Natural Theology

[SoliDeoGloria]

Despite the title, this is very much a philosophical issue.

In his book, "Defending Your Faith", R.C. Sproul defines Natural Theology as "discourse about God informed by our knowledge of nature"
Bakers Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Norman Geisler) defines it as "The study of God based on what one can know from nature (see Revelation, General)"
(General Revelation): "...refers to God's revelation in nature as opposed to His revelation in Scripture. More Specifically, general revelation is manifest in physical nature, human nature, and history."

Any thoughts?

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[michel]

Despite the title, this is very much a philosophical issue.

In his book, "Defending Your Faith", R.C. Sproul defines Natural Theology as "discourse about God informed by our knowledge of nature"
Bakers Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Norman Geisler) defines it as "The study of God based on what one can know from nature (see Revelation, General)"
(General Revelation): "...refers to God's revelation in nature as opposed to His revelation in Scripture. More Specifically, general revelation is manifest in physical nature, human nature, and history."

Any thoughts?

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Theology
From Wikipedia;

Natural theology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Natural Theology)
The attempt to provide proofs or arguments for the existence of God is known as natural theology. Natural theology (or natural religion) is theology based on reason and ordinary experience. Thus it is distinguished from revealed theology (or revealed religion) which is based on scripture and religious experiences of various kinds; and also from transcendental theology, theology from a priori reasoning (see Immanuel Kant et alia).

Natural theology was originally part of philosophy and theology, and theologians still study it; but most of its content also forms part of the philosophy of religion.

Key Proponents

English bishop Thomas Barlow wrote Execreitationes aliquot metaphysicae de Deo(1637) and spoke often of natural theology during the reign of Charles II.

John Ray (1627-1705) also known as John Wray, was an English naturalist, sometimes referred to as the father of English natural history. He published important works on plants, animals, and natural theology.

Thomas Aquinas is the most famous classical proponent of this approach. A later form of natural theology known as deism rejected scripture and prophecy altogether.

In An Essay on the Principle of Population, the first edition published in 1798, Thomas Malthus ended with two chapters on natural theology and population. Malthus - a devout Christian - argued that revelation would "damp the soaring wings of intellect", and thus never let "the difficulties and doubts of parts of the scripture" interefere with his work.

William Paley gave a well-known rendition of the teleological argument for God. In 1802 he published Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature. In this he described the Watchmaker analogy, for which he is probably best known. Criticisms of arguments like Paley's are found in David Hume's posthumous Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

American education reformer and abolitionist, Horace Mann taught political economy, intellectual and moral philosophy, and natural theology.

Professor of chemistry and natural history, Edward Hitchcock also studied and wrote on natural theology. He attempted to unify and reconcile science and religion, focusing on geology. His major work in this area was The Religion of Geology and its Connected Sciences (Boston, 1851).

The Gifford Lectures are lectures established by the will of Adam Lord Gifford. They were established to "promote and diffuse the study of Natural Theology in the widest sense of the term— in other words, the knowledge of God." The term natural theology as used by Gifford means theology supported by science and not dependent on the miraculous.

That should keep you busy awhile!

 

[PureX]

Despite the title, this is very much a philosophical issue.

In his book, "Defending Your Faith", R.C. Sproul defines Natural Theology as "discourse about God informed by our knowledge of nature"
Bakers Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Norman Geisler) defines it as "The study of God based on what one can know from nature (see Revelation, General)"
(General Revelation): "...refers to God's revelation in nature as opposed to His revelation in Scripture. More Specifically, general revelation is manifest in physical nature, human nature, and history."

Any thoughts?

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

A God that cannot or does not manifest itself in the natural world doesn't really do us much good. Such a God would be so divorced from the reality that we live in that it would have little affinity with our struggles and confusion and would offer little or no help to us in dealing with these.

On the other hand, when we imagine that God is "lurking" within every aspect of the natural physical world, and is the impetus behind all of natures mechanizations, then we'll become superstitious and irrational, and we'll start tossing the virgins into the volcanoes, again.

