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."
It’s self-evident. Just think about it.
Which question? The question you thought you were asking? The question you were in fact asking but didn’t perceive?
The imaginary question you were asking me, or the real question you were asking yourself?
Science requires evidence. It does not allow laws backed by volumes of scientific evidence to be arbitrarily modified by claiming the arbitrary modification is justified as being self evident. IOWs, the claim justifies itself. That's ridiculous.
Whose God?
Here’s a way to understand this: it’s not the content of the law I’m talking about, but the logic with which the law is processed.
Real thinking always starts when one asks oneself a question.
"Here’s a way to understand this: it’s not the content of the law I’m talking about, but the logic with which the law is processed."
The law of Conservation of Energy, and the Second Amendment are in plain English and are not to be processed.
You just processed the Second Amendment, right there in your post.
The substance of the law tells us that energy can neither be destroyed nor created. It doesn’t say that energy can neither be destroyed nor created, and that this has always been true infinitely into the past.
Here’s the most important point of my discussion with you: whether or not the law has always been true is a question that is separate from the substance of the law.
You just processed the Second Amendment, right there in your post.
The substance of the law tells us energy can “neither be destroyed nor created.” It doesn’t say that energy can “neither be destroyed nor created and this has always been true infinitely into the past.”
Here’s the most important point of my discussion with you: whether or not the law has always been true is a question that is separate from the substance of the law.
No. A law applies everywhere. Time is a where and a time interval is also an inverse measure of any particular amount of energy.
All the evidence that exists supports the conservation of energy law. Notice that there are no constraints, conditionals, or contingencies attached to the law. Notice that you are the one attempting to attach one. If you wish to dispute the law and attach a condiitonal: Provide some evidence. Otherwise the law stands as is in science.
"You just processed the Second Amendment, right there in your post."
I read it and take the plain English meaning of the words. I did not "process it" as in an application of some: "logic with which the law is processed.", as you claim in 1605. You're applying the logic to the conservation of energy law, concluding that it is invalid as stated and applying the ocndiitonal, which acts as a constraint to regions of space where it's validity holds AND insisting that it's very nature changes according to it's own nature!
Any amount of energy can be represented by a characteristic inverse time quantity. That representational equivalence is a result of the underlying essences of what energy and time are. It's represented by the statement; A=A. One can not write A≠A at some arbitrary interval of time, which is what you are attempting to do. It's the same as claiming the Second Amendment does not mean what it says, because times have changed and we are now in a new time interval.
None of which have thrived - all crumbling, failed or dead within. (Sorry for the long delay in replying - it's only now that I have the time at hand to compose detailed replies.)
Ah, but here’s a trick question:
Since survival is good accomplished by the Golden Rule, is it true that cultures/societies which last the longest are therefore the best (most good)?
None of which have thrived - all crumbling, failed or dead within.
The US has lasted slave free for about 150 years; Great Britain a bit longer. There are slave societies in history that lasted a great deal longer.
Sorry for the long delay in replying; but I've been free from the bondages of work, only since yesterday:
You had said:
"Insofar as reading the Holy Bible beneficially is concerned, tell we what metaphoric message would you read into the injunction to not steal? Or, what metaphoric lesson might we take away from the injunction against covetousness?"
I replied:
You then replied:
"Probably for your purposes, certainly."
No, you didn't answer my question there.
“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?
And now you wish to dictate the very simple answer so that you may get on with your point: Either that the Judeo-Christian God is a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, and capriciously malevolent bully as prophesized in the First Book of Dawkins, or that nothing in the Bible is really real so we can all heave a sigh of relief and relax?
In asking you what metaphoric lesson might be taken away from the injunction against covetousness, or the commandment to not steal, I was telling you that nothing in The Bible can be taken entirely metaphorically or, in all likelihood, entirely literally. I understand that my reply will not please you, but I’m not here to please you.
