(My knowledge in these matters isn’t that vast, so I may make a few mistakes)
With how I was, and still am, raised, I’ve always been taught that everything in the Bible must be inerrant, every word must be true and literal. If it’s proven to be false, then the person who supposedly disproved it is lying.
Now, with how my faith is now, even the smallest things make me doubt it. One person’s negative thoughts concerning it can make me doubt most of what I’ve known.
Because what I’ve known is something that seems to be false.
I’m just now learning more about the non literal interpretations of the Bible. It’s all still very confusing to me, and as a result, I’m not really sure whether I’m a literalist or Non-literalist.
Of course it’s not all black and white, but it can be hard to see the shades of gray.
So if I were to learn stuff about what I’ve known is false, even the minors, it would most likely make me doubt for a while.
Or in short: I’m trying to get out of the literalist interpretation and see the other parts too, unfortunately, it’s quite difficult. I can easily doubt.
I have gone from literal interpretation to not sure. The numerous metaphorical interpretations of the Bible don’t make much sense to me, especially Genesis. I’ve always heard “just read the Bible”, and despite trying to, it still puzzles my brain. Which is primarily why I came in this website. People here seemed smart on the matter, and they didn’t deny stuff that contradicted their views. Open minded.
I’m about half way into it, the experimental work of Rhine is worthless, and I skipped the chapter on the astrological experiment. But it was a surprise to see Jung’s high regard for Schopenhauer, a godfather for him seeing “the subject of the great dream of life … is but one, the transcendental Will.”
I remember Schopenhauer most for saying that it was nature’s design that women grow less attractive with age to keep the world from being overpopulated. He was supposed to be an important figure in the class I had on late modern philosophy, but I didn’t see it then. Kant was huge for me with the ontological argument. And Hegel was impenetrable, but I about fell out of my chair when I learned about his view for the goal of history.
Another gem from reading Jung: “‘Nothing’ is evidently ‘meaning’ or ‘purpose,’ and it is only called Nothing because it does not appear in the world of the senses, but is only its organizer."
I’ve posted this several other places and a little excerpt above, so I don’t know if you have seen it before or not, but if you haven’t I hope you might find it helpful:
In terms of understanding “just read the Bible” is horrible advice and not at all helpful. It makes me think of the chanting done by the Hindu sect that continually chants Hare Krishna. People who just parrot words seemingly are not on any path to understanding. Merely repeating the words of scripture does not show much understanding either. Reading for comprehension is much more than sounding out the words on a page. It is a skill that must be learned. Far from being heretical, it shows greater respect for the Bible to read the words of the Bible with careful analysis. I think the emphasis on literalism discourages the acquisition of important skills. It may not be easy but it is never too late to reverse a wrong direction.
So Mark, could I digress to your original questions posed nearly 1,000 years ago ?
Could I have your blessing to alter the question a bit? The OoL question has been reduced to ridiculous levels of simplicity by both atheists and theists. Believers point to the complexities as evidence/proof that a natural origin is impossible.
Some scientists and all atheists simply bypass those complexities and tell us that our understanding is gradually coming to complete resolution of the details, that our ignorance so far does not disprove natural Ool.
So can we discuss a detail, rather than assign ownership to OoL, and pose the question of the process(es) involved PRIOR to evolution? Question: did the origin begin with a single cell, one single cell, which then forms the basis for all living life on Earth, or were there multiple origins, hundreds/thousands/millions of original cells that collectively evolved, with only certain “survivors” benefiting by selection?
So for my question, can we not simply stipulate that it could have been 1) by God around 1B years after Earth was formed or 2) by natural chemiosmotic pressures that resulted in a living cell.
That is our starting point, to now address whether science in general, or genomic science in particular tells us the answer: Was it originally one-cell and one alone that ultimately became all of life today, or was it many, many successful attempts that diverged into the many forms of life we see today?
I can find no consensus to that question.
Most sources refer to a single cell origin, but leave open the notion that there could have been many lineages each beginning with a single cell.
Indeed, yes. Almost the entre Bible, almost every single book in it, is for communal reception, as the community. By “reception” I mean not only reading it, but hearing it read, as it mostly was amongst its various and varied communities… But the important point here is that the reception is communal.
I have to say “almost” rather than “all”, just in case I’ve forgotten a book which really is received by an individual. There’s Philemon. But that is probably the exception, that serves to prove the general rule.
“Reading the Bible”, is very much a communal activity. And that includes hearing multiple passages (typically OT and Psalm and Epistle and Gospel) each Sunday at church, as the traditional churches live out in their liturgies.
By cosmogony I just mean the creation of the universe. Cosmogony is usually spoken of as a single event or series of events that resulted in the universe as we know it today. Either way, it suggests something that happened in the past that is not necessarily happening now. Cosmogenesis, probably coined by Pierre Teilhard, gets at the idea that the creation of the cosmos is a continuous process and not a single event or completed action. By saying cosmogenesis, I am just saying that I see the act of creation as being something that is ongoing, from the Big Bang to the emergence of life and eventually to the emergence of intelligence and technological civilization. I would connect this to eschatology by saying that the vision depicted in Revelation is a hint at where the universe is heading and the role that we are supposed to play in getting it there. I hope that makes my point clearer and not more confusing.
@jpm
As a planetary geologist, I will do my best to fill that void. I can tell you not just about Mars but all about Ceres and the outer solar system moons and dwarf planets.
