Evolution, Creation, and You

[TownieDeac]

I would relate the wealth of contemporary scientific data, and naive, unquestioning, literalist Christians to "pearls before swine."

 

[Lectro]

Sorry to hear that- never too late if you want to give it a shot. Also, I'm in Gboro, shoot me a PM if you're local and would want to meet to discuss anything.

"Delicious"?

 

[Junebug]

Yes, they extend to the NT as well. So my views boil down to this- Creation didn't end on the (non-literal) seventh day, it continues today. I also don't view God as existing outside the realm of the universe, but rather within and without it. I mean, if God is the source of all being, then why can't you also be bigger than being itself? So that sort of addresses miracles, it's not so much that God reaches a hand into the universe to change something, but rather God is a constant force. That being said, I think that God limits Godself to the laws of physics (which we, of course, don't fully understand). I tend to think miracles are in the eye of the beholder- the birth of a child can be a miracle, but so can a cure from cancer, and so can the feeding of 5,000 (whether through physical duplication or inspiring sharing). I know next to nothing about quantum physics (so TW or others feel free to refine/counter), but my understanding of concepts such as the Butterfly Effect is that causation isn't as linear as we'd like to think. And if God is an actor in the ongoing Creation of being, then there is "space" for God to act as well. Hope this section makes sense, let me know if it doesn't.

Virgin Birth: I don't think it makes a difference, as I don't view sin as something that is "passed down" through sperm and that we need a sinless specimen to be a sacrificial lamb. If I had to put money on it, I borrow a line from NT Wright (I think)- "I believe that God could arrange for a Virgin Birth if he wanted to, but I very much doubt that he did."

Incarnation- Yes, I do think Jesus is one in the same as YHWH- the God of Israel and the Creator of all that is. Again, I think this is possible regarding my view on God's agency/presence within Creation.

Resurrection- I don't believe in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, but then again, neither do the gospel accounts. Jesus clearly is some sort of new reality (that's why it's called the Resurrection and the not Resuscitation)- he has elements of flesh and elements of a ghost. It's something different entirely. The physical vs spiritual debate on the Resurrection is a false dichotomy. While I disagree with his premise and conclusion, I think Bart Ehrman actually has some good ideas on this. He speaks of Jesus being glorified through the Cross and ascends to "the right hand of the Father" through the Crucifixion. Once you're at the right hand of the Father, making a few appearances from Heaven really isn't a big accomplishment, I mean, you're the Lord of the universe at that point. I fully believe that Jesus was Resurrected, but I think the insistence that it has to be bodily is misinformed.

Rev, thanks for your response. I'm on the same page (maybe not every word) with you re: miracles and a God who perpetually acts in and through a continuing creation, but it seems like the idea of a God who chooses to act in this way through the laws of physics is incompatible with the idea of a God who becomes incarnate in one person in history. Ultimately, I think the theologian will be forced to say "well, that's just the nature of God," but before we get there can you explain more about how these seemingly incompatible ideas relate to one another?

And just so all of my cards are on the table, I agree with one of your prior posts that suggested Christians shouldn't be expected to take the Old Testament as history. My inclination is to take that same criticism to the New Testament, but at some point--and I'm still trying to sort out where that is--the baby goes out with the bath water.

 

[RevDeac06]

If the tomb was empty, where did the body go?

Honestly, I don't know, but I'm not sure it matters. I'm pressed for time, but will respond more fully later- the text of the gospels actually points the idea of an empty tomb being a later addition to the texts.

 

[RevDeac06]

"Delicious"?

My hiding spot has been outed.

 

[beatrix]

Wish there were more like RevDeac06 in churches across this country.

Hear, hear..

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Yeah RevDeac rocks. Also one of my biggest issues with the Christian faith is the lack of acceptance of easily observable occurrences and historical fact because they MIGHT disagree with something from the bible. My freshman year at wake two students walked out of an introduction to the bible class because Mary Foskett said that it was a historical fact that the writers of the gospel weren't contemporaries of Jesus. That was quite the day.

 

[Junebug]

Yeah RevDeac rocks. Also one of my biggest issues with the Christian faith is the lack of acceptance of easily observable occurrences and historical fact because they MIGHT disagree with something from the bible. My freshman year at wake two students walked out of an introduction to the bible class because Mary Foskett said that it was a historical fact that the writers of the gospel weren't contemporaries of Jesus. That was quite the day.

I think you mean "some Christians" or "certain strands of Christianity" in your second sentence, not "the Christian faith."

 

[Wakeforest22890]

I think you mean "some Christians" or "certain strands of Christianity" in your second sentence, not "the Christian faith."

Sure. I find the Christian faith to be ignorant in its teachings in many ways (even in a more modern and loosely interpreted bible) but you're correct that in this instance I meant some Christians and the followers of the Christian faith. I'll cede the adjective "some" for the time being but would reserve the right to argue that it's more likely to be "most fundamentalist Christians."

