Originally posted by vistesd
Kudos to Suzianne generally, for being a thoughtful and intelligent poster, who stands, in my mind, as a shining example (with some others, and shining examples here in the past—such as lucifershammer and Nemesio) against attempts to paint all Christians (and folks of other religions) as “primitivist” (for lack of a better word at the present). I surely dis ...[text shortened]... eir tenor than I generally try to be, and less than deserving of the kind of response she gave.)
Why thank you, vistesd!
I'm one of those who think that the Biblical creation is merely an outline. It wasn't written for modern scholars so details are definitely lacking. I believe God engineered it, but that he used natural processes to accomplish his goals. Processes that are still at work today. I believe this is critical to understanding the God of the Bible. Free will is a necessary component of Christianity and God needed to create in such a fashion as to make it all look like a natural process, and what better way than to do precisely that, using natural processes to do the heavy lifting of creation. This is why creation took billions of years, not merely 6,000 years. If God just spent a week of 24-hour days waving his magic wand around, there would be leaps in the evolutionary and geological records, and no such leaps exist (except maybe for natural calamities, such as the K-T boundary layer.) Christians with this mindset that God just waved his magic wand and poof there were humans limit God unnecessarily, yet they turn around and profess that God can do anything. I think science has a place alongside religion, for both are true. Those who take only one side limit God to the very small box their mind resides in.
Instead of "primitivist" might I say "fundamentalist"? This is why I claim that I am not a fundamentalist, even though I do believe some of the Bible is not merely allegory, but fact. I guess some of the 'not-so-generous' forumites might call me a 'cherry-picker', which doesn't bother me too much at all. I understand your sentiment, though, that some of the most zealous adherants of a religion like Christianity shun science and so appear to be uneducated or ignorant. Fortunately, this is not required in order to be a Christian.
I think most of our disagreeement on religious matters is probably because I don't accept non-dualism in nearly any form. Because of this, I find non-God religions like Buddhism to be weak. (As always, this is just my opinion, in case anyone decides to become offended.)
But all that aside, thank you for the kind words. You flatter me, nearly to the point of giving me more credit than I deserve.