Christine: This is a beautiful story, but I just don't think faith looks this way. Perhaps losing one's faith does. It seems that you, as Bernie, believe that you have "lost your faith" because of something you thought you understood, you find you don't. In your case, it was because of the mind/body problem. For Bernie, it seems, it was the inability to concord Scripture with what he believes about the natural world, leading him to doubt all of Scripture. It seems to me that you both believe that Doubt and Faith are contraries. To shamelessly use your story, I think that Faith is more like the picture you have of consciousness. In ourselves we can dwell in Doubt, but the Light that comes from above, nonetheless, reflects (creates) Faith. Doubt is rational, whereas Faith is supra-rational. By supra-rational I mean that it has a rational component, but it is above rationality, and not dependent upon it, although it can be supported, or, as in the case of Doubt, undermined by it. But, nonetheless, Faith can live and breath in the presence of extreme Doubt and Silence of God. It is not difficult to find many famous examples of exactly what I am speaking of, but it also ought to be clear in our own lives as well. It is when we demand understanding for Faith (witness the motivation for multiuniveres), that Faith is diminished and, what is worse, maintained, or at least thought to be maintained, by our own efforts. We think that Faith is being Certain, while it is really absolute dependence and weakness. It is to be at Rest in utter weakness and uncertainty because our Trust is not in ourselves, but in another. It is for these reasons that I am still hopeful that Bernie is, despite his inclinations, still a Christian. I remember well a story one of my pastors told of himself. It is while in Seminary that he was introduced to unfamiliar ideas that caused him to doubt his faith. For some time he went on acting as if it was a phase that would surely pass. At long last, he felt he could go on no further, took time off from school, and went to visit his father. Upon relating to his father the gruesome details and the convoluted reasons for his doubt, he paused to await his father's reply. His father did not go into a lengthy defense or each point. Instead, he had but one short question: "Are you in, or are you out?" With that, my pastor realized, not only that he was still in, but that the walk of Faith was very different from what he had imagined. I think the same is true for all of us. The very fact that Christine ached in her soul and Bernie, at least for now, remains on this list, is evidence of that/ bill On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:54:26 -0700 (PDT), Christine Smith <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com> wrote:Hi Bernie, You wrote "No soul -> no afterlife -> no resurrection -> no work of Christ on the cross." That is precisely the line of logic I followed in my crisis of faith two and a half years ago, and it almost made me an Atheist. Until, by God's grace, He showed me that I WAS WRONG! Here's my story... My faith collapsed on February 3, 2007 because I got on to some Atheist websites where they made precisely this type of argument. They argued, 'how could their we anything like a soul when things like drugs and medications and such could affect everything we might call "soulish"?' What about brain damage they said? What's a "soul" mean in this context, if there was such a thing? I had never considered these questions before, and it rocked my faith to the core - because I had an extremely simplistic, strictly dualistic notion of what a "soul" is. And I had no idea how anything else besides this understanding could fit into any theistic context, let alone Christianity. On February 4th, I remember I went to the park to sit by a lake, and literally yelled at God, challenging Him to strike me dead if He was real and He was listening (Mercifully, He didn't). For two months, I flailed about somewhere between Christianity and Atheism, obsessively reading anything and everything I could about them. I couldn't listen to Christian music without crying, I could barely bring myself to still attend church or to pray, I questioned what the word "soulmates" meant as engaved on my wedding ring. And then, one afternoon on the way to a restaurant, I heard a Christian song on the radio: "Resurrection", talking about how their heart had grown so lifeless, so cold, so dead. The song deeply resonnated with me, and I prayed, once more, that God would help me understand, if He even really existed? And that's when it happened - the closest thing ever I have felt to pure revelation... Eating at the restaurant, I happened to glance down at the table, caught by a glimmer of light. The table was made of polished granite, and a mineral flek was reflecting the light. Instantaneously, I understood! I went home and wrote it all down, praising God full of confidence once again... Our physical brains and bodies are like a mineral. Minerals are entirely material, the exact shape and alignment and construction of which determines how precisely it interacts with the world, and what all of its properties are. It determines how it reflects the light, at what angles, and even whether or not it reflects light at all. The crystal structure and its properties are 100% correlated - change one physical characteristic of the crystal, and you can change everything else about it. But the mineral itself, does not give off light, is not the source of the light. The light is external. Likewise, our brains and our bodies are entirely material, and how it is constructed, what it is made of, what we put into it, etc. affects everything we experience, how we interact with the world, and how well we physically capable we are to engage with all that is around us. But just like a mineral is not the source of the light, neither are we. Our consciousness, our rationality, our emotions, all of the intangible qualities about us (or any animal for that matter) that we call a "soul" are not intrinsic to our material bodies. They "emerge" from this physical platform only when we are in the presence of "light" - the "light" of God. In the presence of the life-giving Holy Spirit, we are brought to life through the Spirit's interaction with the material, and what we call a soul is the unique reflection of the Spirit through our physical being. All people are sustained by the Spirit, and thus when the Spirit withdraws, we die. Our "souls" appear to leave our body but they are really "in Christ" - that is to say, the unique pattern of that interaction