How would you define science (and faith)

[jlay]

FWIW My view of God is as the creator of the universe and of life, but not an active participant in the day-to-day goings on of individuals.

I would take this to mean you are not a Christain.

Gman wrote:

I think the problems most Christians have with a "laissez-faire" or non involved God is that it is impersonal. If I take the the Bible as God's word and an authority, then I would believe that He was involved in creation and my life as it states. So it would be a personal relationship.

But isn't that first sentence self-contradicting. How can a person be a Christian and at the same time believe God impersonal? It doesn't jive witht the doctrine. this would be nominal Christianity, which is really just a form of idolatry. It's certainly not biblical Christianity.

A good way to spot idolatry is with these words, "too me, god is........"
That is someone shaping a god in their mind that they are more comfortable with. In essense that god is themselves. Sure they give credit to "the big man upstairs" for creation and all that jazz, but when it comes to moral absolutes, we know who is on the throne.

[zoegirl]

It seems that Gman was saying that we as CHristians have a problem with the idea of an impersonal God, not that there are CHristians taht have this laissez-faire.

[Gman]

But isn't that first sentence self-contradicting. How can a person be a Christian and at the same time believe God impersonal? It doesn't jive witht the doctrine. this would be nominal Christianity, which is really just a form of idolatry. It's certainly not biblical Christianity.

As a form of deism or that God created the universe but then abandoned it or hasn't assumed any control over it. Yes.. That wouldn't be Biblical Christianity, because scripture tells us the exact opposite. It would still be a belief in a god though per say, not a Biblical one however..

A good way to spot idolatry is with these words, "too me, god is........"
That is someone shaping a god in their mind that they are more comfortable with. In essense that god is themselves. Sure they give credit to "the big man upstairs" for creation and all that jazz, but when it comes to moral absolutes, we know who is on the throne.

Sure.. I think a lot of us do that. I can easily make myself a god, a final authority on whatever I comfortable with. If it feels good, do it. Almost like coming into a cafeteria and say I'll take a little bit of this and none of that. It's just shifting my authority to whatever I want and if God isn't "the" authority then I'm create my own.. To be honest with ourselves I think we all do this to some degree. It's not just the atheists or deists..

[godslanguage]

Ultimately, changes occur at the molecular level, this is what intelligent design is interested in and explicitly targets this scope. Fossils and other hyper abstract puzzle fitting as constituting evidence for all diversity of life don't hold water. If you're going to make a case, make the case at the molecular level, such as a step by step incrementation for something as simple as a bacterial flagellum would do just fine to falsify most sub-hypothesis of ID such as irreducible complexity and even CSI/FSCI. Of course, no such falsification exists anywhere and thus ID holds superior in explanatory power by default until sufficient evidence is provided to the contrary.

Until then, lets play the Darwinian for a day. Go to your nearest local junkyard, take pictures of as many cars as possible, as many as your lithium ion batteries can withstand or as many as your flash memory can hold, write down their model, type etc.., then go to your nearest new automobile dealership and do the same. Take as many pictures as you need you feel will make your case, go back home and organize them into a tree like structure if you like by type, then from type to extend model until you hit the bottom of the barrel (the most current automobile or if your doing it in reverse the top of the barrel). Once you have done that, conclude evolved by chance and declare victory, for that is the Darwinian way.

Have fun!

[waynepii]

FWIW My view of God is as the creator of the universe and of life, but not an active participant in the day-to-day goings on of individuals.

I would take this to mean you are not a Christain.

And yet in another thread, you say ...

Free will is one of those great mysteries.
What is the basis of the question? Is it biblical?

Sometimes I get a little frustrated and upset when this subject comes up.

the scriptures teach that God is not a liar, He is just, and justified in His judgments.

So, if a man kidnaps, tortures and rapes a child, are we to believe that God orchastred this, and that this person simply acted out his puppet like life? If that is the case then this man is not guilty, and God's word condemning murderers to judgment is a joke.

I can't conceive how God knows every fork in my road, and every fork of everyone who will live. But I am content to trust that He does, and that He will grant me the desires to chose the correct fork when the time comes.
The irony in it all is that our will is what must come under subjection to God's will. That is called surrender. Pretty interesting, because if we had no level of free will, then what would we have to surrender? What would we have to deny? Romans 12:2

If you didn't have some sort of free will, could really even ask yourself the question, do I have free will?

