Posted on 01/16/2011 4:09:10 PM PST by balch3
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (ABP) -- A Southern Baptist seminary president and evolution opponent has turned sights on "theistic evolution," the idea that evolutionary forces are somehow guided by God. Albert Mohler
Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote an article in the Winter 2011 issue of the seminary magazine labeling attempts by Christians to accommodate Darwinism "a biblical and theological disaster."
Mohler said being able to find middle ground between a young-earth creationism that believes God created the world in six 24-hour days and naturalism that regards evolution the product of random chance "would resolve a great cultural and intellectual conflict."
The problem, however, is that it is not evolutionary theory that gives way, but rather the Bible and Christian theology.
Mohler said acceptance of evolutionary theory requires reading the first two chapters of Genesis as a literary rendering and not historical fact, but it doesn't end there. It also requires rethinking the claim that sin and death entered the human race through the Fall of Adam. That in turn, Mohler contended, raises questions about New Testament passages like First Corinthians 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive."
"The New Testament clearly establishes the Gospel of Jesus Christ upon the foundation of the Bible's account of creation," Mohler wrote. "If there was no historical Adam and no historical Fall, the Gospel is no longer understood in biblical terms."
Mohler said that after trying to reconcile their reading of Genesis with science, proponents of theistic evolution are now publicly rejecting biblical inerrancy, the doctrine that the Bible is totally free from error.
"We now face the undeniable truth that the most basic and fundamental questions of biblical authority and Gospel integrity are at stake," Mohler concluded. "Are you ready for this debate?"
In a separate article in the same issue, Gregory Wills, professor of church history at Southern Seminary, said attempts to affirm both creation and evolution in the 19th and 20th century produced Christian liberalism, which attracted large numbers of Americans, including the clerical and academic leadership of most denominations.
After establishing the concept that Genesis is true from a religious but not a historical standpoint, Wills said, liberalism went on to apply naturalistic criteria to accounts of miracles and prophecy as well. The result, he says, was a Bible "with little functional authority."
"Liberalism in America began with the rejection of the Bible's creation account," Wills wrote. "It culminated with a broad rejection of the beliefs of historic Christianity. Yet many Christians today wish to repeat the experiment. We should not expect different results."
Mohler, who in the last year became involved in public debate about evolution with the BioLogos Foundation, a conservative evangelical group that promotes integrating faith and science, has long maintained the most natural reading of the Bible is that God created the world in six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago.
Writing in Time magazine in 2005, Mohler rejected the idea of human "descent."
"Evangelicals must absolutely affirm the special creation of humans in God's image, with no physical evolution from any nonhuman species," he wrote. "Just as important, the Bible clearly teaches that God is involved in every aspect and moment in the life of His creation and the universe. That rules out the image of a kind of divine watchmaker."
We function just fine with our insufficient knowledge because we don't have a choice, and speculations, while perhaps comforting to indulge in, don't provide any real answers.
We walk through this world with one eye shut and the otrher one barely open, feleing our way aorund. We hope, and that's about all we can do. Ulitmately, that is the real peace if you can subit. We have some room to maneuver, but we have to leave the rest to "higher authority".
Whether you leave it to fate or to God, it doesn't matter. Try to live your life as fully as you can, while the blessings last and don't waste too of your time on empty speculations. The world is the way it is even if we don't understand it (Taoism).
They have a problem with Jesus being the messiah, obviously. The problem the two religions differ on this point - irreconcilably. A deal killer.
I honestly don't see much difference between that God and the deity the Muslim bow to.
I don't see much difference between what some reformed Christians teach; I don't subscribe to their view of God either. But you might remember these Christian's teaching:
"Uncreate, without beginning, immortal, infinite, eternal, immaterial, good, creative, just, enlightening, immutable, passionless…"
God is good, loving, and kind toward those who disregard, disobey, and ignore Him. He never returns evil for evil, He never takes vengeance. His punishments are loving means of correction, as long as anything can be corrected and healed in this life. They never extend to eternity. He created everything good. The wild beasts recognize as their master the Christian who through humility has gained the likeness of God. They draw near to him, not with fear, but with joy, in grateful and loving submission; they wag their heads and lick his hands and serve him with gratitude. The irrational beasts know that their Master and God is not evil and wicked and vengeful, but rather full of love. (See also St. Isaac of Syria, SWZOMENA ASKHTIKA [Athens, 1871], pp. 95-96.) He protected and saved us when we fell. The eternally evil has nothing to do with God. It comes rather from the will of His free, logical creatures, and this will He respects. -
River of Fire
I can't reconcile the notion of "there is no purpose" with the constant exhibiting of purpose and desire to go somewhere.
