So first of all, I believe it is somewhat scientific because with modern technology you can restart the heart within a short time after it stops, but I heard if it’s longer than three minutes then the brain dies. And second of all, I don’t think that statement is biblical. I heave never been to any church, any “othordox” Christian website, that says that what you believe about the resurrection. There are some people that had no NDE and thus no afterlife experience, others went right to the afterlife. Yet again another YouTube video that is always on my recommended has more than 16 million views and it’s about a man who had an NDE a long time ago and he said he was dead for 20 minutes, (after the brain dies and there is no activity) and he said he saw Jesus. So these NDE testimonies contradict each other but the second one doesn’t contradict the Bible. Who taught you that the resurrection happens at the second coming, such that the only heaven is not the current heaven? That is called the doctrine of “soul sleep” and websites like got questions call that heretical and contradicted by Jesus, and this was taught by the SDA church, that Christians call heretical.
And the things is science is reality. Science is all about our world, from physics to chemistry to biology to psychology and so on. We learned the truth from science, that we were able to beat off disease, poverty, have a higher quality of life. And while science is not the best to solve the most important questions of life after death, since you say God is the truth, then it needs to show in his Bible, but it doesn’t there are many contradictions including about theological matters. And what if that contradicts science as well. Women are not inferior yet the Bible says women are not allowed to have authority over men, therefore women cannot be pastors even though their intelligence is not lower than that of men. It is based on their sex, not ability. Also the justification for this inequality is the creation story that can only work if it is literal. There are many theological errors such as the fact that the old covenant is “everlasting” even though it isn’t. And also some actions that are not explainable, such as the fact that when god ordered genocides, he had to let the animals get killed too? What did they do wrong? They can’t choose right from wrong they just are the way they are and they can’t do anything about it they are driven by natural processes.
Welcome to our world here. We do strive to be cheerleaders for science and support all science - which must be reality-centered to remain good science - pretty much by definition. To insist that science has necessarily encapsulated all reality, though, is a different thing, demanding a different level of consideration that is not itself within the realm of that same science to answer. At least many of us here haven’t seen any compelling arguments why this must be so. Science enthusiasts have to step outside of the very science they otherwise pride themselves on staying within, in order to assert such things.
Many here don’t insist that the creation story is literal. And literal or not - that isn’t the lesson that need be drawn from it. So while you may consider this a problem - it is nonetheless your problem for how you insist the story should be read. It isn’t mine. It is false to claim that the creation story can only work if it is literal. The creation story works for me, and it does so precisely because I don’t insist on reading it Ken Ham’s way. So I (and many others here) are living refutations of that claim. We like living in the real world, attending to the trees, rocks, and stars that declare God’s handiwork.
Science certainly can give us insights to how the body works … no doubts there.
I don’t know what the percentages are who would agree from among all those that would qualify as “orthodox” in your eyes. All I know is it’s all over the pages of the New Testament. A very biblically informed, Christ-centered pastor of my own congregation long ago noted to us that much of modern tradition has reversed the actual biblical narrative in this, and has us “flying away” as etherial spirits to some other world or dimension, whereas what we actually find in most passages of the gospels epistles and Revelation is a very embodied Kingdom of God (City of God even) descending to earth. A new earth, to be sure; but if one is to make much of the old earth being destroyed, keep in mind the same word is applied to the heavens as well (there will be a new heaven and earth) - God makes all things new. Including us. And yet in some important sense (that we can’t even fully grasp theologically or spiritually - and certainly not scientifically) we are to have some essential continuity with our present created bodies, and present created order. What that all looks like, I can’t say. But it is what scriptures spend lots of time pointing towards. And parts of it are already here - The Kingdom of God is among you, even if not in fully realized form yet.
I’m not being dogmatic (either way) about what happens to our souls at the moment of death. So don’t get me wrong here. I’m just pointing out that there is precious little biblical reference to details like that. [One can find a few, of course, but to build doctrinal castles out of those is to put a lot of heavy lifting onto short comments (e.g. Jesus’ promise to the thief ‘today you will be with me in paradise’). -to insist one knows exactly what that timeline must look like is more dogma than the rest of scriptures will support.] That doesn’t prevent us from allowing for hope (and certainly not stifling it) as a consolation for loss. But that’s just it … it is solidly a matter of hope and faith. Our attempts to turn it into science (knowledge) is an attempt to walk by sight instead of by faith. Certainly we do want to use all the sight we are granted - again, don’t get me wrong here. Science, and human experience / learning generally is a great thing. And if you are finding that some NDE testimonies give you hope, fine. But even as you yourself have noted, they are not some sort of consistent evidence that will make any good foundation for the real hope you have: in Christ alone.
In the end, there will always be some things beyond the edges of what we can know where we just have to trust. If we are to harbor doubts about God’s promises and want to shore up our doubts in those matters of relationship and trust by leaning on science instead, then there is already something wrong with our focus. It means that we aren’t trusting that God has got this, and we want evidence and proofs instead.
