This was just posted on another long thread. I guess one could think it is not anti-atheism or anti-godlessness. Or instead a person could see it not negatively, but positively, as pro-theism, pro-Christianity, pro-God. It would seem from historical teachings those are two different types of “theology”.
Pope St. John Paul II, Audience July 28, 1999:
The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’” (n. 1033).
“Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God’s initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God’s judgement ratifies this state.
Nope. If people want to believe YEC, BioLogos wants gracious Christian unity with them. Their ministry is to people who feel their faith is threatened when they cannot harmonize what they know to be true about the natural world and what they have been taught about the Bible. And to promote acceptance and welcoming of scientific professionals and scientific expertise as a gift to the church.
So then is leading or coaching evangelicals who constitute most YECs to believe in an old Earth not one of the primary missions of BioLogos? That’s what the “harmonizing” is largely (though not entirely) about, isn’t it?
Not sure who you indicate. As Moderator here, is “Their ministry” not your ministry too?
I would suggest the Creation Museum, either in person or on their web site.
Note, any and all sites and individuals who dare to believe in a Young Universe are all too often mocked, so you will not find a conservative source that is not mocked and ridiculed upon social mediea.
I don’t think “changing people’s minds” is the primary thrust. It’s an invitation, not a competition. BioLogos hopes YECs change their minds. But, it’s more about helping people who are already changing their minds do it in a way that allows them to keep their faith in tact. There is a certain amount of correcting YEC error that goes on, but it is in service of the people who are confused, not an attack on the people who are proponents.
Yes, but as moderators we try not to conflate our own voice and the voice of the organization since we regularly share our own personal views which may or may not be “positions” the organization promotes.
The Problem is that most of what you believe to be true orbits about your unproven assumption that there is no God and no Supernatural source for origins that could ever change anything faster than your observations. While the entire thought that you and or mankind is discovering “New, Never Before Heard of Truth,” is highly addictive to say the least.
Example:
…2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128…
Now I will warn you in advance, just like God warned us, that the process at the beginning does not follow the rote rates of observable change. I will also tell you, just like God tells us, that the end will be sudden and also brought about by me at my whim.
So, what are the previous numbers for the last thousand or so digits?
While how far can you extrapolate into the future with absolute certainty?
A denial of God originates by tossing out all God says and then manufacturing your own guesses based upon what is happening today, with zero real evidence of what happened before any observations were recorded and of course more guesses about where our time line of destiny will ultimately lead.![political content removed by moderator]
While here is an image boasting my own comments
Why did the Romans burn Christians, because we dared to declare that human wisdom and authority were trumped by God’s wisdom and authority. For those who see the world though the window of their own pride will always mock, persecute or even kill anyone who cannot see the world the way they see it:
Yes, leading and coaching evangelicals to believe in an old Earth, “BioLogos hopes YECs change their minds.” Can’t those two sentences be nicely combined? It’s really more about hearts than minds, in any case.
we try not to conflate our own voice and the voice of the organization since we regularly share our own personal views
Ah, ok. So do you accept that “religion evolved into existence”, or the now already “traditional” atheist account of the “evolutionary origin of religion”? I believe that is part of what the above poster is asking. It’s an issue of whether for BioLogos people the view is that God is involved in “the origin of religion”, or whether a naturalistic evolutionary explanation of religion is possible.
Committing oneself to a naturalistic understanding of all reality is part of what the Intelligent Design Movement’s mission is to oppose. Not just evolutionary biology.
As I don’t accept the Discovery Institute’s ID theory, this is added only to at least be fair to what it’s proponents claim and say ID theory is and isn’t, in the context of @cristero’s worthwhile question & research here.
