Keeping Up With The Changing World.

[WinePusher]

Obviously, society continually changes (sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad). The Church and Christians are generally caught up in this change and generally pick a side to stand by. So, my question is, should we (as christians) sacrifice and give up some of our "outdated" teachings and rules in order to appeal to a more larger audience. Or should we remain true to ourselves and resist change if it goes aganist the Gospel, and risk being accused as an irrelevant/ancient institution.

[Darias]

Obviously, society continually changes (sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad). The Church and Christians are generally caught up in this change and generally pick a side to stand by. So, my question is, should we (as christians) sacrifice and give up some of our "outdated" teachings and rules in order to appeal to a more larger audience. Or should we remain true to ourselves and resist change if it goes aganist the Gospel, and risk being accused as an irrelevant/ancient institution.

There are many ancient institutions practiced in the Bible:

Among them: stoning, slavery, Sex with slaves, polygamy, oh and keeping women silent in churches.

I don't support any of those things.

I base my convictions on what I feel is right, fair and just, much of which is inspired by the teachings of Christ -- the rest of which is based on Constitutional fairness.

However, my social ideas haven't shifted from ultra fundamentalist to moderately liberal overnight -- and they didn't shift because others expected me to or because I was trying to get more friends.

They changed because of education - awareness of what is fair and objective. In college, I learned the joy of analyzing facts and seeking out the errors of various sources on either side of the political spectrum.

I also went from being a young earth creationist to an Evolutionist.

I went from opposing gay marriage as immoral and dangerous to society to being a supporter of Gay rights - including DADT and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act -- which prohibits people from being fired because of their orientation (as is the rule for race, gender, etc.)

I certainly do not base my morals on Judaic Law as described in the old testament - and Paul was an errant man himself -- I don't look to him as my moral guide.

My support for gay marriage is largely based off of Constitutional fairness. If two consenting adults wish to have a union which will grant them the same legal rights as Heterosexual married couples - they should be able to do that. Unfortunately they can't - and civil unions fail to provide the same rights as marriage.

My support for Evolution is largely based of reality and facts -- not on literal interpretations of ancient myth.


I am open to new ideas not only because I want to be fair - but also because I desire to have a very flexible faith.

Rigid faith - when confronted with facts - either breaks entirely or becomes all the more rigid and blind.

That's how I remain true to myself and my God.

[Slopeshoulder]

Obviously, society continually changes (sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad). The Church and Christians are generally caught up in this change and generally pick a side to stand by. So, my question is, should we (as christians) sacrifice and give up some of our "outdated" teachings and rules in order to appeal to a more larger audience. Or should we remain true to ourselves and resist change if it goes aganist the Gospel, and risk being accused as an irrelevant/ancient institution.

Of course, no one should give up deeply held beliefs in order to be fashionable.

And a few popes, including the current one, have sometimes argued the latter option that you present in periods of stress.

But it is not an either-or question, but rather is a false dichotomy, with no winners. After all Christianity if nothing else is about breaking through false either-or's (see kierkegaard and niebuhr), and the cross itself (the crucified god who lives) is a paradox breaker before it is anything else.

The best answer I ever got this question was in four parts and came from a catholic scholar in a conversation:
- the church (and the faith) are a living tradition; they evolve. It is sinful to ossify them, as it confuses our comfort zone with the ongoing challenge of God to participate in ongoing creation. Sometimes the church loses track of this and strays, undermining its mediating role and replacing it with a guardian role. That is never good.
- the church has always been in deep engagement with secular philosophy and learning, and while the incidents of challenge and rejection make for good press, FAR more often than not the dialogue has been collaborative and constructive. And this learning does evolve, as does experience.
- god's creation and self-revelation continue, and the holy spirit is on the case
- for all its flaws, people in the church, when not fundies, are often GREAT resources for discernment, having thought deeply, with great nuance and open hearts, about every aspect of these issues. Jesuits come to mind.

So it comes down to a case by case basis and broad themes, not a false choice.
I find that catholics are at their best when they say, woah, let us think about this, not when they get into the business of rejecting change and advancing a devolutionary agenda.

