In Reply to: A question for BACs/Estelle, since you've asked ?s of others here- (sm) posted by Shawn on August 09, 2010 at 23:43:16:
Perhaps I'm not exactly the one to answer some of these b/c I don't completely subscribe to the "anti-sentiment."
What is it that causes a Christian, someone who believes in the Bible, to disregard and attempt to refute scientific evidence that is able to be proven and documented.
Contrary to what nonbelievers (including Christians who don't believe in the Bible as the final authority in all things) believe, the Bible is not void of science. In a couple of places, however, the Bible warns of following after science that is "falsely so called." Unfortunately, that presents a problem for some (okay, maybe many) fundamentalist Christians who adamantly insist that all modern science is "wrong." This is unbalanced thinking, in my opinion. Not that I have a track history of balanced thinking, either. : }
Something that bothers ME about modern day science is the seeming absolute insistence by scientists that science and faith are mutually exclusive. That is just not true, and I daresay that puts many of us (who believe in faith) on the defensive, tho the scientists have their hands full with adamant Christians who discount science. The other issue that's common b/t the scientists and the Bible-believing Christians is that scientists are too quick to discount faith. In general, it seems that most scientists refuse to acknowledge that an impossible can happen or has happened simply b/c it goes beyond the normal of science.
We've made great strides in scientific discoveries. I believe some of it is backed up by the Bible, some of it has yet to be humanly discovered but was already addressed in the Bible; and in some cases, what is called science runs contrary to the Bible.
One of the stickiest issues in the matters of science vs faith is obviously Evolution vs Creationism. The Bible clearly indicates (to those who believe it) that every creature is created after its own kind. While we may have some commonalities (the sponge and human example below) between species, I simply don't believe that evolution adequately explains the existence of life. Scientific aging process, while it may be largely consistent, I don't believe the values are consistent. Like anything else in life, two people (a scientist and a Christian who also happens to have scientific knowledge) can look at the exact same evidence and come away w/ totally different conclusions.
Why do you think there are so many fundamentalist Bible believers so typically:
1. See above for some examples. I am not anti-science because I happen to see science and faith work complementary w/ each other (as I've discussed before in other threads). I do not believe they are mutually exclusive.
2. Speaking for myself, I am not anti-environmentalist. We (humanity) are given the responsibility to have dominion over the earth, and that means taking care of it, and all therein, the best way we can. There are some things I think we can do to protect this planet, and there are some things that are simply not within our control. I do not subscribe to the current global warming issue because, while we currently may in fact be in a warming trend, on the whole, the earth goes thru cycles of hotter weather and colder weather. The Bible tells of a time in which we will not be able to tell the seasons.
I am not one to go out of my way to protect endangered species. I believe God controls the balance of his creation through the rise and fall of animal populations, sometimes helped by the human population, otherwise not. The dynamics of this world can change the nature of beasts to the point that it's not advantageous to save them. In other words, some of the very animals we try to save are the very animals who become a menace to human society. If we are diligent to save an animal, we must also be diligent to save its habitat; however, I don't believe it's wise to save the animal at the expense of humanity.
I think possibly that those Christians who seem anti-environmentalist are particularly zealous for the coming of the Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ. These people seem to absolve themselves of any responsibility to care for the earth b/c they fully expect the earth to be destroyed anyway and they assume they won't be a part of that, so why bother? Foolish way of thinking, in my opinion. No one knows the hour in which He will return; it may be in the next hour, or it may be in another few centuries or even, according to those who believe the Rapture/Second Coming of Christ is mere foolishness, not at all. So we are to be left w/ a planet destroyed b/c of unfulfilled obligation to take care of it??
