It is true. Reason has to come second to faith. Indeed my life is bound to
Christian ideals in a way that transcend any rational consideration. I will aspire
to the ostensibly irrational paradox of loving my enemies as Jesus espoused and
practiced in his life as a forgone conclusion in my own. My faith demands that I
subsume my reason at every turn, and I accept the paradox. That's why I no longer
adhere to some of the Bible's more simplistically rigid logic where it erodes in my
heart its spiritual content.
That an Amazon native and my Muslim neighbors are both condemned by the
predominate rational interpretation of the Bible is, to me, an artifact of its having to
span 2000 years of human evolution and not a forgone conclusion in the modern
world. Interpretation is inherent and unavoidable and I interpret the Bible in a way
that first makes my heart at peace with my faith and secondly, my mind at peace
with my faith.
I am an advocate of faith over reason. No doubt about it. In fact, I'm an advocate
of all faith over reason. I think all faiths that serve the Golden Rule serve same
purpose as my own. I think that God is behind them all and I will personally work
for greater cross-faith appreciation of by Christians for the rest of the world's faithful
as diligently as I work for their appreciation of the example of the life of Christ.
Revelations speaks of Armageddon and some seriously terrible times ahead.
It is difficult not to see the prospect of global horror in its predictions and wonder
if there is any way to avoid such terrors. Is wanting to avoid Armageddon a
refutation of the clear text of the Bible?
Many Christian, especially evangelicals and fundamentalists believe that
Armageddon is going to happen in their lifetime. Is the prevailing, rational
interpretation of the story of Armageddon sending us there? Is believing that
men should not do to each other what is depicted in Revelations and working
to insure that such things never happen a blasphemous attempt to thwart
Biblical prophecy or is it our scared duty?
Such questions are rife throughout the Bible. How we answer them is
a task that each of us must struggle with individually. But how we collectively
answer them is what will make the difference on the ground in the long run.
-Mike (Friend of ASA)
-----Original Message-----
From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>; mlucid@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu; 'Janice Matchett' <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Sent: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 5:56 am
Subject: Re: [asa] Natural theology
Reason can't get you anywhere unless it has
something to work with. Any mathematical system, like Euclidean geometry,
is a an exceedingly rational process but it has to start with some things that
can't be proved - axioms, postulates, &c. That does not make it
"irrational." In theology we can deal with something like the Trinity in
rational ways: That's what systematic theologians are supposed to
do. But you can't get the basic input for that rational work, God's
revelation in the death and resurrection of Christ, from pure reason. In
fact, when people consider the basic Christian claims in the light of what they
may call "reason" - i.e., their a priori notions about God and the
world - they may say that they're "irrational." What they should say is
that they don't agree with their presuppositions about God - i.e., their
mental images of God - i.e, their idols.
Theology - at least good theology - does not
reject science or philosophy & in fact needs to make use of them. But
they are to have, in a traditional phrase, ministerial rather
than magisterial roles in theology.
I have said that we know the true God from God's
historical revelation which culminates in Christ - & of course that we can
understand what goes on in the world through science. When you assert
that I "seem to be arguing that we really can’t know anything and everything
except science is idolatry," it's quite clear that you are paying no attention
at all to what I say, however much you protest that you do. It's
clearly a waste of time for me to continue this exchange.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From:
John
Walley
To: 'George Murphy' ; mlucid@aol.com ; asa@calvin.edu ; 'Janice
Matchett'
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:56
PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Natural theology
George,
With all due respect,
I feel this is devolving to the irrational. Yes, I think it is reasonable to
see God’s design in nature and that be a testimony to Him and I think that it
is a reasonable interpretation of the passage in Romans and I think it
reasonable for us to use the powers of reason He gave us to know Him and His
creation. But that doesn’t mean I started with anything preconceived any more
than you did. And I don’t think that equates to idolatry. I think that charge
is bordering on the absurd. And it could cut both ways as well.
In contrast you seem
to be arguing that we really can’t know anything and everything except science
is idolatry. I admit I may not be following some of the deeper nuances
of your arguments but I think we are still disconnecting on the fundamental
premises.
Thanks
John
-----Original
Message-----
From:
asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Friday, November 02,
2007 8:38
PM
To: John Walley; mlucid@aol.com;
asa@calvin.edu; 'Janice Matchett'
Subject: Re: [asa] Natural
theology
"The only reasonable conclusion"
- now it's on the table! God is to be subjected to our "reasonable"
criteria. N.B., this is not a matter of drawing conclusions from
scripture by rational exegesis or from the natural world by rational
scientific study, both of which are legitimate activities, but of
starting with criteria which we think
it "reasonable" for God to obey. It is forcing God into our
box - or, in a word, another form of idolatry.
In reality, Romans 1 says
that the evidence for God in nature functions to make them (the same
"them" to whom this evidence is presented) "without excuse." The
notion that it is "similar to the witness of the Holy Spirit in the church
age" is utterly without foundation. Yes, the Spirit will condemn
sin (Jn.16:8-9) but most important will testify to Christ (Jn.15:26, I
Cor.12:3 &c.) Does the bacterial flagellum point
to Christ?
& the fact that people without
God's historical revelation are "without excuse" for their failure to
recognize the true God does not strictly imply that God condemns them.
After Paul had appealed to the Athenians' unfocussed sense of
God & rather gently rebuked them for their idolatry, he said, "While
God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, he now commands all people
everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). This provides at least an entree to
dealing with the question of the status of people in cultures to whom the
gospel has never been brought, such as ancient native Americans. It
does not seem to have any relevance to the ID debate, scientism, metaphysical
naturalism &c in the west.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: John
Walley
To: 'George Murphy' ;
mlucid@aol.com ; asa@calvin.edu ; 'Janice
Matchett'
Sent: Friday,
November 02, 2007 5:51 PM
Subject: RE:
[asa] Natural theology
But
this gets back to Randy’s obvious question asked earlier. How could the
remote inhabitants of far away places before NT missionaries reached them
possibly read these books in the right order?
I
think the only reasonable conclusion is that God intended His natural
revelation to be a universal and independent witness for Him in the OT era,
similar to the witness of the Holy Spirit in the church age.
John
-----Original
Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
[mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 5:41
PM
To: mlucid@aol.com;
asa@calvin.edu; Janice Matchett
Subject: Re: [asa] Natural
theology
The 2 books model is OK but it's
important to read them in the right order. Otherwise you're in the
position of someone reading The Two Towers before The Fellowship
of the Ring: You won't know who the characters are & will get
confused about what's going on. My PSCF article "Reading God's Two
Books" at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF3-06Murphy.pdf%c2%a0may
be of interest here.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Janice
Matchett
To: mlucid@aol.com ; asa@calvin.edu
Sent:
Friday, November 02, 2007 3:59 PM
Subject: Re:
[asa] Natural theology
At 03:42 PM
11/2/2007, mlucid@aol.com
wrote:
Yeah, I believe I'm a two-booker,
myself, Christine. -Mike (Friend of ASA)
@ Me
too.
..........................
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 3 13:09:06 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Nov 03 2007 - 13:09:06 EDT