Jurassic Period- 2 million years ago

Hob, I've enjoyed our discussions and hope we can stick to some lighter fare like the fate of Carlos the bartender, but this subject I will admit touches on matters I take very seriously and I do take exception to how you've characterized this issue. The thread began concerning an innocuous moment in the script that showed someone didn't do a good spot-check. All fine and well. Now, why drag in something else that then touches on matters of religion and a stereotyped characterization of people that I happen to think is false and also stems from a much broader tone of condescension that I have seen directed at people of my particular faith? We had this discussion before on the Peter Marshall thread, and I appreciate the fact we kept it civil and thoughtful, but it did strike me as curious that you would have made that crack on the heels of the "former atheists" thread elsewhere with little regard for the fact that it was a remark that would be seen as offensive in a way that the "former atheists" comment is not. Perhaps absent that moment, I would have let the matter pass, but to me there was the whiff of a double standard that I personally could not let go unchallenged.

If your point is that not all "fundamentalist Christians" think alike, well, I am not aware that I have said they do. However, a belief in the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis is commonly understood to include the belief that the universe (or the Earth, to be more precise) and everything in it was created by God in six days. This is usually seen as a critical tenet of a fundamentalist belief in the Bible

No, Hob, that is not correct. William Jennings Bryan who has long been the convenient boogeyman embodiment of Fundamentalism was a believer in the "Day-age" concept which ruled out the "young Earth" concept and I would also remind you that your original post was based in the false premise that Fundamentalism and Evolution skeptics (who transcend Fundamentalism) believe in the "young Earth" concept of 5000 years which is also not true. I spent a good deal of time going through essays from the Moody Institute of Science, an adjunct of Moody Bible Institute of Chicago for some research projects in the past, and this bastion of theological conservatism to a man, all backed the old Earth concept. One of the greatest falsehoods put forth is that to disbelieve in macro-evolution (the notion of species changing into another) is to assume a 5000 year Earth origin. So it was also my objection to this false characterization that prompted my further remarks, as well as the condescension regarding a traditional Scriptural passage, Genesis 3:16 which is a subject that has *nothing* to do with Evolution and *everything* to do with the theological arguments that now you say are not "germane" to the discussion. Well why was it germane when it was being brought up in a tone of condescension?

However, I take the strongest exception to both the tenor and alleged facts set forth in your second paragraph

I take the view that a competing view of something that I disagree with should be hashed out in the classroom if there is to be any regard for the concept of academic freedom. When we have people arbitrarily declare the issue is closed, then academic freedom, especially as defined by all those fatuous speeches in "Inherit The Wind" stand exposed as a lie and that the real issue was all about substituting one form of forced dogma for another.

As for your dismissal of the peer-reviewed essays in favor of Intelligent Design, I will be blunt. I consider the academic case for Intelligent Design to be far stronger than a certain junk science that a former Vice President has made gobs of money off the promotion of for the purpose of justifying ruinous economic policies (coming a generation after similar hucksters were saying an ice age was just around the corner). I do not accept your characterization of the credentials of those who have written scholarly essays on the subject (which I know isn't a guarantee of anything. Goodness knows I've seen more than my share of rubbish in the Journal Of American History and other academic journals, but I at least will always respect the right of these authors to champion their points of view in the classroom and let their arguments be hashed out). I also have to say that I find it very odd for you to constantly use the term "blasphemous" to describe those who are critics of macro-evolution, when some of the biggest advocates of Evolution have been those who have taken the art of committing blasphemy to its more logical conclusion of openly mocking and rejecting and profaning God, and also mocking and ridiculing those who are of faith.

I notice you chose to pass on the matter of people like Richard Dawkins who have used the promotion of Evolution as their way to masquerade as experts in philosophy and history and presume that they are of superior intellect to those who are people of faith. Like it or not, Hob, I have *seen* this in action many times from people and your refusal to acknowledge this extremism on your side of the fence and the abuse of Evolutionary belief to commit the ultimate case of blasphemy is really strange. I did not damn all proponents of evolution as "atheistic" but I think it represents the height of naïvete to not acknowledge that many of the public faces of Evolution advocacy, of which Dawkins tops the list, are there and *do* use Evolution as a basis for attacking faith in general and the intellectual strength of Christianity. I have acknowledged that there are extremists in the Fundamentalist camp. Why is there no acknowledgement from you regarding the extremists of Evolutionary belief and what is your response to the matter of people who *do* use it as their catch-all justification for rejecting God outright? If you have no reaction to that, then your use of the term blasphemy to attack people who are far closer to the Kingdom of God than the Richard Dawkins' and before that the Carl Sagans of this world ever will be, strikes me as very hollow.

But in the first sentence of that paragraph you use language that goes far to reveal the intolerance, ranging from condescending disagreement down to the depths of outright hatred, that bedevils so many persons of self-professed "faith" throughout the world, of every religion.

