Birds of a Feather
One frustration of bloggers is the lack of comments to our entries. Apparantly, the only way to get a lot of response is to be a little controversial. I was hoping evolution/creation would qualify. Thank you, whoever you are,for leaving a comment on Darwin's finches, etc. in regard to my last entry!
Darwin's finches, of Galopagos fame, have been a hallmark of evolution for decades. Just for fun, I looked in the Evolution textbook currently being used on our campus (it's copyright is 2000, which makes it rather out of date by science standards) These well known birds, something I taught about and studied at some length, rated ......a paragraph. Words like "perhaps" and "some suggest" were used. It did have a picture of a large family tree of the different finches on the different islands. This speculative diagram, labeled as such, dated from a 1947 work when I looked up the reference.
In the past decade it has been found that the beak changes and behaviors in the finches, supposedly proof of natural selection and evolution, go back and forth depending on environmental conditions. In other words, the beaks in the same populations of birds get larger, then shrink over a remarkably short time (years) then increase again, depending on rainfall, food sources, etc. Ditto with feeding behaviours. In other words, they were not evolving toward any sort of new species, just adjusting to temporary conditions .(This vilolates on of the cardinal principles of evolution, that it is unidirectional-I've forgotten the technical term) At best, they illustrate microevolution i.e., any genetic change in a population. This is fascinating in itself, but offers no proof for macroevoltion. Many would argue they are not even different species, but merely varities of one.
I believe the story of Darwin's finches was mentioned in the PBS series of a few years ago, Did Darwin Get it Wrong? If you read my last entry, it is one of the examples I mentioned as either a hoax or discredited research. It would seem to fit the latter, which is why it is given only slight mention in modern textbooks, and in some not mentioned at all. Again, I recommend Icons of Evolution, easily found at Barnes and Noble, Borders, etc. Regardless of what side you are on, it will fascinate you!
As to the biblical questions, I will get back to you on that. After all, we bloggers never claim omniscience, just a bent for meaningful dialogue. If any one out there wants to respond before I do, please do!
Darwin's finches, of Galopagos fame, have been a hallmark of evolution for decades. Just for fun, I looked in the Evolution textbook currently being used on our campus (it's copyright is 2000, which makes it rather out of date by science standards) These well known birds, something I taught about and studied at some length, rated ......a paragraph. Words like "perhaps" and "some suggest" were used. It did have a picture of a large family tree of the different finches on the different islands. This speculative diagram, labeled as such, dated from a 1947 work when I looked up the reference.
In the past decade it has been found that the beak changes and behaviors in the finches, supposedly proof of natural selection and evolution, go back and forth depending on environmental conditions. In other words, the beaks in the same populations of birds get larger, then shrink over a remarkably short time (years) then increase again, depending on rainfall, food sources, etc. Ditto with feeding behaviours. In other words, they were not evolving toward any sort of new species, just adjusting to temporary conditions .(This vilolates on of the cardinal principles of evolution, that it is unidirectional-I've forgotten the technical term) At best, they illustrate microevolution i.e., any genetic change in a population. This is fascinating in itself, but offers no proof for macroevoltion. Many would argue they are not even different species, but merely varities of one.
I believe the story of Darwin's finches was mentioned in the PBS series of a few years ago, Did Darwin Get it Wrong? If you read my last entry, it is one of the examples I mentioned as either a hoax or discredited research. It would seem to fit the latter, which is why it is given only slight mention in modern textbooks, and in some not mentioned at all. Again, I recommend Icons of Evolution, easily found at Barnes and Noble, Borders, etc. Regardless of what side you are on, it will fascinate you!
As to the biblical questions, I will get back to you on that. After all, we bloggers never claim omniscience, just a bent for meaningful dialogue. If any one out there wants to respond before I do, please do!
posted by Rob | 2:23 PM
9 Comments:
Mr. Gunn,
I really hesitated to write anything, but since you seemed to be begging for some comments, I'll oblige.
