Christian Non-Realism
Peter
I just discovered "Christian Non-Realism".
I am impressed with how it reconciles Christianity with science, but
are there other forms of Christianity that can do this as well?
Fraternal greetings,
Peter
From
http://www.faithnet.org.uk/powerpoint/Cupitt%20Ethics.ppt
Don Cupitt and the New Christian Ethics
===============================
‘The end of the old realistic conception of God as an all-powerful and
objective spiritual Being independent of us and sovereign over us…
makes it now possible and even necessary for us to create a new
Christian ethic… it is we ourselves who alone make truth, make value,
and so have formed the reality that now encompasses us.’
Don Cupitt was ordained to the Diocese of Manchester in 1959 and until
recently was Dean of Emmanuel College, Cambridge (and was Lecturer in
the Philosophy of Religion in the University of Cambridge).
In the course of his thinking Cupitt has gone from realism to
non-realism via critical realism.
Realism
- Plato’s Forms
- Objective independent truths
- A God ‘up there’
- Moral absolutes
- Traditional Christian belief
Critical Realism
- Does not reject ultimate truth
- Humans participate in the cognitive process
- Truth needs to be applied into each context
Non-Realism
- Projection theory of religion (Feurbach)
- No ultimate truth claims
- No external God - God is internalised!
- Ethics are relative to each individual
Christian non-realism is not atheism!
Atheism rejects God completely.
Christian non-realists speak of God as the sum of
our highest ideals.
Talk of God is still retained.
Cupitt accepts theological non-realism because:
- The believer does not receive theological meaning but creates it.
- The limits of religious language (via negativa = God is nothing!?).
- Internalisation of the ‘God image’.
- An external God is morally oppressive.
Ethics as the Creation of Human Value
==============================
'How can such a hetronomous faith ever be the means whereby I become
autonomous and fully-liberated spirit? It is impossible. This appears
to be a conclusive religious argument against the objective existence
of God. An objective God cannot save…’
‘The more God is absolutised, the more we are presented with the
possibility of living under the dominion of a cosmic tyrant who will
allow nothing, and least of all religion, to change and develop…’
‘Where previously the nature of God had dictated what could and could
not be said of him, now the nature of language dictates what can and
cannot meaningfully be said of anything, God included.'
Cupitt believes society has embraced non-realism and as such is no
longer bound to follow realist forms of religious belief and ethics.
‘There is no bedrock and nothing is fixed, not my identity nor my
sexuality nor my categories of thought, nothing… There is external
measure or value or disvalue - and therefore our life is exactly as
precious or as insignificant as we ourselves make it out to be.’
In the light of this Cupitt argues that:
- Morality must be creative (ex nihilo)
- It must inject value into life
- Prophetic not passive.
The End of Two–Worlds Dualism
==========================
‘… Christian humanism is religious and explicitly presents itself as a
temporalisation and humanisation of God. Thus the human being acquires
a dignity and status that is directly derived from the ancient
holiness and worshipfulness of God. God indeed just was such a symbol
of the goal towards which our moral development is heading and of the
dignity to which we should ultimately attain.’
Cupitt believes the new ethics should be religious because secular
humanism has not got the necessary symbols of value
In Christ God has embraced the fullness of the body
‘Thou art a man, God is no more’
Morality in the past was about pursuing the Ideal:
- Seeking Absolute Being
- Contemplation
- Avoidance behaviour
- Inactivity (commit no sin!)
‘Our task,then, is to redeem people from the old masochistic
‘orthodox’ Christianity by curing them of the sense of sin, restoring
their self-esteem and vindicating Christian action.’
So what will a life based on these new Christian ethics look like?
- Life is an endless striving of activity or endeavour
- There will be no final success (no Ideal)
- One cannot claim perfection
- Just fight till you drop!
We are to be artists:
- Creative and imaginative
- Absorbed in our work
- Experiencing timelessness in time
We need to get rid of notions of ‘sin’ and ‘guilt’.
We need to forget the Platonic idea of higher truths which we need to
understand before we can act aright.
We need to reject the egoistic notion of ‘saving your soul’.
Solar ethics!
‘A Christian is supposed to lose his life, not to save it’
==============================
Peter Davidson
news:3f06f45e...@news.senet.com.au...
>
> I just discovered "Christian Non-Realism".
> I am impressed with how it reconciles Christianity with science, but
> are there other forms of Christianity that can do this as well?<
If they involved notions of sin and guilt, would you be interested?
Peter
Chris Devol
news:3f06f45e...@news.senet.com.au...
