Hi everyoneAt my church we're thinking about starting a discussion group (not a Bible Study) at my church. The subject matter is Science and Religion. I'd like to discuss this kind of discussion group with you good folks and get a feeling of how it should be structured. Do you have any thoughts or feelings on this subject? What would you recommend. At the moment I'm thinking about teaching basic science as it applies to religion. This includes the philosophy of science, evolution, and cosmology so far. ThanksPete
Starting a "Science and Religion" group at my church
- Thread starter pmb
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
It's okay unless if it contradicts to what God teaches. And you've got to realize. Science has been wrong many times. *cough* "Flat Earth Theory" *cough*
(Wakka;17642)
It's okay unless if it contradicts to what God teaches. And you've got to realize. Science has been wrong many times. *cough* "Flat Earth Theory" *cough*
We have no intention of contradicting scripture or God in any way, shape or form. It would be inappropriate to teach something which goes against the church's faith.Pete
It's okay unless if it contradicts to what God teaches. And you've got to realize. Science has been wrong many times. *cough* "Flat Earth Theory" *cough*
We have no intention of contradicting scripture or God in any way, shape or form. It would be inappropriate to teach something which goes against the church's faith.Pete
(Wakka;17670)
I was just stating my opinion.
I understand. And I value that opinion.
I appologize if it came across otherwise.Pete
I was just stating my opinion.
I understand. And I value that opinion.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
Well, just to be aware that Christians themselves are not in agreement with what the bible teaches, but each feel that what they believe is inspired and properly interpreted. Unless something is stated very plainly and not to be taken allegorically (as opposed to some that take plain language and try to make it symbolic or spiritual), I know that it's open to various interpretation. That does not mean there is not one truth, but human beings being the fallen creatures that they are remain plagued with misunderstanding and darkness.Take for instance the age of the earth. many of us on this forum believe in a Gap of time in Genesis. whereas some Christians believe in a literal 6-day creation. Now, realistically it only happened one way, and one or the other (or possibly both) views are wrong. Let's say for example that there really was a gap. If we try to fit science into 6-days and a skeptic sees that we are really stretching things, that may cause more damage than good.In that case, in light of scientific understanding, we may even go so far as to ask ourselves if we are interpreting the bible incorrectly?Taken in that spirit just mentioned, I think your church's proposal is a good one. The main concept is to show that science does not really contradict the bible, and it is OK to leave with some questions unanswered.
(tim_from_pa;17674)
Well, just to be aware that Christians themselves are not in agreement with what the bible teaches, but each feel that what they believe is inspired and properly interpreted.
I agree. Its an unfortunate truth.
Unless something is stated very plainly and not to be taken allegorically (as opposed to some that take plain language and try to make it symbolic or spiritual), I know that it's open to various interpretation.
It is this kind of difference in interpretation that has caused Jews and Christians to believe in different things just as Christians and Muslims believe in different things.
That does not mean there is not one truth, but human beings being the fallen creatures that they are remain plagued with misunderstanding and darkness.
I quite agree. In my prayers I ask God to keep me on track and show me the truth. I hope its working.
Take for instance the age of the earth. many of us on this forum believe in a Gap of time in Genesis.
I am in agreement with you.
...whereas some Christians believe in a literal 6-day creation.
That is also quite true. What I find strange is that these same Christians never mention these two passages from the Bible itselfPsalms 90:4 - For a thousand years in your sight are like a day gone by, or like a watch in the night.Job 10:5 - Are your days like those of a mortal, or your year like those of man?My question for those Christians is whose days are being spoken of in Genesis? The days of God or the days of man? Since man didn't come along until the sixth day. The first 5 days must have been the days as measured by God and that could be billions of years as measured by man.
Now, realistically it only happened one way, and one or the other (or possibly both) views are wrong.
As I explained above and in that sense one could say that both are correct in that the number of days could be the same. But the Christians you mention seem to ignore those passages I quoted.
Let's say for example that there really was a gap. If we try to fit science into 6-days and a skeptic sees that we are really stretching things, that may cause more damage than good.
I disagree. The book In the Beginning ... Biblical Creation and Science, Nathan Aviezer, KTAV Publishing House (1990)does a supurb job at correlating modern science with a literal account of Genesis. Its definitely worth reading if you're interested in this topic. You can get it from your library from a book loan or an interlibrary loan.
Taken in that spirit just mentioned, I think your church's proposal is a good one.
Actually its a proposal I presented to the pastor of our church who really likes the idea as does one of the other pastors who is also a philosophy professor. But thanks! I appreciate that.
The main concept is to show that science does not really contradict the bible, and it is OK to leave with some questions unanswered.
