metaphysics
Submitted by F.O.D. on June 14 1999 at 15:28:22
In reply to My Views Of God And Faith - It Helps To Proof Read Submitted by A Blessed One on June 13 1999 at 16:18:22
|
Hiya ABO, I'm glad you were able to recognise the 20 questions I had hidden away in the 1 ;) I think maybe you'll find less of a gulf between the way we understand God than you think. As for "agnosticsm" under the terms you meant it, one of my favourite verses is Eph 3:19: and to know this love that surpasses knowledge... I think your point about being led by the Spirit is an important one, and one lost on many Christians who find themselves on the other side of the science-religion "divide" that you mentioned, those who idolise rationalism in worship ahead of God's Spirit. If you want to start flinging heresies about the nature of Christ, we could start by discussing what Jesus meant when he says in John 17 "may they be one as we are one: I in them and you in me:... ;) About Creationism, I've been perusing a book written by one of the main men in the modern movement, H. Morris, I believe, called "The long war against God". I thought his point seemed very plausible that modern scientific evolution is just one in a long line of attacks of the Devil against God, and that the whole reason the Devil started the war against God, even though he must fail bitterly (have you ever wondered why the Devil tried to usurp God's place, if he knew he could never succeed?), was because the Devil himself believes that God is just a more highly evolved creature, and the Devil can evolve himself up to God's position. However, though I liked this theological argument, I found Morris to be gravely lacking in scientific arguments, in this book, at least. His only discussion of the scientific basis for evolution or for a billion year old earth was to mention that dinosaur fossils were assumed to be ancient, following a given time-line, and that rocks were dated according to this fossil timeline. His book mentioned absolutely nothing about the large time-scales found in the physical sciences, which have little to do with vague biological theories - radiochemical dating of rocks, astrophysical dating of stars. So I was disappointed in his book for that reason. For myself, there seems to be enough physical evidence of an ancient universe that it can't all be the result of an anti-Christian conspiracy. I find Gen 1 to clearly be poetry (did I mention that?) But on the other hand the evidence for evolution - the shifting of one species into another - does seem a bit thin on the ground. Natural selection - the shifting of deviations within a species - yes, that's obvious, but not shifting across species. Well, you haven't convinced me yet that there's no church that will accept you, so there ;) Love, F.O.D. |