I think there is a fundamental difference between religion and divine revelation of the one true God. I don’t really have that much of a problem with the idea that the human desire to connect with God evolved with their evolving minds and that religious forms of expressing this desire for connection are part of cultural evolution. What I object to is the idea that truth claims that Christians believe are directly revealed by a personal God about himself in relationship with humans are really just human constructs and not divine revelation at all. I don’t think Yahweh invented religion. I think he initiated relationship with humanity.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
51
It’s not a false dichotomy Mervin. Nothing is missing in that there is nothing in the remit of science and reason beyond it that needs a supernatural explanation. Nothing. Is there. Scientific enquiry will go on forever due to Goedel’s Second Theorem of Incompleteness. Every door that opens leads to more doors. Physical doors. Science has never [found] and will never find a magic door. And rational enquiry beyond science will never end either. But they will both come up against human limitation. AI may well take over. It is taking over, but not in some paranoid Terminator sense.
Science doesn’t have to be a-theist; it doesn’t have to be a-transcendent. Those are part of the same null. It needs to vigorously investigate the psychology down to the genetics, evolution and chemistry of religion of course. But it lacks nothing in approach. It has nothing to dismiss.
My goodness gracious, I thought it would be meritorious to listen to the most prominent ID theorists speak at a live event. Have you done that? Why is that not a good thing? You can furnish me a list of peer-reviewed articles about ID from scientific journals. (Not from ID web sites.)
btw, I read the entire Kitzmiller transcript. Behe explains that there might be more than one intelligent designer or that the original intelligent designer might be dead.
Intelligent Design considers itself a “big tent” that includes Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, and others. That’s why they don’t take a stand on the age of the earth. One of their chief members is even a YEC.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
55
You fold? I mean you must have a real dead hand. Or I’m far too dumb to understand? C’mon Mervin. What am I missing? How’m I not even wrong? C’mon you’re all way younger and smarter than me.
While the reason I spend time moderating is that I closely align with BioLogos ministry, realize that the forum itself is an place for the exchange of ideas and hopefully serves to help reach understanding, and the ideas presented by participants may not and often do not represent BioLogos as an organization.
Quite honestly, I am happy for YEC folk who are content with their faith to go along their path and stay off my lawn. It is those who struggle with faith that I hope we can help. So often, that struggle is due to some of the teachings of YEC that in my opinion misinterpret scripture and twist truth into something that causes a crisis of faith in many.
I’m not at all eager to press into either one of those assertions.
Nothing. You just caught me at a tired moment, and I thought I’d try your style and see if I could get away with it. Now you’re asking me to use my words.
No … I just think we’re talking past each other and probably really agree (I speculate) if we were to dig down. I just didn’t have the energy to go for my shovel at the moment, and if you were to persist that science answers (or has the potential to answer) everything, then my disagreement will persist. And I’m fine with that. I suspect what you might really be saying though, is that science is complete for its own explorational purposes and domain. In which case, I won’t argue, though I know there is no way anybody can really know that. But if you want to insist science is the complete everything for everything … then just insert my eternally adolescent rejoinder: “no it’s not” after each of your “yes it is” and we’ll call it good.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
58
Hey Mervin.
: )
I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your naked vulnerability. Honesty. Courage. Humility.
My greatest desire is for Jesus. He has the words of eternal life.
“Why do you think God is not involved in natural processes?”
I don’t think that. And neither am I a pan(en)theist. It seems you’re not a pan(en)theist either, so that’s at least one thing to agree on.
Question for question: Why do you think God is not involved in the origin and processes of religion & religious life?
Evolutionary religious studies (ERS) rejects anything other than “natural” explanations for religion. For people in this sub-field, no Divine Creator was involved in the “founding” of religion b/c religion is all completely man-made. No angels, no spirits, no eternity, no divine justice. That is what you hold also, is it not? For atheists & agnostics, the trigger term “supernatural” is equivalent to hearing the words “not real”. And there are other alternatives words that are made “empty” by atheism / agnosticism, like Divine, Holy, Sacred, etc., while they remain “full” of meaning for the religious believer.
For me, rejecting evolutionary religious studies is understandable and properly balanced, as I both don’t think a naturalistic evolutionary explanation of religion makes much coherent sense when looked at closely & that it can quite coherently be shown as biased and incomplete. The fact that ERS both has been and can be dangerous for young evangelicals, isn’t a worry for an atheist/agnostic. But I would be surprised if it wasn’t a concern for any of the older evangelicals at this site.