So we need, as with most things, to find some sort of reasonable balance between God as an abstract ideal, and God as manifested through the natural world in which we live.

Honesty, humility, and balance tend to provide for the resolution of many of these sorts of conceptual dilemmas, I think.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

So we need, as with most things, to find some sort of reasonable balance between God as an abstract ideal, and God as manifested through the natural world in which we live.
Honesty, humility, and balance tend to provide for the resolution of many of these sorts of conceptual dilemmas, I think.

Very well written. The first thing that comes to mind that I would like to add to this list you have provided, at least from what I have read about most other philosophies, is conistency, which is going to have to mean less conveience. But that is all I will state for the time being.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[PureX]

Here are a couple of quotes from the Tao te Ching that I thought would be pertinent to contemplate:

"There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.
It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao.

It flows through all things,
inside and outside, and returns
to the origin of all things.

The Tao is great.
The universe is great.
Earth is great.
Man is great.
These are the four great powers.

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows the universe.
The universe follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself."

And ...

"Every being in the universe
is an expression of the Tao.
It springs into existence,
unconscious, perfect, free,
takes on a physical body,
lets circumstances complete it.
That is why every being
spontaneously honors the Tao.

The Tao gives birth to all beings,
nourishes them, maintains them,
cares for them, comforts them, protects them,
takes them back to itself,
creating without possessing,
acting without expecting,
guiding without interfering.
That is why love of the Tao
is in the very nature of things"

There is a way of conceiving of existence that allows for "God" to be manifesting Itself through the natural world without inviting the irrationality of fear-driven superstition. The key, I think, is to remove the idea that we can grasp some "divine intent", and that we are therefor being held accountable for doing so. Once we let go of the idea that existence is about being "good" and/or "bad" (relative to "God's intent"), we can let existence be about the divinity of being, itself, instead of it being about us, and about what we do or don't do.

We can stop "doing" and start "being".

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

There is a way of conceiving of existence that allows for "God" to be manifesting Itself through the natural world without inviting the irrationality of fear-driven superstition. The key, I think, is to remove the idea that we can grasp some "divine intent", and that we are therefor being held accountable for doing so. Once we let go of the idea that existence is about being "good" and/or "bad" (relative to "God's intent"), we can let existence be about the divinity of being, itself, instead of it being about us, and about what we do or don't do.

We can stop "doing" and start "being".

Well, as a Christian, I would have to agree that we can not grasp "divine intent", But there is some intent of the Divine revealed in the Bible. With that being noted, one thing that tickles my brain about natural theology/general revelation is how it seems like we would not be able to properly recognize or define general revelation without special revelation(the Bible, prophecy, etc.).

As far as letting go of the "idea that existence is about being "good" and/or "bad" (relative to "God's intent")" goes, The Bible doesn't seem to have a problem with calling God's creation "good" and yet the concentration seems to be on God rather that us as far as intent goes.

And finally, If we stop "doing" than our "being" becomes meaningless especially when you consider that much of our "being" is defined by our "doing".

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[PureX]

... one thing that tickles my brain about natural theology/general revelation is how it seems like we would not be able to properly recognize or define general revelation without special revelation(the Bible, prophecy, etc.).

I have no idea what this means. Can you elaborate?

As far as letting go of the "idea that existence is about being "good" and/or "bad" (relative to "God's intent")" goes, The Bible doesn't seem to have a problem with calling God's creation "good" and yet the concentration seems to be on God rather that us as far as intent goes.

I find that many Christians, and westerners in general, have a difficult time letting go of their conceptualization of good and evil. Philosophically speaking, I think the west is obsessed with this self-centered quality assessment. And I also think it promotes intellectual immaturity by allowing selfishness to trump almost all other inclinations. What is "good" is defined by how it effects me and mine. What is "evil" is defined by how it effects me and mine. Everything is judged by how it effects me and mine. Whereas in the east, there is little thought given to "good" and "evil" because they are self-centered values, and instead conditions are categorized more as "positive" or "negative", rather than value assessed. And in this way it's understood that what may be "positive" for me at this moment may be "negative" for someone else at the same moment, simultaneously. Thus, the relativity of value has been both acknowledged and accepted, and so the need to correct or avenge a negative experience is greatly diminished.

