Science and God

ISAW wrote: »

this theory usually trotted out by fundamentaliss was in fact developed by an irish bishop!

One of Irleland's many contributions to the world of Christian thought.

Another, interestingly, is "end times" rapture theology, which was given to us by the Rev. John Darby, an (originally Church of Ireland) clergyman from Offaly.

Who would have guessed that American fundamentalism owed so much to the Church of Ireland?

philologos wrote: »

End times theology is Biblical, Jesus and Paul both clearly teach about it in Scripture. What is discussed in Christian circles generally is at what stage does it happen. Pre-tribulation, or post-tribulation. Tribulation being the trials that Jesus tells that the world will endure before his coming.

Well, isn’t that a bit of an over-simplification? Or, perhaps more fairly, doesn’t it lend itself to an oversimplified understanding?

It isn’t really true to suggest that the principal issue in Christian eschatology is the pretribulation/posttribulation debate; that’s actually pretty small issue and, in many eschatological traditions, not really an issue at all. A much bigger issue - and, logically, a prior issue - is whether the “end times” in the Darbyite sense is intended as an actual account of events to come, or whether it is symbolic language.

Eschatology is certainly a major preoccupation of Christian theology, but it’s an enormously broad field. Eschatology is the study of the end of things (a person, an epoch of history, the world), but not primarily “end” in the sense of “when it comes to a stop”; it’s “end” in the sense of “destiny”. The major preoccupation of Christian eschatology, therefore, is the coming kingdom, or reign, of Christ, and the significance of the church as a sign of the coming kingdom. But you cannot reduce it to a prediction of exactly when the kingdom will come, or even insist that it must involve a prediction of exactly when the kingdom will come.

The coming of the kingdom has been a preoccupation since the very earliest days of the church, but thinking has developed considerably since then, not least because the early church appears to have expected the realization of the kingdom in early course - within a human lifetime - and of course this didn’t happen, which led to reflection and reevaluation. (We can see the beginnings of this in the later-composed scriptures.)

And that process of reflection was ongoing, and is still ongoing. If a Darbyite understanding of the end times is “biblical”, something that Jesus and Paul both “clearly” taught about, how come nobody developed a Darbyite understanding until Darby? How clear could the teaching have been, if it took 1,800 years before even one person could understand it? Augustine of Hippo read the same scriptures as John Darby, but understood them completely differently, as a symbolic description of a spiritual reality, rather than as a field guide to a history yet to unfold. You don’t have to accept that Augustine was right, but nobody could accuse him of been a careless or insightless reader of scripture.

I’m not saying that a Darbyite “end times” eschatology is impossible; it clearly isn’t. But it’s only one of a wide range of eschatological traditions within Christianity, a comparatively recent one, and by no means the dominant one. It’s notable that it arose in modern times, as a reaction to modernism, and that all those who have embraced a Darbyite understanding have invariably identified their own times, and events occurring within their own times, as the events to which the scriptures refer. That observation alone, I would think, should give rise to a certain tentativeness.

My comments were specifically about end times rapture theology, philologos, as orginated by Darby and as exemplified today by certain much-noticed American fundamentalists. I don't think you can leverage that into a general condemnation by me of Christian eschatology.

Seaneh wrote: »

I believe to think the world is 6000 years old you have to be willfully ignoring the facts or just totally ignorant and indoctrinated.

Every piece of physical evidence we have shows the world to be very, very old and the universe to be a lot older.
There is no evidence, outside of a literal interpuration of Genesis, for a young world.


Also, evolution, there is far too much evidence for it and none against it.


I believe the Bible should be interpurated literally a lot of the time and as analogy/methaphor some of the time.

Genesis, to me is analogy/methaphor.

Presumably then you take as metphor many of the other non scientific sections of the bible?

For example, Jesus walking on water, immaculate conception, fishes and loaves, eucharistic rite etc...

Not wanting to derail this but interested in the logic.

ISAW wrote: »

Ill now have to correct myself; whild much "High church" Anglicanism is the same as Roman Catholic there is a "low church" element (and indeed some High Church Anglicans) who may tend to fundamentalism. Particularly in southern africa and the US alshough it applies to the CofE and CofI too. I dont regard it as mainstream however although it is an element within Mainstram Anglicanism. And indeed a problematic one for them since it would have a problem with say openly gay Anglican Bishops or women priests. But the Catholics would want these fundamentalists either.

Define fundamentalism?

Young earth creationism for instance is mainstream Christianity, very much so if you consider things in terms of time as well as space.

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Define fundamentalism?

Young earth creationism for instance is mainstream Christianity, very much so if you consider things in terms of time as well as space.

Actually the term 'Fundamentalist' was coined by a movement within the Protestant tradition in opposition to modernism and liberals - it was, to them a thing of honour to call themselves fundamentalists -

Many reject the term today as perjorative, especially when 'fundie' is thrown about by some in a negative fashion - however, it may not necessarily be meant in that way depending on the context of a debate, which I believe ISAW and Peregrinus were doing. It could just mean to describe a set of beliefs derived from the fundamentalists movement, and whether one fits into that 'set' if you like.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

If by young-Earth creationism you are referring to the belief that the Earth was created over the course of 6 24-hour days sometime in the last 10000 years, then I would have to say it isn't a mainstream. Christian belief, and looking at the denominations and church bodies which promote such a theory, they appear to me to be at the fundamentalist end of the spectrum.

In terms of time it is. No one believed otherwise until the 19 th century.

Im pretty sure that under the old dispensation Roman Catholics were/are automatically ex-communicated for believing differently (though obviously in todays world ignorance would excuse them for that as long as they showed good will when corrected). Obviously as in so much else things are a little different in the New Church of Vatican II.

john47832 wrote: »

No I do not believe in immaculate conception - my point was that is is almost impossible to prove the occurrance of a claim that something that never happened (the non act of sex)

Persoanlly I believe if science was on its game at that time then we would not be talking about Jesus as a son of god but more as a preacher...

if science were not on its game today then we would be calling David Blaine the messiah!!

You're missing my point. This is me, asking a modern day human today if they believe a woman became pregnant without any sperm involved.

I was asking the poster I quoted or anybody who shares his/her beliefs.