And how do you know if God sent that asteroid(providing you believe in OEC or EC)to kill of the dinos? It’s like how do you know He caused Hurricane Katrina or it was just a natural disaster caused by this chaotic world we live in?
Yes there is a verse in the Bible that says God causes calamities but does He always cause it or does He let natural order take care of things?
Yes, that is exactly right. It IS because of our intervention, and that’s why I limited it to the US in the past 4 decades, because that is where and when the laws (like the Fish and Wildlife Act, and the Endangered Species Act) were enforced. And that is my point (although I admit I didnt really make it). We can prevent the 6th extinction if we have the will to do so. It is not an automatic consequence of either the existence of human beings, or of our technological society. Contrary to much popular opinion, the situation is not hopeless, and we dont need to revert to primitive lifestyle (which was not very ecologically friendly as it turns out). We can do something about it by extending the kind of law and effort that went into prevention of extinctions in so many cases, and we need to convince everyone that is the case.
Aleo
Peter may have been a fisherman, but he spent 3 years in full time teaching from a master - and some time before that as a disciple of John. Jesus was using the Scriptures - especially the prophets and psalms (in depth) - to re-interpret the teaching his disciples had received in the synagogue in a radical new way. and he was doing it so they could not only preach the word with authority after his departure, but defend the new teaching before the theological leaders of Israel, as a matter of life and death for both speakers and hearers. And the Lord gave some pretty sharp rebukes to Peter when he got it wrong, too - especially when he misunderstood who Jesus was, despite being with him every day. Jesus redefined what it was to be human - so if we start with human experience rather than his words and works we can create God in human image, and many have.
The effectiveness of Jesus’s training shows in the sermons in Acts and the letter(s) Peter wrote, as well as in the growth and depth of both faith and knowledge in the early Church - Peter became a significant theologian as well as a leader and martyr. There is no conflict between the teaching and the love he learned at Jesus’s feet - they were each as important to what it meant to be God’s holy people.
Those privileged to have brains and education as well as the gift of faith, have a particular responsibility to make full use of them in the service of their faith. Now, I take it that the task of BioLogos is to develop a synthesis between Christian faith and science. That requires knowing the science, and not only that but the presuppositions of the science, which is where the apparent conflicts arise. But it also means knowing our theology equally well, or risking a synthesis that sacrifices core truths without realising they were core truths. The project is serious kingdom business, no less than Peter’s was.
The replies to Karl Giberson’s recent piece at Huffington Post were mainly from atheists (a) applauding him and (b) saying what fools Christians are - I’m not sure if he considered that ink well spent. But one reply struck me in particular - it said that scientists read dozens of books, but religious people are more likely to have read one, and got it wrong.
Is that charge true to any degree? Christians in science are, by definition, recipients of a good education, and are rightly concerned, I think, that a site like BL should get its science right. We see plenty of corrections - even put-downs - here when people get the science wrong. But are they as concerned to get their thinking equally rigorous as regards their faith, or do they maintain that old false dichotomy between science as a matter of truth and error, and faith as a matter of feeling only?
If they do, it would not be surprising in American society (if one has read Ross Douthat’s Bad Religion), and sometimes it seems that way here, as what seems a veritable candy store of religious ideas are tossed back and forth without much discrimination as to what accords with historic Christian faith and what doesn’t. That isn’t how Jesus handled matters of faith. He told the leading priests: “You are in error, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” They didn’t laugh - they crucified him.
But as scientifically trained people (and my career was in medicine) we ought to be as concerned to take pains to train ourselves in the truths of our faith as much as the truths of science. That’s especially so if we really hope to be part of the solution to the pernicious science-faith divide, rather than simply replacing “basics of faith + creationism” with “basics of faith + evolution”, retaining most of the same intellectual and spiritual weaknesses. They look much the same animal to me.
On the actual issue, it is for the very reason that we cannot truly comprehend on our Creator that we ought not to speculate, but seek out what God has revealed about himself. In both Testaments worshipping God as you imagine him, or want him, to be rather than as he reveals himself to be are called “idolatry”, and associated with dire warnings. So when I say “danger” I’m not talking about academic theology, but faithfulness to Christ 101.
