Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science hasn't come close to providing an answer to that question, nor do the current theories make any logical sense. There is no science that supports the theory that life evolved from inanimate matter.

Even Einstein had a problem with that question, which is why intelligent design was a plausible explanation for him.

---

Science doesn't state that life "evolved" from inanimate matter. Evolution is a process of living organisms.

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science hasn't come close to providing an answer to that question, nor do the current theories make any logical sense. There is no science that supports the theory that life evolved from inanimate matter.

Even Einstein had a problem with that question, which is why intelligent design was a plausible explanation for him.

---

Science doesn't state that life "evolved" from inanimate matter. Evolution is a process of living organisms.

---

I agree it doesn't state that. It has no plausible explanation for how life began.

Booboo Bear said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Booboo Bear said:

---

The more conservative I get in my theology (inerrancy, Christian exclusivity, the authority of Scripture), the more moderate and liberal I get in my politics. Go figure.

---

I am interested in what you mean by liberal. Its usually a bad word on this site.

---

Feed the poor. Love your enemies. Love your neighbor. Take care of the stranger. Don't mock God. Have no idols before Him (including political figures, parties, ideas, or policies). We are all of one blood/race in Adam. Those that are different from me need salvation in Christ. Love them. Those that are similar to me need salvation in Christ. Love them. Stuff like that . . .

---

I understand some evangelical churches have strayed from Christ's teachings, but I am not sure I would ever describe such beliefs as "liberal." Liberal suggests an embracement of new or different ideas that stray from orthodox or traditional teachings.

If anything, those are beliefs I would describe as "fundamental" to Christianity - though I understand the negative connotations that come with that term. Nevertheless, what you described is the core of Christianity, not some new idea.

curtpenn said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Evangelicals will rush to defend the old theism and miss the point. We live in secular world with secularist understandings of the cosmos and life as humans.
Now the evangelicals can learn to reach secular people with God as love, grace and forgiveness and justice for the poor or they can keep defending the old theism and keep losing people to the Christian faith.

---

What you propose isn't Christianity. Short version - absent a literal physical resurrection, you have nothing but some flavor of therapeutic moral deism that has no power.

---

What you propose is an irreconcilable opposition between the premises of this supernaturalistic theism and the whole direction of our experience and reflection of secular humans.

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science has already won the battle for anyone who believes in physics, chemistry or biology. The supernatural is not reliable source understanding our world and holds within several fatal flaws. Intelligent design relies on an eschatological evangelical/orthodox principle that simply offers no proof.
Defense of mythology as history is simply impossible. Why a culture 2,000 years ago could write an origin story of creation verges on nonsense. These stories are not science texts. They are not history because they have no historicity. There intent is faith in a loving God. Concentrate on that principle and then you have the beginnings of a solid understanding of God.

---

And yet, as I think we established on another thread, you too believe in the supernatural. You believe Christ was raised from the dead and is alive as we speak. In short, you believe in an event that could not occur naturally.

I haven't pressed you because I wanted to give you time to process, but you still haven't answered my question regarding why you have such difficulty describing those events as supernatural.

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science has already won the battle for anyone who believes in physics, chemistry or biology. The supernatural is not reliable source understanding our world and holds within several fatal flaws. Intelligent design relies on an eschatological evangelical/orthodox principle that simply offers no proof.
Defense of mythology as history is simply impossible. Why a culture 2,000 years ago could write an origin story of creation verges on nonsense. These stories are not science texts. They are not history because they have no historicity. There intent is faith in a loving God. Concentrate on that principle and then you have the beginnings of a solid understanding of God.

---

And yet, as I think we established on another thread, you too believe in the supernatural. You believe Christ was raised from the dead and is alive as we speak. In short, you believe in an event that could not occur naturally.

I haven't pressed you because I wanted to give you time to process, but you still haven't answered my question regarding why you have such difficulty describing those events as supernatural.

---

In your belief you thought you established but your counter critical thinking did not answer 2 basic ideas
1) God cannot control physics. Daily reminders show us the old supernaturalistic metaphysics is no longer viable to secular humans. If one thinks that the old theism is viable to the secular world then they shouting into a well.
2) The historicity of the Bible is problematic to historians and regular people.. But the scriptures' historicity misses the point. The point is that they are good news as the witness of Mark 1:1 indicates.
A new theism is required if we are to reach people in the 21st century.
That new theism is built around love, justice for the poor and marginalized, grace with a respect for physics not an opposition to it.

Waco1947 said:

---

A new theism is required if we are to reach people in the 21st century.
That new theism is built around love, justice for the poor and marginalized, grace with a respect for physics not an opposition to it.

