> I guess I'm revealing that I don't believe in evolution of species,
> although there's certainly a lot of evidence of change in the natural
> world. Are all you specialists trying to say that change *is*
> evolution? If so, why didn't you say so in the first place? Why use a
> "loaded" term like evolution and creatively (pardon the pun) develop new
> terms with evolution in it? Seems like a bit of unnecessary red-flag
> waving, or something like that.
This is something, on the other hand that has confused me since my
conversion. Perhaps someone can spread some light on it:
Why must Christ's salvation be linked some particular metaphysics.
I see no reason in scripture or tradition to link the story of God to
some particular metaphysics. Clement uses the story of the Phoenix
(which he believes) to talk about renewal in this world. The Church was
Platonic from St. Augistine to St. Thomas Aquinas, and then Aristilien
(sp?) until the reformation, when it took again a more Platonic bent.
Yet none of these world views were in and of themselves in an way
contradictory to the Cristian Revelation (the incarnation of God).
What first attracted me to Christianity, n fact, is that it was so
much more than a world view but was a relationship in which one could
evaluate various world views and deal with them knowing they didn't
matter in the end. Christianity, of course, excldes ceratin world views
(e.g. strict relativism, or strict naturalism) but why are we so
concerned about secondary issues when the issue is how and when does God
make his love for us manifest and how do we deal with those events?
In his love,
Stephen