Jon Garvey
This makes more sense Sy. Thanks for the clarification. I wonder however, what is meant by extinction, since I am led to believe that in pre-historical times, species seem to have disappeared over a very long period, and in some cases, variations of such species have survived to this day.
“… the ancient Greek arguments for the attributes of God …???”
Statements such as this cannot be taken seriously, nor form a topic for reasonable discussion. The ancient Greeks worshipped idols - even ten year old kids know this. I have to say this Albert, some of your comments are so way of, that I have to force myself to respond.
As for your comments in another post, that fishermen would have the same trouble as you regarding the attributes of God, as you propound so often; it is obvious that you have not bothered to read the Gospels, particularly according to John. The formulation of the Trinity and related matters is derived from these sources.
It is not a matter of having our minds ‘written on’, or if we are empty headed as blank slates. Those who take the trouble to seek knowledge, and have the attitude needed for the truth, can obtain the information they seek. Once this is done, they then need to decide for themselves what they accept and believe.
No doubt about it, Jon, the way I picture St. Peter is based more on Hollywood productions than on historical research. So I should not reach any conclusions based on that. For instance, I did not know that Peter was a disciple of John the Baptist before he met Jesus. (Your first quote) But you must admit that the NT story appears inconsistent at times. For instance, in your second quote you say "he (Peter, at least sometimes) misunderstood who Jesus was". Of course my Catholic upbringing stresses Peter’s declaration: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.”
For some of us, scholarly theology can become so analytical it ceases to reinforce Faith.
Al Leo
@Sy_Garte
I disagree with you about the possibility of spontaneously started evolution.
There were not millions but billions years available for the evolution of self replicating molecules.
In every cubic millimeter are millions or even billions chemical reactions per second during those billions years.
Multiply that with the quantity of cubic millimeters in the worldwide oceans.
We can not exclude that some meteor dropped a 10 billion old molecule from another galaxy in that ocean.
Keep in mind that a single self replicating molecule is enough to start a chain reaction.
Keep also in mind that God has a finger in the pie and our universe is his toy.
I’m not impressed by statements made by scientists. So far I have not met one who did not suffer from tunnel vision.
And if someone has a cogent, rational theory on any subject, he/she is attacked, called “pseudo scientific”, obstructed, forced out of his/her job, and so on.
No, we are civilized citizens, we do not burn people at the stake, we make only their life miserable. If you have trouble to believe me, then you might check what happened to a professor economy, who compared the efficiency of various stock market theories and published that Warren Buffett had the best theory.
Greetings, Jan
No, it appears that the first living cell appeared only a few hundred million years (maybe even 2 or 3 hundred million years) after Earth;s formation.
No, there are actually very few chemical reactions that go on spontaneously and uncatalyzed in sea water or anywhere else. While some chemical reactions do occur, they are extremely slow, and they tend to be very simple reactions compared to what happens in living cells.
I agree that is a strong possibility, it doesnt tell us how or where life originiated, but it might allow for more time that was available on the early Earth.
That sounds nice, but it isnt true. Self replicating molecules dont start chain reactions unless they are part of living cells. And there are no self replicating molecules ourside of living systems. If you know of any please tell us which molecules are capable of self replication.
I am sure that is true. Since your own knowledge of chemistry and biology is not terribly scientific, which doesnt prevent you from making assertive statements, I am sure that you have no interest in the large body of factual knowledge accumlated by scientists. But in that case, I dont know why we are having this discussion.
I agree with that view.
I never said the situation was hopeless, and I certainly don’t want to revert to primitive living. I appreciate warm baths and flush toilets.
Right. That part of my comment was not directed at you, but at “popular opinion” Of course, you are not alone in preferring certain modern conveniences. I visited a “back to nature” commune back in the good old 60s, and to summarize, it wasnt going well.
LOL! I picture naked hippies with beards and body odor frolicking in a lake!
Many of the philosophers were very bright, and their works on ethics (esp Aristotle and the Stoics) deserves serious study. I can be corrected on this one, but I recall reading Plato on Greek religion and arts - he characterised this as friends meeting for a party, but he gave each one a garland of flowers infested with insects and other irritants. This image says a great deal - but there are very few like Plato.