So I vote in favor of discernment in the midst of evolution, maintaining and ensuring the prophetic voice which is the core of the church's mssion in the world. Oddly enough, in their sometimes misbegotten commitment to the past, they threaten that vital prophetic voice and mission. Bad move.

[WinePusher]

The best answer I ever got this question was in four parts and came from a catholic scholar in a conversation:
- the church (and the faith) are a living tradition; they evolve. It is sinful to ossify them, as it confuses our comfort zone with the ongoing challenge of God to participate in ongoing creation. Sometimes the church loses track of this and strays, undermining its mediating role and replacing it with a guardian role. That is never good.
- the church has always been in deep engagement with secular philosophy and learning, and while the incidents of challenge and rejection make for good press, FAR more often than not the dialogue has been collaborative and constructive. And this learning does evolve, as does experience.
- god's creation and self-revelation continue, and the holy spirit is on the case
- for all its flaws, people in the church, when not fundies, are often GREAT resources for discernment, having thought deeply, with great nuance and open hearts, about every aspect of these issues. Jesuits come to mind.

I think that's great perspective, and one of the reasons I admire the Catholic Church. (A little bit off topic) While I enjoy going to evangelical churches such as Calvary Chapel and Saddleback Church and am an evangelical/fundamentalist myself, I don't really appreciate their methods of discernment and thinking.

I think it's important to place a large amount of emphasis on the Bible as well, which is what Calvary Chapel does, but we shouldn't shun other philosophies and ideas as well. The Catholic Church has been probably the most tolerant christian church when it comes to multi-culturalism, the acceptance of other religions, and the recent ground breaking scientific discoveries. I think this tolerence is the reason for the great thought that has come out of the church, from Boethius to Aquinas to Augustine and Mendal and so on. If there's one thing the Calvary Chapel's of the world lack, its the open-mindedness when it comes to change, whether it be scientific or philosophical.

[Darias]

The best answer I ever got this question was in four parts and came from a catholic scholar in a conversation:
- the church (and the faith) are a living tradition; they evolve. It is sinful to ossify them, as it confuses our comfort zone with the ongoing challenge of God to participate in ongoing creation. Sometimes the church loses track of this and strays, undermining its mediating role and replacing it with a guardian role. That is never good.
- the church has always been in deep engagement with secular philosophy and learning, and while the incidents of challenge and rejection make for good press, FAR more often than not the dialogue has been collaborative and constructive. And this learning does evolve, as does experience.
- god's creation and self-revelation continue, and the holy spirit is on the case
- for all its flaws, people in the church, when not fundies, are often GREAT resources for discernment, having thought deeply, with great nuance and open hearts, about every aspect of these issues. Jesuits come to mind.

I think that's great perspective, and one of the reasons I admire the Catholic Church. (A little bit off topic) While I enjoy going to evangelical churches such as Calvary Chapel and Saddleback Church and am an evangelical/fundamentalist myself, I don't really appreciate their methods of discernment and thinking.

I think it's important to place a large amount of emphasis on the Bible as well, which is what Calvary Chapel does, but we shouldn't shun other philosophies and ideas as well. The Catholic Church has been probably the most tolerant christian church when it comes to multi-culturalism, the acceptance of other religions, and the recent ground breaking scientific discoveries. I think this tolerence is the reason for the great thought that has come out of the church, from Boethius to Aquinas to Augustine and Mendal and so on. If there's one thing the Calvary Chapel's of the world lack, its the open-mindedness when it comes to change, whether it be scientific or philosophical.

I think that liberalization for Protestants is more difficult now that it used to be.

Protestantism used to focus on abandoning false doctrines of the 16th century Catholic Church -- in favor of personal interpretation. The ability for every christian to read the Bible in their own language and carry personal conviction of the truth --- as opposed to "giving money to the catholic church to save the souls of dead loved ones."

However, what started as a turning away from the Catholic establishment soon turned into a critical logical analysis of scriptures -- which lead to two realms of thought Calvinism and Arminianism

Each of those theologies developed over time into many churches and many denominations...

Nowadays, most denominations are conservative.

When the Pope says evolution is compatible with Christianity, Protestants laugh - they have no ties with the Pope or the Catholic church having severed that relationship hundreds of years ago.