This kind of dialog can quite quickly degenerate into a game of who can find an agrument on the Internet/Book then is responded to by someone else looking up an opposing argument on another web site and then responded to in kind by looking up a response from another and so on. I can already see where this will go (sorry to be something of a killjoy).
But, a couple of comments:
What you did in your letter to the editor is a form of the Genetic Fallacy: if some claim about the origin of an idea is found to be discredited, then so must the idea be discredited. Likely not the best argument against evolution, better approach would be to target more foundational concepts. Something can still be true, even if the inspiration for a concept contains some elements that are incorrect. Just because Darwin made an incorrect observation about some birds doesn't mean the overiding theory is incorrect.
One thing that has always frustrated me about Christianity is the use of, for the lack of a better term, selective argumentation. I'm speaking of your invocation of Antony Flew. Here is a person who you would say is wrong about a great many things, yet, when he pops up with something you share in, perhaps, a tiny bit of agreement, he is presented as an authoritative source. Would you be so willing to invoke his name if we were speaking of an incorporeal being, a revelatory God, an afterlife and so on...doubtful. You would argue to the bone with him about 99.99% of other issues related to God, his nature and other philosphical and theological concepts, but yet, present him as authority when it comes to his being influenced by the idea of Intelligent Design, when I bet, if asked to independently describe ID, you would come up with substantially different documents.
For years upon years I struggled to reconcile my Christian beliefs with the "reality" of the world around me. Bit by bit, in a nearly unconscious manner, I found myself accepting less and less of what the Bible taught (or perhaps what people taught that the Bible described) and, almost literally, one day woke up and found out I no longer identified myself as a Christian.
In large part, I went down the path that you have already partially travelled. Early after conversion I wholeheartedly embraced instantaneous creation, Adam and Eve, young earth, no rain, garden of Eden, the whole ten yards as literally true; it felt exciting to understand all of this. As time wore on I began to accept the universe was older than 10,000 years, but maybe the earth was still young. Eventually that also disappeared, the earth is old, but life is young. That *evolved* into life has been here a long time but humans are new. For a long time I considered what I called to myself "Theistic Evolution" as how God created humans. It would not surprise me if you have already partially traveled a similar path...
Piece by piece, bit by bit, what I once accepted as absolute literal truth from the Bible was changed to match a more likely historical explanation of human origins, and, particularly, the story of Moses and the events in Egypt. Once those walls were breached, Christianity disappeared in a quiet wisper. My own Genetic Fallacy? If the Bible origins and its description of origins is in doubt, then all of Christianity is cast in a dark shadow. I now accept that the Bible is not a record of human origins, to a significant extent it correctly captures history, but certainly not the truthfulness of life and human origins, it is legendary story telling with historical context.
I no longer identify myself as a Christian, rather now a theist. If you take only a few more steps, you might catch up to me!
Alan
Response to Alan,
I am a Christian, a physicist, theistic evolutionist, and traditional 'new-deal' democrat. Only the first one really matters to me. I am very saddened by the lack of thoughtfulness in evangelical circles towards less literal interpretation of the Bible.
I suggest that you and others investigate 'Biblical Realism' as a better approach to Christianity. Two key biblical realists are Karl Barth and John Howard Yoder. These two are generally not addressing science, but provide a very thoughtful approach to Biblical Christianity. They suggest that one must know the cultural context of the author to understand his message, but they reject the assumption that we can 'judge' Scripture from our culture. That is we do not through out God's revelation based on our current culture of reason and science. Revelation from outside nature and culture is necessary to understand God.
Barth and Yoder also believe that Jesus Christ is God's perfect revelation and the Bible the documentation about him. This view defines Christains as disciples of Jesus rather than disciples of the Bible (legalistic biblicists).
Give up on legalistic literalism not Christianity. Thoughful Christianity is deep and rich. Make humility a virtue of theology and you will be ok.