>
> I am impressed with how it reconciles Christianity with science, but
> are there other forms of Christianity that can do this as well?
Changing the definition of standard terms creates an appearance of
reconciliation without there being any genuine reconciliation.
Christianity is defined by Christ in the Bible. Any other definition is not
genuine Christianity.
The fellow whose works you cite below has merely invented a new vocabulary
and called it "Christianity".
> Don Cupitt and the New Christian Ethics
> ===============================
>
> ‘The end of the old realistic conception of God as an all-powerful and
> objective spiritual Being independent of us and sovereign over us…
> makes it now possible and even necessary for us to create a new
> Christian ethic… it is we ourselves who alone make truth, make value,
> and so have formed the reality that now encompasses us.’
The "conception of God" in question has not been "ended". That is merely an
unbeliever's fantasy.
"Christian ethics" are created by Christ, not by "us".
> Don Cupitt was ordained to the Diocese of Manchester in 1959 and until
> recently was Dean of Emmanuel College, Cambridge (and was Lecturer in
> the Philosophy of Religion in the University of Cambridge).
>
> In the course of his thinking Cupitt has gone from realism to
> non-realism via critical realism.
He has only altered the meaning of the Bible's standard vocabulary so that
he can convince himself that he is a "Christian" without having been born
again and having his sins paid for by Christ.
His fairy tales are less than worthless, they are malicious, and anyone who
follows them is guaranteed to end up in the lake of fire under eternal
damnation.
Chris Devol
news:3f06f45e...@news.senet.com.au...
>
> I am impressed with how it reconciles Christianity with science, but
> are there other forms of Christianity that can do this as well?
Changing the definition of standard terms creates an appearance of
reconciliation without there being any genuine reconciliation.
Christianity is defined by Christ in the Bible. Any other definition is not
genuine Christianity.
The fellow whose works you cite below has merely invented a new vocabulary
and called it "Christianity".
> Don Cupitt and the New Christian Ethics
> ===============================
>
> ‘The end of the old realistic conception of God as an all-powerful and
> objective spiritual Being independent of us and sovereign over us…
> makes it now possible and even necessary for us to create a new
> Christian ethic… it is we ourselves who alone make truth, make value,
> and so have formed the reality that now encompasses us.’
The "conception of God" in question has not been "ended". That is merely an
unbeliever's fantasy.
"Christian ethics" are created by Christ, not by "us".
> Don Cupitt was ordained to the Diocese of Manchester in 1959 and until
> recently was Dean of Emmanuel College, Cambridge (and was Lecturer in
> the Philosophy of Religion in the University of Cambridge).
>
> In the course of his thinking Cupitt has gone from realism to
> non-realism via critical realism.
He has only altered the meaning of the Bible's standard vocabulary so that
Lee Harrison
"Peter" <no.spam@please> wrote in message
news:3f06f45e...@news.senet.com.au...
>
> I am impressed with how it reconciles Christianity with science, but
> are there other forms of Christianity that can do this as well?
>
> Fraternal greetings,
> Peter
>
> From
> http://www.faithnet.org.uk/powerpoint/Cupitt%20Ethics.ppt
>
> Don Cupitt and the New Christian Ethics
> ===============================
>
> 'The end of the old realistic conception of God as an all-powerful and
> makes it now possible and even necessary for us to create a new
> and so have formed the reality that now encompasses us.'
>
> Don Cupitt was ordained to the Diocese of Manchester in 1959 and until
> recently was Dean of Emmanuel College, Cambridge (and was Lecturer in
> the Philosophy of Religion in the University of Cambridge).
>
> In the course of his thinking Cupitt has gone from realism to
> non-realism via critical realism.
>
> Realism
> - Plato's Forms
> - Objective independent truths
> - A God 'up there'
> - Moral absolutes
> - Traditional Christian belief
>
> Critical Realism
> - Does not reject ultimate truth
> - Humans participate in the cognitive process
> - Truth needs to be applied into each context
>
>
> Non-Realism
> - Projection theory of religion (Feurbach)
> - No ultimate truth claims
> - No external God - God is internalised!
> - Ethics are relative to each individual
>
> Christian non-realism is not atheism!
Maybe not, but neither is it Christianity, but just another senseless
philosophy.
>
> Atheism rejects God completely.
>
> Christian non-realists speak of God as the sum of
> our highest ideals.
> Talk of God is still retained.
>
That just means that this philosophy has constructed what it (they)
have decided that God is , or what they think He should be, irregardless of
what God actually is. Talking ABOUT a God, or god does not make
it Christian, Plato and Socrates did also speak of and write about their
concepts a gods (triune) if I recall correctly, but this didn't make them
Christians.