Whether or not we know, or can know, if the universe has a purpose, we obviously do. And we are part of the universe.
At the very least we can say: purpose exists somewhere in the universe.
All things are never equal. One would have to conduct a scientific experiment every time one were to make a decision to make sure.
There is also a middle "I don't care either way" category, which means you walk away from the dilemma. But many people become slaves of their either-or dungeon.
For example, Muslims have a nasty and odious habit (there is so much odious about them, come to think of it!) of killing their daughters and sisters if they think they "dishonored" the family (honor killings). This is a perfecter example of a moralistic religious dungeon so many humans can sink into.
The Golden Rule is applicable here too. Ask yourself if you were the subject to be decided on, which course of action wold you prefer. We choose life, because we value life (for ourselves) and because it is inhernely obvious that every living thing on this earth is a citizen of this planet and has a right to be here, their life is equally valueable to them. So, live an dlet live.
Like a rock?
Rocks are not alive. But we eed innanimate obects as well. Wanton destruction is harmful, and that which harmful is a "feels-bad" and we tend to avoid it. Living things avoid danger, whether they are flatworms or humans. It's an atavistic part of our evolved nature to preserve ourselves. We should only extend that to others if we think we deserve it too (Golden Rule again).
If life has inherent value, it's not a coin toss question, you don't need a reason not to kill it, you need a reason to kill it. Which is it for you?
We need a reason for everything we do. Otherwise we do nothing. Killing veerything in sight is counterproductive unless it represents reflief from immediate danger to you. It all comes down to feels-good, feels-bad decision approach to life that we know from infancy. It's simple approach/avoidance.
I can't understand a life lived fully with gloom and cynicism and a value system based on feels good. I don't think it comports at all with Taoism either.
That's not the point. The point is if they were, does life has value, inherently. Assume all conditions equal, what say you?
Goodnight, K. As always, thanks for your posts and discussion…
Thanks, D, same to you.
I can't understand a life lived fully with gloom and cynicism and a value system based on feels good.
Gloom on account being free from the burden of superstition, irreconcilable moral contradictions (1 Samuel 15:3, David's child's killing, etc.) and make-believe? A non-religious, non-superstition-based value system that the Golden Rule provides itself to be, is not based on "feel good" but on overall goodness and amity - in the purest form of meaning those phrases lend themselves for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?"
- Unweaving The Rainbow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Until you have reconciled with the moral contradictions mentioned above, in the beliefs that you've adopted as what you see to be the 'truth', the biggest burden, dear friend D-fendr, is really upon you. Out of curiosity, how do you truly free yourself of this heavy load?
Gloom on account being free from the burden of superstition, irreconcilable moral contradictions (1 Samuel 15:3, David's child's killing, etc.) and make-believe?
No.
Out of curiosity, how do you truly free yourself of this heavy load?
I'm not sure why you think I am superstitious with irreconcilable moral contradictions. Certainly not from my posts here. Perhaps you are making assumptions based on what you think my religious beliefs are?
A non-religious, non-superstition-based value system that the Golden Rule provides itself to be, is not based on "feel good"
I'm pretty sure Kosta is disagreeing, specifically in his #1440: Why is the golden rule paramout? "Because it feels good."
not based on "feel good" but on overall goodness and amity - in the purest form of meaning those phrases lend themselves for.
I certainly think it can be. But I don't see how you get there. I look forward to your other replies and thank you for this one.
All things are never equal.
We are describing a weighing of values in order to determine our choice. What inherent value is asking is: Do you add "life" as having some measure of weight? Does "life" go on the scale or only the other conditions?
I think you'll still say "no," but hope this is a better way to communicate.
Only the Christians claim that their God is the same God as that of Judaism. The Jews certainly don't!
The key difference with Judaism is that Christianity proclaims Jesus and that Jesus is God.
For focus, I'm not arguing the accuracy of this belief, only the accuracy that this is what Christianity teaches and that it is different than what Judaism teaches.
For Christianity: Jesus is God. The way we know God is through Jesus. Particularly, if we want to know God in human terms: Jesus.
I suppose you see "Rights anger" in killing innocent children?
Jesus? Killing innocent children? No Christians can't see that.
The shin kicking getting a little tough for you is it?
