God could have used evolution!

I've heard it, you've probably heard it: modal logic to the rescue as a way out of the direct sense of Genesis 1.

Disregarding the propositionally self-revealing God, with no commitment made, no evidence or argument required, he just could've. So there!

But what are the implications?

    1. an indeterminate god without a nature or declaration of 'scope'

    2.  recourse to an old pagan tale (the eternal or 'self-making' global biota)

    3. not the God of the Bible, the self-declaring God.

The first seems to prefer a non-communicating god, a god to whom can be attached any mode of operation and interaction with the creation, indeed, merged into the creation without distinction. The unknown God, perhaps the one lauded in Paul's Athens. Not the God who created definitively!

The second: ancient Epicureanism to the rescue. It's a self-making material world after all, with an inexplicable tendency to 'self-improve' on the graves of millions of 'failed' creatures. Oddly, we seem to still have millions of 'lesser evolved' creatures, so what gives with that? This is the god disappeared into the land of illusion. On this implication god ceases to be removed from the creation and his words about it leave the real world: reality collapses to illusion.

The third is the worst. It changes who God is from who he reveals and declares himself to be in the terms of the creation he has made (e.g. using the days that pace our life, and the contents of each day), the God who shows us relationship and rationality, who is present and active in our world, the God who acts in concrete history to frame our relationship with him and his creation, and the reality of that creation.

It changes this God into a cypher-god. Anonymous, or the deist god, or the incommunicado god. This makes God the god of an exilic religion where reality is illusory, or a mimetic religion where human actions 'act out' religion. Flipping between similarity to Eastern religions or Ancient Roman paganism.

Either choice is not good. No longer the creator God of the Bible, the covenanting God who speaks in reality, in whose image we are made for fellowship with him. It makes the incarnation a side-show where Christ is reduced to some sort of 'guru': not God at all.

De-historicizing the creation by moving it out of our world, symbolicising it or mythologizing it or abstracting it, severs the synchoronal and commutative nature of the relationship shown in God's creating in the days of our life-world, of him thereby positioning us and him in communion (from Genesis 1:26ff, 3:8). He thus underscoring the reality of our fellowship with him in time and space, in history, in the real time-bound material world where propositions are meaningful and relationships objectively real. All gone in any maneuver which serves to obliterate God's participation in our world through creating in our history and in the terms of our real, concrete life-world, from his loving hand.

(see Westphal, God, Guilt and Death, for explanation of religion types.)

The Trinity in Summary

A nice summary from Google's AI

The Trinity is the belief that God exists as three persons in one Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Bible establishes the basis for the Trinity through references to these three persons.
Biblical evidence for the Trinity

    Matthew 28:19: "In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"
    John 10:30: "I and my Father are one"
    2 Corinthians 13:13: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all"

History of the Trinity

    The Trinity emerged around 33-34 AD/CE, during or shortly after Jesus's death and resurrection

The Nicene Creed established the official Trinity belief for Christians at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD/CE 

The word "Trinity" comes from the Latin word Trinitas, coined by the early Christian writer Tertullian

The Trinity is used to defend the church against charges of worshiping two or three gods. It's also connected to the sacraments, which believers receive to enter into the divine life.

Evolution, evil and the way out.

Comment I posted to a Frank Turek question time.

The kid has spotted the problem in theistic evolution, and even 'long age' views of earth history: Evolution is 'kill or be killed'. He's right, death is the engine of comparative advantage in evolution. Happily Darwinian Evolution is a bunch of nonsense and has explained nothing.

But, on to the main topic.

Every one of these arguments begins with the fantasy 'god-of-the-philosophers', not the creator God who reveals himself in history and through history seeking restoration of us in his fellowship.

Nor is it good to discuss 'free-will'. The point of departure is that God has created this cosmos for us to enjoy him in, and to 'steward'. We, in Adam, have disavowed God's way and chosen our own: as we are in God's image our choices are real and are significant and carry all of creation with them.

Turned from our Creator we are living out of synch with the way things should be. The only 'good' in this is that the corrupted and decaying cosmos is an alarm bell of our plight. We know things are bad. More bad for some than others, but still bad for all: we all die!

