Conservation of Angular Momentum

[Rhyfelwyr]

It shouldn't matter if you believe the earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years or 6 periods of billions of years. It is not a saving principle. Likewise Evolution, The Flood and the Big Bang. They are not saving principles and thus not worth your time. You can engage in discussions concerning these matters, but your faith doesn't stand or fall with e.g. Evolution. Perhaps God used evolution to develop humanity or he didn't - It shouldn't matter as you and the Christian world's salvation does not depend on this theory/scientific fact being a universal truth.

This is true, and people on both sides of the debate need to remember this.

IMO there should be one faith - the faith that saves. The Christian world should shed the bickering and petty disagreements that has led to a diversity of 35 000 different Christian denominations and unite under one Christ.
They should tolerate the small differences in doctrinal beliefs - which in the Big picture does not matter anyway.

This is more questionable. Usually, these disputes have been between denominations which have disagreed on saving principles. For example, being 'born again' is seen as a saving principle by many (including myself). For others, being in communion with a certain church might be a saving principle.

But the bickering isn't usually that bad. Of those 35,000 denominations, the vast majority will probably believe a good few thousand at least will also be a legitimate Christian church. Nobody (perhaps outwith a tiny minority) believes people aren't saved because of minor doctrinal disputes.

[Kadagar_AV]

This is true, and people on both sides of the debate need to remember this.

Well, one could argue that.

How many popes would have disagreed with you?

How many priests?

Not to mention all believers in history.

"True" <- sorry, but that is just laughable.

Sure, it follows the modern style of the christian belief. As the believers kind of had to agree science was correct after being intellectualy smacked around for some couple of hundred years.

But, and this is a huuuge but... Some of us, like me, respects Zain much more than the type of Christians you represent.

He has (or rather had) the guts to stand up against science because of his belief, while main stream christians retreat step by step when proved wrong.

One wonders how many steps it will take before the whole house falls in on itself

I agree with Zains initial post. Either you believe in the bible, all of it, or you do not. The bible should not be some "pick and choose whatever parts you like".

[rvg]

I agree with Zains initial post. Either you believe in the bible, all of it, or you do not. The bible should not be some "pick and choose whatever parts you like".

The question is whose interpretation you believe. The Bible can be read in many ways.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I agree with Zains initial post. Either you believe in the bible, all of it, or you do not. The bible should not be some "pick and choose whatever parts you like".

So do I for that matter. I loathe Young-Earth creationism but I do not see how modern science is compatible with religion. You can make it compatible, but that is hardly smooth, not as smooth as creation science operates.

Which is why I likewise cannot help but respect Zain for his defiant, uncompromising stance. He represents the ideal of Christianity - blind (), unquestionable faith, one that does not even attempt to rationalise its own existence.

However, whether such belief is good for the person, as opposed to good for their religion, that is debatable. Sadly, the only solution I see here is to abandon religion altogether, for we can do without the religion, but without science our world will collapse.

[Kadagar_AV]

The question is whose interpretation you believe. The Bible can be read in many ways.

You mean that God speak in many different ways?

Give me a break. I do not think that the will of God, if there is a God, can be misinterpreted. I mean, God is like the ONLY being I would suppose would make himself perfectly clear on issues.

So do I for that matter. I loathe Young-Earth creationism but I do not see how modern science is compatible with religion. You can make it compatible, but that is hardly smooth, not as smooth as creation science operates.

Which is why I likewise cannot help but respect Zain for his defiant, uncompromising stance. He represents the ideal of Christianity - blind (), unquestionable faith, one that does not even attempt to rationalise its own existence.

However, whether such belief is good for the person, as opposed to good for their religion, that is debatable. Sadly, the only solution I see here is to abandon religion altogether, for we can do without the religion, but without science our world will collapse.

I would argue that it would be fun to let all scientists and atheists step down for a year, or maybe just a month, or a day... And let the priests and church going people handle everything.

Suffice to say, would that not be an interesting experiment?

