Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is not a question of all metaphor or all literal. Some parts are clearly meant to be taken as metaphorical, e.g., early chapters of Genesis. Some parts are clearly meant to be taken literally, e.g., the stories about Jesus. Embracing science does not rule out accepting such things as virgin birth, resurrection etc. The whole point of them is that they are not natural. They are to be understand as extraordinary interventions of a supernatural nature. If virgin birth and resurrection of the dead and the like were everyday natural occurrences there would be no point to these particular instances described in the Gospels. Denying their possibility because they are not natural is ruling out the supernatural from the get go. Which is stacking the deck.
This gets to the heart of it. As a scientist, I am accustomed to explaining things according to natural law. So when I read that Jesus walked on the water, my inclination is to say that it is a story, not an actual event. If there was evidence - like a video recording of Jesus walking on the water, or even many credible eyewitnesses - I might consider that this actually happened, but since the only source is some books written many years after the event based on oral history, I am skeptical. Maybe I'm being too rational, and maybe that's the point - if we could prove it, then it wouldn't be faith.
We had a thread titled "Is it possible for a Christian to accept evolution?" After a robust debate over evolutionary theories, I think the answer is overwhelmingly "yes", a Christian can accept evolution, as long as they are willing to acknowledge something other than a strict literal interpretation of the Bible.
I would like to turn the question around and ask if a scientist can also be a Christian. I know that the majority of American scientists are practicing Christians, and others have noted the many contributions of Catholic scholars to science. But I think it is an interesting question.
My own answer would be yes, however it requires one to accept some degree of cognitive dissonance. Because scientists are trained to work with evidence, and look for explanations in natural laws. But to be a Christian one needs to accept that some things happened that were supernatural, for which we have no hard evidence. Is it enough to tell ourselves that "well, there are still mysteries; we don't understand everything"?
Is it possible for a Christian to believe that there is no Satan and that there is no hell?
Interesting. It appears there are many who are both scientists and Christians, like myself and most I work with. It seems, at least from the small and incomplete sample of this forum, that those who claim one cannot be both, are themselves, neither. Pretty much makes them unqualified to comment in such a debate.
This gets to the heart of it. As a scientist, I am accustomed to explaining things according to natural law. So when I read that Jesus walked on the water, my inclination is to say that it is a story, not an actual event. If there was evidence - like a video recording of Jesus walking on the water, or even many credible eyewitnesses - I might consider that this actually happened, but since the only source is some books written many years after the event based on oral history, I am skeptical. Maybe I'm being too rational, and maybe that's the point - if we could prove it, then it wouldn't be faith.
I am intrigued at the bolded statement as I have never seen anyone provide evidence that the events in Genesis are metaphorical. Taken as a whole, and the words of Christ referencing Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel as literal people, I find all the evidence to be contrary to your opinion.
I will get back on this shortly. Fairly long answer and I have other threads to attend to. Still not speed typing yet.
This gets to the heart of it. As a scientist, I am accustomed to explaining things according to natural law. So when I read that Jesus walked on the water, my inclination is to say that it is a story, not an actual event. If there was evidence - like a video recording of Jesus walking on the water, or even many credible eyewitnesses - I might consider that this actually happened, but since the only source is some books written many years after the event based on oral history, I am skeptical. Maybe I'm being too rational, and maybe that's the point - if we could prove it, then it wouldn't be faith.
I always find this initial skepticism about the miracles amusing because the whole point is that they are miraculous. If they were commonplace, there would be nothing worthy of note (1). The point is that they are a one -off and that they do not happen in the normal way is no objection to accepting them.
The way out of the dilemma is to drop argument from incredulity - because that is what it is - and find another approach to determining whether the gospel accounts are true or not.
(1) this incidentally, works the other way. Attempts to sell us Bible miracles as credible by finding natural explanations (my R I teacher - yes, we had religion in our classroom - tried to make the instant healing of a blind man credible by referring to supposed healong properties in mud. He did quite a lot to help my incredulity about the Bible claims) effectively destroys what the purpose of the Bible is.
This gets to the heart of it. As a scientist, I am accustomed to explaining things according to natural law. So when I read that Jesus walked on the water, my inclination is to say that it is a story, not an actual event. If there was evidence - like a video recording of Jesus walking on the water, or even many credible eyewitnesses - I might consider that this actually happened, but since the only source is some books written many years after the event based on oral history, I am skeptical. Maybe I'm being too rational, and maybe that's the point - if we could prove it, then it wouldn't be faith.
I don't think like this. A video of it? really?
I am more inclined to use the scientific method on everything I do. I wish it had another name really. I apply reason and condom sense to all claims and to my personal beliefs. For example, there are 7 billion people on the planet and not one has ever walked on water as taught. People have tried experiments to have large things walk in water. It has never been repeated. In every case Archimedes principle and buoyancy applies. If the fundie likes, he can say 'god's principle". I really don't care.
Now the tricky part. To use this in such a way that we understand we don't know it all but that does mean we screw ourselves.
Is it more reasonable to assume the story was created in a time that this style of writing was used and accepted? In a time when a few people saying they saw it was all that was needed in courts? And that it was exaggerated over time. or is it more reasonable to assume that it happened as the literalist claim?
for example: If I based what I know about WW2 on my dad's stories you would have thought paratroopers won ww2 all by themselves.
You can still believe in god and pick the reasonable one. God does not hide behind "blind faith" just because we don't know everything doesn't give us the right to dump everything we do know. When we dump everything we do know we are dumping the things god has taught, or showed, us about him. In fact I say that is one thing Jesus is teaching. Use your common sense and empathy as your tools to fight religion literalist.
that's just the start.
The next big thing is why in no-god's name is it wrong to change your mind based in new information? You think god isn't happy you learned more about him-self?
PS
werds messed up just so I don't take meself to seriously. I can really baffle myself with my own bs if I am not careful.
I always find this initial skepticism about the miracles amusing because the whole point is that they are miraculous. If they were commonplace, there would be nothing worthy of note (1). The point is that they are a one -off and that they do not happen in the normal way is no objection to accepting them.
The way out of the dilemma is to drop argument from incredulity - because that is what it is - and find another approach to determining whether the gospel accounts are true or not.
(1) this incidentally, works the other way. Attempts to sell us Bible miracles as credible by finding natural explanations (my R I teacher - yes, we had religion in our classroom - tried to make the instant healing of a blind man credible by referring to supposed healong properties in mud. He did quite a lot to help my incredulity about the Bible claims) effectively destroys what the purpose of the Bible is.
Here is one problem for the scientist: If we accept that there are natural laws to which we are bound, but that God may and has suspended these laws at various times, then the natural laws become arbitrary and unreliable. If that were so then any technological advances become impossible.
Here is one problem for the scientist: If we accept that there are natural laws to which we are bound, but that God may and has suspended these laws at various times, then the natural laws become arbitrary and unreliable. If that were so then any technological advances become impossible.
Correct. The entire field of engineering is based on the assumption that the laws of physics are 100% reliable. No engineer can design a device that can withstand miracles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I always find this initial skepticism about the miracles amusing because the whole point is that they are miraculous. If they were commonplace, there would be nothing worthy of note (1). The point is that they are a one -off and that they do not happen in the normal way is no objection to accepting them.
and find another approach to determining whether the gospel accounts are true or not.
You think god isn't happy you learned more about him-self? 