> Cupitt accepts theological non-realism because:
> - The believer does not receive theological meaning but creates it.
> - The limits of religious language (via negativa = God is nothing!?).
> - Internalisation of the 'God image'.
> - An external God is morally oppressive.
>
> Ethics as the Creation of Human Value
> ==============================
> 'How can such a hetronomous faith ever be the means whereby I become
> autonomous and fully-liberated spirit? It is impossible. This appears
> to be a conclusive religious argument against the objective existence
> of God. An objective God cannot save.'
>
> 'The more God is absolutised, the more we are presented with the
> possibility of living under the dominion of a cosmic tyrant who will
> allow nothing, and least of all religion, to change and develop.'
>
You try to make God into something that evolves.... as you say
"develope",
but before God made the first sub-atomic particle, and formed the four
demensions into what we would call the space-time-continum He was already
what He IS, and He does not, nor does He need to DEVELOPE!
You are left with basically two choices, either accept a God that loves you
so much that He was willing to take on the begotten form of His own
creation,
to walk among His own, as one of them, knowing that His creation would
torture and crucify that body as a substitutionary sacrifice for your wrong
doings,
Or,
you can succumb to any and or every distortion of the truth that is tossed
your way by a disgruntled and angry creature that was cast from from
the prescence of the Almighty, because of the very narsistic and prideful
countenence which he is trying to instill in you and others.
The thing about this, that is the real catch, is that with the former,
you
are openly told of the consequences, wear as with the later, there is no
warning, or open disclosure, only the results, which you will be responsible
for knowing about because... of the former.
> 'Where previously the nature of God had dictated what could and could
> not be said of him, now the nature of language dictates what can and
> cannot meaningfully be said of anything, God included.'
>
>
> Cupitt believes society has embraced non-realism and as such is no
> longer bound to follow realist forms of religious belief and ethics.
>
More Like Cupitt has done the embracing... not society.
> 'There is no bedrock and nothing is fixed, not my identity nor my
> sexuality nor my categories of thought, nothing. There is external
> measure or value or disvalue - and therefore our life is exactly as
> precious or as insignificant as we ourselves make it out to be.'
>
Jesus IS the BEDROCK, and His WORD is FIXED.
> In the light of this Cupitt argues that:
> - Morality must be creative (ex nihilo)
> - It must inject value into life
> - Prophetic not passive.
>
> The End of Two-Worlds Dualism
> ==========================
> '. Christian humanism is religious and explicitly presents itself as a
> temporalisation and humanisation of God. Thus the human being acquires
> a dignity and status that is directly derived from the ancient
> holiness and worshipfulness of God. God indeed just was such a symbol
> of the goal towards which our moral development is heading and of the
> dignity to which we should ultimately attain.'
>
AGAIN... Christianity, and in this case Humanism are not synominous,
but are actually antithetical.
Just one question for you, where did you come up with all of these
inaccurate and have baked ideas, anyway? Maybe a Philosophy
proffessor, that didn't like Christianity, because it cramped his
lifestyle? Or did you just decide to make a mish-mash of the
Platonic Philosophies and the Christian Religion, stick it in the
oven , and then see if someone would eat it when you were done
cookinging it for a while? If you want to be a Philosopher, thats
your business, Tertulian was, Origen was, and Hippotilus was,
but just as their melding of Christianity and Philosophy has caused
much misunderstanding and distortion of the truth, your little
treatise follows right in suite, and really doesn't present anything
new, just another way of saying, I don't like the TRUTH, so
lets change it so I'll feel better. I other words, keep your Philosophies
to your philosophers.
Lee.<><
Carl Rooker
own likes and dislikes.
Just the old story of how to live comfortable with our sins, instead of
owning up to them, and having them forgiven.
In other words, nothing new at all.
2 Ti 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound
doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a
great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They
will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. NIV
God Bless
Carl
"Peter" <no.spam@please> wrote in message
news:3f06f45e...@news.senet.com.au...
>
> I just discovered "Christian Non-Realism".
> I am impressed with how it reconciles Christianity with science, but
> are there other forms of Christianity that can do this as well?
>
> Fraternal greetings,
> Peter
>
> From
> http://www.faithnet.org.uk/powerpoint/Cupitt%20Ethics.ppt
>
> Don Cupitt and the New Christian Ethics
> ===============================
>
> 'The end of the old realistic conception of God as an all-powerful and
> objective spiritual Being independent of us and sovereign over us.