And finally, If we stop "doing" than our "being" becomes meaningless especially when you consider that much of our "being" is defined by our "doing".

No one is proposing that we cease all activity. Only that we cease activity that tries to "correct" reality according to our own selfish ideas about how reality should be, and instead act with reality and as a part of it. When we stop judging reality (as "good" or "evil") according to our own selfish ideas and desires (that includes our religious/philosophical desires), we begin to accept reality for what it is, and to accept ourselves as an integral part of it. Our activity doesn't stop, but it changes. We are no longer at enmity with our own existence; we become one with it. This is what I meant by letting go of our "doing" for the sake of our "being".

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am firmly against natural theology. If theology/God were a product of empirical research or naturalistic philosophy, then we could affirm theology by scientific means.

 

[ChrisP]

I am firmly against natural theology. If theology/God were a product of empirical research or naturalistic philosophy, then we could affirm theology by scientific means.

Hi A_E Can Science provide affirmation of theology? Certainty is impossible to achieve in any given argument, but affirmation is purely a product of speculation based on the perspective on the facts.

Is Affirmation necessary for faith? Natural theology (to me) is about the observance of the Way of things and moving as one with this flow of the Natural, making oneself "natural".

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hi A_E Can Science provide affirmation of theology?

Hey there.

I can't think of words to expess how strongly I feel that science cannot provide affirmation of theology. We are forced to review scientific data naturalistically because we cannot prove that God exists. If the evidence cannot show that God (theos) exists, then we cannot honestly interpret any scientific evidence to have any relationship the theos of theology and thus the theology cannot be affirmed.

By faith, of course, my theology is continually affirmed by science and the study of history. Faith makes the leap from naturalism to theological reflection, but theological reflection does not belong in scientific discussion. That is, I realize that I am no longer using science scientifically and therefore my theological reflection does not belong in the realm of human factual knowledge but religious expression - like art or music.

 

[PureX]

Hey there.

I can't think of words to expess how strongly I feel that science cannot provide affirmation of theology. We are forced to review scientific data naturalistically because we cannot prove that God exists. If the evidence cannot show that God (theos) exists, then we cannot honestly interpret any scientific evidence to have any relationship the theos of theology and thus the theology cannot be affirmed.

By faith, of course, my theology is continually affirmed by science and the study of history. Faith makes the leap from naturalism to theological reflection, but theological reflection does not belong in scientific discussion. That is, I realize that I am no longer using science scientifically and therefore my theological reflection does not belong in the realm of human factual knowledge but religious expression - like art or music.

I think you're holding a very narrow idea of what a "natural theology" is, so that you can reject it. And I'm really curious as to why you're having such a strong visceral reaction to the idea that we could someday "prove" the existence of God through natural means. Why are you so strongly invested in the idea that God must be supernatural, anyway?

Here is a gross over-simplification, but if I were to define God as "wetness", then every time it rains I will have natural physical proof of the existence of God. This is sort of how natural theology works. It begins with a definition of God that includes nature: let's say the physical universe. And as a result, then, the physical universe becomes a very real expression of what we are calling "God". It's not that God "made" the universe, and then stands apart from it, but that the universe is the physical expression of God's being, sort of like our own bodies are the physical expression of ourselves. Viewed in this way, God becomes very real and immediate, requires no "proof" of existence, and our relationship with this God is directly reflected in our relationship with the Earth and with each other.

I'm puzzled why you would be so strongly opposed to this.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think you're holding a very narrow idea of what a "natural theology" is, so that you can reject it. And I'm really curious as to why you're having such a strong visceral reaction to the idea that we could someday "prove" the existence of God through natural means. Why are you so strongly invested in the idea that God must be supernatural, anyway?