I wonder if Angels would come from the sky, miracels would happen all aound the world...

From what I have read and heard, there hasn't been much in the way of miracles and such since the time when miracles were not held up to modern science.

One might wonder why there were so many miracles and saints before the average guy had some sort of schooling.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, one could argue that.

How many popes would have disagreed with you?

How many priests?

Not to mention all believers in history.

"True" <- sorry, but that is just laughable.

All of them until fairly recently, then the Pope became infallible and now you don't have to accept all the minor points of doctrine to be saved.

Anyway, I have hardly ever heard anyone today say you have to believe the earth is 6,000 years old to be saved. Remember, I was talking about saving principles. They might not be correct to think the earth is not 6,000 years old, but it doesn't mean they can't be a Christian, it's just a minor flaw.

Sure, it follows the modern style of the christian belief. As the believers kind of had to agree science was correct after being intellectualy smacked around for some couple of hundred years.

But, and this is a huuuge but... Some of us, like me, respects Zain much more than the type of Christians you represent.

He has (or rather had) the guts to stand up against science because of his belief, while main stream christians retreat step by step when proved wrong.

One wonders how many steps it will take before the whole house falls in on itself

I agree with Zains initial post. Either you believe in the bible, all of it, or you do not. The bible should not be some "pick and choose whatever parts you like".

Well this makes a pleasant change, normally I'm the crazy fundamentalist round here.

You should really read some of my discussions with Phillipvs. Firstly, you will see I'm not a liberal Christian; but if you read his points you will also see that fundementalism as we see it with US Evangelicals today is not the 'original Christianity', it's a very modern phenomenon and if you look at the earliest Christians, they never had the Bible (or at least the NT) at all!

[Lemur]

Give me a break. I do not think that the will of God, if there is a God, can be misinterpreted.

So not only are you unfamiliar with theology, you also missed the entirety of history?

Why is it so important to you that all religious people be literalist, fundamentalist, whack-jobs? Don't you feel that your brand of secular humanism can stand on its own without gimping everyone else?

[Banquo's Ghost]

I do not think that the will of God, if there is a God, can be misinterpreted. I mean, God is like the ONLY being I would suppose would make himself perfectly clear on issues.

Actually, if I were said God, I too would make things as confusing as possible. Think about it - if one wanted unquestioning obedience, one could have stopped Creation at rocks. The inclusion of free will (and cats, which were the icing on that philosophical cake) means that one is pretty much obligated to make things conflicting, illogical and downright weird.

Interestingly, this is exactly the direction that most religions based in nature worship and pantheons took. The observable world is capricious and most of the old gods were selfish, lustful and gloriously confusing in their motives. This was pretty much the god of the Old Testament too.

For some reason, the Christian idea was that God had a personal relationship with you, and that he loved you dearly. To me, this is utterly incompatible with observation, so believers are forced into somewhat absurd positions such as determinism and the belief there is both a plan and it's clearly set out in a book.

Bring back Zeus and Loki, I say. Gods don't love you at all - unless, in the former case, you're a hot nymph.

[Agent Miles]

In the OP, Zain wanted this thread to be about science not belief, so here we go.

Einstein said, “The hardest thing for most people to understand about the whole universe is that the whole universe can be understood. “

The really great thing about science is that once one person figures something out then even a child can be taught about it. Perhaps a child will not understand the most complex science all at once, but fundamental proven ideas can lead to the greater understanding of theories and laws. A skyscraper is built one brick at a time, and that is how knowledge works. Lots of people from all parts of the globe worked against ignorance and mysticism over the many centuries to piece together the knowledge that we take for granted today.

The acid test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

“Uncle” Albert for everyone: http://www.einstein-online.info/en/

The Big Bang Theory for teachers: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/index.html

A minority of the world’s population are Christian. A Minority of the Christian population are Fundamentalists. A minority of the Christian Fundamentalist population actually knows anything about the science that the majority of the world's population is taught.