Posted on 08/22/2005 9:39:09 PM PDT by Crackingham
Do your own homework, schoolboy.
IMHO, this is self-will run awry and it goes all the way back to Satan who wanted to be like the most high God, and to his temptation of Eve suggesting that she could be like God and to man's idolatries - preferring a "god" of their own making - one they could hold and manipulate - all the way to today's world whether defiance against God or in the more subtle (and perhaps more corrupting) self-centeredness.
When I consider all the evils of man, they seem to share the common thread of self-will run awry - whether hate, anxiety, jealously, lust, theft, adultery, murder, resentment, rebelliousness, oppression, etc. All such things serve the ego of the primary actor.
What a great post!
Please mark as exhibit "C".
The term "perfect" is just too slippery for me, and people get themselves into all kinds of problems if they read too much into its meaning... "Perfect" is one of those words that means whatever you want it to mean, so its easy to set up fallacies and then fall into them.
You are not wrong in noting that people do it all the time.
Absurd is calling our existence perfect harmony at one moment and fallen and corrupt at another moment.
Another area where we are not so far apart. In an all-or-nothing argument, again people can get themselves into logical traps if they are not careful.
But of course, its a big universe, with lots of layers, and lots of things going on at the same time, so its entirely possible to be both beautiful at one level, with pockets of unresolved "stuff" at another level. If you've ever bought a new car, you already know that.
The problem isn't with the fact that beauty co-exists with problems, but again that pesky little word "perfect" which is too slippery to be of much use.
As for man's "fallen" nature, you know as well as I do that there are areas where you lock the car doors while sitting at a stop light, so its entirely possible to love people and still want to renew your "concealed carry" permit.
I have trouble with people who like to emphasize our "fallenness", who go on endlessly about how unworthy we are, how we are but soiled rags in the eyes of God, and so forth. I reject that, at least I reject the obsession with our "unworthiness". If you believe that we are made in the image of God, and redeemed by Christ, I think you should keep the self-loathing to a minimum. My attitude is that God made you for a reason, so act like it.
Leaving aside people who are willfully evil, what people mostly notice when they think about our defects is that life, and creation, are a struggle, with a lot of broken tools and broken bones, and there is just no way around it. They imagine that if we were perfect, that somehow all this would be easy. That is because they misunderstand this business of creation and our part in it.
Its never easy creating a universe out of nothing, or out of very raw materials, and it never will be. But this is what we do. This is what God put us here to do. To ask for our troubles to be over is to ask to be relieved of the very reason for our existence. Creating and loving, the two things we are called to do, are both full contact sports, and carry with them the guarantee of pain. Our "imperfection" has nothing to do with that; our mission in life guarantees struggle and pain.
And fun, too, of course.
As for evolution, its not my issue. The Bible says God rested on the seventh day. I always assume he was back at work Monday morning, alongside the rest of us.
Truly well said, Alamo-Girl! I also think this is the base motivation for the construction of "second realities," which we have discussed before.
Thank you so very much for your kind words of encouragement, dear sister in Christ!
LOLOL dear marron!!!! I know I do, on both counts!
You wrote:
I have trouble with people who like to emphasize our "fallenness", who go on endlessly about how unworthy we are, how we are but soiled rags in the eyes of God, and so forth. I reject that, at least I reject the obsession with our "unworthiness". If you believe that we are made in the image of God, and redeemed by Christ, I think you should keep the self-loathing to a minimum. My attitude is that God made you for a reason, so act like it.
Excellent observation -- and advice.
marron, what follows is gloriously beautiful....
Thank you ever so much for this truly superb essay/post!
Go look up Gerald Schneider's website. That guy is a nuclear physicist and some big-time atheist turned a "believer" because of him. He's very interesting and he's a great man of science too! Science always affirms God.
And there's Gerald Schneider... nuclear physicist. He's got a cool website too.
I will take your 2 cents and give you change, a penny for your thoughts, which appear to run deep. As the correct interpretation of perfect is holy I agree that we can find this only by being "in" our Lord.
bluepistolero
Thank you.
Science recognizes no such possibility because such a possibility cannot be dealt with via the scientific method. In other words, science can neither say that "God exists" nor that "God does not exist." Only if you look upon science as a search for ultimate truth would the idea that science doesn't consider God lead you to believe that science concludes that there is no God. Any intellectually honest scientist would state that science is neutral with respect to God. Science is limited in that respect.