Here is a gross over-simplification, but if I were to define God as "wetness", then every time it rains I will have natural physical proof of the existence of God. This is sort of how natural theology works. It begins with a definition of God that includes nature: let's say the physical universe. And as a result, then, the physical universe becomes a very real expression of what we are calling "God". It's not that God "made" the universe, and then stands apart from it, but that the universe is the physical expression of God's being, sort of like our own bodies are the physical expression of ourselves. Viewed in this way, God becomes very real and immediate, requires no "proof" of existence, and our relationship with this God is directly reflected in our relationship with the Earth and with each other.

I'm puzzled why you would be so strongly opposed to this.

Because as a Christian I confess that God created the world. If God created the world, then God is not a part of the world but is soveriegn in every way. If we could discover God by scientific review of nature or by philosphy, then we could determine how we relate to God, much like what you've done in your second paragraph.

When the Genesis story was written, there were plenty of creation myths that had the gods dying and becoming part of nature. The Christian God is not part of nature, but the divine creator. The Christian defintion of the divine makes God supernatural. If we define God differently that the supernatural being that God is in the Bible, then we are talking about a different god.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Here is a gross over-simplification, but if I were to define God as "wetness", then every time it rains I will have natural physical proof of the existence of God.

I can't reduce God's existence to "wetness." All you can have is natural proof that rain exists and that it is wet, and not that the rain has divinity. There is no scientific test for divinity, and if science could prove divinity it would no longer be divine but be natural. Science simply can only study that which exists naturally. If we say that God is nature, then we can still only study the natural qualities and no supernatual elements.

If you define God only as wetness, you don't have God, but only natural wetness.

This is sort of how natural theology works.

No it's not.

It begins with a definition of God that includes nature: let's say the physical universe. And as a result, then, the physical universe becomes a very real expression of what we are calling "God". It's not that God "made" the universe, and then stands apart from it, but that the universe is the physical expression of God's being, sort of like our own bodies are the physical expression of ourselves. Viewed in this way, God becomes very real and immediate, requires no "proof" of existence, and our relationship with this God is directly reflected in our relationship with the Earth and with each other.

Natural theology means finding God via philosophical means by observing nature. Saying that God is wetness and then finding rain is not natural theology. It's cheating.:biglaugh:

Natural theology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
The attempt to provide proofs or arguments for the existence of God is known as natural theology. Natural theology (or natural religion) is theology based on reason and ordinary experience. Thus it is distinguished from revealed theology (or revealed religion) which is based on scripture and religious experiences of various kinds; and also from transcendental theology, theology from a priori reasoning (see Immanuel Kant et alia).

Natural theology was originally part of philosophy and theology, and theologians still study it; but most of its content also forms part of the philosophy of religion.

Contents

[hide]

• <LI class=toclevel-1>1 Key Proponents <LI class=toclevel-1>2 Bridgewater Treatises <LI class=toclevel-1>3 See also <LI class=toclevel-1>4 Further reading
• 5 External links

//

[edit]


Key Proponents

English bishop Thomas Barlow wrote Execreitationes aliquot metaphysicae de Deo(1637) and spoke often of natural theology during the reign of Charles II.

John Ray (1627-1705) also known as John Wray, was an English naturalist, sometimes referred to as the father of English natural history. He published important works on plants, animals, and natural theology.

Thomas Aquinas is the most famous classical proponent of this approach. A later form of natural theology known as deism rejected scripture and prophecy altogether.

In An Essay on the Principle of Population, the first edition published in 1798, Thomas Malthus ended with two chapters on natural theology and population. Malthus - a devout Christian - argued that revelation would "damp the soaring wings of intellect", and thus never let "the difficulties and doubts of parts of the scripture" interefere with his work.

William Paley gave a well-known rendition of the teleological argument for God. In 1802 he published Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature. In this he described the Watchmaker analogy, for which he is probably best known. Criticisms of arguments like Paley's are found in David Hume's posthumous Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

American education reformer and abolitionist, Horace Mann taught political economy, intellectual and moral philosophy, and natural theology.

Professor of chemistry and natural history, Edward Hitchcock also studied and wrote on natural theology. He attempted to unify and reconcile science and religion, focusing on geology. His major work in this area was The Religion of Geology and its Connected Sciences (Boston, 1851).