of body and Spirit, is kept safe within God Himself. At the resurrection, God will transform our physical bodies and the Spirit will raise us to life again through that renewed interaction. Thus, there is continuity from our current life, yet we will be changed. That is what I believe, and that's how I came through my crisis of faith. In so far as I understand, it is consistent with science as well as Scripture. And by my husband's account, I am a much stronger and more deeply faithful Christian that I was when I started. I hope and pray this will be the case for you as you continue on your journey. I must be going, but as many here (including myself) have referred you to the work of N. T. Wright, I thought I'd point you to his website so you can explore it a bit if you're so inclined: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/. In Christ, Christine "For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians 5:7 Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit www.azrescue.org to find out how. Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to power your TV for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at www.cleanup.org --- On Mon, 9/21/09, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> Subject: RE: [asa] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics To: Cc: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu> Date: Monday, September 21, 2009, 11:48 AM I think my latest awareness came at the last ASA conference with the discussions about the “mind/body” problem. I’ve come to see the ‘conscience’ as something complex that emerges from the brain. Christians would call it a ‘soul’ by I see no reason to attach a spiritual entity to it. In Christian theology, the idea of a soul introduces many unanswered questions- What are toddlers or senile people are like in heaven (eternally toddler or eternally senile?). If souls given at conception: how are souls given to identical twins (one egg/sperm splits off into two kids after some time) and chimeras (two fertilized eggs grow then at some point combine tomake one person) at birth? Also, Siamese twins? Seeing the conscious as just emergence (and dissipation in old age) from the brain resolves all these questions. No soul -> no afterlife -> no resurrection -> no work of Christ on the cross. ...Bernie From: asa -owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto: asa -owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of John Walley Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 5:39 PM To: Mark Whorton Cc: asa Subject: Re: [ asa ] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics Mark, I contend that the importance of the theological component of your RTB to TE journey was directly proportional to your investment in it beforehand. It was the same with going from YEC to RTB. The more you were bought in to all the arguments for the age of the earth, the more you had to unlearn before you could go forward. Inerrancy is the perfect theological example. I was never totally sold on that for lots of reasons but maily because it just never seemed to make any sense to me even though I tried hard to believe it to be a good Christian but just never really could. Also, I had only heard of the YEC party line but was never really bought into it so it was much easier for me to let it all go with no serious emotional toll on me. Likewise the same with theology. So I contend there is an advantage to not making an irrevocable commitment if you can't really be sure about it. It just never was that important to me or that essential. This again was providential revelation at least in my case. John From: Mark Whorton <mark.whorton@yahoo.com> To: gmurphy10@neo.rr.com; John Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com>; John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>; "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com> Cc: asa < asa @calvin.edu> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 7:51:42 PM Subject: Re: [ asa ] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics Pardon me for inserting myself in mid stream, but I completely agree with George. In my evolution from YEC to progressive creation, I had to make the transition in the context of a biblical worldview. I had to work out the relevant theological issues systematically. Likewise as I was forced into TE by the strength of the evidence and the insufferable insistence of John Walley ;-), I had to have another paradigm evolution based on systematic theology. What I am saying is this -- a Christian must integrate what they believe about the world with what they believe to be true about God and His nature. For me this meant that as a Southern Baptist I had to jettison the doctrine of inerrancy as taught in our Sunday School classes in light of a better understanding of what is meant by the authority and inspiration of Scripture. Pure and simple, that is theology. It did not mean that "theology is incorrect" by any means. It meant that I had to integrate the science and my understanding (slight but hopefully growing) understanding of God's self-revelation into an evolving systematic theology. Pardon me for being so focused on my story, but I think it illustrates the evolution that must take place in a Christian who is actively seeking to learn and grow. Hopefully by God's grace I am making slow progress in that direction. Mark Whorton From: "gmurphy10@neo.rr.com" <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com> To: John Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com>; John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>; "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com> Cc: asa < asa @calvin.edu>; mark.whorton@yahoo.com Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 12:06:11 AM Subject: Re: [ asa ] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics Of course I meant dismissal of theology in general, not of particular theologies. & of course there are bad as well as good theologies. But if theology is the practice of faith in search of understanding - or simply thinking about what one believes & its implications - then dismissal of theology in general is by definition anti-intellectual. Since the Christian message involves claims about God's relationship with the real world, any theology that conflicts with what is known to be true about the world is defective, the seriousness of the conflict determining the degree of defect. On that count any theology that insists that the world is young or that evolution hasn't occurred is defective. In fact, what you've been doing in trying to make sense of your