False Christians?

Why do some people who call themselves Christians actively try to pervert Science?

Why do they object to the accumulation of human knowledge?

Why do they ignore the gifts of intelligence, curiosity, and logic?

Do all those who try to follow the teaching of Jesus support anti-progress as represented by the creationist front?

Is progress itself considered anti-christian by the average follower?

Is there room for Christianity in a new age of understanding?

Is Christianity static or dynamic?

 

Im often called a false christian because I believe in evolution. And there is the whole "im not a literalist" thing too.

 

what's a literalist?

 

a literalist is a person who takes the bible verse for verse, and don't believe in interpritation.

by definition its "a person who displays adherence to the explicit sense of a given text or doctrine."

 

I too have been hearing the term 'Literalist' more often these days.
Its not a very helpful term though.

Biblical Critics are usually the strictest more wooden-sense 'Literalists'.
Example - they will critisise the 'Ascension' by pointing out that Christ could not have withstood the G-Forces or lack of Oxygen in Space as He was 'Ascending'.

Of course, absolutely everyone else in all of Christendom understands its describing a Supernatural (Not UNnatural) and Spiritual Ascension.

Other times the term 'Literalist' gives the false impression that an uncalled-for interpretation of the obvious text and context is 'Valid'.

Example - A passage which is plainly describing an 'Account' and is set in the context of describing a physical, real-time event. [lets say.. Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane]
And no reason is given to believe this is 'in a dream' or 'A parable'.

I am simply going to accept the text as it presents itself - A real event which happened.
Its not available to me to decide "well.. this is merely a poetic tale describing a spiritual dream...."

So am I being a 'Literalist' for taking Literal what is clearly presenting itself AS a literal event?

As opposed to what in that case?
An Allegorist?

No.. in this example you are just have low reading comprehension skills.

So generally speaking I do not find the term 'Literalist' very helpful.
Hermeneutics would have the reader be a 'Literalist' at the proper times (as set by the text itself) and an Allegorist (when need be).

 

1. Because quite a lot of science is wrong and is not absolute, whereas Christians believe their faith IS absolute.

2. I dont think they do object to the accumulation of human knowledge. In fact not at all. It's just that in the end it doesn't really matter to us...(im being a bit generalised i kno...sry)

3. We do not ignore the gifts of logic, curiosity and intelligence. there are (believe it or not) intelligent and curious Christians..."logic" in the sense of it you mean however is not needed where we have faith.

4. I dont understand this...i shall explore and get back to you on that....

5. Your question is unclear...do you mean personal progress...intellectual progres..the answer is no and no...Its good to explore and explore ALL aspects of the world...It's vital however to experience and grow into the truth.

6.Yes.

7.DYNAMIC..totally.

Roly.xxx

 

It is an interesting part of social structure. And a successful one.

We (as a culture) have to keep a sort of balance. Too much liberalism and progression can be a bad thing, if we don't have the people who are afriad of change going "hold on a sec, i don't know about this..."

In that same sense, sitting too long with the status quo can be a bad thing as well, and that's why we need those people that are always pushing against the boundries of social norms.

In our culture we even have labels for it. We call it the left wing and right wing, or liberal and conservative. We have those people who are constantly seeking change and progression (not just in the sciences, but in all social aspects) and those who keep them on a leash (conservatives, and in this country, the religious right) so we don't get out of control, or lost.

It is an interesting dynamic, if you take a step back to look at it.

So myself, generally being of liberal beliefs, can get pretty frusterated with conservatives at times. But I realize and understand the importance of having this social dynamic. We need eachother to be successful socially.

Edit: And I would like to point out that it was not long ago that protestant christians were pushing for a change in the status quo (of the catholic rule), so the religion certainly is dynamic. And it will have to continue to be if it want's to last. Not saying it is dying anytime soon, but it's ability to change is what has kept it around so long. Look at all the denominations, or the history of the religion itself to see how much it has changed. Their current place in culture has them defending the status quo (if not maybe pulling us back a few notches) but that can easily change, as we have seen examples of this throughout history.