 

[Deacfreak07]

Sure. I find the Christian faith to be ignorant in its teachings in many ways (even in a more modern and loosely interpreted bible) but you're correct that in this instance I meant some Christians and the followers of the Christian faith. I'll cede the adjective "some" for the time being but would reserve the right to argue that it's more likely to be "most fundamentalist Christians."

You are assuming a monolithic identity for Christianity which simply doesn't exist, much like all major religions.

 

[WFU71]

Yes, they extend to the NT as well. So my views boil down to this- Creation didn't end on the (non-literal) seventh day, it continues today. I also don't view God as existing outside the realm of the universe, but rather within and without it. I mean, if God is the source of all being, then why can't you also be bigger than being itself? So that sort of addresses miracles, it's not so much that God reaches a hand into the universe to change something, but rather God is a constant force. That being said, I think that God limits Godself to the laws of physics (which we, of course, don't fully understand). I tend to think miracles are in the eye of the beholder- the birth of a child can be a miracle, but so can a cure from cancer, and so can the feeding of 5,000 (whether through physical duplication or inspiring sharing). I know next to nothing about quantum physics (so TW or others feel free to refine/counter), but my understanding of concepts such as the Butterfly Effect is that causation isn't as linear as we'd like to think. And if God is an actor in the ongoing Creation of being, then there is "space" for God to act as well. Hope this section makes sense, let me know if it doesn't.

Virgin Birth: I don't think it makes a difference, as I don't view sin as something that is "passed down" through sperm and that we need a sinless specimen to be a sacrificial lamb. If I had to put money on it, I borrow a line from NT Wright (I think)- "I believe that God could arrange for a Virgin Birth if he wanted to, but I very much doubt that he did."

Incarnation- Yes, I do think Jesus is one in the same as YHWH- the God of Israel and the Creator of all that is. Again, I think this is possible regarding my view on God's agency/presence within Creation.

Resurrection- I don't believe in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, but then again, neither do the gospel accounts. Jesus clearly is some sort of new reality (that's why it's called the Resurrection and the not Resuscitation)- he has elements of flesh and elements of a ghost. It's something different entirely. The physical vs spiritual debate on the Resurrection is a false dichotomy. While I disagree with his premise and conclusion, I think Bart Ehrman actually has some good ideas on this. He speaks of Jesus being glorified through the Cross and ascends to "the right hand of the Father" through the Crucifixion. Once you're at the right hand of the Father, making a few appearances from Heaven really isn't a big accomplishment, I mean, you're the Lord of the universe at that point. I fully believe that Jesus was Resurrected, but I think the insistence that it has to be bodily is misinformed.

I would love to have an opportunity to spend a couple of hours discussing all of this with you. I was raised Roman Catholic, but left the church in my late teens - spent 20+ years as an agnostic before having a revelation of sorts in a moment of crisis.

 

[RevDeac06]

Honestly, I don't know, but I'm not sure it matters. I'm pressed for time, but will respond more fully later- the text of the gospels actually points the idea of an empty tomb being a later addition to the texts.

So Mark is the earliest of the gospel accounts, but you can find traces of this in Matthew/Luke. Mark clearly ends with no Resurrection appearances (there is a much later addition that you can find in your Bible called the "longer ending of Mark), meaning that no one was concerned about the body- because for them, Jesus' glorification came through the process of Crucifixion and Resurrection- but no one cared about the body at that point, so no textual evidence is given to it. But in Matthew and Luke there are all sorts of inconsistencies in the text that seem to indicate later additions from other theological schools (people concerned about the body)- one example is was Jesus raised or did he raise himself (passive vs active). You can find both existing side by side, which is an indication that there were competing thoughts on this. Also, if you want an interesting read, check out the Gospel according to Peter- fairly short and features a talking cross. To really cover it all would take at least an hour long session, but Ehrman writes some about this in his latest book (again, for the record, I agree with some of his interpretations but not his conclusions).

 

[RevDeac06]

Rev, thanks for your response. I'm on the same page (maybe not every word) with you re: miracles and a God who perpetually acts in and through a continuing creation, but it seems like the idea of a God who chooses to act in this way through the laws of physics is incompatible with the idea of a God who becomes incarnate in one person in history. Ultimately, I think the theologian will be forced to say "well, that's just the nature of God," but before we get there can you explain more about how these seemingly incompatible ideas relate to one another?

And just so all of my cards are on the table, I agree with one of your prior posts that suggested Christians shouldn't be expected to take the Old Testament as history. My inclination is to take that same criticism to the New Testament, but at some point--and I'm still trying to sort out where that is--the baby goes out with the bath water.