> makes it now possible and even necessary for us to create a new
> Christian ethic. it is we ourselves who alone make truth, make value,
> of God. An objective God cannot save.'
>
> 'The more God is absolutised, the more we are presented with the
> possibility of living under the dominion of a cosmic tyrant who will
> allow nothing, and least of all religion, to change and develop.'
>
> 'Where previously the nature of God had dictated what could and could
> not be said of him, now the nature of language dictates what can and
> cannot meaningfully be said of anything, God included.'
>
>
> Cupitt believes society has embraced non-realism and as such is no
> longer bound to follow realist forms of religious belief and ethics.
>
> 'There is no bedrock and nothing is fixed, not my identity nor my
> sexuality nor my categories of thought, nothing. There is external
> measure or value or disvalue - and therefore our life is exactly as
> precious or as insignificant as we ourselves make it out to be.'
>
> In the light of this Cupitt argues that:
> - Morality must be creative (ex nihilo)
> - It must inject value into life
> - Prophetic not passive.
>
> The End of Two-Worlds Dualism
> ==========================
> '. Christian humanism is religious and explicitly presents itself as a
Peter
>You are left with basically two choices, either accept a God that loves you
>so much that He was willing to take on the begotten form of His own
>creation, to walk among His own, as one of them, knowing that His
>creation would torture and crucify that body as a substitutionary
>sacrifice for your wrong doings,
I think there are more than two choices.
If you believe in the traditional idea of an omnipotent, omniscient,
loving God, how do you reconcile that with the fact that this God,
allows innocent children to be periodically killed by natural
disasters?
The evidence is, that the traditional God is either loving but less
powerful than Nature and therefore unable to protect children, or he
is omnipotent but sadistic, or he does not know what is happening.
I think most people would prefer to believe that God is less powerful
than Nature than to believe he is sadistic, or unknowing, but if God
is less powerful than Nature, what is God?
I expect different people will have different ideas.
My personal concept of God is currently as follows.
Throught history, Nature has created people who were capable of
forming high ideals (eg Moses, Jesus) who could help mankind. The fact
that Nature could create such people is evidence to me that Nature is
worthy of being revered as God. While Nature is nearly ominipotent
(she allows us some independence) she is not all knowing, therefore
even if she is loving in many ways, she cannot protect innocent
children from her own natural disasters.
Thus believing Nature is God makes more sense to me than believing in
the traditional idea of God.
Regarding "the sum of our highest ideals", of which I would consider
the commandments to be examples, I would regard our capacity to have
ideals as a gift of God or perhaps of what Quakers call the "Light
within".
From http://www.quaker.org/friends.html
"George Fox preached the Good News that we were all children of God
and that, as children of God, we had inherited powers from God. Each
of us was given a measure of this power or light and in accordance
with how we used it, so more would be given to us. Jesus had possessed
this power or light, without measure so that he became the Light and
the Light within is Jesus Christ."
Regards,
Peter
Peter
I know that science has proven that the world was not created as
described by Genesis.
For me, to pretend otherwise would be a sin, and if I failed to point
this out I would feel guilty.
If you know of other ways to reconcile Christianity with science
please let me know.
I think Quaker and Unitarian Universalist are compatible with Science.
Regards,
Peter
Peter
>They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside
>to myths. NIV
Its Biblical sales talk.
The problem is that these days nearly everyone knows that Genesis does
not provide a true account of creation.
In this particular case, Science provides truth and the Bible provides
myth.
It seems to me that for Christianity to remain credible, a way must be
found to reconcile Christianity with Science.
Christian non-realism appears to be one way.
I think Quaker and Unitarian Univeralist are also possible ways..
God Bless
Peter
Peter
>He has only altered the meaning of the Bible's standard vocabulary so that
>he can convince himself that he is a "Christian" without having been born
>again and having his sins paid for by Christ.
>
He is probably a baptised Christian, who has come to see that much in
the Bible is untrue.
In that case, should he hide his light under a bushel or should he try
to enlighten others?
Would it be Christian of him to keep his new found truth to himself?
Regards,
Peter.
Peter Davidson
> "Peter Davidson" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >"Peter" <no.spam@please> wrote in message
> >news:3f06f45e...@news.senet.com.au...
> >>
> >> I just discovered "Christian Non-Realism".
> >> I am impressed with how it reconciles Christianity with science, but
> >> are there other forms of Christianity that can do this as well?<
> >
> >If they involved notions of sin and guilt, would you be interested?