The only way out is the way in: restored connection of love with the creator. We have this in turning to Christ, being filled with his Spirit in new life. Not for a life in heaven, this gives the wrong idea, but for life in a renewed creation. Like this one only immeasurable better. Paul tells us, better beyond our imagination or comprehension. So far far better, this life will fade to insignificance. Especially after the first 30 billion years when we've gotten to know everyone (HUMOUR!!)

Nor does God 'create people for suffering'. It is we who bring people into the world under the terms of the creation mandate. God is not the puppet-master god, he is not the fairy-god-mother god, he is not the distant God., he is not the over-defined god-of-the-philosophers. He is the living eternal creator. You want to respond to the alarm bell? Turn to Christ and the world is in a different light. He then is with us in our struggles because we are in him.

He works through the corrupted history that we make and pilot our way in, because this is our place--remember, we are its stewards--and his incarnation in Christ is part of the rescue program: he entered history to overcome death, did so in his resurrection and invites us to join him.

As Jesus pointed out when asked about deaths in a construction accident: repent unless this also happens to you (death before repentance). That's his theodicy: we are all in the tank, its only the depth that varies, so catch the line from the rescue helicopter before you sink to the bottom. Any speculation about suffering bringing good in a utilitarian fashion is misplaced and offensive: it is the alarm bell. Sure God works all things together for good for those...called according to his purpose, but Jesus indicated the only good from suffering is a call to repentance, not: "thankfully, this helped the construction industry in Galilee improve is OHS standards."

Just who's a skydaddy?

The village cynic will from time to time deploy his or her full force with the witty originality of  a moronic quip that Christians believe in a 'sky-daddy', or worship the 'flying spaghetti monster'.

Now, both make two errors.

1-They place their cardboard cutout conception of the creator-God within the cosmos, enclosed by the system of doom we are all currently caught within; that's not who the creator-God is. He is prior to and beyond this doomed system of decay and frustration which he offers rescue from.

2-The other error is that their mocking unbelief is an unbelief that has produced nothing for anyone. It rebounds on them, because their ultimate point of reference, the point that would show why our lives are truly meaningful, is dust; they start as worm dung, get reorganized into a bunch of cells made of dust, which then, shortly after, become a banal pile of dust once more. And nothing is really of value or significance.

Yet, they live as though their lives, even their puerile quip, has some real meaning.

It doesn't; on their grounds.

So: my 'sky-daddy' beats your 'dust-mammy' any day. If you don't like 'dust-mammy' substitute: dust-bug.

Atonement?

Penal Substitution theory seems to have topped the conservative evangelical world in recent decades. Due, at least in part, to the parlous influence of Calvinism. (ref. 1 Cor. 1:11-13)

Here's a list of reference to the atonement compiled by Hal Chaffee:

Jesus--

    Died for our sins -- 1 Cor 15:17

        Gave himself for sins -- Gal 1:4

            Purged our sins -- Heb 1:3

                Suffered for sins -- 1 Pt 3:18

                    Put away sins -- Heb 9:26

                        Bore our sins -- 1 Pt 2:24

                            Made propitiation for sins -- Heb2:17

                                Was sacrificed for sins -- Heb 10:12

                                    Took away our sins -- 1 Jn 3:5

                                        Washed us from our sins -- Rev 1:5

                                            Forgives us our sins -- Eph 1:7

BUT NOT

Paid for our sins -- ???

DO or DONE?

I recently tuned into a Christian radio station, only because my regular was being objectionable.

The new station had some less than skilled announcing going on (oh why cannot a Christian art-like activity pursue excellence relentlessly?). Then came the dreaded made-up story about a pastor visiting a wealthy parishioner on his yacht, where there was a cluster of other wealthy people. The pastor didn't make much headway, and soon and with great relief left the yacht.

Whew, I thought, almost over; now just to get through the corny denouement.

But...BUT, the end was 'fired for effect' and right on target.

Incoming was "Hey, pastor, tell me what Christians believe." from the wealthy end of the yacht.

Return fire was on target, sustained, and mission accomplished.

He said. It's a matter of spelling. Man-made religions are spelt DO: you do this ritual, you say these set prayers, you say these special things, the priest says these things...it's all Do, Do, Do.

