Christian Grans

That was my assumption as the first sentence mentioned committed Christians.

Ceesnan By implication but not in so many words. But that's no reason why other people can't comment.

I "left" the church in my late teens and came back in my late 20s. I left for many of the kinds of reasons atheists and non-believers have given, except I never encountered the kind of people some of you have mentioned. Part of the reason was an intensive study of medieval and early modern history. I came back in and stayed for a variety of reasons, including a very impressive local vicar, more reading and, I suppose, realising that just because the church wasn't perfect and I wasn't perfect wasn't a reason to stay outside. Christianity offers the best philosophy for living that I've come across. Suits me. when I don't think every word in the Bible is to be taken literally. Do scientific 'facts' become lies when new discoveries are made and contradict them? And you anti-Christians shouldn't make the mistake of thinking we stay in the church because we are scared to come out.

absent thanks for your courtesy.

The one but last post of greatnan had an interesting sentence:" Either you believe or you dont. " ( what ever it is you believe, I suppose )

That sort of sums it up for me.

And for elsiejoy, please don't be disheartened . Gransnet seem to have a theme.
It can go from a bunfight to a hug fest and back again.

No, I certainly don't think Christians stay in the church because they're scared to come out, nor do I regard impossible stories of events as lies. Like science, insufficient information can lead to a level of understanding that has to be revised in the light of further evidence. I just don't get how Christians can be satisfied with the answers they are given when it boils down to that leap of faith, simply because I am curious and every query I have raised has not been answered to my satisfaction. Therefore, I am interested to know how curious, intelligent Christians' queries have been answered to their satisfaction.

They go on asking.

I like your question, lily. This one: "Do scientific 'facts' become lies when new discoveries are made and contradict them?"

The answer to it is pretty much YES, that's exactly what happens in science. If something that was believed to be the truth (or a truth) is shown to be incorrect, then that 'belief' is discarded in favour of whatever has been shown to have more evidence in favour of it. So, for instance, when Copernicus proved that the solar system is heliocentric, Ptolemy's geocentric system, whcih scientists of the day had hitherto believed was correct, was overthrown. I'm not sure most people would call Ptolemy's ideas lies, just mistakes based on insufficient knowledge. Anyway, the same principle applies now to the scientific method. Science is never static and never will be because we will never know everything there is to know. We just keep searching and revising. The 'truth' of anything scientific depends on its verifiability, so something that can be repeatedly verified by experiment and real life observations can be said to be true. Extra details can be and are added as more knowledge is obtained, so the truth is enhanced. If a theory cannot be verified in the real world then it isn,t held as truth or fact until it can be.

Blethered on a bit, didn't I? But it was a good question, and the answer, essentially, is Yes.

My experience is very similar to Lilygran's in the sense that I left the church at about 17 and came back in my late 20s after experiencing the work of the church in the third world and the ideas of liberation theology.

Yes, some information was 'false' or rather a limited understanding, as I pointed out elsewhere. But then so was a lot of the science I was taught. Einstein's steady state universe for example. It was the way people made sense of the world in the best way they could. But science and theology are not opposed. They are different ways of describing the world. If you want the view of an eminent scientist as to why he believes in God take a look at the former Archbishop of York's book. I can't recall the title at the moment but doubtless you could find it on the Internet.

And When, I am not 'given' answers, I read, think, pray, experience, and then make my own mind up.

Why don't you pop over to The Ship of Fools and take a look at some of the discussions on there which will begin to address some of the questions you pose.

John Hapgood - Religion and science

I'm enjoying reading these knowledgeable posts. Liberation theology sounds interesting.

SHip of Fools is an excellent site.

Yes, I often frequent The Ship of Fools, amongst many others. It was mentioned on here some months ago.

investigatingatheism.info/johnhabgood.html

Has anyone here read dame Julian of Norwich? If so , what did you think?

Yes. Grace Jantzen's brook about her and her times is excellent.

I read Julian of Norwich years ago and remember being impressed with her thoughts on life which were comforting.

Can't remember details now because so long ago.

Anybody read Meister Ekhart, the Christian mystic?

I must say that many of the responses from those without religious beliefs strike me as being aggressive and unpleasant. Not all but quite a lot

It is not a case that 'you believe or you dont', there is an immense area of ambivalence and doubt between those two extremes, mostly occupied with those with religious beliefs. There are many Christians of all denominations who do not blindly look to their religious leaders to decide everything for them and can see no conflict between science and religion - and I am among them.

It is the implicit assumption of the above in so many mailings that I find so frustrating. It is difficult to have any kind of discussion when one side is making such sweeping generalisations about the other.

I wonder if there is sometimes an expectation (possibly subconscious) that atheists will be aggressive and whether that colours a person's reading of a post by a declared atheist? It's quite worrying that there are so many references to aggression when, certainly in my case, and I suspect in most others, there is no intention of aggression at all, only a search for clarity and understanding. I often think intense would be a better description than aggressive. Intense applies to both sides equally well too, so it's a good all-rounder sort of word for topics within the theism/atheism bracket.

I can't decide if I believe or not. I certainly do not believe in a lot of the so called tenets of religion.
I think I'd best describe myself as a humanist who tries to follow the basic rules Jesus laid down.
Love they neighbour as thyself. (Well, apart from the old git next door! And I DO TRY to tolerate him)
And WHO OR WHAT IS GOD?
Is it the self knowledge within us?

I'm to bed .
Too deep
Too late
Goodnight!

G'night, jeni. Hope you sleep well after your hard day today.

Yes I think I would describe myself as a humanist with some Buddhism somewhere as well. All life is sacred, live in the moment, peace and harmony. You can tell which decade was my formative one can't you!?

Night jeni

I don't think it's an expectation, subconscious or not. I agree with FlicketyB's post.
Goodnight, jeni

Further to my previous post, it works the other way too. I sometimes think that some of the pro-religious posts (or anti-atheist posts, depending which way you look at it) seem a bit aggressive. But then, I assume that it is me reading in aggression which is not really there, and that really the emotion is only heartfelt sincerity, and a searching for clarity and understanding.

Questioning, querying, asking, quibbling about detail is not aggression.

Anybody clicked on the link yet?

If there are a lot of references to aggression then I suppose it is worth considering that some posts did come across in that way whether or not they were intended to.

I don't expect atheists to be aggressive (being one myself) but now and then I was quite taken aback at some of the responses to Christian posts.

I make this comment with the best of intentions as I think the concerns which have been raised, and the fact that some people obviously feel aggrieved/hurt, should be taken seriously so we can hopefully move on.