Vince
P.S. Read about Barth and Yoder before you read their books. Maybe reading up on 'biblical realism' is a good place to start. Avoid Barth's most famous book, 'Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans'. It is too obscure to be useful. Yoder is a mennonite theologian, but might be better catagorized with Messianic Christians (Jewish Christians). Read his "Politics of Jesus" sometime.
P.P.S. Unaligned monotheist is a good spot to stand in the world, but you lose Messiah Jesus. Big loss.
Vince,
Thanks for your comments, I do promise to follow your suggestion to look into the discussion of Biblical Realism. I am, currently, only passingly familiar with some of Barth and Yoder's writings but will become much more aquainted, perhaps there might be something there for me. That aside, in short, I wanted to make the connection to why I realized I no longer accepted Christian theology, specifically, the reason for a Messiah, as it realates to Rob's subject of ID.
As a Christian, the central them for me was the payment by Jesus for my sins, cleansing me and making me holy to be in the eternal presence of a holy God. If not for Jesus, my sinfullness would condem me to an eternity, somehow, outside his presence, i.e. hell. I absolutely understood and accepted this in the same way any "born again" Christian would describe it.
During my mental/theological progression from a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, primarily speaking of age of universe, evolution of life, my Christian theology held together just fine. Some of the bits and pieces that were removed included things like modern day miracles, whether or not I really believed, not just tolerated, that speaking in tongues happened today, efficacy of prayer and similar issues. As I noted yesterday, I found myself believing less and less about evangelical protestant theology, anyway. But it was my journey away from literal creation theology to acceptance of billions of years of life on the earth that caused the biggest mental dissonance with my Christian theology; miracles were easy, geology is tough!
The straw that broke the proverbial camel's back, however, came on that day that I put two and two together; sorry for all the analogies in one sentence. If there is no literal Adam and Eve, because I don't believe in their literal creation anymore, and hadn't for who knows how long, how did sin enter the world? The need for a savior was because I was born into sin and required salvation from original sin. Without the need, then it puts a lot of Christianity at risk...This was an incredible revelation to me!
The searching commenced, if the Adam and Eve story is not meant literally, but as some kind of narrative explanation, then what is the literal thing that brought sin into the world and why does every single person face such tremendous consequences because of it. If Adam and Eve are gone, I need a replacement explanation for sin, still haven't found one. Something that is as close to the central theme of Christianity as possible is left embedded in a narrative story. God may do as he pleases, but I think I should be let in on specifically why I am destined for hell without me doing anything! The New Testament, really Paul, is absolutely clear, sin and death entered the world through Adam and Eve (Romans 5:12, Romans 6:23), to me, its pretty difficult to explain that Paul didn't think of Adam and Eve as literal people. I'm pretty clear in my mind that death, of all kinds, has been around for many millions/billions of years, and no Adam and Eve to necessitate this.
A real problem was on my hands and no amount of reading has yet even come close to explaining to me why I am born into sin...I've nearly exhausted myself looking to anwser this question. In getting here many walls crumbled, who Moses was, the likely origin of monotheism, the Flood, the life of the early Hebrews, prophecies relating to Jesus (good example: born of a virgin) and then Jesus' life, finally. Some had partially collapsed during my life, like the Flood, others easily collapsed post de-conversion.
During my Christian life I had explanations for all these questions. no literal Adam and Eve excepted, I knew/know the discussions inside and out, I know exactly how other Christians reading this are thinking, I felt the same way throughout my life about others saying things similar to me, but am left wanting...
This really got long, let me apologize for hijacking this. I'll return this discussion back to Rob.
Alan
I find myself in agreement with Vince. I think the problem is not the theory of evolution(although for some it has become something other than science). The problem is with Biblicists who raise up the Bible as an idol to be worshipped and protected. Jesus is the Word, Jesus is infallible, inerrant etc. The Bible is a testimony about Jesus and needs to be read according to the claims it makes not the ones we supply for it. We do a great disservice to our listeners when we set up the false choice 'choose scripture or science.' Alan seems to be case in point.