---

I'm re-posting my questions from page 2 of the thread so that I can better understand the originals of your theology:

From where do you get this Theology?
How did you come about it?
When was it first postulated?
From what century can you trace this back?

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science has already won the battle for anyone who believes in physics, chemistry or biology. The supernatural is not reliable source understanding our world and holds within several fatal flaws. Intelligent design relies on an eschatological evangelical/orthodox principle that simply offers no proof.
Defense of mythology as history is simply impossible. Why a culture 2,000 years ago could write an origin story of creation verges on nonsense. These stories are not science texts. They are not history because they have no historicity. There intent is faith in a loving God. Concentrate on that principle and then you have the beginnings of a solid understanding of God.

---

And yet, as I think we established on another thread, you too believe in the supernatural. You believe Christ was raised from the dead and is alive as we speak. In short, you believe in an event that could not occur naturally.

I haven't pressed you because I wanted to give you time to process, but you still haven't answered my question regarding why you have such difficulty describing those events as supernatural.

---

In your belief you thought you established but your counter critical thinking did not answer 2 basic ideas
1) God cannot control physics. Daily reminders show us the old supernaturalistic metaphysics is no longer viable to secular humans. If one thinks that the old theism is viable to the secular world then they shouting into a well.
2) The historicity of the Bible is problematic to historians and regular people.. But the scriptures' historicity misses the point. The point is that they are good news as the witness of Mark 1:1 indicates.
A new theism is required if we are to reach people in the 21st century.
That new theism is built around love, justice for the poor and marginalized, grace with a respect for physics not an opposition to it.

---

I seriously want to know... were you born in America?

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

A new theism is required if we are to reach people in the 21st century.
That new theism is built around love, justice for the poor and marginalized, grace with a respect for physics not an opposition to it.

---

I'm re-posting my questions from page 2 of the thread so that I can better understand the originals of your theology:

From where do you get this Theology? "Seminary- - Orthodoxy was taught but also process theology. Process theology of Alfred North Whitehead and Schubert Ogden
How did you come about it? "As a teenage. My dad introduced me to Tillich, Bonhoeffer, Bultmann, and John A T Robinson , Supernaturalism failed address the obvious disconnect between physics and the old theism of orthodoxy
When was it first postulated? "Early in my pastoral ministry as I counseled parents of SIDS children and victims of tornadoes or earthquake.
From what century can you trace this back?
" the Enlightenment and particularly the early 20th

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have a few thoughts and some questions, TexasScientist, if you don't mind. These are sincere questions to get a sense of how you got to where you are:

1. You say you are now an atheist. It always seemed to me to be odd to take an absolute position on something we do not know. That is, if you have direct evidence of something, that is certainly reason to believe it exists, and without clear evidence there is reason for doubt. But how do you reach the conclusion that there is - to a point beyond doubt - no God?

2. You attribute the Fall of Man myth (using the term from my own Religion class, by the way) to the primitive beliefs of people. Yet many advanced thinkers have been known as religious, and the basics of our Math and Science come from the work of those 'primitive' cultures. How do you reconcile this?

3. You bring up the - to my opinion - canard that an "all knowing, all powerful, and all loving god" would not create the Universe as we know it. But you have also admitted that we as humans are limited in our comprehension and understanding. Just as a child may not understand a loving parent withholding sweets or dangers that the child desires, is it not reasonable to consider that if God exists, He sees father than we do and for better purpose?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts on these questions.

---

1. I can't prove there is no unseen god, no more than you can prove there is, or more specifically that such a god is your idea of whatever version of the Christian god you believe. However, the more we learn from the evidence of reality, the less need there is for a supernatural being practicing shenanigans to account for the existence of our universe. We know enough now about the universe, to know that it is highly improbable. Add to that what we know about the origins of all religions, including Christianity, they are all constructs of primitive minds seeking to provide answers for the unknown and for the plight of mankind. I sure you are an atheist in terms of all other religions, or at least agnostic. I just go one further.

2. That's easy to reconcile. Religious institutions intrinsically promoted education as part of their religious objectives. In some places it was the only game in town. Now, religious institutions are not the primary source of education. Mathematics grew out of the eastern or Asian culture. Does that make Islam or some other eastern religion the only true religion? Christianity (i.e. the Church) had to modify and change, albeit reluctantly, its religious views of the Universe when confronted with the evidence of reality over the last 2,000 years. People don't easily give up what they have been indoctrinated with as truth about the world from childhood easily. Especially when the Church is confronted with the financial consequences of diminishing belief, and facing the reality of their own mortality. Galileo is a good example of the Church's changing position over time. Today the Catholic Church tries to embrace Galileo by claiming he was a scientist for the Church, yet he was confined and threatened for this heretical beliefs.