I still don’t understand why you believe this is true with all the contradictions, the evidence that it is true is from the NDEs. How can you be so confident that we don’t need science to confirm and assure us. Some of the NDEs are contradictory from instant afterlife to just being like sleep, where are the verses for your support for this concept that many mainstream Christians say is not found in scripture. You say God is the truth well you don’t give me evidence of the truth from the scriptures then Christians are just wasting their time. Walking by faith and not by sight means you reject science and you believe when there is no or even contradictory evidence, all faith is irrational and blind.
That certainly does not describe my faith! Truth comes from reality – the truth that comes from the reality of the data that God has revealed in the Bible and the truth that comes from the reality of data that God has revealed in creation. They do not and cannot conflict. If they appear to, then our interpretation of one or the other or both is flawed.
What makes you think that I accept your version of how that happens as the truth? I said I wasn’t dogmatic either way - which means I don’t necessarily think it is true (at least as you seem to have conceived of it).
You don’t seem interested in any evidence unless it’s scientific.
It means nothing of the sort. Faith is trusting (and living according to, and organizing your life around) your relationship with God. Many of us aspire to exactly this, and our enthusiasm for science is fully encouraged and celebrated in exactly that context.
the canon we accept was not what Paul alluded to then.
In fact,maybe as Pete Enns notes, “scripture” literally means all accepted papers at the time–not written after him, and some, such as Shepherd of Hermes, which was not canonical, were considered “scripture,” but not part of the canon
is God able to breathe, if He’s Spirit? What does that mean? Is that literal?
That!s been bothering me too. Generally speaking we don’t “breath” scripture or anything else that is written. Like you I don’t see how that can have any literal meaning.
Let’s avoid straw manning the “literalists” here. Of course they see and accept figures of speech and such in the Bible. If any of us suggested that somebody had still been breathing “threats and murder”, we would all know exactly what was being claimed there, and no one would be nitpicking about some verb being inappropriate to the claim.
Where the real trouble starts is when there are differences about how much figure of speech is allowed, not whether or not it’s allowed at all.
It does seem very presumptive to me that anyone should declare that no figurative language shall be allowed beyond this point, even when this causes meaning to become garbled and leads to absurd conclusions. That seems to be setting up oneself as authority over the Bible a whole lot more than those who wish to use all such knowledge as they are granted to help them delve into the actual teaching.
Yes, I apologize if I was too strong. I was just reflecting I am not sure what it means. For example, does breathing mean every single word was blessed by God, or was it just the meaning? Thanks.
First it has to be dogmatic in the scriptures, otherwise it is impossible to confirm, and then you are making your own faith and own God, second, all evidence is scientific, otherwise it is just your own feelings that are subjective and are based on your worldview and how it should work. This is where the pseudoscience comes in, saying that not all truth is scientific is wrong since this truth is relative to yourself only and it is not possible to confirm. I should have known that BioLogos is also pseudoscientific, they are against science when trying to advocate their own version of the Bible, that is without basis in scripture. I will also accept empirical evidence that is always true even if it cannot be explained by science. God is not one of those examples, that is what intelligent design is all about, it’s all about subjective feelings and false hope that there is a God even when it is all coincidental.
And again, there is not evidence in the text to indicate which kind of meaning, both of them could in fact be correct, there is so much contradictions among theologians not to mention that theology is 0% academic and reality based, 100% feeling and psychological based.
The problem is with my experience, this hope is false and is not reality based, only a psychological coping mechanism against certain death. I have learned that Jesus lied, he said that believes can preform exorcisms and faith healings, never do we see these things today. Just another scammer. And the Holy Spirit is also not real since it is just in the mind, with contradictory commands to believers. Some women say the Holy Spirit told them, to not wear pants, lipstick makeup or skirts above the knee or else they go to hell, but I have seen many Christian women like at my church or are not like that.
It is observational and a principle that is found out to be certain in science is the fact that no scientific laws such as psychical , gravity, etc can ever be violated. People tried and no matter what these laws are impossible to be violated. Yet the Bible shows us that these laws were violated somehow even though this contradicts science.
Isn’t the burden of proof on you? There is no evidence of Adam and Eve, Christians in the Middle Ages believed in it literally. The limits on women are supported by this story, such as they couldn’t vote. The most impact fact is that if this story is not literally true, than Jesus died for nothing. You choose not to make it a problem even though it is. I would rather dread the truth than believe a lie. What happens if this inequality of women leads to nothing? And lives that are not as good as they could have been end and there is nothing after death? These women when they die and there is no life after death, their lives that they can never have back, this would be a bad way to live a life that can maybe only be lived once right? Look at the Muslim countries they also believe the story, such that woman cannot have authority over men according to the Taliban.