May 9, 2006

Knowledge and Authority
Everett

Farlas, you still have yet to explain how a literal reading of Genesis 1 can be squared with a literal reading of Genesis 2. Instead, you've retreated to a metaphorical reading of Genesis 2, one with which I happen to agree. This begs a question: If it is legitimate to read Genesis 2 metaphorically, why is it automatically illegitmate to read Genesis 1 metaphorically?

Also, don't be so quick to dismiss evolution as so much junk science. There's more hard evidence for it than you know. If you're interested in seeing some of it, go here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I highly recommend parts one, four and five.

In my last piece I drew the conclusion that you believed if evolution were true, then God would not be God. You responded "Hmm... not that God is not God... more like God is not as much God." I'm not sure I see the difference. Given Anselm's definition of God as that than which a greater cannot be thought, with which you have not expressed disagreement, they seem to be one and the same. God is either God, or he isn't. There are no degrees of godhead.

Additionally, I see no contradiction between evolution and God speaking creation into existence. God created the universe, and that means he ordered it, setting down the laws of nature. Thus, creation has unfolded and continues to unfold according to his design. This holds true whether the Big Bang theory, String theory, evolution, etc. are true, or a literal reading of Genesis 1 is correct, but I repeat myself.

I did not accuse you of taking refuge in "Creation" in my last piece. Rather, I said that Christ was our refuge from the tumult of the abyss, the guarantee that no matter how bad things may appear, we will not be overwhelmed. It was not intended as criticism. However, I think it is an apt criticism because, for reasons stated above, I see your belief that God is God as being grounded in some way in Genesis 1 and 2 being literally true. In other words, you reject evolution out of hand, dismissing it as junk science because its veracity would undermine your faith.

The abyss you refuse to confront is not simply "a dark void with some water in it;" it is the vast void of the universe through which we are travelling, governed by the cold, purposeless, impersonal laws of physics and chemistry; the apparent randomness of evolution; and the unpredictable, non-causal world of quantum mechanics. It is in this that we need to find the hand of God governing all, and it is in this that you say God is not truly God: "If evolution were shown to be correct, even Theistic Evolution, then God would not be as powerful as He is, and He couldn't do everything. . . .If all was made by chance and happens by chance, then there is a chance that Satan could win. If we were made by Evolution, then there is a chance that what Jesus did really doesn't amount to anything." If it is possible that Satan can win, or that the death of Christ might not amount to anything, then God is not God.*

"Ever wonder why the majority of ancient civilizations believed that some deity created the world and it is only "modern man" that doubts this?" Not really. Pretty much every ancient civilization (at least every advanced one) had small Naturalist factions. With the advances in the natural sciences over the past few centuries, it has been established that natural phenomena do not require supernatural causes. The question of supernatural phenomena remains, but it is impossible to establish their occurrence through the natural sciences.

"Wouldn't the 'supreme pastor' be pastor of all?" In a word, yes. Of course, this is complicated somewhat by your assurance that the Pope isn't you pastor. Still, it holds true in much the same way that Christ is Lord of all even though not all acknowledge Him as such. The commission given to the apostles at the end of Matthew's gospel is to go and preach the gospel to all nations. In other words, the Church has the obligation to bring Christ to all people. As head of the Church, it is the Pope's responsibility to bring Christ to all, to pastor them. Therefore, the Pope is supreme pastor by virtue of the nature of his office, not because you or anyone else recognizes him as such.

Incidentally, did you know that it's un-Biblical to take your doctrine solely from the Bible?

Annatar, you've brought up Einstein's aphrism that "God does not throw dice with the universe." What is your opinion, then, of quantum mechanics?

I'm going to take Hobbit casting in another direction and see if I can't come up with the most ridiculous cast for it. Here goes:

Bilbo: The Rock
Gandalf: Stephen Seagal
Thorin: Jean Claude VanDamme
Thranduil: Sean Connery
Smaug (voice): Snoop Dogg
Elrond: Sylvester Stallone
Beorn: Weird Al Yankovic
Bard: Arnold Schwazenegger
Dwalin: Jerry Stiller
Balin: Antonio Banderas
Dori: Wesly Snipes
Ori: Tom Cruise
Nori: Owen Wilson
Oin: Keanu Reeves
Gloin: Stephen Baldwin
Bifur: Samuel L Jackson
Bofur: Robin Williams
Bombur: Chris Rock
Fili: Mickey Rourke
Kili: Ben Affleck
Arwen: Liv Tyler

I'd go see a movie with a cast like that on the grounds that it would be so bad it's funny. Of course, it could just turn out to be painful. Also, I know Arwen wasn't in "The Hobbit", but I figure PJ will feel the need to have at least one prominent woman in the movie.