So, when you read much of the Old Testament, and some of the new, through the lenses of what your own opinion thinks is what they should mean, what are those passages wherein your deity is ordering in plain language, the slaughtering of infants and children, conveying to you? Aren't you forced to ignore them, precisely because of the problem of ethical and moral incompatibility that they present vis-a-vis the Golden Rule (do not do unto others what you do not want done unto you)? You don't have to please me, but ignoring the fact that violence is mandated in your scriptures, and then attempting to contort them to become metaphors that mean the opposite of what they really say, is not going to wash in any rational analysis of the sections.
“Do you see everything else as metaphors, as well?”
No. If you had paid heed to my reference to post # 1481(in post #1482), also copied to you, you would know that I do not (“I do accept scripture literally (as in “Thou shalt not steal”). I also accept scripture metaphorically, allegorically, historically, doctrinally and literarily”).
This is possible to an extent. When words can't be minced any further, such as when your god orders its protagonists to slaughter infants in 1 Samuel 15:3, it fails so thoroughly, it only serves to leave the believer in such theology forced to accept that the deity in question isn't a moral one, or to ignore them completely like an uncomfortable, unchangeable aspect of the deity - a particularly Islamic-like quality, I must declare.
“The slaying of the Amalekite infants by divine order in 1 Samuel 15:3”
And, we’re back to the misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, and capriciously malevolent bullying motif.
It's not a motif when the words plainly declare themselves the orders of your deity. What other metaphorical lesson can be taken from "Go and kill the infants and children!" - 1 Samuel 15:3?
This text (1 Samuel 15:3) is a subject that has occupied Hebrew scholars and ethicists from time immemorial. Some point out that the Hebrew people reacted when they were subjected to an unprovoked surprise attack, extermination being the intent. Others note that since Amalek does not exist today, the commandment cannot be carried out. Most seem to agree that lessons from that time may have application today where over 7.5 million Israelis, including over 1.5 million Arab Israelis are surrounded by 200 million hostile Arabs bent on Israel’s extermination.
Nonsensical answer. Since when did it suddenly become moral to slaughter the innocent, targetted specifically and deliberately, and not as a casualty of war? Furthermore, even in the New Testament, the moral invalidity of a deity ordering the slaughter of innocents is never discussed. Why? For a "time immemorial" ethical dilemma, Jesus surely would have had to make some clarifications now, wouldn't he?
If you wish an in-depth discussion on 1 Samuel 15:3, take it up with the Hebrew scholars who have pursued this subject for millennia.
The scriptures are yours, as well. You cannot simply shy away from the responsibility of explaining them, both to yourselves and others who've pointed out the moral voids in what you accept as your beliefs. For someone observing this peculiarly selective loss of interest in discussing the elements of, it only appears as a way of trying to "solve" a problem by ignoring it.
As a simple man, I am involved in more humble matters such as working out what is one to do next if one turns the other check and is struck again by his enemy, or how is one to love his neighbor when the so-and-so throws garbage over the back fence. Or, on a larger stage, as a humble voting citizen of a great republic, what to do about a people who declare their intent to murder Americans wholesale and who demonstrate they mean to do it.
The Golden Rule, older than all religions and all scriptures, is enough arrive at the same understanding. Lacking a humble interest in searching for the truth, and moreover, selectively ignoring the uncomfortable aspects of the assumed truth, is certainly no innocent humility. It can also be malevolent, laced with the intent to conceal uncertainties.
But, with respect to investing in man’s humane treatment of his fellow man, we must observe that it is the Judeo-Christian West that has labored for a thousand years to regulate the issues of the meaning of lawful war, the origins of war, the avarice and cruelty of war, the treatment of prisoners, when the right of conquest and the claiming of the spoils of war are just and when they are not, the rights of discovery and the treatment of native peoples, the securing of peace as the prime objective of war, questions of maritime law, redress for injuries, restitution of property and recompense for wrongs done, and the laws of embassy and envoys. Can the same be said of Asian despots? Of Atheistic socialist tyrannies? Not likely, Pilgrim.
Not until the Age of Reason, post-1700s, was there such social movements that ultimately lead to freedom in its truest sense. Not until rationalism and free thinking mauled down the religious orthodoxy of Europe of the time.
