Messages

I also think a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 - 2 is an effort to put God in a box. 

Have you considered that God put Himself literally and physically into a box?  The box being the flesh of Jesus Christ.

... Fletch

All of Scripture is basically God putting himself in a box since in the Truth of His Word He self-limits what He will and won't do.

By the way, I have a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences, my oldest son has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics and neither of us have any problems with a 6 day creation.    Are there any other Ph.D. in science that are on this thread?

So what does a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences or Astrophysics have to do with biblical interpretation? How literate are either of you in Hebrew and Greek? I worked with a man with a Ph.D. in voice, but I wouldn't trust him to be my physician (or even my plumber).

Well, it is obvious that your education also has nothing to do with science, so why would I pay any attention to you when you opine on that?    I would never trust you with biblical interpretation since you have shown through your posts that your interpretations are chock full of errors.

I also think a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 - 2 is an effort to put God in a box. 

Have you considered that God put Himself literally and physically into a box?  The box being the flesh of Jesus Christ.

... Fletch

All of Scripture is basically God putting himself in a box since in the Truth of His Word He self-limits what He will and won't do.

By the way, I have a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences, my oldest son has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics and neither of us have any problems with a 6 day creation.    Are there any other Ph.D. in science that are on this thread?

Impossible! You are lying! Your son's naive, anti-science take on creation surely prevented him from understanding any true science classes!

Unless he got his Ph.D. from a Concordia.

My Ph.D. is from Purdue University and I currently work at the University of Washington.   My son's Ph.D. is from the University of Minnesota and he currently works at Harvard.

I also think a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 - 2 is an effort to put God in a box. 

Have you considered that God put Himself literally and physically into a box?  The box being the flesh of Jesus Christ.

... Fletch

All of Scripture is basically God putting himself in a box since in the Truth of His Word He self-limits what He will and won't do.

By the way, I have a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences, my oldest son has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics and neither of us have any problems with a 6 day creation.    Are there any other Ph.D. in science that are on this thread?

If we are to accept six 24-hour day creation and thus a young (6 to 10 thousand year old or so) universe, how do we account for the seeming size of the universe and that light from the farthest reaches of the universe would have taken millions of years to reach earth, the fossil record, and radiometric dating of rocks and formations that again seem to indicate multi mega year age for the earth?  How do we account for the observable phenomena that seem to demand a much older universe and earth?

One possibility is the Omphalos Hypothesis.   It was named after the title of an 1857 book, Omphalos by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair, fingernails, and navels (omphalos is Greek for "navel"), and that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable.

http://issuesetc.org/2016/01/21/2-lutherans-and-catholics-prepare-for-the-500th-anniversary-of-the-reformation-pr-matt-harrison-12116/

As usual, Mollie Ziegler Hemingway brings some sanity to the debate:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/19/3-tips-for-a-more-civil-conversation-about-syrian-refugees

This was covered Monday on Issues, Etc. in an interview with Dr. Gottfried Martens of Trinity Lutheran Church, Berlin, Germany

http://issuesetc.org/2015/11/02/3-a-church-in-germany-discouraging-the-conversion-of-muslim-immigrants-dr-gottfried-martens-11215/

There was also a podcast about this in September with Dr. Martens:

http://issuesetc.org/2015/09/16/4-muslim-refugees-converting-to-lutheranism-dr-gottfried-martens-91615/

Pastor Hans Fiene (of Lutheran Satire fame) wrote this for the Federalist, showing again that Satire is not the only thing he does well:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/28/how-to-find-answers-for-the-virginia-shooting/

On their comment on science, the CTCR recently put out a study on the topic - "In Christ All Things Hold Together: The Intersection of Science & Christian Theology".    I have a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences, and my son has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics.   We have both read through the study and highly recommend it.    However, I would guess the authors of "A Call for Discussion" have already rejected it.

Harry - what do the atmospheric sciences and astrophysics suggest about the age of the earth?

Atmospheric Sciences really does not address the age of the earth.   I was speaking more as a scientist on the issue of the CTCR report in general rather than the question of the age of the earth.   My son would state that one interpretation the observations of astrophysics is a universe that is billions of years old.    However, God could have created the universe much earlier than that, and the consistent physics would make it look older than it is due to its size.