3. There are some things that we know cannot coexist. A loving parent may withhold sweets, yet that same parent lets them eat junk food. That is because they are not all knowing. If they were, then they would not be all loving. That same parent would not kill that child for sneaking candy in order to prevent further harm from eating sweets. If they did they would not be all loving. If that parent were all powerful, they would make changes to prevent sweets and junk food from causing harm, or they would remove a child's desire for such foods. The character of the Jewish god, and even the Christian god is inconsistent with being all knowing, all loving and all powerful. Their god's actions as described in their religious writings are inconsistent with those qualities. An all knowing, all loving, all powerful god cannot be responsible for the plight of life in this universe. If you want to tell me that god doesn't' really possess one or more of those qualities, I would be more amenable to belief, except for the evidence of reality points to the absence of need in a creator.

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science hasn't come close to providing an answer to that question, nor do the current theories make any logical sense. There is no science that supports the theory that life evolved from inanimate matter.

Even Einstein had a problem with that question, which is why intelligent design was a plausible explanation for him.

---

Science doesn't state that life "evolved" from inanimate matter. Evolution is a process of living organisms.

---

I agree it doesn't state that. It has no plausible explanation for how life began.

---

Yet we're now finding that the basic components for life are present in certain conditions, and even will interact in those conditions. We'll eventually in time unravel the puzzle, just as we now understand the basics of genetics, and are learning more everyday.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I'm answering his direct question. Are you trolling? If you want to discuss a specific topic, go for it.

---

Fair enough. Not trolling at all.

Your post was a mini-Gish Gallop of atheistic ideas that this board has discusses MANY times.

My apologies if I came off harsh.

I was/am sincerely offering you the opportunity to discuss one of your points at a time. Else threads become too convoluted and few have time to read much less respond.

Best wishes.

---

No apologies needed. I don't have a specific topic beyond what I've answered to with others on this thread. Since, my views are mostly in the minority here, it is hard to respond to everyone, so I concur with your views on time to respond. I'm not retired, so I fit it in when and where I can.

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

A new theism is required if we are to reach people in the 21st century.
That new theism is built around love, justice for the poor and marginalized, grace with a respect for physics not an opposition to it.

---

I'm re-posting my questions from page 2 of the thread so that I can better understand the originals of your theology:

From where do you get this Theology? "Seminary- - Orthodoxy was taught but also process theology. Process theology of Alfred North Whitehead and Schubert Ogden
How did you come about it? "As a teenage. My dad introduced me to Tillich, Bonhoeffer, Bultmann, and John A T Robinson , Supernaturalism failed address the obvious disconnect between physics and the old theism of orthodoxy
When was it first postulated? "Early in my pastoral ministry as I counseled parents of SIDS children and victims of tornadoes or earthquake.
From what century can you trace this back?
" the Enlightenment and particularly the early 20th

---

---

Thank you for your honest answers.

How do you define God? What are his characteristics?

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

A new theism is required if we are to reach people in the 21st century.
That new theism is built around love, justice for the poor and marginalized, grace with a respect for physics not an opposition to it.

---

I'm re-posting my questions from page 2 of the thread so that I can better understand the originals of your theology:

From where do you get this Theology? "Seminary- - Orthodoxy was taught but also process theology. Process theology of Alfred North Whitehead and Schubert Ogden
How did you come about it? "As a teenage. My dad introduced me to Tillich, Bonhoeffer, Bultmann, and John A T Robinson , Supernaturalism failed address the obvious disconnect between physics and the old theism of orthodoxy
When was it first postulated? "Early in my pastoral ministry as I counseled parents of SIDS children and victims of tornadoes or earthquake.
From what century can you trace this back?
" the Enlightenment and particularly the early 20th

---

---

Thank you for your honest answers.

How do you define God? What are his characteristics?

---

. Ow that question is the key and basis for theological thinking. I'm headed out the door. More later.

Waco1947 said:

---

BUbearinARK said:

---

Interesting

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2106655119?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed

---

" All life on Earth is unified by its use of a shared set of component chemical compounds and reactions, providing a detailed model for universal biochemistry. However, this notion of universality is specific to known biochemistry and does not allow quantitative predictions about examples not yet observed. Here, we introduce a more generalizable concept of biochemical universality that is more akin to the kind of universality found in physics. "
Based on this idea (biochemistry and physics are universal that is the some thought the universe) then one cannot posit a supernatural God.

---

You're confusing universality with necessity. It's quite possible that the laws of physics are not necessary, but rather contingent.