> >
> I know that science has proven that the world was not created as
> described by Genesis.<
There are very many Christians who see no conflict of faith with science at
all. There is no necessity for taking Genesis as a scientific account. It
was never used as such by the Israelites, and the rest of the Bible is
unrelated to science, so there is good reason for accepting Genesis as
allegory, like a New Testament parable. There is very much meaning to be
found in Genesis that is all but invisible if a literal interpretation is
made.
Peter
Griz
An interesting, but rather impersonal God you elect to follow. I can see
that you do recognize that he is different from Yahweh God whom
Christ-centred paradigm -- and this NG -- follows.
It is interesting to hear about the other Gods people choose to follow and
why, but keep in mind that our purpose here is to discuss only one God. The
"many gods" approach sounds like a paridigm centred on human understanding
rather than on that which transcends ALL.
In your post however, you give as your key argument against Yahweh God as
the fact that there's suffering in the world and that some of that is
directed at innocent children. Let me briefly address that.
Well first of all, that same "traditional" approach you speak of also
recognized that "None are righteous - no not one". That includes the
children. They are born into sin (although there is inference in God's
nature from Scriptures, that children who have not yet reached a certain age
of maturity simply cannot understand the choices given them and ample grace
will applied them - those with the maturity to understand that there are
only two choices are responsible for their own decision/indecision).
The whole tone of your debate does concern me however Peter. It appears to
show that you are already in very dangerous waters as exhibited by your
great comfort in trying to judge God's actions/inactions from an exceedingly
narrow platform of human understanding.
>I think there are more than two choices.
>
>If you believe in the traditional idea of an omnipotent, omniscient,
>loving God, how do you reconcile that with the fact that this God,
>allows innocent children to be periodically killed by natural
>disasters?
>
>The evidence is, that the traditional God is either loving but less
>powerful than Nature and therefore unable to protect children, or he
>is omnipotent but sadistic, or he does not know what is happening.
You don't have any problem seeing that there IS good and evil in your
recognition that you believe that it is evil for children to die in natural
disasters - so integral to that is also the recognition that there IS also
"a good", more desirable outcome. But then you tie that to YOUR limited
understanding of all things spiritual (certainly not infallible and
all-encompassing, and neither is mine!) to arrive at an understanding of
what is right and wrong for God to do in certain circumstances. Then you
judge Him as as "less-powerful" or even "omnipotent but sadistic" from that
exceedingly callow platform based on what YOU can fathom.
Let me explain:
Imagine a bear caught in a live-trap. He is in that trap for totally
"innocent" reasons (say, he wandered into an urban area near Banff and
simply began doing what bears do when confronted with the opulance of human
garbage. One could even argue that he is in a compromizing situation in the
first place because humans are living very wastefully and without proper
regard for nature!). Removing him from that area is definitely in his own
best interest for otherwise he is headed for an eventual rendezvous with a
"sudden encounter" with a human (possibly a child), a mauling, and a
large-calibre bullet to end his life. But the bear only sees that he is
being "unfairly treated" and responds accordingly. To transport him to a
safer location, he is drugged - a further "unfair treatment". Once there,
he has settled hard against the releasing mechanism for the door so that
involves the rangers needing to try to poke and prod him away from it. In
all of these situations, from the bear's limited perspective he has been
treated poorly, unfairly, and even brutalized by these humans around him.
Yet from our slightly-higher perspective we can see that everything was done
in this situation to see to the bear's long-term survival and safety.
How far below our understanding is a bear? Yet we both are remarkably
similar in requirements, desires, instincts, mortality.
How far below God's level of understanding are we Peter? We not only do not
share any of His requirements, desires, instincts or mortality but in fact
are the antithesis!
(And in re-reading this, I can see a further question to ask you -- if that
hypothetical bear, conditioned by human garbage, had mauled and killed a
child, would you see this as yet another "natural disaster" that is
"traditional-god's" fault? Would you be able to see the hand of man was
more to blame?)
Yes, children die in natural disasters and that is a point of concern for
many "traditional" Christians. But in this, two questions need to be
entertained:
The first is: have we eliminated ALL acts of human pride and foolishness
in our assessment of what is and is not a 'natural' disaster? Many of the
children starving in Africa is definitely NOT natural in origin. Humans
have pridefully messed with everything from the earth's ecosystems to
socio-economic/political/spiritual ways of lives of people they have not
first taken the trouble to fully understand.