The Gifford Lectures are lectures established by the will of Adam Lord Gifford. They were established to "promote and diffuse the study of Natural Theology in the widest sense of the term— in other words, the knowledge of God." The term natural theology as used by Gifford means theology supported by science and not dependent on the miraculous.[/QUOTE]

I'm puzzled why you would be so strongly opposed to this.

Because I have the intellectual honesty to confess that I actually know that my religion is not the product of scientific inquiry but a theological reflection based on revelation.

 

[PureX]

I have the intellectual honesty to confess that I actually know that my religion is not the product of scientific inquiry but a theological reflection based on revelation.

Too bad you don't have the intellectual courage and depth to seriously investigate other ways of conceptualizing "God" and existence. Believe it or not, nothing terrible will happen to you if you actually open your mind up to concepts that contradict those you currently hold. In fact, you might even find it both freeing and enlightening.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Too bad you don't have the intellectual courage and depth to seriously investigate other ways of conceptualizing "God" and existence. Believe it or not, nothing terrible will happen to you if you actually open your mind up to concepts that contradict those you currently hold. In fact, you might even find it both freeing and enlightening.

Your evidence does not match your conclusions. You have no idea what I am capable of. You haven't been on RF very long, and you haven't read many of my posts. Besides, I think that it is quite obvious that you misread me, and you are detracting from the OP.

Your analogy was clearly a violation of what natural theology is.

EDIT: Given your baseless ad hominim attack on my intellectual courage, I assume that you thought for some reason that I was somehow alluding to you when I wrote Because I have the intellectual honesty to confess that I actually know that my religion is not the product of scientific inquiry but a theological reflection based on revelation.

I was referring to the impossibility of finding the Christian God in natural science like the people listed in the wiki article tried to do. According to the Christian confession, God is the Creator and not the creation, so no study of the creation will locate the Christian God.

Did you misunderstand me?

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

... one thing that tickles my brain about natural theology/general revelation is how it seems like we would not be able to properly recognize or define general revelation without special revelation(the Bible, prophecy, etc.).


I have no idea what this means. Can you elaborate?

The first thing you might want to remember is that the term "natural theology" was originally and is still considered to this day to be a term describing a Christian theology. With that being noted along with the previous definition I gave at the beginning of this thread

Bakers Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Norman Geisler) defines it as "The study of God based on what one can know from nature (see Revelation, General)"
(General Revelation): "...refers to God's revelation in nature as opposed to His revelation in Scripture. More Specifically, general revelation is manifest in physical nature, human nature, and history."

it seems to logically follow, that if we did not have special revelation given to us in scripture, than all revelation would be lumped into one catagory

I find that many Christians, and westerners in general, have a difficult time letting go of their conceptualization of good and evil.

The first major problem I have with this sentence is how you have turned this from a philosophical issue into a steriotype and borderline race issue. But lets go ahead and address this. Let's not forget that Christianity has very strong roots in the "Middle Eastern" religion of Judaism which also has no problem catagorizing things into "good" or "bad" as does one of the largest "Eastern" religions, Islam.

Philosophically speaking,

Oh, are we back to stricktly philosophical speaking?

I think the west

I guess not.

is obsessed with this self-centered quality assessment. And I also think it promotes intellectual immaturity by allowing selfishness to trump almost all other inclinations.

You seem to be obsessed with this "east verses west" thing which I think promotes intellectual immaturity by turning a philosophical issue into a borderline race issue. I can't help but wonder what your ties to the "east" are if there really are any at all.

What is "good" is defined by how it effects me and mine. What is "evil" is defined by how it effects me and mine. Everything is judged by how it effects me and mine. Whereas in the east, there is little thought given to "good" and "evil" because they are self-centered values, and instead conditions are categorized more as "positive" or "negative", rather than value assessed.