How exactly would finding skeletal remains of Christ falsify the resurrection? After all, couldn't God have put skeletal remains in Christ's tomb, even if Christ had been resurrected? Like any other phenomenon involving direct Divine intervention, the resurrection is not a scientific hypothesis.
Further consideration shows that if the lack of skeletal remains is the only objective, physical evidence for the resurrection, then the resurrection is not the explanation that would be reached by science. The lack of skeletal remains of Christ is consistent with TWO possibilities:
1. That Christ was indeed resurrected as told in the Bible.
2. Christ's remains were hidden really well by someone with an interest in doing so and were never found. Perhaps they were even burned or otherwise destroyed by this person.
Science uses Occam's razor to determine which of two hypotheses that both fit the evidence equally well to differentiate between them. This priniciple states that the simplest hypothesis that fits the evidence should be adopted. Which is the simpler of these two? Absent any evidence other than missing remains, the simplest hypothesis is that someone took the remains. This doesn't conflict with any of the laws of science as we currently know them whereas the competing hypothesis does. If this were not the case, then why don't we hold to the conclusion that Jimmy Hoffa was resurrected? After all, his skeletal remains are also missing. Remember, we are looking at this from a scientific point of view, so writings in the Bible or any other book are not admissable as evidence, only those observations that are objectively verifiable by independent observers.
This doesn't prove that the resurrection didn't occur, and shouldn't shake anyone's faith (including my own) that it did occur. It just shows that the resurrection, like all other events involving direct Divine intervention, is not treatable by science. Unless you believe that science is the be all, end all fountain of truth (something that religious people, by definition, should have no problem disbelieving) it poses no problem that science is limited in this respect. I think where the problems arise in these debates is in the public perception of science.
I think all too often the general public does indeed look upon science as the ultimate arbiter of truth, their own religious beliefs notwithstanding. Any intellectually honest scientist would maintain that science is not about the search for ultimate truths, but rather about the search for explanations that are useful in describing the universe. Science can never go beyond the level of working explanations to determine the ultimate truth.
If archeologists were to find Christ's skeletal remains (2000 years doesn't leave much of the body), and it be proven so, Christianity would be destroyed.
The tomb was guarded by Roman soldiers, in force, and was also sealed... to prevent the body from being stolen.
In my opinion, given the reaction of the disciples/followers at the time of Jesus's arrest, (running away, hiding, denial, and the like) it is somewhat incredulous to claim that one/some of His disciples/followers stole the body out from under, or by force from, the Roman guard (and the Jews) at great personnel risk.
But something happened to the disciples/apostles between Jesus's arrest/crucifixion and when they started boldly preaching the resurrected Christ unto the point of their own death.
What was the cause of this transformation?
A stolen dead body?
This theory/explanation does not provide the catalyst for such an extreme transformation...But a bodily risen Christ does!
Roman soldiers were at the tomb, in force, at the time of the resurrection...They were unable to prevent Christ's body from being stolen or at least provide eye-witness account of the theft and/or the thieves?
Christ's apostles were teaching and preaching about the resurrected Christ shortly after it happened and in the same vacinity.
The Romans and the Jews could have/would have ended all the claims of Christ, the apostle's and Christianity by providing Christ's dead body. They didn't. They couldn't.
Christ is alive.
I never claimed that Christ's resurrection was a scientific hypothesis. But you are right...We have much better. It is a historical fact.
And the athiest evolutionist's claims that Christ is not alive/resurrected (or that He is not God's Son, and so forth) are not constructed from science, but from their own anti-Christ, religious perspectives and faith. True science makes no such claims.
The credibilty of the Scriptures through manuscripts, archeology, fulfilled prophecy and the fact that there is a risen Christ demonstrates Christianity as the true faith when compared to other religions.
The comparison of Christianity to other world religions is the issue I was addressing in my post when I addressed the truth of the risen Christ...A truth that science can not disprove.
You may want to speak to some of the evo posters on this site about true science and ultimate truth...As they have determined that "science" and their interpretation of the evidence has disproved God's existence and also the claims of Christ.
Evolutionists use this false "scientific" faith to attack Christians and Christianity. The evidence (see balrog666's posts above...marked as exhibits "A, B and C")is in previous posts on this thread and on several other threads.
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.