Something like the deaths at the Frank Slide in Canada, Mt. St. Helens and
Spirit/Turtle Lake (?), would there have been such devastation had people
settled elsewhere? People raising children on the coastline where hurricane
Mitch caused such devastation surely were not ignorant of the fact that
raising a family there came with certain uncertainties -- just as people who
raise children on earthquake fault-zones or in crime-infested ghettos or
river flood-plains or volcanic plains or tsunami-vulnerable regions or
avalanche-outflow plains are not unaware of the earth-processes around
them - unless they choose to be. God has given us a lot in the way of free
choice and personal responsibility. (Chances are good that they choose to
overlook or down-play such dangers because the area is exceedingly fertile,
or lucrative, or offers "easy living" or some other reason based on
short-sighted temporal gain).
Is the golfer hit by lightning and killed the victim of an "act of a
sadistic God"; or simply a boob for walking about on an open field waving
around a lightning-rod? If they were a child, did their parent's suitably
warn them? Is it an act of an unfair God, that of a negligent parent, a
disobedient child, or simply a tragic mistake? We appear to have been
gifted a large degree of personal freedom and responsibility for our
actions. Only a fool blames the one who has given them a wonderful gift
simply because they are hurt in mis-using it. Nature comes with an
"instruction manuel" called wisdom and common sense. Those who choose to go
against nature and settle in natural danger-zones, or do
inherently-dangerous things are choosing to take a chance. They cannot
whine to an "unfair" God when rewards of such actions - even long-overdue -
catch up with them.
The second point is this: from the standpoint of an eternal Spiritual
existence, just how significant an event - how tragic an event - is physical
death? It is something (save for one fortunate generation!) that we all
will experience sooner or later!
Personally, my view is to call the old "there can be no traditional God
because there is suffering of children" trump card is indicative of a
process that is still grounded in the "old nature" and has simply latched
onto an easy card to play so they might have a God that conforms to their
understanding of things - rather than vice versa.
That is not meant to be harsh Peter -- simply to state a frank spiritual
assessment of the "suffering = no traditional God" card that you have played
in our midst for your reason to lean more towards Universal Unitarian
thinking. Believe me, I have walked through a season of "many paths to many
Gods" myself: and that is at least part of the reason why I go into such
lengths with you on this.
You have the freedom to believe that God is really Nature if you wish. But
the traditional understanding of things gleaned from the traditional Bible
by the Holy Spirit, is that such a god will not be able to endure beyond
time and will perish some day when all things that were given are called
back again by the Creator. You see, I rely on Him because He was here
before nature and will be after nature is but a memory.
You would do good Peter, to choose carefully which god you would follow --
while there is yet time.
Yours in Christ,
Griz
Griz
<g!>
Remember Peter, "traditional" science is a creation of Man. Are we simply
looking for a religion that will bow to our understanding?
Or one that will enable us to transcend flesh-centred understanding?
Remember, all things that are truly spiritual are all-but invisible to
science and are therefore deemed as unreal, or unimportant.
I am what could be called a "traditional", even a <ghasp!> "fundamentalist"
follower of Christ. Yet I also have a keen interest in science - and I find
surprisingly few points where I have to abandon one for the sake of the
other. Surprisingly few!
Yet when one must bow, it is indicative of which "god" we feel is more
powerful! Science is a creation of the mind of Man - so it ALWAYS bows to
God in my world! For our minds are a creation of Him!
(BTW, have scientists explained yet why, if the moon is so many millions of
years old and the rate of cosmic deposition remains a constant, there is
only enough cosmic debris on the moon's surface to account for only a
fraction of that time? You see Peter -- a lot of it depends on what you put
first in your life and what data you choose to play up and what you choose
to play down. Another would be the tracks preserved near the Paluxy river
in Texas that show human and dinosaur footprints in the same-aged strata. A
lot of our current "knowledge" in science has come to us bearing a strong
bias against anything that might point to God being right and us simply
being young fallible beings, thinking higher of ourselves than we ought, and
trying to make sense of things from our own limited perspectives)
Yours in Christ,
Griz
Griz
>The problem is that these days nearly everyone knows that Genesis does
>not provide a true account of creation.
>
>In this particular case, Science provides truth and the Bible provides
>myth.
Hi Peter.
I can see that you feel you are on a roll here!
So I would ask: which is the bigger god in your mind? God, or your mind?
That is not meant to be combative Peter; but sums up as succinctly as I can
the personal conflict I see in your words offered up to us.
Our minds are tremendously-wonderful things and are capable of feats of
deductive reasoning just as they are capable of amazing flights of fancy.
But do we define reality, or does something Higher than us?