That sounds as though you also consider God to be pretty "laissez-faire".

God is omniscient and omnipotent, so He should easily be able to predict and prevent atrocities if He so wished. He prefers us to have free will, for better or worse. He chooses to be laissez-faire.

God's involvement in our lives is largely passive. He undoubtedly is able to cure disease and eliminate suffering. Don't people with spinal cord injuries, other kinds of severe paralysis, or amputation ever think to pray to be cured? Why are they NEVER cured? God chooses to be laissez-faire .

A good way to spot idolatry is with these words, "too me, god is........"
That is someone shaping a god in their mind that they are more comfortable with. In essense that god is themselves. Sure they give credit to "the big man upstairs" for creation and all that jazz, but when it comes to moral absolutes, we know who is on the throne.

You can use the Bible to justify almost anything, and many have done so to their advantage over the years. Interpretation of what God wants us to do is done by selection of pertinent verses and by explaining what the selected verses mean. This is performed by people, whether Biblical scholars, clerics, or an individual. Are you sure you who is "on the throne"?

[zoegirl]

"Laissez-faire" with our will is far different from "laissez-faire" with the creation. We were the ones who rebelled. YOu cannot equate with His creation and how He created.

[waynepii]

"Laissez-faire" with our will is far different from "laissez-faire" with the creation. We were the ones who rebelled. YOu cannot equate with His creation and how He created.

I clearly stated that I believe He created the universe and life.

My view of God is as the creator of the universe and of life, but not an active participant in the day-to-day goings on of individuals.

BTW I made a minor edit to my previous post - I had intended the phrase "on the throne" in the final paragraph to refer to jlay's use of the same phrase in the post to which I was replying, but I inadvertently forgot the quotes when I first submitted the post. I noticed the omission, felt without them the post might be misinterpreted, so I added them.

[zoegirl]

"Laissez-faire" with our will is far different from "laissez-faire" with the creation. We were the ones who rebelled. YOu cannot equate with His creation and how He created.

I clearly stated that I believe He created the universe and life.

My view of God is as the creator of the universe and of life, but not an active participant in the day-to-day goings on of individuals.

BTW I made a minor edit to my previous post - I had intended the phrase "on the throne" in the final paragraph to refer to jlay's use of the same phrase in the post to which I was replying, but I inadvertently forgot the quotes when I first submitted the post. I noticed the omission, felt without them the post might be misinterpreted, so I added them.

So what role does GOd have in the creation? Are you more of a deist, then? Or a theistic evolutionist?

I am saying that God not interfereing with our choices is not a valid argument for His role in Creation. I believe there the scriptures are clear that God worked intimately in HIs creation (however and in what process that may have been).

[jlay]

That sounds as though you also consider God to be pretty "laissez-faire".

If you consider a relationship so intimate that the God of creation would leap off his throne and indwell a wretch like me laissez-faire, then guilty.

The Cross is about as anti laissez-faire as you can get.

Nothing personal, but its a pretty weak argument.

[jlay]

You can use the Bible to justify almost anything, and many have done so to their advantage over the years. Interpretation of what God wants us to do is done by selection of pertinent verses and by explaining what the selected verses mean. This is performed by people, whether Biblical scholars, clerics, or an individual. Are you sure you who is "on the throne"?

On the throne? Yep!
If someone's intent is to "use" the bible, then I'd question their intent. You can't use the bibe to jusity almost anything. Not if rightly divided. Doesn't it seem profound that the bible would include instructions on the importance of "rightly dividing" it?
One of the oldest arguments to discredit the bible is the old "its old. people interpret what they want, etc, etc." Saying this doesn't make it a valid argument.

It's sad that many who want to use the argument of "different interpretations" to discredit the bible, essentially throw out the baby with the bathwater. All things considered their is amazing agreement regarding the bible among Christians. Yes, there are factions on the fringe, but overwhelmingly there has been consensus for 2,000 years, that the bible reveals the creator and the savior Jesus Christ. The Bible has been scrutenized and analyzed beyond any other piece of literature. It has proven itself to be reliable historically and archaelogically, and most importantly, spiritually to those who walk by faith.