for comment by the literalists

[Adam]

[Micah]

"In the beginning, God created..." That is an act of design by Intelligence, no matter how you interpret the actual physical details of how it was done. It isn't a waste of time to point to the evidence in the Universe which supports this idea, as opposed to the lie that the Universe has always been driven by impersonal laws of physics and mathematics.

Even though some people twist the idea of there being a Creator into an excuse for their own form of evil or oppression of others, this is not a reason to avoid seeking out physical evidence that points to God (again, see Romans 1). You wouldn't avoid declaring evidence for the historical existence, life, death, and resurrection of Christ simply because some have twisted the Gospel to propel their own agendas.

Do you agree that the philosophy of 'no God' is more likely to spawn evil effects than the philosophy that there is God, even though the latter can be distorted?

[AllanS]

[Adam]

[Micah]

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse..." Romans 1:18-20 (NKJV)

physical Universe --> God's attributes seen --> all humanity without excuse for rejecting God

"So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, have they [both Jew and Greek] not heard? Yes indeed: 'Their sound has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.'" Romans 10:17, 18

Check this out: what passage is Paul quoting?! Psalm 19:1-4 -- "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world."

Again: physical Universe --> reveals knowledge of God's glory and handiwork --> all humanity can hear this revelation if they will listen

It is incorrect to believe that the physical Universe has nothing to reveal about God. The study of the Creation is not a vain pursuit or a waste of time, precisely because it is an exercise which can reveal more about God to all the world, to those who will listen to what God has shown through it.

I don't buy the idea that reason has no place in being drawn to God, either. We are commanded to love the Lord our God with all of ourselves, including our minds. In one of his books (I'll have to look it up), Lewis laments the fact that some people seem to minimize the importance of the mind in favor of raw experience or emotion. This is one area where I especially agree with him. Emphasizing the one without the other is like emphasizing faith without works or works without faith. It shouldn't be done, as both faith and works are elements of the same justification. Reason, emotion, experience all have roles to play within the context of people discovering who God is. Of course, reason alone is deficient; but so are emotions without the mind.

Right now, you are doing what?! Reasoning with me in order to draw me closer to an understanding of God. If non-reason is the sole vehicle for this, then doesn't that render all of your reasoning on any topic in the forums pointless? Clearly, reasoning is an essential part of discovering God. And reason applied to observing and understanding the physical Universe can also lead to discoveries about God as the Scripture above makes clear.

So, I am excited to explore the physical Universe in my future career -- because I truly am learning more about God in the process.

[Adam]

Perceiving the invisible characteristics of God in the world around us is not the same as making theological conclusions based on theories of cosmology or genesis. Furthermore, Paul continues to express in Romans, as Athanasius echoes, that though man is to be held responsible for his inability to perceive God in the natural world, nonetheless he remains unable to do so, and therefore God must condescend to man through His Son, revealing Himself to corrupted humanity. Romans 1-4 is a defense of the righteous judgment of God against man, not an exposition of how man is reached by revelation.

As Lewis states so Augustine too contends, than man's reason is sufficient to operate on the revelation of God which is Christ. This is not equivalent to drawing conclusions regarding the existence of a righteous and benevolent Lord based on empirical evidence of the genesis of nature.

Reason is apophatic; I am reasoning with you in order to explain what God is not. What God truly is, that is much too big to be comprehended but through experience.

[AllanS]

I think Paul overstates the case in that Roman's quote. The God revealed in Nature also made smallpox and the screw-worm fly. If these reflect his glory, I can't love such a God.

The God revealed in Christ is one who allows the universe to freely unfold with himself as a fellow passenger, suffering with the rest of us. In the extremity of things, he forgave his killers. This tells me something. Then he rose from the dead, bringing hope that all will be well one day. This God is worth loving.

[BrotherJ]

[Karen]

[Micah]

Thanks for the replies, everyone! Sorry I haven't been able to respond -- studies and work and helping with my church's youth group and all.

I just want to say that I wholeheartedly agree that arguments over creation vs. evolution can certainly distract from the goal of reaching others with the love of Christ. You have no quarrel from me there.

My main point is that while this is the case, the pursuit of observing and proclaiming how the Creation reflects Gods glory and attributes, in a positive manner, should not be discouraged. It isn't a waste of time to look to the Universe in order to discover more about God, just as it isn't a waste of time to study the handiwork of an ancient culture in an archaelogical dig in order to discover more about the people of that culture.

Regarding what you said, Adam: I don't mean to claim that it is only the observation of the physical Universe that reveals God's attributes to everyone. It is this coupled with the 'law of nature', the law written on the tablet of everyone's hearts, the conscience either accusing or excusing the individual. The revelation of Creation plus the revelation of the conscience combine to leave everyone with no excuse for rejecting the Creator. It isn't that they can't know about God through these means; it's that they do know about Him through these means, but still reject Him or ignore Him, and worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator. Even the ancient pagan who never came in contact with the Hebrews or Christian society had every opportunity to respond to the revelation granted him or her, through the revelation of Creation and of the conscience. And as Paul, states, some not having The Law, still have chosen to obey the law on their hearts, responding to that light given to them.

So, my point here is that it isn't a waste of time for Christians to amplify discoveries and evidence in the physical Universe that point to God or demonstrate His attributes. It is a key component for stimulating any person to consider those deeper questions about the Creator and whether or not to embrace Him. Not the only component, by any means, but still a key one.

Take care,

Micah

[hammurabi2000]

I think the discussion has covered well all the normal routines one might expect and many thanks to all for their contribution. Unfortunately I am not sure I have got inside the mind of the literal view; when it comes down to it the term seems to imply not much more than I take a different approach to you on this topic!

[robsia]

Well, so far as I have gathered, the "literalists" think that obviously some things in the Bibble are meant to be taken literally and others are symbolic.

Whereas others think that obviously some things in the Bible are meant to be taken symbolically and others are literal.

Is that about right? ;)

Problem is, no one seems to know which is which.

[Micah]

Hey, Linda :)

Actually, it might be the other way around: the literalist sees some passages as obviously symbolic within their context (Daniel's visions, for example), whereas all other passages should be approached as literal first, before needlessly assuming they're symbolic.

Micah

[Preculiar Baptist]

[robsia]