Protestants don't have any one leader in authority - we left the church because it was once corrupt in politics and all sorts of inhumane things (which Protestants also became guilty of soon after they came to be -- religious wars etc.)

While severing ties with the Catholic establishment was a good thing when the popes were dogmatic, it is not a good thing today because the Pope is more open minded and the leadership within the church is more liberal and accepting.

Protestantism has Puritan roots in it that are still there to this day. Various protestant groups look to their own pastors for guidance and if they teach a conservative, exclusive, anti-science, anti-homosexual message, they will follow it...

That being said the Catholic Church hasn't been that progressive when it comes to homosexuality either -- the recent problem of deviant priests was actually blamed on homosexuality.


however, when it comes to science, many Catholic leaders have embraced a belief in evolution -- even if it's more ID oriented than my tastes care for.

However, on the other-hand, many protestants still think literal young earth Creationism is just as valid as evolution, as evidenced by Tea Partier Christine O'Donnell, who questions the separation of church and state in favor of teaching Creationism alongside evolution -- as if it was a valid scientific view.

The problem is, if that is done, government employees would be indoctrinating our Children with religious myth and literalism, instead of teaching them the factual truths of science and biology.

But anyways, I digress...

I came to believe in Evolution, first micro, then macro, then ID, then Theistic and now somewhat naturalistic -- because I had no religious authority apart from myself and my own quest to find a balance between my beliefs and my understanding of the facts. I guess you could say the very Protestantism that binds other people to ignorant doctrine, is one that let me lose to find the truth for myself.

Now, when I say naturalistic evolution, I mean that I don't believe God actively guided the process or divinely intervened at any point either before life or after - to physically alter its natural course (unlike ID teaches -- where it assumes divine design and intervention wherever it can't explain something) -- My scientific naturalistic beliefs also applies to the Big Bang, only if a multiverse is true -- if a multiverse is real, and it came before our universe, then our universe's existence can be attributed to natural means like gravity which some believe was pre-existing.

If a multiverse isn't true, and even if our universe came about via natural means - ex nilo -- then because God is eternally ancient, he would know about it, and by knowing - he would technically still be creator.

By knowing everything ahead of time, there is a possibility that He could be a planned designer rather than an active designer.

I don't know honestly, but my Theism is very flexible. My belief in God does not henge on a cosmological argument alone if proven false -- my belief in God will remain in tact.

[WinePusher]

That being said the Catholic Church hasn't been that progressive when it comes to homosexuality either -- the recent problem of deviant priests was actually blamed on homosexuality.

The Catholic Church interprets the institution of marraige to be blessed by God and between one man and one woman. Should it abandon this interpretation in order to become more popular with modern society?

However, on the other-hand, many protestants still think literal young earth Creationism is just as valid as evolution, as evidenced by Tea Partier Christine O'Donnell, who questions the separation of church and state in favor of teaching Creationism alongside evolution -- as if it was a valid scientific view.

While creationism/intelligent design does not have near as much evidence as evolution, the two are not comparable. Evolution explains biological diversity, not the origin of life. ID and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, which is why I think it's unfortunate that YEC see some type of conflict between the two.

I came to believe in Evolution, first micro, then macro, then ID, then Theistic and now somewhat naturalistic -- because I had no religious authority apart from myself and my own quest to find a balance between my beliefs and my understanding of the facts. I guess you could say the very Protestantism that binds other people to ignorant doctrine, is one that let me lose to find the truth for myself.

To be clear, you do not believe God created anything? Or that God used evolution as a mechanism to design life? Do you think that evolution completely rules out the need for a creator?

[Slopeshoulder]

Can we stay on topic?

[Darias]

[center]===1===[/center]

That being said the Catholic Church hasn't been that progressive when it comes to homosexuality either -- the recent problem of deviant priests was actually blamed on homosexuality.

The Catholic Church interprets the institution of marraige to be blessed by God and between one man and one woman. Should it abandon this interpretation in order to become more popular with modern society?

1.) I've debated this before. Traditional marriage is very much a creation of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages -- as is the whole idea of courting, etc.