In response to Alan: The story of Adam and Eve is still a description of sin in the world and it isn't hard to see the connection to our own lives. The primary temptation in the story is the human desire to decide what's good and what's evil. Isn't that in your own life too. The tension is between allowing God to determine good and evil and thinking that we are the ones who know best. I find the Adam and Eve story even more powerful and relevant when I give up trying to defend its historcial truth and focus more on its theological truth. I believe that scripture steps onto the historical stage with Abraham. Some more liberal theologicans would say it's not until Moses that the story becomes historical. We need a better definition of 'true' can something be true if it didn't happen historically? Absolutely! We know sin personally, we are invited to recognize ourselves in the stories of Adam and Eve and then see God's grace for them extended to us through the historical even of Jesus life, death and resurreciton.
-Travis Norton
Travis,
Thanks for your comments, but I'd like to make a couple of clarifications...
First, I wouldn't consider myself an example of the result of a false choice between scripture and science. As a Christian, I considered myself quite in tune with science and would have argued vehemetly that a proper view of the Bible would show itself to be in no way in conflict with science, I now consider this due to self-deception. The reason for my deconversion is not because of science but because of a combination philosopy and theology.
My identity is now as a theist, not as a Christian. Some arguments, such as the Cosmological Argument still compel me. I would say that there is something that is eternal, but I, as of yet, do not have an understanding of what it is...for simplicity sake, I would still say that I believe in God; but don't ask me to describe the nature of that concept, I can't.
Secondly, with respect to Adam and Eve, I hope you understand the deeper question I have about the Biblical description. It's really a question of how do I get started and how can I place my trust in the Biblical documents, and yes, I have a personally signed copy of Josh McDowells ETDAV; I'm not talking about the words on the pages, but the historicity of the stories as told by the words. Meaning: If Paul seems to believe in a literal Adam and Eve and I don't, there is a huge, huge, huge conflict; both philosophically and theologically. You must understand I'm speaking of Biblical inerrancy and whatnot. If one part is in question, it throws everything in question and we don't have much to talk about; over simplification of the discussion, but please understand the deeper discussion. Either I'm wrong or Paul is wrong. Paul would normally crush me in any debate, but, on this subject, I have the advantage of a better view of cosmological, geological and anthropoligical history than he did. I have an advantage over him due to the time I live in that he didn't; doesn't make me smarter, just luckier. Back to the focus...
The point, for me, is: If the Adam and Eve story is some kind of parable, then what is the literal thing that caused my damnation to hell, without me even doing anything, why don't we have the literal event recorded and/or revealed? Regardless of the evolution discussion, let's say Adam and Eve were literal creations of God and original sin entered through them, no problem, I'd still call myself a Christian. However, let's say evolution is true and no literal Adam and Eve, then what is the explanation for sin, what is the definition of sin? Pretend I am a Hittite, you don't have any other Biblical writings available, and you are coming to me to explain to me what sin is and why I'm condemed to an eternity in Hell, what is the explanation, what is the actual thing that caused sin to enter the world, not just that there is sin, something brought it in at some actual point in human history, what is it?
Listen, I know the Christian description of sin, I've explained it a thousand times myself to others. Now that I finally realize the Bible is like every other historical document, embellished human recordings of history, I've lost the definition. Evolution would suggest life has never been perfect. A mainstream Biblical Christian must say that at some point creation(life) was perfect and only when sin entered did it become imperfect. I am unable to bring these into harmony.
Do you understand what I'm asking? I'm not intentionally trying to challenge you, I'm asking an honest question, my question. There is too much at stake to do a hand-wave and say "God wants us to learn from this parable, such and such." I read your online document about The Flood, you put the question in there about whether this was a real event or not. At least in your notes, you didn't answer the question, and went on to relate what "God" wants us to learn. Before I can learn any life principles, I need to know if it is true or not, I need to know if the Mosaic description of God is true before I can move on theologically.