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science has already won the battle for anyone who believes in physics, chemistry or biology. The supernatural is not reliable source understanding our world and holds within several fatal flaws. Intelligent design relies on an eschatological evangelical/orthodox principle that simply offers no proof.
Defense of mythology as history is simply impossible. Why a culture 2,000 years ago could write an origin story of creation verges on nonsense. These stories are not science texts. They are not history because they have no historicity. There intent is faith in a loving God. Concentrate on that principle and then you have the beginnings of a solid understanding of God.

---

And yet, as I think we established on another thread, you too believe in the supernatural. You believe Christ was raised from the dead and is alive as we speak. In short, you believe in an event that could not occur naturally.

I haven't pressed you because I wanted to give you time to process, but you still haven't answered my question regarding why you have such difficulty describing those events as supernatural.

---

In your belief you thought you established but your counter critical thinking did not answer 2 basic ideas
1) God cannot control physics. Daily reminders show us the old supernaturalistic metaphysics is no longer viable to secular humans. If one thinks that the old theism is viable to the secular world then they shouting into a well.
2) The historicity of the Bible is problematic to historians and regular people.. But the scriptures' historicity misses the point. The point is that they are good news as the witness of Mark 1:1 indicates.
A new theism is required if we are to reach people in the 21st century.
That new theism is built around love, justice for the poor and marginalized, grace with a respect for physics not an opposition to it.

---

Interestingly, your new theism sounds a lot like theological modernism from the end of the 19th century.

I imagine we can find similar calls to strip away the unpleasant aspects of orthodoxy throughout church history.

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science has already won the battle for anyone who believes in physics, chemistry or biology. The supernatural is not reliable source understanding our world and holds within several fatal flaws. Intelligent design relies on an eschatological evangelical/orthodox principle that simply offers no proof.
Defense of mythology as history is simply impossible. Why a culture 2,000 years ago could write an origin story of creation verges on nonsense. These stories are not science texts. They are not history because they have no historicity. There intent is faith in a loving God. Concentrate on that principle and then you have the beginnings of a solid understanding of God.

---

And yet, as I think we established on another thread, you too believe in the supernatural. You believe Christ was raised from the dead and is alive as we speak. In short, you believe in an event that could not occur naturally.

I haven't pressed you because I wanted to give you time to process, but you still haven't answered my question regarding why you have such difficulty describing those events as supernatural.

---

In your belief you thought you established but your counter critical thinking did not answer 2 basic ideas
1) God cannot control physics. Daily reminders show us the old supernaturalistic metaphysics is no longer viable to secular humans. If one thinks that the old theism is viable to the secular world then they shouting into a well.
2) The historicity of the Bible is problematic to historians and regular people.. But the scriptures' historicity misses the point. The point is that they are good news as the witness of Mark 1:1 indicates.
A new theism is required if we are to reach people in the 21st century.
That new theism is built around love, justice for the poor and marginalized, grace with a respect for physics not an opposition to it.

---

With all due respect, you still haven't answered my question. You've admitted on this board you believe that Christ rose from the dead and that he is alive today. You've not explained how that could happen within the laws of physics and nature. The bottom line is there is no way you can explain that outside of the supernatural. However if you wish to try I would love to see what you have to say. As of yet you still haven't answered the question.

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science hasn't come close to providing an answer to that question, nor do the current theories make any logical sense. There is no science that supports the theory that life evolved from inanimate matter.

Even Einstein had a problem with that question, which is why intelligent design was a plausible explanation for him.

---

Science doesn't state that life "evolved" from inanimate matter. Evolution is a process of living organisms.

---

I agree it doesn't state that. It has no plausible explanation for how life began.

---

Yet we're now finding that the basic components for life are present in certain conditions, and even will interact in those conditions. We'll eventually in time unravel the puzzle, just as we now understand the basics of genetics, and are learning more everyday.

---

You're speculating. Look, I understand and appreciate that you have faith in science. The ironic thing is your belief requires more faith than mine.

We are no closer to answering the question of how life began than we were 1000 years ago. The idea that we will eventually get there, outside of belief in a creator, is unsupported speculation on your part and nothing more. I that sense, your belief is no less far fetched than mine. You just don't realize it.

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science has already won the battle for anyone who believes in physics, chemistry or biology. The supernatural is not reliable source understanding our world and holds within several fatal flaws. Intelligent design relies on an eschatological evangelical/orthodox principle that simply offers no proof.
Defense of mythology as history is simply impossible. Why a culture 2,000 years ago could write an origin story of creation verges on nonsense. These stories are not science texts. They are not history because they have no historicity. There intent is faith in a loving God. Concentrate on that principle and then you have the beginnings of a solid understanding of God.

