Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
ping
With a position paper Keller published with the theistic evolutionary organization Bio Logos he joined the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople,” Lita Cosner, Sept. 9, 2010, creation.com)
Tim Keller / Redeemer Presbyterian Church PING
I would like for someone to explain to me the allegorical meaning of “In the beginning” or “Thou shalt not steal.”
Along with questionable characters such as Leonard Sweet, Tim Keller has signed on with the Global Church Learning Center: http://globalchurchlearningcenter.com/
GCLC is offered by Billion Soul Network http://globalchurchlearningcenter.com/about
Through many twists and turns, BSN is ultimately traceable to the New Apostolic Reformation church growth network and its ‘new’ super apostles, prophets and prophetesses.
It’s my hope that the pastors, teachers, etc. that have signed on are uninformed as to the true nature and intent of the global network behind the Global Church Learning Center.
I would like for someone to explain to me the allegorical meaning of “In the beginning” or “Thou shalt not steal.”
Spirited: Ask any dogmatic materialist and I’m certain he’ll provide an answer as soon as he deals with the ‘little’ issues of whether his chemicals are speaking for him and if he’s the spawn of extraterrestrials.
Wait - let me play, too!
1) Leonard Sweet
2) Tim Keller
3) Global Church Learning Center
4) Billion Soul Network
5) New Apostolic Reformation
And that brings us to
6) Kevin Bacon
Help me out here. How is heresy a subject for News/Activism?
Thank you so much for sharing this engaging essay, dear sister in Christ!
Indeed. Elsewhere I made the claim that Darwinism is the great myth of our age. I continue to believe that. The more you analyze it, the more questionable it seems.
But it isn't only religious people like myself who find the theory troubling. The great pioneer of complex systems theory, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, was deeply troubled about Darwinian evolution theory's propensity of undermining the social consensus necessary to the preservation of a just and peaceful society.
In short, Bertalanffy believed the theory has worrisome, deleterious social effects. But then any accepted propagation of untruth is damaging to reason and the well-being of human persons. Such "theories" are merely tools of the Evil One; and they are evidently highly effective tools that work toward the destruction of man and society.
FWIW.
Thank you so much dear spirited for posting this wonderfully insightful essay!
LOL!
IMO, “Darwinism” is purely a political system, advanced as a “scientific” theory in an effort to provide a justification for various Socialist/Marxist ideas, and an effort to undermine, or otherwise subvert, Judeo-Christian and Capitalist ideals. Can’t say (so I won’t) that was Darwin’s idea in the first place, but that is what it has become, as a tool for the Judeo-Christian haters and the Capitalism haters, much in the same fashion as Moslems use “Scientific” language to justify their murderous pogroms against “infidels” and even people of their own faith who believe in Capitalism and liberty.
Thanks for your contribution. Top drawer, as always.
If it's purely political, is it still heresy?
Indeed, survival of the fittest has been adopted as a theme for societal engineering, where the ‘fittest’ make the rules for survival. M Scott Peck addressed this nature of evil in People Of The Lie.
Indeed, one of the consequences has been the undermining of the social consensus.
This is erroneous on two counts. (1) This star is a good angel. His name is Apollyon (Destroyer) or Abaddon--see Rev 9:11. He is doing Gods bidding during the wrath of the sounding of the 5th trumpet. (2)The saved (saints) have been gathered already (Rev 7:8). So, he is not tormenting believers, but the unsaved.
Abandon is the same angel who in Rev 20:1 comes down from heaven again and lays hold of the dragon, the Devil, binds him and casts him into the bottomless pit. The devil does not reign in hell. He is imprisoned there. After a thousand years he is cast into the lake of fire where the beast and the false prophet aree, and shall be tormented day and night forever. (Rev 20:10)
What are you talking about? For openers, what is heresy? My MAC OSX computer dictionary (an Oxford Dictionaries product) defines heresy as “belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (esp. Christian) doctrine.”
Why “especially Christian” is a little difficult for me to fathom since it is the Moslem faith that has seemed more than any other, for the past several centuries, to be inclined to hack off the head of an infidel. But, in any event . . .
