I don't get "moderate" christians...

[Jorjor]

I don't have a problem with people using allegory to clarify their own worldviews.  I think everyone practices compartmentalization to one degree or another, so it only makes sense that Christians should do so too.

 To be honest, I wouldn't be bothered by them if they would just admit it. Admit that they can't decide which parts of the bible are and aren't meant to be taken literally, admit that if they accept that several critical parts of the bible are untrue, the whole thing goes down the shitter, admit that the only reason they hold onto the bumper of Christianity is out of comfort.

[gomtuu77]

I would tend to agree with you.  I don't think that it's possible to fully reconcile what is meant by evolution, with historic Christianity, as understood by Christ and throughout virtually all of Church history.  Obviously, Christ took the Adam and Eve account seriously, and I see no reason for a genuine Christian to allegorize the story, whether or not one believes in billions of years or a literal 6-day creation account.  I personally believe that the earth is billions of years old, but I believe Adam and Eve were real human beings.

[Hydra009]

I personally believe that the earth is millions of years old, but I believe Adam and Eve were real human beings.

Damn straight they were.

[Atheon]

I get moderate Christians, since most of my extended family are moderates (mostly Lutherans). They like to believe in Magic Skydaddy and the Big Jeeze, but they're appalled by the craziness, restrictiveness and anti-science-ness of fundamentalism.

[gomtuu77]

I get moderate Christians, since most of my extended family are moderates (mostly Lutherans). They like to believe in Magic Skydaddy and the Big Jeeze, but they're appalled by the craziness, restrictiveness and anti-science-ness of fundamentalism.

Interestingly, I feel the same way.  Christians who are genuinely anti-science or who have closed their minds on the issue entirely, I don't have a great deal of use for.  I don't think one need be anti-science to hold views that are contrary to a materialist/naturalist view.

[Poison Tree]

I get moderate Christians, since most of my extended family are moderates (mostly Lutherans). They like to believe in Magic Skydaddy and the Big Jeeze, but they're appalled by the craziness, restrictiveness and anti-science-ness of fundamentalism.

Interestingly, I feel the same way.  Christians who are genuinely anti-science or who have closed their minds on the issue entirely, I don't have a great deal of use for.  

As opposed to those who are counterfeit anti-science?

[Hydra009]

I don't think one need be anti-science to hold views that are contrary to a materialist/naturalist view.

Sure.  You just have to believe in otherworldly beings who apparently act in the material universe.  No conflict there.

[gomtuu77]

I get moderate Christians, since most of my extended family are moderates (mostly Lutherans). They like to believe in Magic Skydaddy and the Big Jeeze, but they're appalled by the craziness, restrictiveness and anti-science-ness of fundamentalism.

Interestingly, I feel the same way.  Christians who are genuinely anti-science or who have closed their minds on the issue entirely, I don't have a great deal of use for.  

As opposed to those who are counterfeit anti-science?

That's just a label meant to pigeon-hole others so that whatever they say can be dismissed rather than grappled with.  There are plenty of scientists who traffic in the area.  One can label them that way or deal with them seriously.  If they are wrong, demonstrate as much.  That seems a better approach than the more anti-intellectual dismissive approach filled with more ad-hominems than substance.

[gomtuu77]

I don't think one need be anti-science to hold views that are contrary to a materialist/naturalist view.

Sure.  You just have to believe in otherworldly beings who apparently act in the material universe.  No conflict there.

Perhaps immaterial beings, but not necessarily otherworldly.  And since we deal with immaterial things having impacts on the material world everyday, I really don't have a problem with that.  Quite frankly, neither should you.

[Hydra009]

And since we deal with immaterial things having impacts on the material world everyday, I really don't have a problem with that.

I'm sensing a real stretch of the word "immaterial" coming on...

[gomtuu77]

And since we deal with immaterial things having impacts on the material world everyday, I really don't have a problem with that.

I'm sensing a real stretch of the word "immaterial" coming on...

Why?  My thoughts are immaterial, but they are often the basis for action in the world.  What "real stretch" are you sensing?

[Hydra009]

Why?  My thoughts are immaterial, but they are often the basis for action in the world.  What "real stretch" are you sensing?

[youtube:1p8euvlf]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI[/youtube:1p8euvlf]

That one.  Pretty much word for word.

[gomtuu77]

Is that supposed to suffice as an answer?  Do you think that thoughts are material?  If they are not, are they immaterial?  If they are not, what are they?

[Hydra009]

Is that supposed to suffice as an answer?

It would for a normal person.

Do you think that thoughts are material?  If they are not, are they immaterial?  If they are not, what are they?

Let me put this in a way you might understand:



None of that is immaterial.

[gomtuu77]

So it's your position that thoughts or even images in your mind are actually identical to brain matter, neurons, etc...  So the interface mechanism itself is identical to each thought and image?

I would simply say that the fact that our brain is the mechanism by which the material and immaterial interface or interact doesn't mean that that they are the same things.  In other words, a particular chemical in my brain or neuron firing may correspond and/or correlate with a particular thought, set of thoughts, or image(s), but they are not the same things.  This is a category error.