---

The temporal differential we call wakefulness is the cosmic interaction of subatomic particles operating in the quantum field, the (quantum) leap represents a fundamental universal constant that we can only speculate upon.

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science has already won the battle for anyone who believes in physics, chemistry or biology. The supernatural is not reliable source understanding our world and holds within several fatal flaws. Intelligent design relies on an eschatological evangelical/orthodox principle that simply offers no proof.
Defense of mythology as history is simply impossible. Why a culture 2,000 years ago could write an origin story of creation verges on nonsense. These stories are not science texts. They are not history because they have no historicity. There intent is faith in a loving God. Concentrate on that principle and then you have the beginnings of a solid understanding of God.

---

I agree with you in respect that we are much better at describing what we see and using mathematics to illustrate. But, I am not sure we have gotten to the point of being able to explain the "how" the top gets spinning in the first place. We have done very good at taking those observations and using the knowledge to accomplish things.

But, is that the same as being able to create? It seems the more we learn, the more it falls apart at the micro level. So, can you answer the "why" and "how's"? Earth spins, we can measure, we can describe, and we can even take that knowledge to use. But, how did it start and why does the universe exist in the first place?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BUbearinARK said:

---

Interesting

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2106655119?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed

---

" All life on Earth is unified by its use of a shared set of component chemical compounds and reactions, providing a detailed model for universal biochemistry. However, this notion of universality is specific to known biochemistry and does not allow quantitative predictions about examples not yet observed. Here, we introduce a more generalizable concept of biochemical universality that is more akin to the kind of universality found in physics. "
Based on this idea (biochemistry and physics are universal that is the some thought the universe) then one cannot posit a supernatural God.

---

You're confusing universality with necessity. It's quite possible that the laws of physics are not necessary, but rather contingent.

---

Contingent upon an old theism God?

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science has already won the battle for anyone who believes in physics, chemistry or biology. The supernatural is not reliable source understanding our world and holds within several fatal flaws. Intelligent design relies on an eschatological evangelical/orthodox principle that simply offers no proof.
Defense of mythology as history is simply impossible. Why a culture 2,000 years ago could write an origin story of creation verges on nonsense. These stories are not science texts. They are not history because they have no historicity. There intent is faith in a loving God. Concentrate on that principle and then you have the beginnings of a solid understanding of God.

---

I agree with you in respect that we are much better at describing what we see and using mathematics to illustrate. But, I am not sure we have gotten to the point of being able to explain the "how" the top gets spinning in the first place. We have done very good at taking those observations and using the knowledge to accomplish things.

But, is that the same as being able to create? It seems the more we learn, the more it falls apart at the micro level. So, can you answer the "why" and "how's"? Earth spins, we can measure, we can describe, and we can even take that knowledge to use. But, how did it start and why does the universe exist in the first place?

---

The "how" is still biology or chemistry or both and the answer will be in science and matter not an old theistic orthodoxy God. I am asking that you see God as spiritual.
I John 4: 11 and FD is really clear about the nature of God and this scripture teaches us the truth about God and that is spiritual not science.
11 Dear friends, if God loved us this way, we also ought to love each other. 12 No one has ever seen God. If we love each other, God remains in us and his love is made perfect in us. 13 This is how we know we remain in him and he remains in us, because he has given us a measure of his Spirit. 14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the savior of the world. 15 If any of us confess that Jesus is God's Son, God remains in us and we remain in God. 16 We have known and have believed the love that God has for us.

God is love, and those who remain in love remain in God and God remains in them"
The text says says nothing about science for belief but the truth of the verses is "God is love and we know God by loving each other."
If you share your heart with me and I share my heart with then God comes.

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science has already won the battle for anyone who believes in physics, chemistry or biology. The supernatural is not reliable source understanding our world and holds within several fatal flaws. Intelligent design relies on an eschatological evangelical/orthodox principle that simply offers no proof.
Defense of mythology as history is simply impossible. Why a culture 2,000 years ago could write an origin story of creation verges on nonsense. These stories are not science texts. They are not history because they have no historicity. There intent is faith in a loving God. Concentrate on that principle and then you have the beginnings of a solid understanding of God.

---

The temporal differential we call wakefulness is the cosmic interaction of subatomic particles operating in the quantum field, the (quantum) leap represents a fundamental universal constant that we can only speculate upon.

---

I agree which is why God's true nature is I John 4: 11 Dear friends, if God loved us this way, we also ought to love each other. 12 No one has ever seen God. If we love each other, God remains in us and his love is made perfect in us. 13 This is how we know we remain in him and he remains in us, because he has given us a measure of his Spirit. 14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the savior of the world. 15 If any of us confess that Jesus is God's Son, God remains in us and we remain in God. 16 We have known and have believed the love that God has for us.

