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."
I'm using religion as the term for those things which are beyond the reach of the tools of sense, science and reason/logic - and that we still have to, or wish to, know or deal with somehow.
Intermediate cause (you); final cause (table.)
This does not explain the "existence" of the uncaused.
The explanation is that intermediate and final causes cannot go on into infinity and still have you and the table exist.
I think the point in Relativity is it's different depending on from where you look at it.
It's been quite a while, but my memory is that the significant change is that for Newton the "clock" is the same everywhere for all observers - a uniform, absolute, independent attribute - the same everywhere in the universe when viewed from anywhere else in the universe. Space and time could be considered separately.
For Einstein, the speed of light is that way, and spacetime a continuum.
I love wave theory, how waves share behaviour whether it’s water or light. Working in optics must be a fascinating occupation.
I don’t think refraction violates the Theory of Relativity. That electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum is the same for all observers is the point, not that it still doesn’t refract. This speed is taken as the constant - a universal constant, and the rest of relativity can be seen as flowing from this. IIRC, this was the insight that led to the development of the theory. If the speed of light (in a vacuum) is a universal constant for all inertial frames, then what must happen to space, time, mass..
That doesn't mean it's love.
Religion is an organized belief in some sort of superior being which, when described has many human qualities. What evidence is there for such a thing?
Why not? If one can believe in eternity (which is infinity) it seems like the thinker places an arbitrary stop-gap on causation because all of an sudden logic requires it!
How is that possible given that light is not everywhere instantly?
Repeat drivel as often as you wish; it is still drivel. Repetition of drivel does not lend it gravitas.
“What interpretation?”
Going back to posts #964 & #998, the original point I raised was that “fantastic tales” of talking snakes, talking donkeys, and so forth, are not central to Biblical Instruction. I suggested, rather, that most important was to heed the two great commandments, to honor one’s mother and father, to murmur not at the ways of Providence, and to attend to all the other lessons central to Biblical Instruction. It’s been back and forth since.
Apparently, you would have us believe, as a matter of objective fact, that 2 billion people around the earth crack open their bibles to adore talking snakes, talking donkeys, and to attend to other “fairy tales.” That such a claim must be accepted as a common assumption. And that the Biblical lessons I’ve mentioned are merely peripheral. Is it your position that anything a Materialist asserts must be admitted as objective?
“Again, if I wanted the RM to catch it, I could have pressed the "abuse" button or simply pinged the RM.”
Again . . . Your accusation of “mind-reading” in the hope the RM doesn’t catch it, is itself an instance of implying motives.
No, science is the fluid that flows in the river. A raft is external to it.
" Where the waters become chaotic the raft flips over, or runs aground."
...but science does not, because science understands chaos as simply the study of the behavior of "mixing".
"reason is faith
Faith is simply believing what someone says, regardless of ryme, reason, or whether what's believed is true. Reason is a process by which one measures and analyzes concepts and claims in order to make a subsequent decision on that basis. Reason is not faith, nor is faith equivalent to reason.
Same holds true for you.
It’s been back and forth since
Because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that without the talking snake sin would not have entered the world, and without sin death, and without death there would be no need for the Savior. Ergo Christianity would not exist.
Apparently, you would have us believe, as a matter of objective fact, that 2 billion people around the earth crack open their bibles to adore talking snakes
I never said anything about anyone adoring any snakes. You are making this up. I simply said that without the snake there would be no reason for the Savior.
That such a claim must be accepted as a common assumption. It's not an assumption, it's based on what's in the Bible. No talking snake; no sin; no death; no need for salvation.
Is it your position that anything a Materialist asserts must be admitted as objective?
No, not at all. I never said anything like that. But as for the importance of the talking snake being the source of man's need for salvation, that is all in the Bible, black and white.
In the real world that is simply not absolutely true because the universe is not a perfect vacuum.
How does Einstein's theory account, for example, for the read shift?
In order to avoid going around in circles, I think we need to focus more on specific theology (such as Old Testament literature / scripture demanding your acceptance that refraction only happened post-Noah, after the deity in question produced rainbows as a “pact”) rather than aimlessly wandering around the fog of Deism with tuned biases to make specific religions seem compatible with the unanswered questions. This will be far more productive than switching between Deism / agnosticism and mainstream religion to avoid such queries. If an insult is taken, then that’s a pity, because such beliefs are what the scriptures demand of the believer. Energy and effort would be better spent in addressing these specifics, in preference to taking offense.