Both my son and I hold to a literal 24 hour six day creation as recorded and attested to throughout the Scriptures, along with a actual Adam and Eve.   As with the LCMS we do not state explicitly how old the earth is since the Scriptures do not say.  The CTCR report does an excellent job of describing how both of us hold in tension the objective Scriptural truth with the observations of science.   Scientific theories and observations can change with time.  God's truth revealled in Scripture does not.

On their comment on science, the CTCR recently put out a study on the topic - "In Christ All Things Hold Together: The Intersection of Science & Christian Theology".    I have a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences, and my son has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics.   We have both read through the study and highly recommend it.    However, I would guess the authors of "A Call for Discussion" have already rejected it.

What would people say if went next door and shot my neighbor and then argued that what I did should be legal because--

That neighbor was about to kill or injure me...

Good point, it sure is a good thing the infant in the womb is never trying to kill or injure us, so therefore, being in no mortal danger, we do not have a right to take its life in our own self defense.

(I can see where this will lead.  Yes there are very rare and tragic cases where the Mother's life is at risk, ectopic pregnancy, when neither the Mother nor the child can possibly live if the pregnancy is allowed to progress naturally.  In this case, there is no possibility to save the child, and the morally right thing to do is to save the one life that can be saved, the Mother.  This exceedingly rare case should in no way be used as generic justification for us to 'choose' to terminate a life, for any reason, at any time, before it draws its first breath, which you seem to be arguing as the point where life begins.)

There are other circumstances where pregnancies put the mother's life at risk. There are also times when a greater good, e.g., killing enemy combatants (who would kill our soldiers and civilians) means that "innocent" civilians might be killed as collateral damage. Consider the arguments for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. Granted, a lot of this is speculation about what might happen if we do nothing, e.g., something like 9-11 could happen. So it is with the mental and emotional health of a mother who has been violently raped. Or, the mental and emotional health when parents know that their baby will live only a few hours after birth. To force all mothers/parents to suffer continued emotional trauma when it could be reduced seems as cruel as letting the Japanese continue to kill hundreds of Americans by sparing the 100,000's citizens in that country.

Logic failure.

"make an effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit" - what do you think the LCMS was doing in taking time to talk to Dr. Becker all those years?   Synod was making the effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit with Dr. Becker.   And in the end Dr. Becker was removed from the Synodical roster in order to "preserve the unity of the Spirit" within Synod.  Note that it does not say "preserve the unity of the Spirit no matter what anyone says".

Unity of the Spirit is not synonymous with group think.

I agree.

I'm glad to hear that we agree on that point.  However, I suspect that you would not agree with the suggestion that group think, much more than unity of the spirit, influenced the manner in which Dr. Becker was disciplined and the ultimate outcome of the matter.

Correct.

"make an effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit" - what do you think the LCMS was doing in taking time to talk to Dr. Becker all those years?   Synod was making the effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit with Dr. Becker.   And in the end Dr. Becker was removed from the Synodical roster in order to "preserve the unity of the Spirit" within Synod.  Note that it does not say "preserve the unity of the Spirit no matter what anyone says".

Unity of the Spirit is not synonymous with group think.

I agree.

"make an effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit" - what do you think the LCMS was doing in taking time to talk to Dr. Becker all those years?   Synod was making the effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit with Dr. Becker.   And in the end Dr. Becker was removed from the Synodical roster in order to "preserve the unity of the Spirit" within Synod.  Note that it does not say "preserve the unity of the Spirit no matter what anyone says".

If you believe that the unity that the Spirit has given is only the LCMS, then by all means preserve that unity - and exclude all of us who are outside of those boundaries. Be honest about it. You are the saved. Those outside the LCMS are not.

You read comments on this site the same way you read the Scriptures - you make them say what you want them to say.   You are the ultimate postmodern American.   Enjoy making my comments say whatever you want -  but it is not what I said.

"make an effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit" - what do you think the LCMS was doing in taking time to talk to Dr. Becker all those years?   Synod was making the effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit with Dr. Becker.   And in the end Dr. Becker was removed from the Synodical roster in order to "preserve the unity of the Spirit" within Synod.  Note that it does not say "preserve the unity of the Spirit no matter what anyone says".