“Suffice it to say that the Oxford Dictionary defines "contingent" as subject to chance (uncertainty) as its first and foremost definition.”
That’s funny. My Compact Oxford Dictionary (third edition 2005) begins with the noun (two definitions), and follows with the adjective:
1 (contingent on) dependent on something: the merger is contingent on government approval.
2 subject to or happening by chance.
On the other hand, the Oxford in my Mac OS X reverses the definitions of the adjective and places the definitions of the noun behind those of the adjective. I suppose that means, as with all instances of good communication, context is essential.
“No snake, no sin, no sin, no death” etc.
No willfulness of Man, no temptation, no sin, no death . . . (shrug)
“But, hey, it's mind over matter.”
Really?! With Materialists I thought it was only matter, and that mind didn’t matter.
“I don't mind and your invectives surely don't matter to me.
Invectives? Really?! What can I tell ya, baby? Hit the abuse button, I guess. Or, are you looking for an excuse to depart in a righteous huff?
“Hasta la vista, baby.
Meaning you want the last word? Very well . . . You may have the last word.
Rocks are not alive. But we need innanimate obects as well.
There is a hierarchy of being, each dependent on all the layers below it. No chemicals/minerals, no plants; no plants, no animals…
Dependence is different than value, in the moral sense, however. As you note: rocks are not alive. So if we imagine a forced choice: destroy a rock, an eggplant, a cow or a human, these values become apparent. [ Assuming all other conditions equal again. ]
You have, it appears, hardly any choices to deal with things like the divinely-sanctioned killing of David's child and the slaughter of the infants in 1 Samuel 15:3.
So far, the only way to cope with this serious contradiction in morality is as follows:
1. The incidents didn't happen, even though they are in your scriptures.
2. The incidents happened but not the way they are described in your scriptures.
3. They are all metaphors, even though the scriptures make no effort to portray them as such.
Did I miss anything? For someone to assume the above with regard to those contradictions, is indeed to carry a heavy burden.
At the end of the day, for the a believer in these faiths such as yourself, choosing to ignore the implications of the contradictions, is no real peace. You will have your own mind to answer to, to explain how a "loving" god could have done all that it did, with respect to those infants, don't you?
Immaterial. I asked a very simple question. The entity in Genesis 3:14 that tempted Eve to take the fruit, was it a metaphorical serpent or the real animal?
Do you see everything else as metaphors, as well? The slaying of the Amalekite infants by divine order in 1 Samuel 15:3, and David's child being killed by the same deity for being born a bastard - are these all "metaphors" as well? How do you address the moral contradictions of a being (David's child) being killed by the deity for absolutely no fault of its own? Killed with a week's worth of suffering and debilitation, at that.
The Golden Rule is beyond mere “feel-good”.
What Kosta50 said has truth, but the “feel-good” part isn’t merely because the self alone “feels good”. The “feel-good” IS good, for every other being, as well - to a large extent. It’s the basis of social co-operation that is critical to the survival of the human species, and beyond.
You raise an interesting point when you focus to make the Golden Rule appear to be selfish to the point of malevolent intent when you say that the morality based on it, is based on “feel good” in the traditional sense of the phrase. What I would want to ask you now, is this: If you were made to take the place of Saul in 1 Samuel 15:3 and ordered to slaughter the Amalekite infants by your god, what would you choose to do? Would you refuse, based on what your (Golden Rule-based) instincts told you, or would you see compliance to this divine order to be superior to your own moral judgment, and thus perform the slaughter of the infants?
I'm arguing against this position; Kosta for it. So I guess you and I are no the same side here.
Where I am unclear is how you get to the golden rule without some religious views if you're not arguing the same as Kosta.
That what I was trying to find out in asking whether the golden rule was a dependent value and more specifics of how you personally derive it's truth. Would I be correct in saying its value is in serving the value of " the survival of the human species, and beyond." IOW it is valuable because survival is valuable?
What I would want to ask you now, is this: If you were made to take the place of Saul in 1 Samuel 15:3 and ordered to slaughter the Amalekite infants by your god, what would you choose to do?
My God doesn't cause me to slaughter. More of a love your enemies kind of God, y'know?
If you enjoy this kind of thing, the old "you have a slaughtering cruel vicious God" bit, you might want to have this argument with some Calvinists or other reformed.
My goodness. You really must:
1) Have me mixed up with someone else.
2) Have only one stereotype for all of Christianity.
3) Haven't read my previous posts to you days ago on this subject.
4) Don't give a darn what I say.
:)
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.