Exactly. And we also wish to make clear some of the theories of science such as cosmology, evolution and Biblical archaeology so that the participants will get a solid ground in these subjects so that they can correctly interpret the sciences and thus correctly compare it with Biblical history. One of the most important things to do in this course will be to talk about the philosophy of science. Even the best of physicists never bother with the pjhilosophy of science. They stear clear of that kind of stuff. But in doing so they miss out on a true insight as to what science is, how it works, and what things like "truth" and "proof" mean to science. There are some similarities which are found in religion so that will be discussed as well.Thanks for your thoughts.Pete
Well, just to be aware that Christians themselves are not in agreement with what the bible teaches, but each feel that what they believe is inspired and properly interpreted.
I agree. Its an unfortunate truth.
Unless something is stated very plainly and not to be taken allegorically (as opposed to some that take plain language and try to make it symbolic or spiritual), I know that it's open to various interpretation.
It is this kind of difference in interpretation that has caused Jews and Christians to believe in different things just as Christians and Muslims believe in different things.
That does not mean there is not one truth, but human beings being the fallen creatures that they are remain plagued with misunderstanding and darkness.
I quite agree. In my prayers I ask God to keep me on track and show me the truth. I hope its working.
Take for instance the age of the earth. many of us on this forum believe in a Gap of time in Genesis.
I am in agreement with you.
...whereas some Christians believe in a literal 6-day creation.
That is also quite true. What I find strange is that these same Christians never mention these two passages from the Bible itselfPsalms 90:4 - For a thousand years in your sight are like a day gone by, or like a watch in the night.Job 10:5 - Are your days like those of a mortal, or your year like those of man?My question for those Christians is whose days are being spoken of in Genesis? The days of God or the days of man? Since man didn't come along until the sixth day. The first 5 days must have been the days as measured by God and that could be billions of years as measured by man.
Now, realistically it only happened one way, and one or the other (or possibly both) views are wrong.
As I explained above and in that sense one could say that both are correct in that the number of days could be the same. But the Christians you mention seem to ignore those passages I quoted.
Let's say for example that there really was a gap. If we try to fit science into 6-days and a skeptic sees that we are really stretching things, that may cause more damage than good.
I disagree. The book In the Beginning ... Biblical Creation and Science, Nathan Aviezer, KTAV Publishing House (1990)does a supurb job at correlating modern science with a literal account of Genesis. Its definitely worth reading if you're interested in this topic. You can get it from your library from a book loan or an interlibrary loan.
Taken in that spirit just mentioned, I think your church's proposal is a good one.
Actually its a proposal I presented to the pastor of our church who really likes the idea as does one of the other pastors who is also a philosophy professor. But thanks! I appreciate that.
The main concept is to show that science does not really contradict the bible, and it is OK to leave with some questions unanswered.
Exactly. And we also wish to make clear some of the theories of science such as cosmology, evolution and Biblical archaeology so that the participants will get a solid ground in these subjects so that they can correctly interpret the sciences and thus correctly compare it with Biblical history. One of the most important things to do in this course will be to talk about the philosophy of science. Even the best of physicists never bother with the pjhilosophy of science. They stear clear of that kind of stuff. But in doing so they miss out on a true insight as to what science is, how it works, and what things like "truth" and "proof" mean to science. There are some similarities which are found in religion so that will be discussed as well.Thanks for your thoughts.Pete
I posted this in part to help me set up a structure for the group. I was thinking about starting off by going over this book In the Beginning ... Biblical Creation and Science, Nathan Aviezer, KTAV Publishing House (1990)Then move onto this bookFossils and Faith: Understanding Torah and Science, Nathan Aviezer, KTAV Publishing House (2001)They're great reading. This way we can hold the groups attention when we first start meeting. Then we may move on to a book such asScience & Religion: An Interpretation of Two Communities, by Harold K. Schilling, Charles Scribner's Sons.I'm reading it now and am nearly finished with it. There's some very good stuff in here. Then there are other books such asThe Christian View of Science and Scripture, by Bernard Ramm, Eerdman's Publishing Co., (1976)There will be two people guiding the discussion forum. My friend who is one of the ministers of the church and its former pastor and me. I bring to it my BA in physics which will hold up the science end of the group. I'm branching out into other areas of science so as to help this group in the future. The first book above was written by a physcisist and has a lot of physics in it. I'm therefore prepared already to help people understand anything we come across in the area of understanding the science part of that book.I'm hoping that we can find some other scientists from other sciences. There as a geologist at our church (who used to share an office with an old physics prof of mine). I believe that he would be a great addition to the group. But I'm not sure he wants to participate. I touched base with him in the early days of creating this group and he didn't seem to have any interest whatsoever. Perhaps now that the structure is taking form he might reconsider.Anyone have any ideas on what we can bring into this group? All opinions highly welcome and appreciated. Thank you.Best regardsPeter M. Brown
Similar threads