This Forum has been harangued incessantly by the Darwinian Mullahs (Scientists and others who claim to speak authoritatively for Science) that Evolution (Darwinism) is a biological theory. That’s true, isn’t it? We’ve been told that Evolution is consequentially a theory about living organisms and how natural selection permits them to adapt to, and thereby survive in, a changing environment. Likewise true, correct? And, most importantly, we’ve been told that Evolution is nowise in competition with Christianity, or any of its related beliefs (such as Creationism), and this for two salient reasons: a.) Neither Christianity, nor Creationism is science, and therefore cannot be a competing theory; b.) Evolution does not, in any event, concern itself with origins, or other religious matters, as does Christianity, so, again the two cannot be considered competitors.
I’ll agree with the Darwinian Mullahs; take them at their word that there are no moral conclusions nor value judgments to be drawn from Darwinism (the Theory of Evolution), and let them deny what they have steadfastly declared for so long, or let them remain locked in the world of their choosing, that there are no moral conclusions nor value judgments to be drawn from the Theory of Evolution.
So, I’ll side with, the Darwinian Mullahs and let them continue to declare their irrelevancy to so much that is distinctly human when they declare that most anything dealing with human nature, but not physically caused is irrelevant, and is to be picked up by “philosophy or theology.” According to the Mullahs, Science, particularly the Theory of Evolution, is not subject to metaphysical conclusions or philosophical value judgments, and in fact, philosophical ruminations have no place in Science whatsoever.
Accordingly then, “Darwinism,” indeed all of what me might call Science, can’t possibly be involved in heresy because, not being involved in spiritual matters or anything having to do with value judgments, it has nothing to say to the Judeo-Christian Tradition, or to any religion.
But, then along comes a fellow like Richard Dawkins, proclaiming opinions which seem profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted, claiming there are visible implications for moral judgments and proclaiming the existence of value criteria in the Theory of Evolution, even if what he and some of his colleagues have to say is a human horror.
In promoting his book The God Delusion, Dawkins has said things like, “The word delusion means a falsehood which is widely believed, and that is true of religion. It is remarkably widely believed, it’s as though almost all of the population or a substantial proportion of the population believed that they had been abducted by aliens in flying saucers. You’d call that a delusion. I think God is a similar delusion.”
When Dawkins was quoted as describing God as a “misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully,” his response was, “That seems fair enough to me, yes.” If there is any question that Dawkins was speaking as a scientist, the following should put the question to rest: In a 30 September, 2006, 90-minute debate arranged by TIME, Dawkins was asked, “. . . if one truly understands science, is God then a delusion, as your book title suggests?” Dawkins’ response, “The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no” (emphasis mine).
Dawkins is not alone. There are many noted Scientists of renown who agree. Among them, Steven Weinberg, Nobel prize-winner from the University of Texas at Austin, in remarks at the Freedom From Religion Association, “I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive to religious belief, and I’m all for that. If science helps bring about the end of religion,” he concluded, “it would be the most important contribution science could make” (emphasis mine).
Tufts philosopher and professor of evolutionary biology and cognitive science, Daniel Dennett, in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, delivers the opinion that Darwinian evolution is “a universal acid” that dissolves all traditional religious and moral beliefs.
William B. Provine, Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University, in a 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address entitled Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life, saw fit to deliver a statement that “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.” He then enumerates them; 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.
Any number of other prominent scientists have chosen to express similar sentiments and, off those sentiments, to declare many value judgments, religious pronouncements, cultural conclusions and philosophical opinions. And they ground this all in Science!
Among those who indulge in this behavior we have these worthies: Steven Pinker, Stephen J. Gould, Peter Sanger, Michael Tooley, Richard Lewontin, Carl Sagan (now deceased), Marc Hauser, and Victor Stenger. By no means neither is this an exhaustive list.
When that many prominent Scientists intrude into religion, using their science as the instrument to declare that God (any deity) does not exist and that religion is therefore useless, then, yes, I think heresy is the correct term, even if the motivation behind their behavior is the attainment of a political dominance.
My MAC OSX has also seen fit to deliver a more pop brand definition of heresy as well, this being, “opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted.” This definition perfectly fits what I would term “political heresy” and a method of political domination much practiced by 0bamatrons and other Socialist/Democrats, who claim exclusivity on what is to be considered “generally accepted,” and to be used against anyone who dissents in the least from their doctrines, but most particularly against anyone of a Christian or Conservative persuasion.
Thanks for your post.
The article, which is supposedly the subject of discussion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.