faith when you take evolution seriously is precisely theology. It's important though to have some guidance in such an enterprise, & the theological tradition can help with that (though it's not infallible). & part of the process is separating the wheat from the chaff. C.S. Lewis described a talk on theology he'd given to some men in the RAF, after which one man stood up and said that all that armchair stuff was all very well for intellectuals but that he'd known the presence of God when he was out in the desert at night without any of that formal theology. (It's been awhile since I read this so I may not have the details right but that's the gist of it.) Lewis replied that he had no doubt that the man had had such experiences. But how far would they take a person? It's a bit like what you need if you're going to sail the Atlantic from Europe to America , he said. Of course nautical charts wouldn't give you any sense of what it would be like to be out on the ocean in a boat. But feelings wouldn't get you from Portsmouth to New York and a nautical chart could. Shalom, George ---- John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:Any dismissal of theology amounts to anendorsement of an anti-intellectual "spirituality." George, my only response to this is that from my laymen's perspective, I look around and see that the theology that I have been exposed to, at least in the evangelical church, amounts to primarily YEC and maybe PC, with a sprinkling of ID thrown in, but all united in bashing evolution and science. I don't have a lot of confidence in the usefulness of of at least that theology seeing what a bang up job it did for them and the resulting stellar influence they have on intellectuals in our culture. I had to divorce myself from all of it to find truth on my own in TE through my own studies and here on the ASA list, with little help from theology. If that is anti-intellectual "spirituality" then I am guilty as charged. But in contrast, my friend Richard Howe and his brother, both PhD seminary professors and one fluent in Hebrew, both well read and educated in theology and quite proud of their particular brand of it and at the top of the heap in evangelicalism, but militant YECs to the core, are they the fruits of studying theology and the exemplar representatives of it you are referring to? I don't think so. I don't think theology is the secret formula to truth or a pre or post requisite, I think it is "spiritual" discernment which is in turn the result of revelation. That is what Peter had and all the first century Christians. Anti-intellectual, maybe, but I contend it has served me better than theology has compared to most of the people I have met. John ----- Original Message ---- From: "gmurphy10@neo.rr.com" <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com> To: John Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com>; John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>; "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com> Cc: asa <asa@calvin.edu> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 10:20:59 PM Subject: Re: [ asa ] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics Granted that our theologies are at best imperfect & may even be "impertinent." But theology is essentilally an attempt to understand what we believe and its implications. We are, after all, to love God with all our mind as well as heart, soul & strength. Any dismissal of theology amounts to an endorsement of an anti-intellectual "spirituality." Shalom, George ---- John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:Wow. I really like the SDG and JofA and quotesbelow. I agree that is what our faith has to be based on, our own personal experiential revelation. Everything else is sinking sand. That is the example Jesus gave us in the NT as well. When Jesus challenged Peter, he confirmed his response by saying that "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you". So I contend it has to be today as well. This is consistent with Burgy's comment below. I am intentionally and blissfully ignorant of most of the infinite man-made theologies referenced below, and I don't think I am missing much. It is much more important to be like Peter (and JofA) and recognize God's revelation when you experience it.I also agree the secret is not to get hung up on #5.John----- Original Message ----From: John Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com>To: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>Cc: asa <asa@calvin.edu>Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 4:25:41 PMSubject: Re: [ asa ] RE:(fall-away) TE and apologeticsIf I understand you, Bernie, you went through thesesteps:1 The Bible is inerrant.2 Some of the scientific atatements in the Bibleare incorrect.3 Some of the biblical statements about history areincorrect4 Therefore the Bible is not inerrant.5 Therefore the theology (as you understand it) in theBible must alsobe incorrect.6 Therefore it is not possible(intellectually) to be aChristian.Do I have it about right?I went through points 1-4 myself, some years ago. Idid not hang up on#5 because I had studied enough that I recognized that"theologies"are man-made, not God-made, and that there are almostan infinitenumber of theologies that one can construct from theBible.Theology, to me, is terribly interesting, but notterribly important.One of the most incisive comment I have encounteredabout this issuewas penned by Nathanial Hawthorne. . "So long asan unlettered soulcan attainto saving grace there would seem to be no deadly errorin holdingtheological libraries to be accumulations of, for themost part,stupendous impertinence. -- Hawthorne(Preface to Twice-told Tales)Another quotation:I do not place my faith in writings, nor in creeds,nor in thestatements of scholars and philosophers, but in theliving and presentChrist, infinitely beyond any human expression. SoliDeo Gloria(author unknown)"God" is just our name for the devineinfinite. It does not define Him.Joan of Arc, when asked by the bishops "Do younot believe that whatyou call your voice from God is really nothing morethan yourimagination?" To this she replied, "Ofcourse it is my imagination.How else does God speak to us?"CheersBurgy--Burgywww.burgy.50megs.comTo unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.eduwith"unsubscribe asa " (noquotes) as the body of the message.with"unsubscribe asa " (noquotes) as the body of the message. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa " (no quotes) as the body of the message.To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 22 2009 - 00:24:58 EDT