BLU
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by ahn1991:[..]


    Given how scientifically grounded Bono is, I actually think Bono is pro evolution while also being a believer. As a believer myself, I also trust the theory of evolution, and unlike what some people may say, evolution is not inconsistent with scripture. The reason people struggle to understand evolution in the context of the bible is because they approach the bible as if it were a scientific textbook written by one author. In reality, the bible consists of several books with different authors and each book is written with a different style. Some books are intended to be records, such as Numbers, while others are much more like songs, like Psalms.

    Theologians generally agree that Genesis was written as a historical narrative, that is, the purpose of Genesis is to present historical fact in the form of stories. That being said, Genesis is a terrible book to attempt to interpret from a literal standpoint.

    Now from the scientific standpoint, discoveries on the absolute cutting edge are pointing to similar conclusions regarding the origins of all matter. What is stunning about this is that these conclusions are coming from quantum physicists studying the smallest particles and astrophysicists studying the cosmos. That conclusion is that all matter in the universe originated from a singular point in time and space. If you distill the creation story in Genesis down to its key points, the main one that stands out is again, a singular origin of everything.

    Long story short, Bono probably believes in evolution even as a believer because he understands how to interpret scripture from the correct context, skills that probably make him an amazing song writer.
    I do believe the Bible is literal, but I make room in my beliefs to consider the idea that it may not be literal. Having said that, there was nothing in your post that was new to me - meaning the scientific discoveries, the multiple writers of the Bible - that kind of thing I am aware of and agree with you. The difference between us is how people choose to interpret that information. Some see that science points to a single point for a beginning and they think it proves evolution, I see that and feel it proves creation. In the end, there is no smoking gun either way, that proves one is fact and the other fiction.
  2. Originally posted by Guenther:[..]
    I do believe the Bible is literal, but I make room in my beliefs to consider the idea that it may not be literal. Having said that, there was nothing in your post that was new to me - meaning the scientific discoveries, the multiple writers of the Bible - that kind of thing I am aware of and agree with you. The difference between us is how people choose to interpret that information. Some see that science points to a single point for a beginning and they think it proves evolution, I see that and feel it proves creation. In the end, there is no smoking gun either way, that proves one is fact and the other fiction.
    It is my simple, humble and naive belief that science is a mystery that God left for us to discover the answers to on our own...
  3. Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
    It is my simple, humble and naive belief that science is a mystery that God left for us to discover the answers to on or own...
    +1. I always find these discussions fascinating.
  4. Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
    It is my simple, humble and naive belief that science is a mystery that God left for us to discover the answers to on our own...
    Me too, basically. I do not believe that the Bible and science are at odds like many think they are.
  5. Originally posted by Guenther:[..]
    I do believe the Bible is literal, but I make room in my beliefs to consider the idea that it may not be literal.


    This kinda ends the conversation, right? I mean, it's basically saying we interpret the Bible in different ways because we have different ideas about the intent of the authors.

    Also, we should rename this topic to "Family Friendly Topics." Politics, religion... are we missing any other hot button topics?
  6. Originally posted by ahn1991:[..]


    This kinda ends the conversation, right? I mean, it's basically saying we interpret the Bible in different ways because we have different ideas about the intent of the authors.

    Also, we should rename this topic to "Family Friendly Topics." Politics, religion... are we missing any other hot button topics?
    +1
  8. Originally posted by cesar_garza01:Fair points, but Obama (or Romney if he had won) never appointed a well-known bigot, founder of a white supremacist group in a White House position, let alone chief strategist.
    He never appointed someone that denies climate-change into an environment agency.
    One thing is to have people involved in corruption or sex scandals (impossible to control all of them), and another thing is to appoint people with no qualifications whatsoever for that position and with a massive conflict of interests.
    And I'm sorry, but being "anti-evolution" is like being "anti-gravity".


    He just had Al Sharpton in his present and Jeremiah Wright in his past.
  11. The Israel/Palestine debate is probably even more hotly contested than the Trump/Hillary controversy ever will be. I feel for most people, the side they fall on depends on who shows up in a headline on any given day. At this point, the wrongs both sides have committed pretty much invalidates whatever historical context instigated this dispute.
  12. Just because I love this topic, I'll add that I agree that they are not at odds with each other. For me as a Christian who loves to debate these things, the problems come when either:

    1. Fundamentalist Christians insist that Genesis and other places that discuss creation in Scripture must be taken "literally" as actual scientific information, thereby discounting the massive evidence for evolution...

    or

    2. Atheists assume that this is the way all Christians read Scripture, and therefore discount the Bible and faith altogether because they assume it's anti-science.

    To bring this back to politics, this is where VP-elect Mike Pence's views on evolution and other scientific topics that clash with his brand of faith worry me.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.