God is love, and those who remain in love remain in God and God remains in them
The rest is Quantum speculation but the speculation is immaterial to the nature of a new theism of God.

Waco1947 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science has already won the battle for anyone who believes in physics, chemistry or biology. The supernatural is not reliable source understanding our world and holds within several fatal flaws. Intelligent design relies on an eschatological evangelical/orthodox principle that simply offers no proof.
Defense of mythology as history is simply impossible. Why a culture 2,000 years ago could write an origin story of creation verges on nonsense. These stories are not science texts. They are not history because they have no historicity. There intent is faith in a loving God. Concentrate on that principle and then you have the beginnings of a solid understanding of God.

---

I agree with you in respect that we are much better at describing what we see and using mathematics to illustrate. But, I am not sure we have gotten to the point of being able to explain the "how" the top gets spinning in the first place. We have done very good at taking those observations and using the knowledge to accomplish things.

But, is that the same as being able to create? It seems the more we learn, the more it falls apart at the micro level. So, can you answer the "why" and "how's"? Earth spins, we can measure, we can describe, and we can even take that knowledge to use. But, how did it start and why does the universe exist in the first place?

---

The "how" is still biology or chemistry or both and the answer will be in science and matter not an old theistic orthodoxy God. I am asking that you see God as spiritual.
I John 4: 11 and FD is really clear about the nature of God and this scripture teaches us the truth about God and that is spiritual not science.
11 Dear friends, if God loved us this way, we also ought to love each other. 12 No one has ever seen God. If we love each other, God remains in us and his love is made perfect in us. 13 This is how we know we remain in him and he remains in us, because he has given us a measure of his Spirit. 14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the savior of the world. 15 If any of us confess that Jesus is God's Son, God remains in us and we remain in God. 16 We have known and have believed the love that God has for us.

God is love, and those who remain in love remain in God and God remains in them"
The text says says nothing about science for belief but the truth of the verses is "God is love and we know God by loving each other."
If you share your heart with me and I share my heart with then God comes.

---

That is where we disagree. The how and the why all fit together. God is not just a philosophical exercise in morals. The spark, the initiator or the design all matter. Those answers are part of the devine question

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science has already won the battle for anyone who believes in physics, chemistry or biology. The supernatural is not reliable source understanding our world and holds within several fatal flaws. Intelligent design relies on an eschatological evangelical/orthodox principle that simply offers no proof.
Defense of mythology as history is simply impossible. Why a culture 2,000 years ago could write an origin story of creation verges on nonsense. These stories are not science texts. They are not history because they have no historicity. There intent is faith in a loving God. Concentrate on that principle and then you have the beginnings of a solid understanding of God.

---

The temporal differential we call wakefulness is the cosmic interaction of subatomic particles operating in the quantum field, the (quantum) leap represents a fundamental universal constant that we can only speculate upon.

---

I agree which is why God's true nature is I John 4: 11 Dear friends, if God loved us this way, we also ought to love each other. 12 No one has ever seen God. If we love each other, God remains in us and his love is made perfect in us. 13 This is how we know we remain in him and he remains in us, because he has given us a measure of his Spirit. 14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the savior of the world. 15 If any of us confess that Jesus is God's Son, God remains in us and we remain in God. 16 We have known and have believed the love that God has for us.

God is love, and those who remain in love remain in God and God remains in them
The rest is Quantum speculation but the speculation is immaterial to the nature of a new theism of God.

---

We self-actualize, we dream, we are reborn. Freedom requires exploration. The totality is bursting with vibrations. Nothing is impossible. Have you found your myth? How should you navigate this unified cosmos? Child, look within and awaken yourself.

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science has already won the battle for anyone who believes in physics, chemistry or biology. The supernatural is not reliable source understanding our world and holds within several fatal flaws. Intelligent design relies on an eschatological evangelical/orthodox principle that simply offers no proof.
Defense of mythology as history is simply impossible. Why a culture 2,000 years ago could write an origin story of creation verges on nonsense. These stories are not science texts. They are not history because they have no historicity. There intent is faith in a loving God. Concentrate on that principle and then you have the beginnings of a solid understanding of God.

---

The temporal differential we call wakefulness is the cosmic interaction of subatomic particles operating in the quantum field, the (quantum) leap represents a fundamental universal constant that we can only speculate upon.

