Zone1 A christian-atheist compromise?

[OldFlame]

I don't think the op has one clue of what Christian faith is.

 

[ding]

But which data? This data?

View attachment 751283
Or this?
View attachment 751284
This?
View attachment 751287
This is not data, but did you mean this? As Gandalf only lives in the Lord of the Rings books and their offshoots, (and now in the excellent TV series based on the Silmarrion which I'd recommend anyone watch if not just for the spectacular cgi), so does the God I think you're speaking of only exist in these mythic pages:
View attachment 751290

In it's simplest form the first two chapters of Genesis tells us in allegorical fashion that God created existence and that the world ancient men lived in was part of a process and not created all at once. And that man AROSE from that creation. That doesn't compete with the theory of BIOLOGICAL evolution, it compliments the theory of BIOLOGICAL evolution.

Evolution is anything which moves from a lower state to a higher state; a less advanced state to a more advanced state; a less complex state to a more complex state. There have been 5 stages of evolution of space and time; cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and evolution of consciousness.

In his book, "The Phenomenon of Man" Pierre Teilhard de Chardin describes evolution as a process that leads to increasing complexity, culminating in a Christ consciousness. He limited his observations to biological evolution but the same observation can be made about all stages of the evolution of space and time. The complexification of matter increased until it naturally and logically made the leap to the next stage. The last and final stage of evolution of space and time is consciousness. So it seems logical that consciousness would also increase in complexity until it to made the leap to the next stage which Chardin describes as Christ consciousness.

1. The universe began as a soup of subatomic particles and radiation and naturally and logically complexified into hydrogen and helium. This is what is called the cosmic stage of the evolution of space and time.
2. Hydrogen and helium then naturally and logically complexified into structures like stars and galaxies. This is what is called the stellar stage of the evolution of space and time.
3. From the life cycle of galaxies and stars all of the other elements and compounds were naturally and logically formed. This is what is called the chemical stage of the evolution of space and time.
4. As chemical evolution naturally and logically complexified the leap to biological life was made. This is what is called the biological stage of the evolution of space and time.
5. As life logically and naturally evolved and complexified the leap to consciousness was made. This is what is called the conscious stage of of the evolution of space and time.

So we can see that each successive stage of the evolution of space and time complexified until it made the leap to the next stage. And it did so naturally and logically. So Chardin's assumption that consciousness will make the leap to a Christ consciousness is logical because it presumes that consciousness will evolve and complexify and make the leap to the next level because every other stage of the evolution of space and time did so too before it.

Does this answer your question?

 

[ding]

so does the God I think you're speaking of only exist in these mythic pages

George Wald said, "The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind." Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is the constant presence of Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

 

[john54]

How odd. Without ever meeting God, you decided not only who He was, but His emotions as well. You decided the relationship.

When I was a toddler, I decided I wanted to meet God just as Abraham and Moses had. At age seven I was still on my quest. I didn't know who He was, but was still determined to meet up with Him. Seek and you shall find. (Hint, it will not be a sad, motherly figure.)

I also made a lot of decisions when I was a toddler about how I would live the rest of my life. And razor-sharp though our pre-adolescent judgment skills were, surely, sometimes it  can be worth re-examining the choices we made for our futures back between fingerpainting and sheet-wetting.

For me, I already had Mr. Klaus as the all-seeing, all-knowing bearded male figure in my life, so the toxically masculine vengeful male deity never found room in my thoughts I guess. Remember though, God is the alpha and the omega.

What's wrong with sad motherly figures?? Most mothers these days are sad. They care about their kids and worry about their future with all going on in the world.

Can't you continue your quest but leave the lore behind, as an inheritance for your children, or grandchildren, and try to know the part of yourself that seeks these answers?

 

[ding]

Well slow down. I don't generally disagree with many of the points you've made on bias, on there being universally or mostly-universally understood moral standards, on people naturally having concepts of right and wrong, and on truth winning through in the end....but can't you let go of the idea that there needs to be a God for there to be morals? Other primates and even birds, elephants and dolphins have shown virtuous capacities such as empathy, compassion, senses of fairness and other facets of right and wrong. It sounds like maybe you're a cs Lewis reader? He spends about a sentence declaring without evidence that morality can't evolve but the evidence is pretty sufficient that it did evolve, as part of nurturing behavior between mother and child. You don't need a God really for any of the things you're talking about. If you're attached to the God part, again, why not save it in your traditions in the form of Christianity's mythical and fun elements, but look at morals in a more mature light? I don't mean any offense, it just seems like you have an interest in self-betterment and you're having to work around Christianity a lot just in order to work on yourself.

I take it farther than C.S. Lewis did, no disrespect intended to Mr. Lewis. And I did already address - at least partially - your question of does there need to be a God by stating the following...