Too difficult to communicate a complex subject into a blog comment! :) Hope you can read past the sound bite nature these things can appear and see the actual discussion that is taking place within my own mind.
Alan
Alan,
Here is my current thinking on the question about sin you pose. It is long winded. Sorry. Certainly my thoughts on Orthodox Theology put me at odds with conservative evangelicals. Some would draw their circle of salvation with me outside. So be it. I think God draws the circle larger. Sometimes I wonder if some vicious evangelicals may find themselves outside the gates. I'm glad its not my business to decide.
I also apologize for my previous blog comment. I did not edit before submitting. I will try to write what I mean, but I am not very good an self-editing. I'm better with math than with words.
Interpretation of Genesis etc.
==============================
God created me in my mother's womb (Psalm 139:13). It is a miracle, but God's creative action seems to be embedded in the physical processes of the world. We can study it and we can marvel at it. Genesis 1-3 teaches some important things but the science of the creative process is not one of them. In fact, science and the Bible have very little in common. Should we consider rain to be caused by 'tipping the water jars' (Job 38:37)? Tipping of clay jars in the clouds is a beautiful description of the process of turbulent disturbance of water-saturated dust particles, but I think if Job-the-scientist had corrected God on His science, then the book of Job would have ended with a lightning bolt to Job's head.
The Big Bang seems to be the best 'theory of creation' that science has currently. Curiously, cosmologists disliked the theory in the first half of the 20th century because it implied a beginning. When I was in undergraduate physics (1972) Fred Hoyle was still working on a steady-state theory of the universe. Physicist Robert Jastrow discusses these struggles with the 'first-cause proof' of God in "God and the Astronomers".
Biblical Realism would require us to avoid using our own culture of science and rationalism to interpret the Bible. Rather, we must understand the context of the writer to interpret the Bible. Ancient hebraic society had no science-based cosmology. God condescends to the thought, culture, and language of the writer and his audience. Genesis creation is really a response to pagan stories of creation that said things about gods and humanity that needed to be disputed. Knowing the competing ideas of creation are important.
For Abraham, who was from Ur, the competing story is the Enuma Elish creation myth. It presents the struggles of the gods before creation of earth and mankind. The father of the gods cannot control his wife or his kids. Eventually one of his sons kills the mother god who represents chaos. He splits her body to make the earth and the firmament. Blood of a god is used to create people, who are to serve the gods who have needs. The Canaanite myth that Moses and the hebrews struggle against is similar. Genesis 1-3 teaches the hebrews specific things against these cosmologies.
1. In the beginning ... most-high God just is. There is none of this messy struggle with other gods. Monotheism is suggested.
2. God is holy, that is, separate. The world is created from nothing (implied). It is not from God's body. God is not of
this world and the world is not of God. God is holy, holy, holy (separate, separate, separate). This allows for a modern science discussion of God, who is outside of time-space (a very Biblical view).
3. The universe is created morally neutral. It is void and useless, but evil is not inherent in matter (Greek Gnostics later suggest matter is identical with evil) This neutrality remains until God commands the physical world and it obeys God's intent and Goodness results. Goodness comes when God infuses the world with His intent. In some sense, usefulness is equivalent to goodness. But in the absence of the good, there is a neutrality that is not evil (malious intent against usefulness). The pagan stories have evil behavior in their gods ... even in the most-high god. In post-modern times, there are some interesting discussions of the universe's existentialism. Kirkegaard's "Christianity in Practice" is especially cogent. Humanity's relationship with 'The Truth' is only through a personal existential relationship with the God 'above' the universe.