I think one of our major problems is probably a linguistic one. So lets give the true definitions to a few words you are using in a mighty convenient way.
*** The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 *** Value \Val"ue\ (v[a^]l"[=u]), n. [OF. value, fr. valoir, p. p. valu, to be worth, fr. L. valere to be strong, to be worth. See {Valiant}.] 1. The property or aggregate properties of a thing by which it is rendered useful or desirable, or the degree of such property or sum of properties; worth; excellence; utility; importance.

seems a whole lot more broader than the way you are using it.

From Wiktionaory
Etymology
Middle English < Old English god < Proto-Germanic *gothaz < Proto-Indo-European base *ghedh- (to unite, be associated, be suitable).[edit]Pronunciationgo?od,/g?d/, /gUd/ Audio (US)?, file [edit]Adjective good (comparative: better, superlative: best)

Acting in the interest of good; ethical (good intentions).
Useful for a particular purpose (it’s a good watch).
(Of food) edible.
(Of food) having a particularly pleasant taste.
(Of food) healthful, full of vitamins, minerals, etc.
Pleasant, enjoyable (a good time).
Competent or talented (a good swimmer).
Effective (a good worker).
Favourable (it’s a good omen, we had good weather last weekend).
Beneficial, worthwhile (a good job).
(colloq.) With "and", extremely. (The soup is good and hot.)
Goody-goody, lacking in spirit or personality. (he’s so good.)


Pronunciation
IPA: / 'p? z? t?v /[edit]Hyphenation po·si·tive [edit]
Adjectivepositive

Definitively laid down; explicitly stated; clearly expressed.
Positive words, that he would not bear arms against King Edward's son. --Bacon.
Occupying a real position, true existence or energy; existing in fact; real; actual.
She gave a positive response to the question.
Positive good. --Bacon.
Exhibiting the power to direct action or influence for the better.
antonym: negative (notice, "good" is not an antonym)
He has a positive outlook on life.
a positive voice in legislation. --Swift.
Progressing in a circular manner; motion similar to that of a clock.
Fully assured; confident; certain; sometimes, overconfident; dogmatic; overbearing; said of persons.
Some positive, persisting fops we know, That, if once wrong, will needs be always. --Pope.
Derived from an object by itself; not dependent on changing circumstances or relations; absolute.
The idea of beauty is not positive, but depends on the different tastes individuals.
Not admitting of any doubt, condition, qualification, or discretion; not dependent on circumstances or probabilities; not speculative; compelling assent or obedience; peremptory; indisputable; decisive.
positive instructions; positive truth; positive proof

Notice the similarities? If not, I underlined them for you, or would you like me to find similarities for "negative" and "bad" .

And in this way it's understood that what may be "positive" for me at this moment may be "negative" for someone else at the same moment, simultaneously.

And the exact same thing can be done with the words "good" and "bad"

Thus, the relativity of value has been both acknowledged and accepted, and so the need to correct or avenge a negative experience is greatly diminished.

LOL, have you payed any attention to the news lately? For example, how many followers of of one of the largest "eastern" religions, Islam has felt the need to avenge what they feel to be negative, or bad cartoon in a newspaper about their prophet muhammad. Or hows about the history of wars between followers of Hinduism and Islam in and around India. I sincerely hope that you are not that ignorant.

No one is proposing that we cease all activity. Only that we cease activity that tries to "correct" reality according to our own selfish ideas about how reality should be, and instead act with reality and as a part of it. When we stop judging reality (as "good" or "evil") according to our own selfish ideas and desires (that includes our religious/philosophical desires), we begin to accept reality for what it is, and to accept ourselves as an integral part of it. Our activity doesn't stop, but it changes. We are no longer at enmity with our own existence; we become one with it. This is what I meant by letting go of our "doing" for the sake of our "being".

And there in lies the problem with what I call "witty one-liners", which is why I try not to use them unless they can be taken at face value. You see, if that sentence was taken at face value, than that is exactly what you were proposing and that last paragraph of yours that I quoted looks more like "backpedaling" or a "copout" than anything else. But even if we do not take this into account, it comes accross as you are trying to explain either pantheism or panentheism and if that is then we need a pretty major redirection since that is in no way, shape, or form, Natural Theology.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I am firmly against natural theology. If theology/God were a product of empirical research or naturalistic philosophy, then we could affirm theology by scientific means.

