]Noah[/url]). Personally, I don't believe the Bible is made to be a history book. If anything, it's there to teach lessons, and as evidenced by the cruelty of God in the Old Testament, those lessons are very different between the Jewish and Christian faiths. If Genesis is the word of God, it can only be a lesson to teach that God created the known Universe, worded in a way that was understandable for the time. If Noah is the word of God, it's probably a lesson to teach that God punishes those that sin. I believe that any work can be corrupted by men, whether it was to paint their war with the grace of God, or to justify actions they may have taken. Not only that, but there are many many holy books that simply didn't make it into the Bible, such as the Book of Enoch, which is often used to promote the ancient aliens theory. What is currently the Bible is the result of a series of committees that decided which books were 'canon', and which weren't. Christianity in particular has a long history of corruption, and it is very possible that the wrong choices were made. Now that I've explained that, my own belief is that God has kept his hands off of us for most of measurable time. While there may be some parts that are literally his word, I believe a good portion of the Bible is the work of men. Many biblical stories draw parallels between folk tales and legends from much earlier in human history (Noah and the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example). A lot of Christians take these parallels to prove that these stories did occur, but I look at it differently. I see a folk tale told in the presence of a priest while travelling. He remembers the story, and enjoys it. When he gets back home he tells it to his followers, only changing some things to fit it into his own faith. The story spreads, as they often do, and it eventually gets written down and wedged into the Bible or another holy book. Events like these are far more likely, and while the stories may be based on real events, time exaggerates them greatly (The flood in Gilgamesh is likely based on a real flood of the Euphrates, that was exaggerated over time). Genesis is not literal fact. Neither is the story of Noah. If God was actively working, I guess Genesis [i]could[/i] be true, but it is almost certainly a metaphor or story of some sort, created in a similar manner to my example above with the travelling priest. Noah's Ark could not have happened at all, at least not the literal way it is written in the Bible [url=http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/]this site[/url] has a lot of reasonable explanations for why the Bible story is the way it is. tl;dr - If Genesis is the word of God, it can only be a lesson to teach that God created the known Universe, worded in a way that was understandable for the time.
-
Though I disagree with your opinion, I find it much more respectable than most theists' opinions, especially YEC's. You sound deist.
-
Quite similar, yes.
-
Is there some sort of fancier word for what you are that I don't know? Deist seems to fit.
-
Deist is pretty much it. If it's any different, there really isn't a name for it. It's just my own slightly tweaked version of deism.
-
Works for me, I suppose.
-
Edited by Mass Craziness: 1/30/2013 2:07:04 AMThis is exactly where I stand on the "God" issue. Good post. Wish I could like this.
-
Very good post. I agree about your creation theory to an extent.