Glad to hear more of your perspective on origins of the universe. I imagine in your work you are most interested in tracing back proximal causes as far as possible rather than establishing a first cause. In general I imagine that those who declare the ultimate cause to be an a possibly infinite multiverse like those who want to declare it to be an intelligent creator are basically just not that interested in exploring what can be found out or inferred about the process.
Pretty much, i just dont understand even on her death bed she was 100% positive that there will be a special place to go. I guess i do not understand that sort of thinking, let alone such confidence. I never had a faith of my own to begin with, i realized after she had past and i came to this site for answers, is when i discovered that i only “believed” because she believed and i trusted her, not because i wanted to believe out of my own accord. So now i am in this position of questioning and having incredible doubt as to wether it is true or not. I do not know how long this journey will be but it is one i feel i must take, otherwise it will continue eating away at me. I am not even sure what answers i am looking for anymore to be honest.
You’re expressed an interesting perspective I hadn’t thought about. What differences would you expect there to be in the reception of the texts by a community in contrast to the reception by an individual?
Those are good words, and it’s an honorable work you are doing in getting to the bottom of what’s going on.
Then the bottom drops out.
One time that happened for me was thinking that I could know God through a philosophical argument, and then being persuaded Jesus was a myth. Yeah. That got weird.
I still think those arguments disprove atheism, and I regained a solid belief in Jesus.
I mentioned Keener as the author of the book on miracles, he is also a highly respected NT scholar in league with Tom Wright if that’s a name you recognize. Or Bart Ehrman. Keener has a book on the historical Jesus that I’m reading now (on and off) it’s been great. I can recommend a video of him discussing errors in the gospels if you’re interested.
Checks and balances. Varieties of views and interpretations.
But start from historical context. Availability of texts was massively limited because of the need of hand-copying. In today’s world of massively available printing, we almost completely overlook the massive cultural change introduced by the Gutenberg printing press.
It’s a huge topic. But in summary we need to recognise:
the origins of all scripture in a pre-printing context
the reception of the texts by “ordinary folk” being almost exclusively listening, which would have been mostly communal
the writing of the texts being in that same communal-reception context
And even today, this is largely the case:
clergy are trained in seminary communities
scripture is expounded in church communities
church communities are themselves rooted in wider communities (e.g. denominations)
Devotional work may be largely (not exclusively) individual. But deeper study is largely (not exclusively) communal.
And this communal aspect, which is implicit, and woven into the DNA of the writing and original reception of scripture, assumes, allows and even encourages debate about meaning and differing interpretation. We even see this within scripture itself. Example 1: the almost opposite message of Ezra-Nehemiah and Ruth about Moabite-Jewish marriage. Example 2: Jesus “you have heard it said… but I say…” (which itself is a feature of Second Temple Judaism).
No one is more disappointed in the lack of curiosity of most atheists you meet online than myself. I can see how you might jump to the conclusion that it is universal if your online experience has been anything like mine. But you’d be mistaken if you conclude that anything about a disbelief in a being such as the God of the Bible as popularly conceived necessitates an irrational optimism in the ability of science to answer all questions. If you’ve yet to meet an exception to that rule … how do you do.
But as for starting a discussion on the origins of life in this thread, I fear it might get lost. I’d started this thread as a way to survey the kinds of belief people held and the way that had changed in their lifetime. So I don’t think a debate over what one ought to believe about origins would be conducive to the original intent.
If you wanted to start such a thread I’d be happy to tell you what I think of your worry about establishing a threshold for the start of life. In general though I think our access to the early history of life is inconclusive enough to allow people to hold their heads high in regard to their own opinion on the matter, recognizing this as an issue over which reasonable people may disagree.
Perhaps you need to take a step back? Instead of pursuing what you do not know, perhaps you need to concentrate on what you do know. If you feel the need for a church, find one you ae comfortable with. If you think you need a break then let it go for a while. They will still be there if and whan you want to return.
First you need to decide if you have a need or room for God. Do not let the concerns about what may follow distort the life you have now. Let tomorrow look after itself for now and find meaning in this life.
If you have specific concerns about the Christian faith please feel free to message me or find someone you trust to talk with. Above all, remember, it is your faith, and your life, and ultimately your decisions that matter, rather than what I or anyone else believes.
I started Rohr’s book. Completely independent of any reviewer’s or pendant’s view of the book, it’s one I just don’t have the spiritual energy for right now. That surely sounds inside out. But he’s too close to home and too far from it for me simply to read it and hear what he says. There will be a good deal of clawing my way through, whenever I get back to it.
I need to direct those energies toward confessional documents right now. My husband and I are considering the possibility of joining a Presbyterian (PCA) church and have a good deal of reading to catch up on that is usually completed by the time kids are done with middle school I think. Most Baptists jettisoned confessions over a hundred years ago, even our own. Again, it surely sounds inside out to say that reading confessional documents is refreshing. For me it is.
Unlike most women (and men) that I know, I enjoy reading and learning theology. I suppose it’s an “safe” intellectual space that is still challenging and enormous. I don’t mind exploring many other places that are hard work and challenge me and my assumptions. Rohr is different. He’s going to have to wait.
Good luck with your new church and with the completion of the needful task which will mark your joining. When your time is less spoken for I’d love to hear from you what it is about theology that draws you in.
?