Conservation of Angular Momentum

[Zain]

I have to hand it to you, Zain, you've taken some zingers in this thread and kept your cool. That deserves some measure of respect.

As for your contention that the Big Bang is as much an item of faith as any theology, like the other posters I think you missed the bus. Nobody sat up one morning and dreamed up the Big Bang out of whole cloth. As Crazed Rabbit so kindly pointed out, there was unexplained evidence, and a whole lot of smart people tried to get a handle on it, which eventually led to several competing theories of which the Big Bang was but one. That's how science is supposed to work.

As for your notion that there is a disconnect between being a Christian and following science, I just don't see it. The infinite complexity and elegance of the universe is, if anything, a testament to the Almighty. Why should we deny it, and so doing, attempt to drag the Creator down to our level? If God is infinite and omnipotent, then by definition our conception of Him must be imperfect and incomplete. Using the tools God gave us to understand the fractal vastness of nature seems like one of the most genuine forms of worship.

To quote one of my favorite poets:

Glory be to God for dappled things—
For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;
For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches’ wings; [...]

All things counter, original, spare, strange;
Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)
With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:
Praise him.

I spoke with a mentor of mine, a strong Christian follower. Devotes his life to it. And he explains that science can't be completely wrong. He believes in a God induced Big Bang. Thus I have taken that idea into much consideration.

I'd like to thank everyone who has responded, even Tribesman for replying and speaking with me on this account. My understanding of science and religion has grown exponentially and thus I have decided that believing in both my modern man's view of creation as well as the way of the biblical creation could actually correspond.

"Could" being my key word, for I have not made up my mind. But this man has lived 65 years on this Earth and has spend 45 years of those as a Christian. I trust his word.

Once again, thank you all.

[Pannonian]

I spoke with a mentor of mine, a strong Christian follower. Devotes his life to it. And he explains that science can't be completely wrong. He believes in a God induced Big Bang. Thus I have taken that idea into much consideration.

I'd like to thank everyone who has responded, even Tribesman for replying and speaking with me on this account. My understanding of science and religion has grown exponentially and thus I have decided that believing in both my modern man's view of creation as well as the way of the biblical creation could actually correspond.

"Could" being my key word, for I have not made up my mind. But this man has lived 65 years on this Earth and has spend 45 years of those as a Christian. I trust his word.

Does he have a BSc in Christianity?

[Tribesman]

Does he have a BSc in Christianity?

It would be more impressive if he has lived 65 years on this earth and spent 45 years on another.

[Sigurd]

I spoke with a mentor of mine, a strong Christian follower. Devotes his life to it. And he explains that science can't be completely wrong. He believes in a God induced Big Bang. Thus I have taken that idea into much consideration.
...
My understanding of science and religion has grown exponentially and thus I have decided that believing in both my modern man's view of creation as well as the way of the biblical creation could actually correspond.

I'll tell you what Zain, In every denomination of Christianity there are principles that saves and there are principles that don't. I don't know which you follow, but common for most of them is the saving principle of faith in the Lord Jesus. There are some other common principles and required ordinances like baptism and following Christ's example of being an philanthropist.

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.

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.

my 2 Agnostic cents.

[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.

[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.

[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!