So yea, is becoming incarnate breaking a self-imposed law of physics? I mean, perhaps, but then again, the Incarnation is a rather large sort of event and could qualify as an exception. I'm not quite in this camp, but there are some that would say Jesus is a prophet/holy man but only became the Son of God either in his Baptism (adoptionism) or in his crucifixion (glorification). So that's one way to deal with it. When it comes down to it though, I'm not sure that the human mind can fully comprehend the divine (or concepts like eternity/infinity), so I don't know that we can ever reconcile the idea of of the limitless taking on limits, the Creator becoming a creature, the divine becoming incarnate. I try to avoid saying things like "it's a miracle" or "I guess we just can't understand God" because those lines are often used a cop outs and hide poor logic- but in this case, at least for right now, that's where I end up. I can go with theology/Scripture to a point, but there is a leap of faith involved for some matters of faith.

 

[RevDeac06]

Slight change of topic, but completely serious-

This has been a great conversation and several of you have either commented or given me pos rep for responses, even those of you who aren't churchy.

What would it take to get you to have this sort of conversation in person through a church? I'm not talking about coming to Sunday services, but what I'm wondering is- how could I design/market something that would attract non-churchy people to have these sorts of conversations? Most people, when they see that something is hosted by a church, even if it's held at a coffee shop or pub, would likely stay away. Any thoughts?

 

[Demonbeck]

Slight change of topic, but completely serious-

This has been a great conversation and several of you have either commented or given me pos rep for responses, even those of you who aren't churchy.

What would it take to get you to have this sort of conversation in person through a church? I'm not talking about coming to Sunday services, but what I'm wondering is- how could I design/market something that would attract non-churchy people to have these sorts of conversations? Most people, when they see that something is hosted by a church, even if it's held at a coffee shop or pub, would likely stay away. Any thoughts?

Post a picture of you with your collar with the question underneath, "Want to argue with me?" And then the details.

If they saw that you were being half serious, I think that would draw the right people.

 

[Wrangor]

So yea, is becoming incarnate breaking a self-imposed law of physics? I mean, perhaps, but then again, the Incarnation is a rather large sort of event and could qualify as an exception. I'm not quite in this camp, but there are some that would say Jesus is a prophet/holy man but only became the Son of God either in his Baptism (adoptionism) or in his crucifixion (glorification). So that's one way to deal with it. When it comes down to it though, I'm not sure that the human mind can fully comprehend the divine (or concepts like eternity/infinity), so I don't know that we can ever reconcile the idea of of the limitless taking on limits, the Creator becoming a creature, the divine becoming incarnate. I try to avoid saying things like "it's a miracle" or "I guess we just can't understand God" because those lines are often used a cop outs and hide poor logic- but in this case, at least for right now, that's where I end up. I can go with theology/Scripture to a point, but there is a leap of faith involved for some matters of faith.

This is where I have no problem accepting miracles, floods, etc.... If I believe the God that could create the universe with a Word came to earth in the womb of a frail teenage girl (and my faith hinges on believing this one fact) then everything else is very easy to believe. The Bible reiterates over and over that God's wisdom is not man's wisdom, and that the Gospel is foolishness to those who don't believe. It should come as no surprise to Christians that they are thought of as fools by the world. Without faith, the whole story is pretty ridiculous.

 

[RevDeac06]

This is where I have no problem accepting miracles, floods, etc.... If I believe the God that could create the universe with a Word came to earth in the womb of a frail teenage girl (and my faith hinges on believing this one fact) then everything else is very easy to believe. The Bible reiterates over and over that God's wisdom is not man's wisdom, and that the Gospel is foolishness to those who don't believe. It should come as no surprise to Christians that they are thought of as fools by the world. Without faith, the whole story is pretty ridiculous.

I'd agree with that, except I think miracles aren't just the big things, but surround us all the time- which only furthers your point. I don't reach the same conclusions that you do, but do agree on the basics/name of miracles as God's action in Creation.

 

[Wrangor]

I'd agree with that, except I think miracles aren't just the big things, but surround us all the time- which only furthers your point. I don't reach the same conclusions that you do, but do agree on the basics/name of miracles as God's action in Creation.

Oh I certainly agree there are miracles around us all the time that we don't notice. I just have no problem believing that supernatural events can originate from the One who by His nature is Super (greater than) natural.

If He created it then it seems a pretty easy step to believe He could change it based on what pleases Him.

 

[RevDeac06]

Oh I certainly agree there are miracles around us all the time that we don't notice. I just have no problem believing that supernatural events can originate from the One who by His nature is Super (greater than) natural.

If He created it then it seems a pretty easy step to believe He could change it based on what pleases Him.

I'd say that everything is supernatural, in the sense that the divine subfuses everything else.

On the second point- tons of issues of theodicy, that's why I tend to think that God plays by the rules that God made.

 

[Wrangor]

On the second point- tons of issues of theodicy, that's why I tend to think that God plays by the rules that God made.

that isn't really what the bible teaches. It pretty much says at anytime he can change the script. What biblical basis do you have for that?