3. I don't see how it's humanly possible to bring Christianity (or even religion in general) together. Christianity is extremely diverse, mainly due to doctrinal views. Some Christian denominations focus on certain limited aspects of living as Jesus but cannot recognize another Christian living for Jesus in a different way. We're still human beings w/ limited vision of what it's like to live like followers of Christ. Many Christians have different influences which determine "real" Christians; perhaps the Bible, society, emotions, media, etc. Denominations have developed mainly out of perceived "disobedience" to God's Word by those who call themselves Christians, and to break from that, develop a new church/doctrine. As I've said in other threads, not every Christian is going to receive the same convictions or revelations about any given issue, at any given time, under any given circumstance. While some Christians readily embrace the Bible as the way to live, others do not. What is acceptable by a group of believers will not be acceptable by another group, tho they may read the same words from the same Bible.
Universal truth is recognized in many religions, but there are certain elements to any given religion that distinguishes them apart.
4. I am rather anti-liberal/Democrat b/c for the most part. I forsee problems with their agendas.
Generally speaking here, it seems like the liberal/Democratic approach to any given problem is seen only in the short-term and the action can be too hasty w/o foreseeing subsequent consequences.
The faultiness of the conservative/Republican approach is such that there is a problem, but we take too long to emplement a solution so we end up essentially "doing nothing."
The faultiness of BOTH major parties is that neither one of them contain leaders who uphold their political ideologies.
I think the philosophy between the libral/Democrats and conservatives/Republicans mainly differ in acceptance of Biblical principles. Both camps reading the same Bible but coming to different conclusions. The Bible encourages us to help widows and the orphans and the poor, but the MEANS by which we do that seems to be the dividing line between these two general camps. We are told in the Bible that if a man doesn't work, he does not eat; we ARE talking able-bodied people here. We are also told that we are to be cheerful givers. Examples of neighborhoods coming together to contribute money and items to help others is prominent in the Bible, but they are all under VOLUNTARY circumstances, NOT compulsary. It seems that the liberals/Democrats have determined that the rich do not deserve to spend their hard-earned (most cases) riches how they will, so they attempt to take it from them and redistribute that wealth among the poor.
Freedom is a God-given right to all people. Our American government is patterned after this recognition. Our limited government is patterned after the lives of the Hebrew/Jewish people before the kings entered the picture. In their haste to "be like other nations", the Hebrews wanted to be ruled by a king. God told Samuel, the prophet, what living under kingdom rule will be like, and even tho it was not God's best for them, they still wanted a king. Many conservatives/Republicans/some Independents are seeing this in our nation today. We've made great strides in exercising our freedoms and even expanding and producing new freedoms, but some of the proposals-turned-to-laws we're seeing from the White House are eroding our individual freedoms in the name of "protecting everyone else" and frankly, many of us see that as not a good thing.
What I'm seeing is that so many of the fundamentalist/Christian persuasion refuse to open their eyes or broaden their perspective to include irrefutable absolutes, as though it is a bad thing to believe in what is before their very eyes...
Some Christians can say the same thing to those who don't believe as fundies do. >: ) The vision of those who are not Christians (or fundamentalist Christians, maybe) is limited in what is already knowable and in front of them. If the vision doesn't fit, then they can't open their eyes and see beyond what is in front of them, either.
This is how I observe people see the same thing in life.....
Scientists/nonChristians/nonbelievers >>>>> IRREFUTABLE PROOF OF TRUTH (of anything) <<<<< Christians, particularly fundamentalist/Bible-believing Christians
Instead of coming together, the perception of irrefutable proof oftentimes repels each other.
Both of us can read the same thermometer outside and see that it's 105 degrees. What we do with that information is based on our mindset to believe or not believe in what is in front of us. I would say that it's HOT, but someone from AZ would say, "Pffffth, Honey, that ain't NOTHIN', WE have HOT at 120 degrees!!" and still another person, perhaps a soldier stationed in the Middle East, would reply that 105 would be a COLD SNAP compared to the 142 degrees where HE'S at!!
I think there comes a point in which subjectiveness overrides objectiveness, and it's through that subjectiveness that the greatest arguments erupt.
Post a Followup