Getting back (vaguely) on topic, the attributes of God were imo foreign to these Greek thinkers. Paul made a very insightful comment in pointing to an endless pantheon, even including a god they may not have heard of. The religion of the Greeks often does not reflect their philosophical thinking, and attributes of God as understood by Christians is foreign to such cultures and civilisations.
The Patristic writings dealt on many occasions with the errors promoted by Greek culture and philosophy. This is a subject in itself so I will leave it for now.
Albert
I won’t talk about the problems of a Catholic upbringing because I had the problems of an Anglican upbringing… life is for unlearning, as well as learning, for all of us I guess.
The story of Peter’s recognition of the Lord’s Messiahship goes on to say how it was the key to Jesus’s beginning to teach about the necessity of his death. Peter rebukes him (for not having a proper positive Messianic attitude of fighting evil/Romans and winning, I suppose), and Jesus says “Get behind me, Satan.” Ouch.
But without getting at you in particular, you demonstrate my point - Peter’s story is not hidden in weighty tomes, but in the Bible, and if we have a University education we have a particular responsibility to bring our minds (and hearts, soul and strength) to bear on our love for God, because of that “first and greatest commandment”. Jesus again, in teaching mode: “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required.”
Sister Rosetta Tharpe was no academic, but put things in this simple way:
Ain’t nobody’s fault but mine
Nobody’s fault but mine
If I don’t read, my soul be lost
Ain’t nobody’s fault but mine
My mother she taught me how to read
My mother she taught me how to read
If I don’t read, my soul be lost
Ain’t nobody’s fault but mine
Well I got a bible in my house
Well I got a bible in my house
If I don’t read, my soul be lost
Ain’t nobody’s fault but mine
I do not want to go into a lengthy discussion in this thread - suffice it to say that Augustine felt some of Plato was to his liking, but he did not endorse him. Tertullian, for example, provides an opposition to Plato regarding the soul, and also against the Stoics. My impression is that many of the early writings were done by Greeks who were educated in the Greek Academy (and similar schools) probably before they were converted. It seems reasonable they would understand the thinking of prominent philosophers, and I would be surprised if they were out and out hostile to these teachings. Instead they would point out where Christianity differed and also did an great job of linking much of Greek thought and belief with idolatry, and from that convince people of that time of the great error that flows from idolatry.
Nowadays we are inclined to see everything in aggressive terms. I think the Church Fathers were more interested in showing how Christians could understand things within the faith, and saw the various schools of thought as mildly interesting, unless they dealt with attributes of God, the soul, Christ, the resurrection etc. On these matters I cannot see any tolerance for pagan Greek belief, way of life, or philosophical arguments.
Dear Beagle Lady.
I’m a little late in the conversation, but there’s something that troubles me about your theological implications.
Like the YECs say, God could have just created us instantaneously if He wanted too. But the evidence implies that He didn’t do it that way — you can either adapt and harmonize this information, or throw out the baby with the bath water. I choose to adapt and harmonize.
God who doesn’t hold the universe in his hands isn’t theologically sound. God didn’t “need” to use a meteor … He could have done it in a multitude of ways. But He chose not too.
I don’t see this as anymore “theologically troubling” than the reality of stillborn babies and people that end up having horrible diseases. In 1st Samuel chapter 2, Hannah gives praise to God after being blessed with Samuel saying: “For he maketh alive and He killeth. He bringeth up and he bringeth down. He makes the beggar to rejoice and the rich to weep etc.,” … Why do we have to conclude that all of Gods actions must be pleasant, or that His world must be filled with butterflies and rainbows, otherwise it’s not God’s world?
Paul does not equate suffering as being “anti-God” but rather he calls on Christians to be blessed THROUGH tribulations. He lists “long-suffering” as an attribute worthy of honor; that we are as gold being tried through the fire and coming out as fine gold. In the book of Job it says that the foolish ostrich hides her eggs under the dust unaware that animals will come across and crush them. Why? Because God hath not granted her with wisdom.
The point is this: it’s presumptuous of to guess God’s motivations … And if something happened in God’s universe that we find unpleasant, that can’t be a reason in and of itself, that God did not perform that action.
-Tim
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.