Yours in Christ,
Griz
Griz
>all. There is no necessity for taking Genesis as a scientific account. It
>was never used as such by the Israelites, and the rest of the Bible is
>unrelated to science, so there is good reason for accepting Genesis as
>allegory, like a New Testament parable. There is very much meaning to be
>found in Genesis that is all but invisible if a literal interpretation is
>made.
>
>Peter
A good call Peter1 (there are two Peters in this discussion, aren't there?)
Genesis was never meant to be a scientific account but was most likely oral
tradition passed down for years until finally written down. This does not
automatically imply that it was altered over time however -- many oral
traditions (especially those deemed to be sacred) are entrusted and passed
down mainly by those who recognize them to be an important link to the past
and as such, they are not inclined to take personal or creative liberties
with them.
Another option, is that the Genesis account of creation could have been a
word of wisdom given to the writer (commonly thought to be Moses). A man,
from a race that is barely new-born, being entrusted with an account of
creation that exceeds him in so many ways. He writes it down, realizing it
is sacred and thus it is preserved.
The Bible does not relate to science because it was not written to interact
well with pride. Science is a very good tool for understanding - but when
it becomes our god, pride manifests and nothing of pride can know God. The
two are anathema to one another.
Catch that distinction: God and science are not anathema -- God and pride
are.
Yours in Christ,
Griz
Thomas Hankin
Hi Peter.
>>They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside
>>to myths. NIV
>
> Its Biblical sales talk.
> The problem is that these days nearly everyone knows that Genesis does
> not provide a true account of creation.
How so?
> In this particular case, Science provides truth and the Bible provides
> myth.
If this is the case then throw away your bible, you have nothing left to
have faith in. If the creation is a myth, then why not the life, death and
resurection of Christ?
> It seems to me that for Christianity to remain credible, a way must be
> found to reconcile Christianity with Science.
Actually, most early scientists were Christians, and their faith caused
them not problems at all, and still science adavanced. What many would do,
however, is use science to disprove the need for God and accountability.
For if there is no higher power, then we can do what we want for here and
now is all there ever will be.
> Christian non-realism appears to be one way.
> I think Quaker and Unitarian Univeralist are also possible ways..
Jesus is the only way, as seen in the scriptures, OT and NT, one part just
as valid and reliable as another part.
God Bless.
Tom.
Thomas Hankin
news:3f088a2e...@news.senet.com.au:
<snip for length>
Hi Peter.
It is as simple as the fact that we will do what we will to achieve self-
justification. We twist truths, and ignore facts, and build ourselves a
sandcastle so that we won't have to face our sin and hopelessness without
God. Once we have truly come to realize who God is, and what He can come
to be in our lives, we realize that in Him is peace from all that concerns
us. It is when we stop trusting Him to be in control that our doubts
arise, and as we struggle to be in control, He waits for us to call on Him
once again, to lead us, and sometimes even carry us through those times
where we just don't understand.
God Bless.
Tom.
LibMind
There is no way to reconcile science and faith in God, but that is ok
because they are not in need of reconciliation. Each exists in wholly
seperate epistomological spheres. Both God and the rest of material
reality exists outside the mind, but the mind can only grasp any
"object" or "concept" by how it may be perceived and processed within
the mind. Science and faith or two differennt epistomological
realities. Science is a dogmatic process that depends on two factors
to reach its goal: which is presumably trustworthy data for practical
application. The first factor is demonstratable proof. The second
factor is logic, by which the demonstrated phenomenon may be
interpreted within context. Faith is a more fundamental being than
science. Indeed, if we are to believe Einstein, science is rooted in a
certain faith in an underlying simplicity and universality in all
physical processes. Faith is the belief in a thing for which there is
no demonstratable proof.
That which is capable of being demonstrated and reasoned with using
logic belong in the epistomological sphere os science -- science will
have applicability. That which cannot be demonstrated does not belong
in the sphere of science. God, even as a concept -- nevermind whether
you believe or not -- as a concept cannot, by definition be the object
of human demonstration. Therefore God is beyond science. God in fact
is, very much beyond human logic. God can only be known (while we
live) through faith.
I like to compare it to a black hole. The black hole has an "event
horizon" beyond which light can no longer escape -- this is where the
blackness begins. The concept of God is part of the event horizon of
demonstratable knowledge, and only faith can plumb its depths.
Timoleon
Michael
> I just discovered "Christian Non-Realism".
> I am impressed with how it reconciles Christianity with science, but
> are there other forms of Christianity that can do this as well?