The Bible did not have a tradition of marriage (between one man and one woman). Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

Abraham had a wife and a ... ermm... slave.

Paul advocated a life of celibacy, making all of us the bride of Christ.

The Bible is full of examples of polygamy.

The Bible has no examples of gay, monogamous, marriage. Anytime "homosexual" is mentioned, it usually refers to pedophilia and escorts...


2.) This isn't about popularity or "morality" it's about equal fairness under the law. Marriage is not just a religious tradition but it is also a legal institution. Straight couples get a plethora of legal benefits that gays do not... and civil unions don't come anywhere near to providing the same legal benefits as marriage.

There shouldn't be "gay" or "straight" marriage -- there should just be marriage.


3.) There is absolutely no evidence to suggest gay couples couldn't be just as traditional as their straight parents were. I know of many gay couples that want to raise children of their own and have a stable home with equal legal benefits (such as being able to visit your spouse in the hospital if something happens) -- that isn't allowed if you are gay and your spouse has an accident in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage.

Most gays don't wanna be single, or just spend the rest of their lives partying or "riding gay pride parade floats" -- that's a gross stereotype. Gays want to have a normal stable life like anyone would.


4.) Allowing gays to marry does not take away the rights of others to marry. It just allows gays to be treated fairly under the law. Right now, gays in most states not only can't get married, they can't get a civil union, they can't adopt, and they can be fired just because they are gay.

To deny their situation, or to suggest their desire for equal treatment under the law is somehow a "devious agenda" is ludicrous.



[center]===2===[/center]

However, on the other-hand, many protestants still think literal young earth Creationism is just as valid as evolution, as evidenced by Tea Partier Christine O'Donnell, who questions the separation of church and state in favor of teaching Creationism alongside evolution -- as if it was a valid scientific view.

While creationism/intelligent design does not have near as much evidence as evolution, the two are not comparable. Evolution explains biological diversity, not the origin of life. ID and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, which is why I think it's unfortunate that YEC see some type of conflict between the two.

1.) Creationism is the belief that the mythical creation account in Genesis is fact and truth, that it only took 6 days for God to create everything, and that our world is around 6000 years old at the most. Old earth creationism assumes the same belief except they believe creation took 10s to 100s of thousands of more years or more.

ID is a pseudo science - which is better classified as a philosophy. It has no models of its own. It is not falsifiable. All ID does is assume the existence of God because "Life is complex" and because certain elements of life are currently unexplainable. There are a few gaps in the fossil record. There are complicated questions concerning the evolution of, say, the eye.

However assuming God's active divine manipulation(fixing) of natural biological evolution is in no way a science, neither is it compatible with evolution. Just because it adopts the same spans of time and the same ideas as evolutionary history shows -- that in no way makes it a science. It simply argues that "life is complex, therefore God did it because science can't explain this certain thing currently."

It's a lot like looking at a street, seeing a man at a stop sign, turning your head, and then looking back to see that he is on the other side of the street -- would you assume the angels carried him across? No, of course not, there's a perfectly natural explanation for his arrival at the other side -- He Walked There.

2.)Natural evolution neither assumes nor denies the existence of God. It is not incompatible with the belief in God. Christians who believe in evolution "as-is" are called Theistic Evolutionists. Francis Collins is one of those scientists who maintains a strong belief in God and Christ while also showing ID and Creationism as false and misleading -- He believes in natural evolution even though his book contains some quotes that lean towards ID type thinking -- like from C.S. Lewis. He also believes in the cosmological argument. He believes in the Big bang but I don't know if he addresses the multiverse in his book.


[center]===3===[/center]

I came to believe in Evolution, first micro, then macro, then ID, then Theistic and now somewhat naturalistic -- because I had no religious authority apart from myself and my own quest to find a balance between my beliefs and my understanding of the facts. I guess you could say the very Protestantism that binds other people to ignorant doctrine, is one that let me lose to find the truth for myself.

To be clear, you do not believe God created anything? Or that God used evolution as a mechanism to design life? Do you think that evolution completely rules out the need for a creator?

1.) Used implies active divine modification where there may not be an exact explanation. This is otherwise known as "God of the Gaps." As soon as science comes up with a viable explanation for something, it disillusions those who once clung to such ideas(that God helped the evolutionary process) as a basis for their belief in God.