Verses upon verses of Hindu texts discuss the aspects of ethical warfare - from such things as stopping warfare post sun-down, to specifically refraining from attacking women and children. Does that make Hindism any truer? Certainly not! When you have your scriptures calling for wholesale genocide and specific targeting of children, where did those post-1700s morality standards disappear? Where did they disappear during the slave trade? During the barbarism inflicted upon the natives - from slaughter to primitive germ warfar - through the usage of infected blankets? Or, as in my case, Australia, where the aboriginals were hunted down because they weren't considered to be human?
What set off this controversy (insofar as it concerns my participation) was my suggestion that it is not “fantastic tales” about talking serpents or talking donkeys that are central to Biblical Instruction, but rather lessons such as to heed the two great commandments, to honor one’s mother and father, to murmur not at the ways of Providence, and all the other familiar biblical injunctions. The scandal has not ceased since.
Although a considerable amount of dust has been subsequently kicked up and many great gaseous discharges emitted, that simple issue has yet to be confronted. Other than the exchange of talking points, little more can be done to have a productive discussion unless common assumptions are established. I’m not buying into the insistence that “fairy tales” are central to Biblical Instruction and must be accepted as a common assumption. Plain words to that effect, in the scriptures would have been more effective, and more truthful. When a pattern is seen in your scriptures, of the slow, once-in-a-millennia-updated progression of the deity's change in stance from one that is trigger-happy in ordering genocide, to later complying with the Golden Rule, it shows not the divinity of the deity, but rather, the hallmark qualities of the hand of man, in inventing those words, and those religions - each and every one of them.
When a society that violates the Golden Rule comes with an expiry date, how is it survival? More importantly, how is such a society one that is thriving? (Note the key difference in terminology). "Longest lasting" is no criteria - influence, gravitas and sustained success are more important. Under these classifications, slave states fail miserably.
Yes, and for all measures of success, both are right at the top, when it comes to ranking high on those parameters. Do you honestly believe that a slave-free US is going to die out faster than a slavery-based US (one that was particularly so, in more religious times)?
There are slave societies in history that lasted a great deal longer.
Merely existing in geographical niches and isolated havens, slowly decaying into obsolescence, is no sign of success. Sustenance of success is key. To that end, all slavery-based states have failed.
1. Your god is supreme, and can do whatever it wants (even order genocides and child slaughter).
First, let’s acknowledge that number one above is as solid a reason as any could ever be. No refutation of it makes sense.
Who? Allah?
What source informs us that we can use human standards to judge God’s will?
What else does being created in a deity's image entail, other than that the created perceive similar codes of morality as the entity it was modelled after? To avoid this conclusion by surrendering to the statement that your god can do whatever it pleases, including such abhorrent things violating the Golden Rule as ordering child-slaughter, is to accept a serious moral contradiction in your own accepted dogma. The fact that this problem is so inadequately addressed in the circles of theology reveals the inclination to ignore and shrug under the proverbial carpet, this serious, serious moral flaw.
So were the slave states in their time.
You can't assume facts not in evidence.
Do you honestly believe that a slave-free US is going to die out faster than a slavery-based US (one that was particularly so, in more religious times)?
Doesn't matter what I "believe". Slave societies have lasted longer than the U.S. so far.
To that end, all slavery-based states have failed.
And you know 1) the US won't fail and 2) It will last longer than slave societies in history? You're assuming.
Merely existing in geographical niches and isolated havens, slowly decaying into obsolescence, is no sign of success.
Egypt, Rome, Greece, the Assyrians, Hittites? Isolated? No sign of success?
And the US is not "slowly decaying"?
It is survival if it survives.
"Longest lasting" is no criteria
If it lasts long it survives long, by definition.
influence, gravitas and sustained success are more important
So if it has all that for five years that's long survival in your criteria? Would this society outscore one who lasted for a thousand years through times of influence and gravitas, etc. and times without it?
Certainly not.
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.