tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19733180.post1205599126107977451..comments2024-03-24T07:56:33.811-05:00Comments on Allan R. Bevere: Science and the Eschatological Challenge to Theology (Part 2)Allan R. Beverehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903011101108437513noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19733180.post-42826357933161839702012-08-24T07:21:38.694-05:002012-08-24T07:21:38.694-05:00One more point as I read your comments again: The ...One more point as I read your comments again: The claim that God is going to redeem creation is a theological claim, not a scientific one. The issue I am wrestling with here is where do science and theology intersect.Allan R. Beverehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07903011101108437513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19733180.post-31971884196426389002012-08-24T04:10:29.866-05:002012-08-24T04:10:29.866-05:00Frank,
The redemption of creation is at the heart...Frank,<br /><br />The redemption of creation is at the heart of Christianity. If God is not going to redeem, then there is no need for Advent, Holy Week nor the worship of God at all.<br /><br />As far as the rest of your comments-- they are completely irrelevant to this post.Allan R. Beverehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07903011101108437513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19733180.post-40381671958252243372012-08-23T19:14:49.233-05:002012-08-23T19:14:49.233-05:00I think I do get the point, only it's not the ...I think I do get the point, only it's not the point you want me to get. In your response you make the statement that “ The issue for Christians is that God will redeem all of creation.” You do not present this as a theory, but as fact. You then take any evidence that you can that appears to support this fact and reject or ignore evidence to the contrary. This is rationalization, not science. Scientists are taking facts and putting together theories which attempt to explain and forecast events in the future. But their theorems are constantly being updated based on new findings, new data, new facts. With your method, you can't ever change the fact, but must constantly alter the rational to exclude new findings that don't agree with the original dogma. That does not mean that the original fact is false, but it does cause loss of adherents when new data is discovered that can't be rationalized. So, if we don't allow our understanding of God to change as new wonders of His love are expressed, we are all lost to (the previous generation's view of) Him. We can hold sacred the view that we know and understand, but we must let the next generations evolve their understanding of God as He shows Himself to them. PopLidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10145431766864865252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19733180.post-32645090039276287352012-08-22T17:04:17.148-05:002012-08-22T17:04:17.148-05:00Frank,
I think you really miss the point here. Of...Frank,<br /><br />I think you really miss the point here. Of course, the demise of the universe is not our concern personally. And I am not completely convinced that Paul was certain that Jesus would return within his generation, though he certainly holds it open as a possibility.<br /><br />The issue for Christians is that God will redeem all of creation. So how do we understand that redemption in light of what we know about the nature of the universe? There are those who insist that the transient nature of the universe demonstrates that there is no God and the universe, as well as all of human life, is without meaning and purpose.<br /><br />Christians beg to differ and there is a logical coherence to our response.<br /><br />As far as the right side of the brain, this is indeed cognitive stuff and has occupied some of the greatest minds in history.<br /><br />You may think there are more pressing issues and there are no doubt plenty of important matters that occupy us, but I have spoken with more than a few students in the university setting who have become borderline to outright atheists because of these kinds of matters. I have a great interest in letting them know that there is a logical and coherent alternative to a universe by accident.Allan R. Beverehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07903011101108437513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19733180.post-72896951368312155872012-08-22T16:17:50.548-05:002012-08-22T16:17:50.548-05:00So, the universe is heading for real trouble in 10...So, the universe is heading for real trouble in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or so years? I really wouldn't call this its demise, nor would this be called important when reading Paul who thought Jesus was returning in his generation. The snap you heard was the right side of my brain!<br />Forgive me, but there must be slightly more pressing issues before us all.PopLidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10145431766864865252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19733180.post-3656222385628365492012-08-22T14:29:05.284-05:002012-08-22T14:29:05.284-05:00Hi Frank,
Christians must understand that since t...Hi Frank,<br /><br />Christians must understand that since the universe is heading toward its own demise, the only way for it to be rescued from nonexistence is by a special act of God. That's where salvation comes in.<br /><br />As far as your second set of questions, instead of me confusing things even worse with my novice and likely inaccurate explanations, you might find this link helpful. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/end.htmlAllan R. Beverehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07903011101108437513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19733180.post-70078616586851573442012-08-22T12:28:53.744-05:002012-08-22T12:28:53.744-05:00"The universe is indeed moving toward nonexis..."The universe is indeed moving toward nonexistence in and of itself. Christians must understand that" ....Please explain.<br />How can we speak of "nonexistence and decay" when considering the whole universe? Are we confusing expansion with decay? Energy conversion with decay? Can someone enlighten me?PopLidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10145431766864865252noreply@blogger.com