Re: [asa] Question for all the theistic evolutionists

*The atheists are the ones who are setting
the cultural agenda--they are the men and women of action.
*
I think there are areas in which this is true, but it is not true of
everything everywhere. Look at important things like addressing genocide in
Darfur. Christians are at the forefront of many such efforts.

*Thus, I will submit again, that unless we put real history and real
> empiricism into the Bible (to use Burgy's phrase when we had lunch),our
> religion will be not worth a bucket of warm spit. Everyone will look at
> that bucket we offer and go 'YUCK!", rejecting what we offer them-- a
> chance, like us, to be men and women of inaction.*
**
This may be true for people who are committed to the religion of positivist
empiricism. It isn't true, I would submit, for the vast majority of people
most of us interact with every day. There are hundreds of new believers in
the church I attend, and I doubt even one of them came to faith because of
some "empirical" argument. Most of them came because someone loved them
enough to show them some kindness and to introduce them to Jesus -- a
person, not a proposition. And as a whole the folks I fellowship with are
by no stretch "men and women of inaction." There's more "action" in that
fellowship than anyone can handle -- from youth skate parks, to homes for
unwed mothers, to sponsoring an entire village in Africa.

Read a little deeper on philosophy, history and hermeneutics. This kind of
"empiricism" always fails because it just isn't true to our human condition,
to the relational nature of faith, or to the sort of revelation God gave us
in scripture. In seeking a true foundation for faith, it provides instead a
false faith system of its own.

**

On 3/11/07, Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
> This is being posted while everyone is at church. With my wife sick today,
> and I exhausted from radiation treatments, we didn't make it to church
> today, so I thought I would make some good use of the time.
>
> I have gone back to my roots in school, philosophy and am re-reading much
> old philosophy but also reading many contemporary philosophers, and some
> whom I should have read then but didn't. What I am doing is preparing
> myself to confront the secularism of society. All over the internet, when
> one speaks of a christianity which makes any difference to either our
belief
> about the physical world, or our claims that our religion is based upon
> physical observation, that of the empty tomb, atheists and secularists
hoot
> these ideas down. And that has led to a ghettoization of Christians on
the
> internet. Board after board, has restricted places where Christians can
go
> to retreat from the onslaught of atheists, howling about the emptiness of
> our empirical claims. They neither allow miracles nor empty tombs; they
> deny that the soul is anything other than an epiphenomenon of the material
> brain. They deny the existence of sentient beings in heavens out there
that
> we can not see. And Christians have no real answers to these questions;
so
> we huddle together on restricted sites, like certain fora on Theologyweb,
> Christian Forums or even the web discussion sites of ICR which deny access
> to anyone who doesn't hold to their belief system. If we had any
> satisfactory answers, we wouldn't have to huddle together and avoid those
> pesky atheists. We would shut them up with good argmentation.
>
> So, instead of taking the world, we cowardly, and answerless christians,
> retreat from the world. We are the 'contemporaries' of whom Nietzsche
> speaks:
>
> "History is necessary above all to the man of action and power who fights
a
> great fight and needs examples, teachers and comforters; he cannot find
them
> among his contemporaries." Friedrich Nietzsche, The Use and Abuse of
> History, translated by Adrian Colins, (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co.,
> Inc., 1957), p. 12
>
>
>
> Nietzsche is correct that if one is to change the world, one must rise
above
> the mediocrity we see all around.The atheists are the ones who are setting
> the cultural agenda--they are the men and women of action. It is for this
> reason that I developed a new, historical/scientific interpretation of the
> Bible, which has, admittedly been widely panned on this list and in many
> other places. But being panned, is not proof that the approach is the
wrong
> one. For future readers, I will point them to
> http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.com
> http://home.entouch.net/dmd/genesis1-11.htm
> http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm
>
>
> Last month, I asked a question, in this thread. I didn't do too much
> debating then, but having just finished reading Collins' The Language of
> God, he had an amazing statement in the book that, sadly, I think may be
> true and may represent one reason why the ASA has such little impact.
>
> "While many scientists ascribe to TE, they are in general reluctant to
speak
> out for fear of negative reaction from their scientific peers, or perhaps
> for fear of criticism from the theological community." Francis Collins,
The
> Language of God, (New York: Free Press, 2006), p. 202
>
> My reaction to this, can probably be predicted. If true, I find this to
> speak to our gutlessness, cowardice and our denying of our Lord..
Nietzsche
> speaks of the man of action, Collins speaks of the man of inaction above.
> And it is a sad thing that we are so wimpy. But, to make a comment that
> might tie into my previous post on Santayana and Accommodationalism,
> perchance the real problem is that once we claim that there is no reality
in
> the account, we find very little to really discuss with our fellow
> scientists? It is like saying, "Hi, I have this nice idea which has no
> 'reality' to it, but it is a really nice set of beliefs that make me feel
> good--do you want to play with me as well?" If we have nothing to offer,
> except to say that the Bible really contains nothing verifiable, no wonder
> we keep our mouths shut! Leprechauns aren't verifiable either. What kind
of
> religion is that, which makes zero difference to either our view of the
> physical world or our behaviour?
>
> When I asked the question last month, only a couple of people actually
> confronted the secularism of our society. We sit on this list doing
nothing
> but speaking to ourselves, which, if you will recall, I noted that
speaking
> to oneself is a form of insanity. At the very least, it isn't very useful
> and will not change society.
>
> Thus, I will submit again, that unless we put real history and real
> empiricism into the Bible (to use Burgy's phrase when we had lunch),our
> religion will be not worth a bucket of warm spit. Everyone will look at
> that bucket we offer and go 'YUCK!", rejecting what we offer them-- a
> chance, like us, to be men and women of inaction.
>
>
> glenn
> They're Here: The Pathway Papers
> Foundation, Fall, and Flood
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology
>
> http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Mar 11 14:30:38 2007