---

I agree which is why God's true nature is I John 4: 11 Dear friends, if God loved us this way, we also ought to love each other. 12 No one has ever seen God. If we love each other, God remains in us and his love is made perfect in us. 13 This is how we know we remain in him and he remains in us, because he has given us a measure of his Spirit. 14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the savior of the world. 15 If any of us confess that Jesus is God's Son, God remains in us and we remain in God. 16 We have known and have believed the love that God has for us.

God is love, and those who remain in love remain in God and God remains in them
The rest is Quantum speculation but the speculation is immaterial to the nature of a new theism of God.

---

It's not surprising that you only quote the parts about love... as if nothing ends exists, or is of value.

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the worldthe lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of lifecomes not from the Father but from the world.
1 John 2:15-16 NIV

FYI - your views on abortion and butt sex are of the world, not the Father. Repent.

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science hasn't come close to providing an answer to that question, nor do the current theories make any logical sense. There is no science that supports the theory that life evolved from inanimate matter.

Even Einstein had a problem with that question, which is why intelligent design was a plausible explanation for him.

---

Science doesn't state that life "evolved" from inanimate matter. Evolution is a process of living organisms.

---

I agree it doesn't state that. It has no plausible explanation for how life began.

---

Yet we're now finding that the basic components for life are present in certain conditions, and even will interact in those conditions. We'll eventually in time unravel the puzzle, just as we now understand the basics of genetics, and are learning more everyday.

---

You're speculating. Look, I understand and appreciate that you have faith in science. The ironic thing is your belief requires more faith than mine.

We are no closer to answering the question of how life began than we were 1000 years ago. The idea that we will eventually get there, outside of belief in a creator, is unsupported speculation on your part and nothing more. I that sense, your belief is no less far fetched than mine. You just don't realize it.

---

You're ignoring our history of centuries of advancement in human knowledge and revelation about the universe, its components, and the physics of its existence. We know far more about life, and the universe than we did 2000 years ago. We're continuing to learn and advance in that knowledge. There is no good reason to think we won't be able to answer how life began.

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science hasn't come close to providing an answer to that question, nor do the current theories make any logical sense. There is no science that supports the theory that life evolved from inanimate matter.

Even Einstein had a problem with that question, which is why intelligent design was a plausible explanation for him.

---

Science doesn't state that life "evolved" from inanimate matter. Evolution is a process of living organisms.

---

I agree it doesn't state that. It has no plausible explanation for how life began.

---

Yet we're now finding that the basic components for life are present in certain conditions, and even will interact in those conditions. We'll eventually in time unravel the puzzle, just as we now understand the basics of genetics, and are learning more everyday.

---

You're speculating. Look, I understand and appreciate that you have faith in science. The ironic thing is your belief requires more faith than mine.

We are no closer to answering the question of how life began than we were 1000 years ago. The idea that we will eventually get there, outside of belief in a creator, is unsupported speculation on your part and nothing more. I that sense, your belief is no less far fetched than mine. You just don't realize it.

---

You're ignoring our history of centuries of advancement in human knowledge and revelation about the universe, its components, and the physics of its existence. We know far more about life, and the universe than we did 2000 years ago. We're continuing to learn and advance in that knowledge. There is no good reason to think we won't be able to answer how life began.

---

I believe we've already answered that question. There is no logical explanation for how life came from inanimate matter. But if you want to continue to put faith in science, feel free. As I said, your belief requires a lot more faith in mind. Good luck with that.

TexasScientist said:

---

There is no good reason to think we won't be able to answer how life began.

---

Isn't this just "Science of the Gaps"?

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BUbearinARK said:

---

Interesting

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2106655119?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed

---

" All life on Earth is unified by its use of a shared set of component chemical compounds and reactions, providing a detailed model for universal biochemistry. However, this notion of universality is specific to known biochemistry and does not allow quantitative predictions about examples not yet observed. Here, we introduce a more generalizable concept of biochemical universality that is more akin to the kind of universality found in physics. "
Based on this idea (biochemistry and physics are universal that is the some thought the universe) then one cannot posit a supernatural God.

---

You're confusing universality with necessity. It's quite possible that the laws of physics are not necessary, but rather contingent.

---

Contingent upon an old theism God?

---

Maybe or maybe not. It's a philosophical question.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

There is no good reason to think we won't be able to answer how life began.

---

Isn't this just "Science of the Gaps"?

---

Touche.

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science hasn't come close to providing an answer to that question, nor do the current theories make any logical sense. There is no science that supports the theory that life evolved from inanimate matter.

Even Einstein had a problem with that question, which is why intelligent design was a plausible explanation for him.

---

Science doesn't state that life "evolved" from inanimate matter. Evolution is a process of living organisms.

---

I agree it doesn't state that. It has no plausible explanation for how life began.