"If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave."

Which there most certainly is.

But this is only one piece of the evidence. We live in a very unnatural universe. Our universe is so implausible that it could only have been created intentionally to produce life and intelligence.

 

[ding]

but can't you let go of the idea that there needs to be a God for there to be morals? Other primates and even birds, elephants and dolphins have shown virtuous capacities such as empathy, compassion, senses of fairness and other facets of right and wrong. It sounds like maybe you're a cs Lewis reader? He spends about a sentence declaring without evidence that morality can't evolve but the evidence is pretty sufficient that it did evolve, as part of nurturing behavior between mother and child. You don't need a God really for any of the things you're talking about.

Actually these are all logical steps for the evolution of space and time if the intention is to produce beings that know and create. It's not a coincidence that the central nervous system of every mammal species grew larger as it evolved.

To say you don't need God for this to occur is true as his work was finished when he created the universe from nothing. It's not a coincidence though that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence. It was intentional. It was literally written into the fabric of matter and the laws of nature. The potential for life and intelligence arising existed before space and time itself as the laws of nature existed before space and time itself.

 

[Meriweather]

What's wrong with sad motherly figures??

It's kind of like settling for a grain of sand when you might have had a pile of gold.

Can't you continue your quest but leave the lore behind, as an inheritance for your children, or grandchildren, and try to know the part of yourself that seeks these answers?

I was not after seeking answers, but seeking God. And, after my experiences, you expect me to lie to children and tell them God cannot be found? Hand them a grain of sand?

 

[ding]

If you're attached to the God part, again, why not save it in your traditions in the form of Christianity's mythical and fun elements, but look at morals in a more mature light?

Because I seek truth. And I don't see how the creation of our existence could have occurred any other way.

I don't know how I could be looking at morals in a more mature light than saying morals exist for logical reasons which exist independent of what man wants them to be.

 

[john54]

The complexification of matter increased until it naturally and logically made the leap to the next stage. [...] So it seems logical that consciousness would also increase in complexity until it to made the leap to the next stage [...] As chemical evolution naturally and logically complexified the leap to biological life was made. [The leap to consciousness was made. [...] space and time complexified until it made the leap to the next stage. And it did so naturally and logically. [...] leap [...] leap [...]

Does this answer your question?

So if I understand, by making these "leaps" of logic, the book of genesis can explain evolution. Are there other logical leaps to explain the stories there that the earth preceded the sun and stars, plantlife preceded ocean life, or males preceding females and the like?

Rather than trying to sort of rewrite the meanings of these ancient folk myths, why not let them stand as they are, as the lore the creative people of their time came up with to explain the world around them? Let it be and enjoy it for its storied enchanted quality and look to what the universe has actually revealed to us for your inferences on it? Don't you think it's more respectful to both this freeze-frame of an ancient world's ideas, and to our modern hard-won understandings, to let the latter be your study, and the former your entertainment?

 

[ding]

Remember though, God is the alpha and the omega.

What's wrong with sad motherly figures?? Most mothers these days are sad. They care about their kids and worry about their future with all going on in the world.

Can't you continue your quest but leave the lore behind, as an inheritance for your children, or grandchildren, and try to know the part of yourself that seeks these answers?

Yes, God is the Alpha and the Omega. Logically, God - or if you prefer mind or consciousness without form - has always existed. In other words, God is eternal. I don't see how this can be any other way. Which means that God must be unchanging. This rules out matter/energy as matter/energy are not unchanging and therefore cannot be an eternal source of creating universes which produce beings that know and create.

Nothing wrong with motherly figures. It goes to reason that God, in Himself, contains both masculine and feminine. Ann Barnhardt said, "If God possessed no feminine nature, then that would mean that women contained a nature that was completely outside of God. How could God create something which He Himself did not contain? Well, you might say, God doesn’t have an evil nature, but evil exists. No. Evil is merely the absence of good. Evil is not extant, just as cold is the mere absence of heat, and darkness is the mere absence of light. Femininity is an extant nature. Femininity is NOT the absence of masculinity. Femininity is an existential reality unto itself, and therefore God contains it in Himself."

 

[ding]

So if I understand, by making these "leaps" of logic, the book of genesis can explain evolution. Are there other logical leaps to explain the stories there that the earth preceded the sun and stars, plantlife preceded ocean life, or males preceding females and the like?

Actually if you read the account carefully you will see matter/energy were created first and then light appeared which is exactly what science tells us now. Light didn't appear until radiation decoupled from matter which was about 380,000 years after the universe popped into existence being created from nothing. It is nothing short of amazing that this was known by ancient man 6,000 years before science discovered it.