4. Humanity is specifically created to incorporate one or a few of God's attributes that the rest of creation does not have. Reason was the Greek-Roman interpretation of this uniqueness. I don't think that is implied by Genesis. I suggest it is the creative will. God speaks to creation, it obeys, and goodness (usefulness) results. God
intended to allow humankind to participate in creating (commanding) 'usefulness' in creation. Our conscious will can alter the world ... hopefully with goodness resulting. This too allows for modern discussions of quantum mechanical choice of the observer in determining future reality.
Things that are not the intent of Genesis include the scientific description of creation, the definition of a day before there is a sun in the sky, the process of mud-to-man in Genesis 2.
A couple of other truths become evident from the second chapter of Genesis.
5. Man (Adam) is from the earth. We are an amazing mix of God's image and earth. Is this a spiritual and physical divide? I suppose, though ancient Hebrews did not recognize the Greek division of body and mind (material and reasoning mind). There was a more holistic merging that does not separate the divine and physical aspects of humanity. Thus, mankind does not exist as just a spirit without a body. We might be in the mind of God after we die (asleep in Christ) until the resurrection, but we will be recreated to exist as a physical being always. The inseperable merging of God's image and the physical earth probably requires a more earthly viewpoint than most Christians have. It discourages the Platonist view that the 'real world' is only in the spiritual realm and the Gnostic view that the physical flesh is evil.
6. We are individuals but individualism is 'not good.' While we are created as individual entities, who cannot experience directly what others experience, Genesis condemns extreme individualness. Marriage and social extensions in later chapters (family, extended family, nation, world) are to be good extensions that overcome the 'not good' of individuality. Our conscious individual experience is such a huge elephant of truth, that we don't think about the implications much. Western culture idolizes the individual. Genesis cautions against individual-minded philosophy and encourages social relationships as a basis for goodness. However, I am not a Hegelist. Denying our individual experience is useless too (again see Kirkegaard).
7. God intended creation to be 'good', which requires some type of relationship with God. Genesis 3 introduces the concept that the world is not as it should be. There is an malicious intent to be against God's goodness. Sin is worse than uselessness. It expresses malevolence, evil. Honest people acknowledge that sin is real. Undeniably. We see it. We are it. This fact is the single strongest argument for my Christian belief. I cannot prove that God's death and resurrection has cleansed my sin and conquered death. However, my experience and observance of maleficence within humanity ... within me is irrefutable.
8. Genesis identifies the first sin as arrogance of the mud-man. Arrogant self-centeredness of a finite creature spawns evil in the world.
5. We cannot investigate through science or anthropological study the 'events' of Genesis 1-2 ... there is an angel with a flaming sword barring our entry. The Garden is beyond this fallen world. We cannot walk back to our eden. We cannot undo the first sin.
Ok. Now the questions.
Did Adam and Eve exist as individuals? Probably. There must have been a first couple ... even in evolution. Homosapians can slowly come into existence, but there could be a first homosapian to receive the conscious will (image of God), the sense of self and choice that we experience. That is my opinion. Perhaps Adam and Eve are created physically, instantaneously, and specifically (though ex nilo is prohibited because God creates Adam from the earth). In either case, there must be a first Adam who receives God's image. The mud-to-man description in Genesis 2 is seems to be an unscientific poetry just as Jars in the clouds are poetic. Mud-to-homosapien could have taken 4.5 billion years and one day from homosapien-to-man. In any case, the hebraic creation account is from their culture and not a scientific/rationalistic writing. However, it does strike me with truthfulness about my world.
Parable-only Interpretation
===========================
Some might claim Adam (mud-man) is so named to represent all of mankind and the parable is symbolic and not historical. You, Alan, have raised the important question. How can a non-historical sin event introduce sin into humankind? The related suggestion is that Jesus's resurrection was not "in history" but is "above history". This is the quintessential liberal position of Schleiemacher's theology. Additionally, the return of Jesus becomes a theological metaphor for Hegel's continuously evoluting society towards a more perfect version of God's intent.