>
> Fraternal greetings,
> Peter
>
> From
> http://www.faithnet.org.uk/powerpoint/Cupitt%20Ethics.ppt
>
> Don Cupitt and the New Christian Ethics
> ===============================
>
> ‘The end of the old realistic conception of God as an all-powerful and
> objective spiritual Being independent of us and sovereign over us…
> makes it now possible and even necessary for us to create a new
> Christian ethic… it is we ourselves who alone make truth, make value,
> and so have formed the reality that now encompasses us.’
Doesn't sound Christian, it was the old realistic conception of God as an
all-powerful and objective spiritual Being independent of us and soverigh
over us that made science possible in the first place.
A new Christian ethic? Are you saying that the old one written by Christ
and given to Moses on Mt Siani has changed? IOW, you are saying that
Christ was different yesterday, from what He is today, and what He will be
tomorrow>
It sounds like you need to get back to basics and understand what you are
re-imaging.
--
Michael
People who don¹t read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Obadiah Freeman
>
> >They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside
> >to myths. NIV
>
> Its Biblical sales talk.
> The problem is that these days nearly everyone knows that Genesis
> does not provide a true account of creation.
>
> In this particular case, Science provides truth and the Bible
> provides myth.
How do you know that the scientific account of the creation of the
universe is true? Do you know because:
- You were there, and you saw it happen?
- You know somebody who was there and saw it happen?
- You have personally performed experiments which confirm the scientific
account?
- You read about it in a science textbook?
- A science teacher told you about it and you believed them?
- Something else?
About the Big Bang Theory - as I understand it, the universe was
created with a big explosion. What exactly was it that exploded? Why
did it explode? What was there before the explosion?
God bless you
Obadiah Freeman
--
1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of
his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. [KJV]
Donate Bibles: http://www.thebiblesite.org/ http://obadiah-freeman.150m.com/
Jesus is LORD -- 1 Cor 12:3 Email me: obadiah (at) fastmail.fm
Peter
>
>Doesn't sound Christian, it was the old realistic conception of God as an
>all-powerful and objective spiritual Being independent of us and soverigh
>over us that made science possible in the first place.
>
I think some scientists thought that the idea that Gods creation was
independent of us meant it was worth studying, and that doing so might
help one better understand God's will.
I think what has happened though, is that partially as a result of
taking scientific knowledge into account, there are now hundreds of
different interpretations of the Bible and God's will. Each church
thinks its interpretation is the real one and the others are non-real.
Thus there is a great deal of contention.
In my opinion, Christian non-realism says that the all the pictures of
God that people create in their minds in response to different
interpretations of the Bible and God's will are non-real.
It therefore asks us to stop thinking of our own picture of God as the
real one, and lower the credibility of our picture to the same level
that we accord everybody else's picture.
Let's face the fact that if God is infinite, non of us is capable of
have an exact picture of him, therefore all our pictures of him are
non-real.
Therefore people should be able if they wish, to use the word God to
refer to concepts such as "the sum of our highest ideals", or "the
totality of being", or "Nature" etc. if that makes sense to them.
>
>A new Christian ethic? Are you saying that the old one written by Christ
>and given to Moses on Mt Siani has changed?
>
After receiving the Ten Commandments, which included the commandment
"Thou shalt not kill, Moses gave the following commandments to his
men.
Numbers 31
[17] Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill
every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
[18] But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying
with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Given Moses example, how binding should we consider the Ten
Commandments to be?
>
>IOW, you are saying that
>Christ was different yesterday, from what He is today, and what He will be
>tomorrow>
>
Every person has a different idea of who Christ is. If we recognise
that right of people to have a personal relation to Christ, we cannot
say that one person's Christ is more real than another's.
>
>It sounds like you need to get back to basics and understand what you are
>re-imaging.
>
Currently, I take the following statements as the most basic.
[From Matthew Chapter 22]
[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
mind.
[38] This is the first and great commandment.
[39] And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.
[40] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Of the above, I think verse [40] has an important implication.
To me, it expresses the idea that if a law or a statement given by a
prophet does not comply with the first two commandments, then that law
or statement does not "hang", that is, it is unacceptable.
However, whether a commandment is loving or not, depends on the
situation.
For instance, it seems to me that the commandment by Moses to kill the
boys and women above violated the commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
and was clearly unloving and should therefore be considered ethically
unacceptable, even though Moses was a prophet.
On the otherhand, if someone suffering from an incurable desease
wishes to die to escape from severe pain, helping them do so may be a
more loving thing to do than following the commandment "Thou shalt not
kill". Therefore euthenasia should be permitted in such cases.
This would not be a new Christian ethic for me, but it might be for
some churches.
Regards,
Peter