Successful Religion

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ringey's aspirations are fine.

I always relate this story, I was buying petroleum at what you guys call a gas
station, there was a group of students demonstrating against this particular oil
company's policy with regard to exploitation of areas of geographic interest, the
Antarctica I think it was. I asked a young lady what it was all abou ...[text shortened]... t its cited as
some kind of refutation of religion, when in fact, its nothing of the sort.

"Christianity is relevant to people who apply its tenets, it does not need to appeal to
people on any other basis..."

Given your definition of success, (which I like) that is quite logical. However, if a "tenet" of Christianity is that the Sun goes around the Earth, then the relevance of this to a person interested in astronomy and celestial dynamics is questionable. Successful religions are able to (eventually) discard tenets that are so blatantly in conflict with the evidence. A primary example is geocentrism.

"...one may also cite the fossil record as proof or creationism..."

Presumably "or" is "of" in the above.

I believe citing the fossil record as proof of creationism is adhering to a tenet of Christianity that in the long run will not be successful except as a fringe position. However, the word "creationism" is typically used in the US to refer to the young earth version, which you may not mean.

Originally posted by JS357
"Christianity is relevant to people who apply its tenets, it does not need to appeal to
people on any other basis..."

Given your definition of success, (which I like) that is quite logical. However, if a "tenet" of Christianity is that the Sun goes around the Earth, then the relevance of this to a person interested in astronomy and celestial dynamics is qu ypically used in the US to refer to the young earth version, which you may not mean.

Yes not only is it questionable but it may be subject to scrutiny and found to be
false. There are of course certain passages which in the past have been used to
state that we are not in a heliocentric states (geocentric as you mention) but they
are not explicit enough to draw any conclusions not tainted with opinion and natural
science has now proven that such a position is entirely false, but its straw, because
the Bible never claimed what Calvin and other accusers actually said it did, their
exegesis being imposed upon scripture where none had existed. It is the same with
creationists who insists that the earth is mere thousands of years old, this not only
fails to secular science it fails in a Biblical context as well, for Paul states, thousands
of years later that we are still in Gods rest day, the seventh so called day, of course
proving that Biblically a day may be be simply an unspecified period of time, as 'in
my father day'!

So the Biblical record suffers a misrepresentation which brings it into conflict with
secular science, a conflict which should not exist and exists solely because of
someone attempting to impose a particular and rigid perspective where none exists
in the text.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes not only is it questionable but it may be subject to scrutiny and found to be
false. There are of course certain passages which in the past have been used to
state that we are not in a heliocentric states (geocentric as you mention) but they
are not explicit enough to draw any conclusions not tainted with opinion and natural
science has ...[text shortened]... meone attempting to impose a particular and rigid perspective where none exists
in the text.

Again you provide a refreshing insight.

Now the hounds of hell will descend upon me.

Maybe I can declare this thread closed?

Originally posted by JS357
Again you provide a refreshing insight.

Now the hounds of hell will descend upon me.

Maybe I can declare this thread closed?

Lol, make a run for it! nah in all seriousness, your comments are kindly received,
although these things appear self evident to me. I guess there is naturalism at one
extremity and creationism at the other, the assumption of course is that the twain shall
never meet, but its not so simple and even Newton himself was possessed of the desire
to seek the creators handiwork through an examination of the natural world, as the
Bible itself counsels Rom 1:20.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
defective

Adjective: Imperfect or faulty

lets ask you a fifth time, how is it defective.

Robbie Carrobie quoting a dictionary. I think i may have to lie down. 🙂