The first sin, death-resurrection, and the eschatological return of the Messiah become superhistorical. These are the important events whose definition separate liberal and orthodox theology.
Schleiermacher's liberal viewpoint that faith-feeling makes these superhistorical events "true unto salvation" is not sufficient for me. Barth condemns this liberal viewpoint as an empty gospel. Barth says that the events must be historical events of God's action in history otherwise they have no power for us. I agree. However, I also agree with Kirkegaard and note that the 'fact' of supernature-nature events cannot be studied using science or historical methods. These events have historical effects and the apostles give
individual testimonies, but that is the extent of the evidence. The supernatural side can only be a matter of faith.
So I agree with you, alan. Sin's entry into human history requires a real event. I don't necessarily hold that it was "Eve eating the apple", but I do understand that it was the conscious selfish choice of a first God-image bearing human that brought sin into human history. He-she elevated self to heaven, to arrogance. Can an animal have blatantly conscious arrogance? I doubt it...but I can. In between me and the mud there must have been a first arrogant sinner. By this weak logic there must have been a first sin as well as a first God-imaged human. By a strong logic, sin exists in humanity to produce a fetid society of greed that we see. Orthodox Christianity is the best description of evil and despair that also offers a good news of hope. As far as I have found, the alternative to Orthodoxy is Scheiermacher's faith-feeling into above history salvation, or Paul Satre's existential sterile boldness or Nietzsche's insanity.
Sin is among us, within us. The Orthodox view of sin in humanity is compellingly accurate. I have a Japanese friend
that says that the dualistic yin-yang view with no real good-evil description is coming into question in Japan. They see evil in their politics and history and are beginning to think that evil is 'real'.
Just as there is probably a first conscious evil act in humanity, there must be a real atonement event. I have no comparable logic 'proof'. There are only multiple testimonies of a God-event in witnessed resurrection of Jesus. I have faith that God has done something to deliver us from our selfish evil.
Here is my faith choice:
An empty God-less physical universe that could care less about the greedy destruction of our planet and humanity. "Forgive and you shall be forgiven" is meaningless. Selfish arrogance is meaningless. "Love your neighbor" is meaningless. Adultry is meaningless. Kindness is meaningless.
Or we have a faith that sin is real and God has addressed it's existence in his world. A Good God is the reason to pursue good and turn from evil. He provides a path to obtain forgiveness and give forgiveness. This faith choice relies of the realness of past events and future promise. One has an answer of how to achieve peace in community, in relationship, in marriage, in person?
I am a bit like Karl Barth and G.K. Chesterton (from "Orthodoxy"). I rejected the Christianity that I thought I knew and pursued my own heresy. I discovered that my heresy was Othodoxy. My othodoxy is based on faith in the above God-events. My salvation is based on humble repentance and acknowledgement of need before God. Humility is the key to God's forgiveness (and often a friend's forgiveness). The contrite heart defines the circle of salvation. I am the sinner lying prostrate in the temple crying out my unworthiness. God has received my humility and offers forgiveness of my arrogant selfishness. Not only that God offers a real way to move beyond selfishness. This is indeed good news. I extend this brilliant entrance into God's heaven to those who acknowledge need before God and man. Correct theology is not necessary. There is no test for theological cleanness. That does not mean that there is no correct theology, it just means that the simple-minded can enter God's kingdom with simple humility.
I have no clear answers to correct Biblical interpretation with the exception that humility is useful in interpreting specifics. In fact there is a glaring problem of physical death in evolutionary processes that still defies my understanding. Oh well. My mind is finite.
Orthodoxy ... Real sin, real sacrifice, real victory over death, real future. Like Peter, I say, "Jesus, where else would I go?"
Vince
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alan,
I'm going to put my response to you on my blog at www.travisnorton.blogspot.com
Hey, You’ve done a fantastic job. I should absolutely reddit it and I’ll recommend to my friends. I am sure they are going to be benefited from this website.
School of prophets
Post a Comment
<< Home