tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post1502584234391489331..comments2023-07-02T08:52:28.676-07:00Comments on New Christendom: "Literally" Worried about the Opinions of Secular GoofballsDavid Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-3211162482173316762011-02-25T10:10:31.404-08:002011-02-25T10:10:31.404-08:00I got ya. And I agree about the "mars hill&qu...I got ya. And I agree about the "mars hill" idea of "being all things to all men", of course that is true. I think what I am starting to realize is that both sides are wrong. The fudamentalists and the people who drink the naturalistic coolaid. As a Catholic I have gotten WAY to many blank stares from other Catholics when I bring up basic holes in evolutionary theory or ask the "what about death before the fall" question. But at the same time, they are ready at the drop of a hat to dismiss the "biblical literalism" of the fundamentalists. This seems as blind and gullable as they acuse the fundies of being! I am 100%, without a shread of doubt certain, that nearly every one of these Catholics I have talked to has not a clue as to why people reject evolution and old earth threories. It is knee jerk for them. "scientist all agree..." does not convince us when they deny the ressurection of Christ, yet we roll over instantly (not even considering other theories) when it comes to evolution? Like I said, I'm not dogmatic either way on evolution/age of earth, (neither is the Catholic Church btw, thoug hsome Catholics I have talked to are ignorant of this) and I will conceede evolution for the sake of argument if it is a stumbling block to someones conversion (Mars Hill), but there are real theological issues at stake that require a third option to the blind dogmatism of the fundamentalists and the blind dogmatism of the followers of naturalistic scientism. What that third option (thats tertium quid for the science crowd)is, I don't know.<br /><br />Great conversation,<br /><br />Peace bro,<br /><br />-David MeyerDavid Meyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-24163750975960143232011-02-25T09:17:04.011-08:002011-02-25T09:17:04.011-08:00David:
Thanks for the response! Here are a few co...David:<br /><br />Thanks for the response! Here are a few comments:<br /><br />1. It IS important what non-Christians think of Christianity. Many serious-minded secularists brush off Christianity not because they've tried it and found it wanting, but because they're convinced it is intellectually shallow. We Christians must have our finger on the pulse of anti-Christian sentiment so that we can mold our message to each distinct audience. This was precisely the mindset of St. Paul, and it must be ours as well. If people believe Christianity is stupid, we need to display its brilliance. If people believe it is prudish, we need to display its profound embrace of sexuality. If people believe it to be anti-science, we need to display its rich academic contributions down through history.<br /><br />2. I wouldn't consider the 6,000 year old Earth view the "traditional" view; I would consider it the fundamentalist or literalist view. If you look up and down Catholic tradition, you'll find most great theologians--including most Church fathers and many Church Doctors--saw Genesis 1 in symbolic, poetic terms. Most didn't see the accounts and the OT lineages as straight history (though handfuls did).<br /><br />3. I did struggle to find the appropriate words to describe the genre of the Gospels, and I will concede that my words don't adequately explain their narrative. Your interpretation of what I was attempting to say is right on.<br /><br />However, I do think you wrongly assume that "story" necessarily means "myth or legend". The Gospels are Jewish "stories" in the sense that they are flowing narratives communicating profound truths, though the particulars of the tale aren't as important as the messages they carry. Jewish storytelling is a genre to its own, with its own nuance and style--something completely unlike our modern biographies.<br /><br />My simple point was that the Gospels, as you recognize, were not written to communicate particular historical facts but profound spiritual realities.<br /><br />Again, thanks for the comments! I really, really appreciate your thoughtful engagement.<br /><br />Your brother,<br />BrandonBrandon Vogthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01658116461483425280noreply@blogger.com