Christianity is spelt DONE. All done by Christ; the choice is ours to say yes to his offer of life.

I turned back to 80s pop music very pleased. Just a split second decision landed me in the Forward Observer's dugout.

Remember this line next time you speak to a Muslim, a JW, a Mormon, a Scientologist, a...well, any other religious devotee.

Religions are what we do, and that just stays in the system of doom; Christianity is what God has done to place us on the way of life.

Are you 'accountable' or just in a cult?

The speaker at my church gathering recently was urging us to be 'good neighbours' and to have 'gospel conversations' with them.

Of course, one should be able to follow naturally from the other, and one hopes people are equipped to answer the 7 basic questions asked of Christians.

To urge us on to success his talk had 'three points' (drawing our attention to the fact that it had three points).

They were:

1. Pray
2. Prioritize loving your neighbours
3. Go and love them

This read moire like a recipe than an approach to the normal Christian life (not a reference to Watchman Nee, BTW)

But there was a surprise. He really had four points, and the last was:

Be accountable.

This was like hiring a parish spy to lean on you.

Paul's only use of this word is in Romans 3:19 (NASB), in relation to God.

In the body of Christ we edify, encourage, teach one another.

Cults is where 'accountability' occurs (Scientologists use it frequently).

Rather than the love your neighbour recipe, a talk to encourage conscious participation in community and local life and to encourage each other in this would have struck many more Christian chords than an enforcement regime for this mechanistic program.

Not just confirmation bias (in fact, not confirmation bias at all)

A comment to a comment on an NT Wright video which asserted that NTW's rationale was 'confirmation bias.'

No it is not 'just confirmation bias'. Confirmation usually proceeds on the basis of partial reference to observations or arguments.

Christians are OTOH, convinced as they consider their position (consider, not 'guess') on the basis of evidence that Yeshua is the creator incarnate. He explains why there is human sin/suffering, and death; why we live lives of teleological impulse but end in a box. Why we detect that all is not right with the world.

BTW, Christians, except maybe Calvinists, who are a bizarre sub-group) do not think that people are born with sin, but with an unavoidable propensity to sin; thus the church considers infants who die before they can be accountable are blessed with eternal life with their creator.

Other beliefs are deficient, not because they are devoid of specific belief, but because they fail to give a good explanation for the human dilemma, and our experience of a world that 'ain't right'.

Exilic religions place all in an impersonal ethereal 'spirituality) into which all are absorbed and loose their individuality.

Mimetic religions think the material world ( and some usually impersonal and mythically defined spirit entities) is all that is and we are part of it merged into a sort of Hegelian 'life but not spirit'.

Naturalistic 'religion' (modern atheist of both 'village' and philosophical varieties presume everything is dust in various arrangements and there is no real significance.

All these see the cosmos as all that is and we and our 'dilemma' are completely defined by and inescapably captured within it.

Covenantal religions, led by Christianity and Judaism see history as the real story of the external aseitic creator ( who showed himself present and active in the created world in the Genesis creation account, and finally, for Christians incarnated in Yeshua. Life here occurs in history, but is not fully defined by it or has it as the point of resolution.

There are a few covenantal type religions that are not really so: Mormonism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, are such; they have a superficial covenantal presentation, but lift the lid and they tend to be mimetic in character.

So, before you start your analysis of the religious landscape, consider the manner in which religions present their structure of reality, and their means of resolving the universal human dilemma of suffering and death.

Keep silent in the ekklēsia

This passage in 1 Corinthians 14:34 is often interpreted to mean that women are not permitted to speak in the 'church'. Implied is 'in the building on Sundays when the church gathers'.

However, ekklesia is not a building, but a community gathered...this extends it to any gathering of the community (and not 'as' community only, as our faith fills our entire life).

So, it cannot mean that in any and every gathering of the saints, women saints are to be mute. That would contradict both Acts 2:17 and the wider statements about the gathering in 1 Corinthians 11 to 14.

Given that the word sigaō has a wider meaning than 'silent', including being translated as 'hold one's peace' it sounds like Paul is seeking 'good order' as he is elsewhere in the 'gatherings' segment of 1 Corinthians.