No.
But why must I accept all of the scientific view and not just some of it?
All or nothiing?
Richard
So the no is a yes? You reject evolution with an even stronger non-belief. You can accept all scientific belief, but not abiogenesis and evolution. And you have no idea of an alternative?
- Some versions of faith can drift toward fear, control, or a narrow literalism. But I’m not sure these debates all belong on one spectrum. The Christian tradition has long wrestled with the Cross in more than one key: victory over evil, healing of human nature, reconciliation, as well as penal substitution in some streams. None of these require a God who harms himself to grab attention; they speak of a God who gives himself to rescue, heal, and restore. If we’re going to critique a view of atonement, can we name which version we mean and what we think love requires? That might help us avoid collapsing many positions—and people—into a single label.
- 1 John 4:18-19. “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. We love because he first loved us.”
2 Likes
Aye Terry, I’m well aware of the diversity of historical and current atonement theories, but none of them is not on the spectrum of Jesus believing that he had to engineer his appalling self sacrifice, at his Father’s behest, to achieve even limited atonement. Suicide by cop as I shockingly put [in] it. A most shocking slant on the most shocking act. Not out of derision in the slightest. It was the most astounding act of love for humanity a person ever performed. I give him all good will. It shows what, naturally, we are capable of.
I said that I accept some of the evolutionary theory but not all of it!
Abiogenesis is another matter. As far as i know it is beyond the understanding of science.
RIchard
The intriguing thing is that, it may be beyond the understanding of science, … now; but it certainly isn’t beyond the speculation of science, is it? I have nephews and nieces who are all devout believers/speculators in abiogenesis, and who roll their eyes when I express my doubt and privately bet that proof of abiogenetic origin of life will never actually be contrived.
We might find the Loch Ness Monster or big Foot, you never know.
I think there is as much faith, or belief in such things as there is prossibilty of solution or proof. I admit I am doubtful that we will ever discover the secret of life, partly because i am not sure we have the wisdom to wield it.
Richard
I think “extremist” is secondary – something like “boneheaded” would be primary, indicating an unwillingness to actually think but instead go with rules.
I once heard it called “conciliar fundamentalism”, adherence to the doctrinal statements of the great ecumenical councils (five or seven or eight depending on definition). Also I’ve herd “Credal fundamentalism”, which in the context meant adherence to the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds.
Brilliant.
3 Likes
Because they’re different literary types.
Contrary to YEC, if you don’t recognize what kind of literature something is, you have no chance of interpreting it correctly – it’s little different than judging a movie like airplane on the basis of Greek tragedy.
That doesn’t even rise to juvenile-level thinking. It’s like saying, “I’ll never break a four-minute mile, so why try running at all?” I run because of the joy of running.
Except that misses the entire situation. Putting it in modern cop terms, it would be suicide by bullet for the express purpose of ending up with the lethality of bullets defeated.
Just the Crucifixion is meaningless. It is part of a whole Event running from conception to Ascension, all of which was a battle (or series of battles) aimed at setting things back towards the path intended from the beginning.
2 Likes
I’ve missed nothing in the huge dark Christiano-Jewish story, and added something. The identification of that problem.
Yeah, the first is a myth, the second a fable. So what? Neither is real!
Myths (Britannica)
Characteristics of a fable (Britannica)
Can’t resist the insult then.
You are just side tacking, as usual.
Your analogy fails. You are not attempting to beat the four minute mile.
What a terrible view of God you have. His intentions never changed. Christ was always going to come and die for us, it is a shame you misunderstand His real reasoning. Humanity (Adam) did not change anything.
Richard
Personally, I can’t escape the conclusion that you have missed something “in the huge dark Christiano-Jewish story,” and that what you’ve identified as the problem may itself be an illusion.
Try this: Jesus didn’t “engineer a suicide-by-cop scenario.” He entered freely into a fullness of time cage — a world already hostile to love and truth and came with a nurtured and mature fidelity to the One whom he believed had sent him, and lived his life in that cage with the integrity of one who chose to love imperfect people. He foresaw the likely end but did not orchestrate it. There’s a profound difference between engineering death and accepting it as the cost of faithfulness.
5 Likes
So which of these do you not accept?
- Variation Exists Within Populations Individuals of a species show genetic and phenotypic differences.
- Traits Are Heritable Many variations are passed from parents to offspring through genes.
- Overproduction of Offspring More individuals are born than the environment can support.
- Struggle for Existence Limited resources lead to competition among individuals.
- Natural Selection Individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to survive and reproduce.
- Differential Reproduction Favorable traits become more common in the population over generations.
- Descent with Modification Species change over time, and new species can arise from common ancestors.
- Speciation Accumulated changes can lead to the formation of new species.
- Common Ancestry All life shares a common origin, branching out over time.
- Adaptation to Environment Organisms evolve traits that enhance survival in specific ecological niches.
Nice heterodox rhetoric.
- Perhaps. But the rhetoric of faithfulness over fatalism has rather good company — from Paul to Moltmann.
2 Likes
Hello, Apistos.
Fundamentally.
Foundationally, according to the text and beyond. I am.
I unapologetically, hopefully take it all on blessed, unseeing faith. Sin, salvation, Love in spite of it self, redemption, adoption, renewal, revelation of and from God, and the Kingdom to come. Evolution. A uni/multi/compounding-universe reality. The unknown and unknowable.
Hope constrains me. Not some rational pursuit, and I’ve realized that the demand that I treat it as such only does harm.
Thomas was forthright, and his doubt was blessed with sight and faith, as perhaps mine one day will be. Perhaps yours as well.
If I’ve been a fool, I’ve been a blessed one.
The humiliation will come too late.
3 Likes
Well said. Excellent. I have a lot of time for both. Not being a fatalist, apart from ultimately. I’m going to cease to exist soon-ish. [In a heartbeat.]
1 Like
I’m the fool K. Your pure, honest faith is courageous.
That you see a problem shows that you’ve missed the core.
No, the first is temple inauguration and royal chronicle, the second is . . . I’m not sure of the proper label, but “myth” works.
The concept is the same: you’re saying that if you can’t “win” there’s no point in trying. That’s childish.
What, that He fought on our side? Sounds pretty excellent to me.
Not according to scripture. “Always come”, almost certainly; “die for us”, wasn’t the intention.