ID actually deals with evolution and not the universe. However, it does assume divine intervention in place of currently unexplainable gaps in the evolutionary process over time.

I rejected ID for that reason. It implies that the universe and biological life needs active divine assistance in order to function properly. If this was the case, it is evidence for a poorly created universe and in a way, it is a slant on the omnipotence of God.

SOURCE

1. “Faith that places God in the gaps of current understanding about the natural world may be headed for crisis if advances in science subsequently fill those gaps� (p. 93). We cannot use causal action by a transcendent intelligence to explain puzzling natural phenomena. In short, no God�ofthe� gaps allowed.

2. “Darwin’s framework of variation and natural selection,� but especially Darwin’s picture of a Tree of Life—the common ancestry of all organisms on Earth—“is unquestionably correct� (141). Universal common descent by natural processes is scientifically non�negotiable. The theory of neo� Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person.

SOURCE

2.) Yes. I believe that God is the Creator -- however I believe He is the creator in a planned sense, not a direct, actively manipulating sense.

I am a Christian. I do not read Genesis as literal history. I believe in natural evolution and in history, simply because of the overwhelming evidence they present. To believe otherwise, for me, would be blind faith.

I believe in Theistic Evolution, not Creationism or ID. I believe that God is ultimately responsible for the existence of the universe, and as a natural consequence, human beings. I do not believe in divine augmentation of the natural processes of evolution, nor the divine intervention in abiogensis.

Our universe exists because of the natural laws that allow for its existence. Life exists because our universe allows for the emergence of life. Humans(intelligent beings) exist as a natural, and almost unavoidable consequence of millions of years of the evolution and diversity of earth-bound life.

Because God knew all would take place, because He is omniscient, He can still be considered the Creator.

SOURCE

To reconcile my belief in God and my acceptance of natural evolution, the big bang, and the multiverse -- I have adopted the anthropic principle, which is accepted by many evolutionists and atheists etc.

I, however, do not believe that the anthropic principle (we can observe the universe because our universe allows for life. It exists because of gravity and perhaps the multiverse) is incompatible with the idea that God exists.

My belief in God does not henge solely on the cosmological argument however.

Still, if God is outside the multiverse, and is omniscient, then He alone knows everything that would have occurred as a result of cause and effect.

If the multiverse has a finite beginning at some point in our seemingly infinate past, and that beginning was a result of natural causes, the quantum for example -- then God would have foresaw this and is therefore, could technically but indirectly be considered creator.

I personally believe our multiverse had a beginning, which has been proposed by some scientists. However if it does not - if it is infinitely on going, or eternal at some point -- God, is also eternal and has always existed. So by this mind-bending example, God is still creator - even if there is no beginning.

Assuming God exists of course, in this example, God would be an infinite creator.

Those are just some ways that I reconcile my Theism with natural science.

SOURCE

3. I don't believe Evolution rules out the need for a Creator. Evolution is simply a fact of life. Evolution explains what life is and how it changes. Evolution has nothing to do with whether or not God exists.

This is why I don't say look, the human body is a sign of a grand designer -- this implies human beings are proof that God exists, it also implies God sculpted them and actively aided their physical evolution -- that seems less and less likely the more biology uncovers history of human evolution.

God is my creator because of his eternal omniscience. He knew that humans would come to be, and that I would be among them at some point, long before our universe even existed. That is one of the reasons why I currently consider him "Creator." If that reason is ever shown logically faulty, then I'll find another reason.

I have an open mind, I consider all possibilities when it comes to preserving both my theism, and my logic and my understanding of science.

By entertaining multiple possibilities and not relying one one doctrine or one philosophy, I maintain my belief in God.

... so long as those doctrines do not conflict with the natural science of things...

[Chabalala]

I don't think Christians should twist and sugar-coat what the bible say to make it more appealing to wider audience. That isn't to say we should scare away the unbelievers by shoving bible verses down their throat. The World is changing more in a bad way than good way. We shouldn't fear being called as "ancient institution", scoffers will scoff. Heck, in the end time, Christians will be persecuted anyway, so let's not conform to the world.