Hob, I'm sorry but you missed the point of my remarks. I was speaking as a Christian who believes that the path to salvation on the "Mere Christianity" points can be found in the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox traditions which also encompass the Fundamentalist and Evangelical branches of Protestantism and also the traditional conservative theological interpretations in Orthodox and Catholic traditions. When I say I am not a Catholic, I am treating Catholicism not as a separate religion, but merely one faction within the overall body of Christ, the Church, in the same way there are many Protestant denominations. I choose to be part of the Evangelical Protestant faction rather than the Fundamentalist faction because I think they can be too extreme (albeit for well-meaning reasons) on how far one should isolate oneself from the world and what forms of social behavior are acceptable etc. and also what role should women have in worship services (as well as on a more disconcerting level the fact that there are some extremists who sadly still believe in old prejudices regarding Catholicism that for the most part have thankfully vanished in the last fifty years). I choose to be Protestant rather than Catholic because in my preferred path of worship I prefer the Protestant culture, worship service structure and setting which is a difference not based on theology and Mere Christianity but in form details for which there is room within the broad body of the Church to have true diversity even as there remains common accord on those principles that begin with the traditional theological interpretations of Scripture and the teachings of the Council of Nicea etc.

when one espouses a set of doctrines (or his own interpretation of them) by this very fact one is stating that his views are somehow more "correct" than those of a differing faith. This of necessity relegates all other beliefs to the status of being flawed or "not true".

And now Hob, we're getting back to a point that I think reflects the modern impulse to turn Christianity as a whole (and by which I mean the totality of the Church which includes the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant traditions) into something that it is not. Christianity at its core is a religion based on what it seen as the *reality* of events that took place in recorded *history*. The concept that what we say of Christ in the Apostle's Creed is believed because it was *real* and was actual history. Under that concept, there is no room to believe that Islam can be an equal path to God, because Islam starts from a totally competing concept of how *history* unfolded. This is to me the ultimate irony, because the issue of Evolution as the process of Creation doesn't matter to the issue of what is needed to achieve salvation. That lies in how we chose to answer the questions regarding historical events of a much later time period for which there can be only one correct answer. If Christ was the Son of God and arose from the dead on the third day, then the Christian view of history is correct and the non-Christian view which must reject that view of history is therefore not true and God must weigh in the matter of Judgment the issue that is far more serious than whether one believed in the theory of a flawed mortal named Darwin, and that is whether one believed in the claims of His Divine Son. Likewise, history happened only one way whether Mohammed received a message from God, and if Mohammed did, then Islam is true and Christianity is false, because the claim of Mohammed is that Jesus was not the Son of God, but if Mohammed was a false prophet, then Islam can be so judged by the Christian as a false religion on that basis. That is not applying "intolerance" that is applying the methods of historical reason as I have been trained in that discipline. Other faiths are not of equal validity when they start at their core basis with a difference of view on how *history* unfolded. You can not have Jesus and Mohammed both be true, or else you get a combination as silly as some of those old beer commercials from years ago that decided as a compromise between "Let's watch football! No let's watch golf! Wait a minute, let's have both at once, and have full contact golf!" There can be diversity in the body of Christ rooted in the central tenet of "Mere Christianity" which is fidelity to the basic tenets of orthodoxy. That diversity does *not* extend to competing faiths that must by *their* doctrines reject the central claim of Christ regarding who He was and what His purpose was.

Were there one true faith, all men would follow it, or at the very least any apostasy would be universally recognized as such

This is a very flawed argument that first, leaves out the basic tenet of man's flawed nature that began with the original sin and how the result of the presence of sin in the world, is what leads man to constantly reject God over the course of history even when God makes His message known, first by His voice and through the Prophets in the Old Testament, and then in the coming of Christ and then through the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Even Jesus foretold how others would disbelieve the reality of His own Resurrection when He told the parable of the rich man and the poor beggar Lazarus (not the Lazarus raised from the dead) in Luke 16. I can easily believe in a world that rejects what I regard to be the reality of how history unfolded that validates the basic Mere Christianity found in Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic traditions simply when I recall verse 31, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." So yes, I can easily see why there are other *non-Christian* faiths and traditions of unbelief that conflict with what I see as the truth because to me that simply reflects the reality of a fallen world. As long as we have a fallen world, there will be people blinded to the Truth, and who will choose to disbelieve. And the Church that has survived for more than 2000 years based on those traditions that go back to the days of Christ and in the principles established in the councils of the early Church like at Nicea has in general done a good job of recognizing what apostasy is on those fundamental points of the path to salvation and how God's Word should be honored.

It's taken me several hours to write this, but all things considered I think its been time well worth spent, not because I expect to have changed your mind on the subject, but because I am often reminded by my pastor of how it is important for those of us who believe to be unafraid to speak up for the Gospel and to share its message with others. I admit, its easier to do so here then in the more difficult world of explaining the Gospel face-to-face, but true faith I believe does require one to be willing to show the courage to accept the challenges and be willing to address those matters. In that spirit, Hob, I thank you for giving me reason to contemplate more about the meaning of my faith to myself, and how its not something I can take for granted as an idle extension of my life.

The best to you and may all our posts to each other in the near future be shorter.

reply share

add reply

formatting help