---

Yet we're now finding that the basic components for life are present in certain conditions, and even will interact in those conditions. We'll eventually in time unravel the puzzle, just as we now understand the basics of genetics, and are learning more everyday.

---

You're speculating. Look, I understand and appreciate that you have faith in science. The ironic thing is your belief requires more faith than mine.

We are no closer to answering the question of how life began than we were 1000 years ago. The idea that we will eventually get there, outside of belief in a creator, is unsupported speculation on your part and nothing more. I that sense, your belief is no less far fetched than mine. You just don't realize it.

---

You're ignoring our history of centuries of advancement in human knowledge and revelation about the universe, its components, and the physics of its existence. We know far more about life, and the universe than we did 2000 years ago. We're continuing to learn and advance in that knowledge. There is no good reason to think we won't be able to answer how life began.

---

Once again even if we can figure that out. It still does not answer the why? I take a more Jesuit view of this discussion. Science can describe, measure and use the observations of what is around, but cannot answer the whys,how it fits, where we are heading and other questions that go along with the great advances in science. Reverse engineering is not the same as invention or knowing not only what gravity is,, but why it worls and why everything has to fit.. But the other side of the coin is the metaphysics, philosophy, religion, or whatever you want to call it.

There is some reason the universe is like it is, not just randomness. More scientist are starting to come to that conclusion. Read "Language of God", I too look for signs of the truth.

RMF5630 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

I agree with all of what you wrote. We have a similar journey, and after looking deeply into all of the points you made I came to the same conclusion. Further, from a purely scientific perspective, the existence of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or the god of any other religion for that matter, is highly improbable. I first began to question Christianity from what I learned while taking religion classes at Baylor. Science took me further down a path that follows the evidence of reality. Science doesn't support religious claims. There is nothing about this universe that requires a supernatural being to explain anything. And, the concept of Yahweh/Jesus being an all loving, all powerful god is inconsistent with the god described in the OT and NT. An all loving, all powerful god wouldn't have created mankind (innocent men, women, and children) and other life on this planet to suffer, nor would he sentence mankind to an afterlife in eternal damnation due to error of birth, or for failure to believe in what is unbelievable - an intangible, hidden god. An all powerful, and all loving god would not allow what is taking place in Ukraine.

---

If science was able to answer the question of how life came from inanimate matter, I might agree. But we both know that question hasn't been answered (and IMO, never will, outside of intelligent design).

---

Science is revealing things that we never imagined would have an explanation. We know a lot of the pieces of the puzzle to answer that question, and we have enough of the pieces to see the overall picture. The argument for "intelligent design" isn't compelling. Time will tell.

---

Science hasn't come close to providing an answer to that question, nor do the current theories make any logical sense. There is no science that supports the theory that life evolved from inanimate matter.

Even Einstein had a problem with that question, which is why intelligent design was a plausible explanation for him.

---

Science doesn't state that life "evolved" from inanimate matter. Evolution is a process of living organisms.

---

I agree it doesn't state that. It has no plausible explanation for how life began.

---

Yet we're now finding that the basic components for life are present in certain conditions, and even will interact in those conditions. We'll eventually in time unravel the puzzle, just as we now understand the basics of genetics, and are learning more everyday.

---

You're speculating. Look, I understand and appreciate that you have faith in science. The ironic thing is your belief requires more faith than mine.

We are no closer to answering the question of how life began than we were 1000 years ago. The idea that we will eventually get there, outside of belief in a creator, is unsupported speculation on your part and nothing more. I that sense, your belief is no less far fetched than mine. You just don't realize it.

---

You're ignoring our history of centuries of advancement in human knowledge and revelation about the universe, its components, and the physics of its existence. We know far more about life, and the universe than we did 2000 years ago. We're continuing to learn and advance in that knowledge. There is no good reason to think we won't be able to answer how life began.

---

---

Once again even if we can figure that out. It still does not answer the why? I take a more Jesuit view of this discussion. Science can describe, measure and use the observations of what is around, but cannot answer the whys,how it fits, where we are heading and other questions that go along with the great advances in science. Reverse engineering is not the same as invention or knowing not only what gravity is,, but why it worls and why everything has to fit.. But the other side of the coin is the metaphysics, philosophy, religion, or whatever you want to call it.

There is some reason the universe is like it is, not just randomness. More scientist are starting to come to that conclusion. Read "Language of God", I too look for signs of the truth.

For example DNA. How did it come to be? It can't be evolution, evolution only modifies what already is on existence. Random chance?

Science tells me that if I put arsenic in my rich grandma's tea that it will kill her. It doesn't tell me if I should.

Science can give me some answers, assuming I interpret the collected data correctly, But, it doesn't give me all the answers.