 

uhm...for example...i am against abortoin, you could call me a pro-lifer. Am I now a conservative ? (just trying to find out were I would fit in the whole political thing. Anyway, I'm not into politics to much, I rather communicate with people on a personal level, because I love people!)

 

Well I ment it as real general groups. On a large scale, with any issue in our society you will have a bit of tug of war, one side for the change, another for the status quo. It is a healthy part of society, and the evolution of our culture. We need it, and who knows where we'd be without it, the world would be a much different place.

Pro-life is generally a conservative point of view, but I know people who consider themselves liberal who are pro-life. I am generally pretty liberal about issues, but I support the death penalty, which is usually a conservative point of view.

 

how do I know if I'm conservative or liberal or in between?

 

Every Christian that supports Bush is a false Christian... that's what, all but 1 percent?

 

I'm here to gather data, not to argue, but in this context "literalist" is a synonm for "fundementalist".

 

Your original post was a series of loaded "When did you stop beating your wife?" type of questions that could be paraphrased, "What's wrong with all these backwards yokels who question evolution?"

While I agree that so-called "young Earth" creationism is scientifically untenable, Darwinian macroevolutionary theory has plenty of its own problems:

http://www.apologetics.org/articles.html

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#creation_vs_evolution

 

The questions were phrased as they were for a particular reason.

It's a matter of psychology, not statisics.

 

Very interesting questions.
There are many Christians who are anti-science, perhaps because it seems to threaten their world view. This applies to logic also, as it is not possible to accept a literal understanding of the Bible without deviating from logic.
But not all Christians are backward and anti-scientific. Take for example Teilhard de Chardin who reconciled Christianity with a progressive, evolutionary view founded on both science and an enlightened understanding of scriptures. There is space for new understanding, but only if Christians accept that the Bible does not contain all knowledge, and can only be understood if seen from a viewpoint other than that of acceptance of mythology as factual history.
Interesting that where logic is concerned, St. Thomas Aquinas, whose philosophy is acceptd now as the 'official' catholic philosophy said that revelation will never contradict reason, and if it seems to, it must be because we are not interpreting it correctly.
Overall, if Christians would become more flexible in their understanding of the Bible, and, perhaps more importantly, accept that other spiritual paths are equally as valid as their own, then there may be some future for Christianity. If they persist in an anti-rational view that didn't even hold currency in the middle-ages, then Christianity will become an increasingly irrelevant and marginal sect as we move into the future. Because lats face it, the problems mankind is going to face were not even dreamed of in the time of Jesus, and can only be solved through scientific means (eg. climate change).
Thanks again for posing some interesting questions.

 

They are going to have to or eventually the religion will die out. But they have done it before, and will likely do it again. But you never know, we may be seeing the end of christianity approaching.

 

Well all this religion stuff has been causing wars over the years. I doubt christianity will die out. A revision of thinking is in order though.

 

BlackBillBlake,

do you consider yourself a Christian? If so, do you follow a particular denomination?

 

Dear Geckopelli,

I am a Christian and not a Christian. I personally follow the Vedanta philosophy which accepts all religions as diverse paths to One God, Divine Reality or whatever name you put on It.
Over the years, I've read a fair amount of stuff on many aspects of Christianity, and I think that it is a very mixed thing. I am more familiar with catholic writers because mysticism is one of my interests in all this, and I have found virtually no protestant mystical writings (with one or two excptions).
There are some Christian beliefs I can accept with no problem at all, but others I find unacceptable. There are:
1. We are all tainted with 'original sin'.
2.Jesus suffered and died to pay for our sins. He is the Saviour. Only if we believe in Him alone can we 'go to heaven'.
3. There are no other Saviours.
I also find Christian dismissal of scientific truth totally absurd, where this exists, and its not across the board.
On the other hand, I do believe Jesus was a Divine being who came to teach mankind, to help them to evolve. I also believe in a higher intelligent agency, God, but I don't think He can be limited to any one belief or religion.
Krishna, Buddha, Nanak, Ramakrishna and others are similar divine teachers who appeared at other times and places.
Also, I am interested in the Gnostic interpretation of Christianity, which is quite different from orthodox belief.

 

Now there's a false Christian!