A Step Toward Reconciling Christianity and Science: Is God, Time?

Over the past several months I’ve been mulling a way to make steps toward reconciliation between the broad spectrum of science and the judeochristian texts. At odds I think are the impressions that science and “organized” religion’s seemingly mutually-immutable tenets — but I think the primary separation between the two is almost entirely an emotion reaction about the other, and perhaps emotion itself, rather than reason. Religion seems to swing foremostly upon the pivot of feelings and faith, whereas science seems more to operate on evidence, matters of true and false and whether those matters can be repeated in the presence of witnesses. I tend to view the world in matters of true/false but grew up in the church and still maintain a foot in its door.

The greatest attitude problem with these discussions is the inane politics between perceptions that the other party is speaking out of insistence of being actually correct instead of holding a serious discussion where one’s decided belief is held in suspension momentarily to consider as to whether one key does or doesn’t fit into that keyhole, despite a callous examination of its outward appearance — as iron sharpens iron of Proverbs 27:17 (neither being more right or sharper than the other). It is in this “perhaps this” kind of discussion that I pose you, rather than with a stern, furrowed brow of conviction that clouds most forum banter.

I would like to challenge both parties to consider, as a momentary suspension of belief, for consideration of judeochristian YHWH to be a personification of time itself, and approach the scriptures as matters of scientific claim rather than solutions to emotional instability.

Consider the scriptures as a technique to communicate deeper scientific principles to the education level of hunter-gatherers — perhaps the Adam’s rib missing concept is an attempt to communicate chromosomal differences that, when examined, illustrate the XY nature of men, versus the XX nature of women (with the “Y” being the rib missing, as if lying side by side the pairs illustrate a rib cage). Evolution is possibly the biggest point of contention, which the suggestion that God and Time are the same, I think, solves. By time, I mean, what has happened, what is now happening, and what will happen. I think we can all agree that things have happened, things are happening now, and things will happen in the future.

What set my thinking along this path was reading of the tendency for action to be determined by “casting lots” (more or less, a roll of the dice) to make a decision and, in essence, to determine God’s will. The idea appears in Proverbs 16:33 as, “The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD” (NASB). This would seemingly reconcile evolution with scripture, as creation being a process through which the lots of survival are meted, that the “intelligence” with the now-evident “design” of animals was brought about by the natural survival of the most capable creature to fit an environment — just as surely as the children’s toy that fits square blocks through square holes.

Evolution could also be evidenced through Christ’s appearance — the dietary habits, for instance, of the Hebrew people permitted and disallowed various types of proteins from entering the systems of those obedient, eventually producing a person who was intimately familiar and ever-present in time. The concept that “time” is God, also more or less bridges the concept of evolution with the prophetic “elect” of Matthew 24:31 as those who are swept up from among those who are left behind, as it were.

I have no particular formal reading to offer other than an English major’s involvement in rudimentary university science, and no particular advancement in the realm of philosophical reference. I prefer to explain things out than abridge them with dictionary words like eschatology or anything-ism. I am a Christian (who claims Christ’s perfect-obedience merit as a replacement to my own imperfect obedience and thus gaining favor, through no works of my own) who is highly, highly critical of many uncited beliefs held by many Christians today such as the inerrant text lunacy that infects the vast majority of attempts sensible discussion. If I were to describe myself as part of “the body” of Christ, I would propose my role as an antibody in pursuit of those foreign objects latched unto portions of the body that ultimately must be rid, no matter what degree of pain will be involved in its removal.. or portions of the lower intestine whose task it is to accumulate and eliminate the wastes that come along with the nutrition that enter the body.

Sin, it might be said, might be a string of RNA consumed from the environment, or perhaps whichever evolutionary variable was responsible for separation from the intimacy with time that Christ could so easily grasp, and that sin (as scripture describes as death being the wage earned from it) is responsible for our departure from time, as death is a kind of removal from active presence in time. Christ being a genetic mutation of some prescribed kind, as with evolutionary survival thinking, was able to shed the time-restrictive aspects of death, being without one such evolutionary variable that the rest of us endure.

It could in fact be that those with the genetic predisposition producing an excitement and fervor for the scientific study of time, in fact, were the scientists who wrote the texts Hebrews hold dear, in attempt to communicate higher scientific concepts through the transcription and re-transcription of those who lacked such genetics, knowing that those who later held such predispositions would recognize the text and concepts for what it is and build upon it.. and the Hebrew texts are a collection of those works that contribute to the same analysis of time.

2 thoughts on “A Step Toward Reconciling Christianity and Science: Is God, Time?

  1. THANK YOU! I quit talking religion 50 years ago because I was unable to put this subject in such a clear light as you have done. Congratulations. Now I have a friend to whom I need to explain my beliefs and I’ve been troubled about how to do this. You have gone a great distance toward helping me toward that goal. Who are you? How did you grow to be so wise. Your friend, Gloria

  2. Can you reconcile religion and science?

    Yes, if you keep your mind open as to explanation of concepts, time and events. First we must understand that the Bible is a history of religion. It was written to explain events to earlier cultures with limited knowledge of science. The last inclusions of the books was two thousand years ago. The history of religion has continued to evolved over 2,000 years since the last book was written. Scripture is a series of historic event and parables of events that occurred. Th parables often fail to give a good explanation and conflict with reason. For example if Adam and Eve were the first humans where did Cain’s spouse come from? Who is God and where did he live? Why is heaven explained in terms of ascension into the sky and hell in dissension? We understand that God is the supreme being, but what does that mean? What do we understand about the concept of soul? How did Mary’s conception occur? We know God created us in his image, but is that image physical or is in in the terms of the soul we were given?

    Concepts of time have changed. Eienstein has led the way to show we can and do travel in time. Do we understand the words we speak now travel through space for eternity? Could we accept the possibility of advanced societies in other areas of the universe? Surely we could understand God to be the supreme being over all of them. How do we explain the drawing on the Plaines of South America that can only be viewed from space or the flying disk in the Old Testament? How do we explain the power in the Ark? Could we accept that the soul is a separate from our physical being? Could we accept that being separate from the body it is eternal? Do we not accept that this is what makes us difference from animals? Could we not explain God as the supreme being over the universe? Could we accept that the human body was altered by God to co-exist with the inclusion of the soul? Does this harm our concept of God or only the parable of creation that we already know is inaccurate? Could we ten accept the emasculate conception?

    Could we accept that hell is another society at war with heaven? That it is much warmer than heaven.

    The acceptance of scientific theory does not harm my concepts of religion. It only conflicts with parables written later in history. These new concepts bring new understanding of God and heaven. They help to explain and strengthen my beliefs in God and religion. The concept of soul explains how so many generations of us can exist in heaven. Has it not been explained that heaven is difference from earth. If we accept that the soul is not physical we can accept eterernal existence. Perhaps we will eventually understand the nature of the soul.

    The future will bring more scientific understanding of God and religion, So, why should we not accept the revelations and not maintain primitive understanding that were us to explain over 2,000 years ago? We need to understanding the masses could not even read or write over 2,000 years ago. Stain Glass window were use as pictures of Biblical stories for the masses of people.

    Proceed with and open mind and learn greater truths about God, religion and ourselves. Resolve conflict and continue to write the history of religion using science to understand. Science can strengthen our faith by explanation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.