Re: OT How to stump dem evilooshunusts

Dicerous wrote:
On May 29, 10:01 pm, Miguel de Maria <elegantspanishgui...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I'm sorry, I couldn't help posting this.

Apparently this guy is putting on seminars to arm Bible-minded people
what to say to those snarky people at cocktail parties who believe in
evolution. The disturbing part is the survey cited claiming that
"Gallup polls have shown nearly half of U.S. adults don't believe
evolution, and a third are unhappy schools teach it." This is nearly
as weird as that earlier study which found that a significant
percentage of athiests and agnostics, believe that Jesus was born of a
virgin woman.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1389650/homeschoolers_learn_to_a...

Mary's virginity is a matter of faith, just like creationism. It's
possible to believe in both and still be an intelligent person, but
only if that particular virginity and that particular creationism is
thought of from a theological point of view. It comes down to one's
concept of time. If time is merely past, present and future then one
would honestly be called naive to believe in those things. If one's
concept of time is like St. Augustine's (present-present, present-
past, and present-future) then those beliefs are based on a
consistent logic. As Tillich says: "When space is experienced
without the *eternal here* as the presence of the power of being
itself, it is experienced as spatial contingency, i.e.without a
necessary place to which man belongs." He calls it *existential
estrangement*.

This is a problem of phenomenology or how believers experience time.
A lot of specious arguments are made by fundamentalists who have a
concrete concept of time (e.g. the earth was created 44 thousand
years ago in April or some other such nonsense.) They do christianity
a grave disservice. Jesus rode a donkey not an elephant!

The catholic church just took a position on the possibility of life on
other planets. Their conclusion was that their teachings are still
sound. I don't see why it's not possible that the biblical schema
applies to many planets at the same time.

David


I have no problem in matters of faith. The problem comes when scientific evidence is posited as a competing faith and then perceived as failing as a faith when contrasted with scripture.
I don't care if someone "believes" in evolution, so long as they acknowledge the scientific evidence and what it points to and what it means in historical terms. Science is not theology.

Steve
.

Quantcast