A comment I read earlier might serve as a good focus:
“In order to create cells and the universe, your god must be pretty complex as well. Who created your god? Should I just believe something as complex as your god just came out of nowhere? Was he always around? If that is the case, let’s just skip a stage and say the universe was always around.”
Enjoy!
LOL, and the rest of your post is all about me! How consistent.
And my answer to you will be exactly what you wrote, except I will change the terms to show you how relativism works both ways:
"But your handicap is relativism absolutism. It cripples everything you think and everything you say. For example, your statement “It’s factually true,” is subject to becoming “It’s factually untrue,” while yet referring to the same “it.”
This change from true to untrue is random, unpredictable and can happen at any moment. It is the nature of the death of leftist absolutist ideology [be it left or right]—meaninglessness.
Meaninglessness plagues the mind of the everyday liberal absolutist with that gnawing sense of emptiness, the unquenchable yearning for authenticity. Unquenchable, until progressivism dogmatism of every kind is abandoned. I hope you can free yourself of this obstacle to truth, as I hope for any neighbor.
(I’m not asserting you’re a leftist absolutist [of any kind]. But it’s clear you’ve unknowingly adopted leftist dogmatic thinking.)
Think of it this way: relativism absolutism separates the torque of your engine from solid ground. This is why your vehicle is at a standstill. Take the thing out of neutral. But hold on tight.
[To illustrate what I mean] Reality can be scary without trust in the Lord God, Creator of the Universe, he who is before all things and to whom all glory belongs. He is your Creator, as he is my Creator [because I say so].
[Therefore] May God bless you and bring you wisdom, according to his will."
#1394 is a gem!
All you have to do is read/write what's written in each square, regardless of order, or direction; it words perfectly whether it is sued horizontally, vertically, diagonally, randomly, skipping, etc.
The result is something like the article I responded to. It says things that sound good or as if they means something, but actually they say nothing of substance. Consequently, you can simply plug in the names and label's of choice and produce a "speech" or an "article" in a matter of minutes without wrecking your brain. It's every politician's or pastor's (and other important poeple's) delight, since it provides them with an unlimited number of readily available speeches that say absolutely nothing! :)
There is also this cute Youtube video that captures the same spirit...except that it actually says soemthing! :)
sude=used
words=works....just ignore the typos
Really?! Now just a fact; not an objective fact? Just exactly what does “objective” mean?
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts : historians try to be objective and impartial.
• not dependent on the mind for existence; actual : a matter of objective fact.
Apparently, it’s your biblical opinion (interpretation) that sin is contingent on a talking snake; that the willfulness of man has nothing to do with it. The snake said, “let there be sin,” and there was sin. Had there been no snake saying, “let there be sin,” there would have been no sin. The damned snake installed willfulness in Mankind as well as sin. That’s the instruction you take away from the Biblical story of Adam & Eve. If it’s all the snake’s doing, why, then, is man punished?
Just for kicks and giggles, let’s examine the three Great Theses you’ve nailed on the door:
without the talking snake Adam doesn't sin.
without sin there is no death.
without death there is no need for the Savior to die for our sins.
Leaving aside, for the moment, the first of these great theses, let’s go directly to the others.
According to materialist dogma, death is inescapable irrespective of one’s state of grace. In fact, since sin is nonexistent because free will does not exist and sin is dependent on free will, then one’s state of grace has no relevance anyway. Materialists don’t believe in sin, only in death. There is no need for a savior since we’re all going to die in any event. Materialists really don’t believe in any of this nonsense, so none of it is central to Biblical Instruction. Just talking snakes. So, everything hinges on the first Great Thesis.
“I never said anything about anyone adoring any snakes.”
Accept the consequences of your advocacy. You wish to appropriate the advantages of an idea (in this case that talking snake and other “fantastic tales” are central to Biblical Instruction) while denying or ignoring the validity of the understandings upon which the idea logically and genetically depends. So, while Biblical Instruction is concentrated in talking animals and other fantasies, you propose that it is the author (not that you actually believe in Him) of such peripheral bagatelles as the two Great Commandments who is to be worshiped rather than the authors of the central events of Biblical Instruction.
Your three Great Theses fail because they hinge on the failed first.
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.