 

[ding]

Rather than trying to sort of rewrite the meanings of these ancient folk myths, why not let them stand as they are, as the lore the creative people of their time came up with to explain the world around them? Let it be and enjoy it for its storied enchanted quality and look to what the universe has actually revealed to us for your inferences on it? Don't you think it's more respectful to both this freeze-frame of an ancient world's ideas, and to our modern hard-won understandings, to let the latter be your study, and the former your entertainment?

I addressed this with another poster already. They aren't folk myths or fairy tales. This was how ancient man passed down knowledge 6,000 years ago. Orally. From generation to generation for thousands of years. Much of the original meaning has been lost through time. For example... did you know that Genesis Chapter 3 tells us in allegorical fashion that man knows wrong from right and that rather than abandoning the concept that man rationalizes he didn't do wrong? I don't believe you will ever discover it because it is so nuanced but suffice it to say the original sin wasn't disobeying God, original sin was failure to take accountability. So you ask why shouldn't we just let these accounts be? The answer is because if every man woman and child practiced accountability 100% of the time the world would be transformed overnight. That's why we shouldn't dismiss these accounts as folk myths and fairy tales. I don't know about you but I love discovering truth.

 

[john54]

It's kind of like settling for a grain of sand when you might have had a pile of gold.

I was not after seeking answers, but seeking God. And, after my experiences, you expect me to lie to children and tell them God cannot be found? Hand them a grain of sand?

Did you know there are 43 quintillion atoms in a grain of sand? Or that there are more stars than there are grains of sand in all the beaches in all the continents of the world combined? Why not hand your children a grain of sand and challenge them to study up on it? Sometimes fact can be more amazing than fiction. Stories are fun, but there's more to learn about a single grain of sand than you'll find in even the holiest story book.

Why not keep the seeking of God, and share it with your kids as a game of hide and seek, make it a fun event, bond with them over God like perhaps your parents did with you, but in a more modern context, telling them now, or later about how yes, God is just a concept but the fun and joy they got from the stories and games will always be a part of them. I'm one personally who thinks magic and science can go hand and hand with kids as they explore their imaginations, and the world around them.

 

[ding]

Don't you think it's more respectful to both this freeze-frame of an ancient world's ideas, and to our modern hard-won understandings, to let the latter be your study, and the former your entertainment?

No. I don't. We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom. Shame on us.

 

[Meriweather]

Why not keep the seeking of God, and share it with your kids as a game of hide and seek

Because it is not a game.

 

[Meriweather]

God is just a concept

To whom? You?

 

[ding]

Did you know there are 43 quintillion atoms in a grain of sand? Or that there are more stars than there are grains of sand in all the beaches in all the continents of the world combined? Why not hand your children a grain of sand and challenge them to study up on it? Sometimes fact can be more amazing than fiction. Stories are fun, but there's more to learn about a single grain of sand than you'll find in even the holiest story book.

Why not keep the seeking of God, and share it with your kids as a game of hide and seek, make it a fun event, bond with them over God like perhaps your parents did with you, but in a more modern context, telling them now, or later about how yes, God is just a concept but the fun and joy they got from the stories and games will always be a part of them. I'm one personally who thinks magic and science can go hand and hand with kids as they explore their imaginations, and the world around them.

I couldn't disagree more with you. First of all there's not more to learn about a single grain of sand than there is to learn about human nature and how to live life and how not to live life. Which one do you think will better prepare your children for life?

Secondly God is not just a concept. God is literally reality as in the source of existence. Creation is the act by which God gives reality to the universe, and makes it not merely a hypothetical or possible universe, but an actually existing universe. He does not supply energy, as a match does to an explosive, he supplies reality. God supplies this reality equally to every part of the universe — all events at all times and places.

There's nothing magical about God or what God has created or how his creation operates. Maybe you are confusing polytheistic beliefs for monotheistic beliefs.

 

[Meriweather]

Did you know there are 43 quintillion atoms in a grain of sand? Or that there are more stars than there are grains of sand in all the beaches in all the continents of the world combined?

You either think I am stupid or that I never taught science to little kids. So what.

 

[Meriweather]

I'm one personally who thinks magic and science can go hand and hand with kids as they explore their imaginations, and the world around them.

Ummm, care to share your age?

 

[john54]

No. I don't. We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom. Shame on us.

It seems you're a Concordist. I don't envy you, really. Concordist christians tend to struggle a lot with balancing their naturally logical and often intelligent thinking styles with the trap of theism that they're stuck in. If it helps you to free yourself even a little, think about how exhausting these elaborate interpretations have to be to make these texts say something other than what they literally say, and how the simple explanation for the Bible's literal incorrectness is just that these are only stories, and they've snared your clearly quite bright, critically-thinking-inclined mind and hampered it. Think about what you might be capable of if you put the story book back on the shelf, and looked at the universe anew, did some scientific research with a fresh mind?