Have you read books like "The Case for Faith: or "The Case for Creation" by Lee Strobel? Or do you know the Philosophical history of Science? I find it very suprising for one who claims to be a "Christian" can make such statements. It makes me wonder if you truly know the history of Theism,Natural Theology, or Christian Apologetics or the strides that have been made in these areas as of late? If you do, then I would definitely like to know how exactly you can come to this conclusion. Oh well, I guess the term "christian" is used pretty losely anymore, especially in this website.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Have you read books like "The Case for Faith: or "The Case for Creation" by Lee Strobel? Or do you know the Philosophical history of Science? I find it very suprising for one who claims to be a "Christian" can make such statements. It makes me wonder if you truly know the history of Theism,Natural Theology, or Christian Apologetics or the strides that have been made in these areas as of late? If you do, then I would definitely like to know how exactly you can come to this conclusion.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

I have not read these books, but obviously I disagree with their fundamental presuppositions. I have no respect whatsoever for Christian Apologetics. None. I find it intellectually dishonest and revolting, and directly contradicts the need for God to reveal Herself to humanity.

Oh well, I guess the term "christian" is used pretty losely anymore, especially in this website.

This little quib is uncalled for, baseless, and rude. If you would like to know anything about me personally, you can post your questions or comments here.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I have not read these books, but obviously I disagree with their fundamental presuppositions. I have no respect whatsoever for Christian Apologetics. None. I find it intellectually dishonest and revolting.

Can you please explain why in detail? You must have a serious problem with 1Pet. 3:15 then.

I affirm the Christian creeds. What more do you want?

I am curious as to which "christian creeds" you are reffering to. Even if you affirmed genuine Christian creeds, that does not necessarily make you a "christian" (James 2:19). The funniest thing is that by claiming to be a "christian" you also affirm Monotheism which is a Philosophy.



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
Monotheism (in Greek &#956;&#972;&#957;&#959;&#962; = single and &#952;&#949;&#972;&#962; = God), in contrast with polytheism, is the belief in the one, single, universal, all-encompassing God.

In Western thought, only the Abrahamic religions were considered as monotheistic. However, monotheism existed in various cultures and various spiritual traditions throughout the world.

Dharmic religions and related spiritual traditions such as Zoroastrianism are quite clear that there is only one God.

Contents

[hide]

• <LI class=toclevel-1>1 Middle Eastern Traditions: Monotheism
  • <LI class=toclevel-2>1.1 Pre-Biblical Middle Eastern religions <LI class=toclevel-2>1.2 Judaism and the Hebrew Bible <LI class=toclevel-2>1.3 Christian view <LI class=toclevel-2>1.4 Islamic view <LI class=toclevel-2>1.5 Bahá'í view
  • 1.6 Source of Abrahamic religions
  <LI class=toclevel-1>2 Central and East Asian Traditions: Monotheism
  • <LI class=toclevel-2>2.1 Hinduism
    • 2.1.1 Ayyavazhi
    <LI class=toclevel-2>2.2 Sikhism <LI class=toclevel-2>2.3 Taoism
  • 2.4 Zoroastrianism
  <LI class=toclevel-1>3 Can there be different types of monotheism? <LI class=toclevel-1>4 Comparison to polytheism <LI class=toclevel-1>5 Further reading <LI class=toclevel-1>6 External links
  • <LI class=toclevel-2>6.1 Zoroastrian <LI class=toclevel-2>6.2 Jewish <LI class=toclevel-2>6.3 Christianity <LI class=toclevel-2>6.4 Islam <LI class=toclevel-2>6.5 Shaivism
  • 6.6 Vaishnavism
• 7 See also

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Can you please explain why in detail?

Sure, but on another thread as this will detract from the OP.

Perhaps you didn't read this:

This little quib is uncalled for, baseless, and rude. If you would like to know anything about me personally, you can post your questions or comments here.