How would a TE look forward?

[crawfish]

I have no idea. That is why I don't think TE make a sense in theology.

If I were a TE, and I firmly believe that it took so much time and complicate processes to bring me into existence, then I would have very very hard time to believe that this processes would abruptly end in the next few hundred years. I would expect that human continues to evolve, at least for another few tens of millions of years. If the end-time were set at that time, then it would make a little sense. But even TE would have hard time to accept this scenario, right?

Thanks, juvie. Rarely does one get to see the process of a strawman being erected.

Someone posted a comment on eschatology once that - maybe it was here - saying his view was "panmillennialism". He explained that meant "however it pans out is fine with me". I've always liked that. I do feel that dispensationalism is essentially creationism at the end; they poetic truth is lost in an attempt to try and justify literal words. Except in this case, the literal words are connected much more loosely. I think of all the eschatologies, that one is the least likely.

As a TE, it doesn't bother me in the least that God might end the universe in a sudden. Part of believing in TE is that time is essentially meaningless to God; 100 billion years or 7 days hardly matters to Him, He doesn't experience the passing of time like we do. I put no faith in God coming next week, or next year, or in my lifetime, or a billion years from now - God will come when it it time. It is fruitless to guess when.

 

[juvenissun]

Well not all TE's do, though. Some do and they are certainly justified in not speculating about aspects that are greater than that which we can comprehend. At the most basic level, all a TE happens to be is a theist who accepts the scientific theory of evolution.

However, though, some theists do speculate about things that are beyond our full comprehension. There are process theists out there that would have a good many things about eschatology to say to your OP. John Haught in his God After Darwin did indeed touch upon eschatology as well as my personal favorite Father Rahner in many of his writings.

You could also look up Tielhard De Chardin and his Omega Point too That's pretty much straight up eschatology as well...

Thanks. I will check.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm another person who doesn't get the argument. As an avid gamer it takes me about half an hour (if I'm teching) to build up a massive armada in Starcraft or Total Annihilation. It then takes me about a minute or two to wipe all the AIs out, if I've done it right. Slow processes often build up to catastrophically rapid conclusions. (Just ask anyone who's ever had a breakup for another demonstration of the same.)

It happens. But it is not good to let a project end that way.
Whatever God does must be good.

 

[shernren]

It happens. But it is not good to let a project end that way.
Whatever God does must be good.

And you can decide for God what is good? I personally think it's good for my enemies to go out in a bang. Why wouldn't God?

 

[crawfish]

It happens. But it is not good to let a project end that way.
Whatever God does must be good.

Why do you get to define what is "good"? Why should God be limited to our limited understanding for what He does?

 

[theFijian]

I have no idea.

I could have told you that.

If I were a TE, and I firmly believe that it took so much time and complicate processes to bring me into existence, then I would have very very hard time to believe that this processes would abruptly end in the next few hundred years. I would expect that human continues to evolve, at least for another few tens of millions of years. If the end-time were set at that time, then it would make a little sense. But even TE would have hard time to accept this scenario, right?

Do you have any idea about non-dispesationalist (ie. non-claptrap) eschatology?

 

[juvenissun]

I could have told you that.
Do you have any idea about non-dispesationalist (ie. non-claptrap) eschatology?

No. But I will take a look. Thanks.

 

[juvenissun]

Why do you get to define what is "good"? Why should God be limited to our limited understanding for what He does?

You should make it go backwards:

We can say this is good or bad "from God's point of view" because God makes us "like Him". Christianity is more clear on this theology than any other religions.

Shernren is right, we like to win battle quickly because God also likes that. But we probably don't like to see a good design (evolution) ends abruptly.

 

[theFijian]

No. But I will take a look. Thanks.

Well then how can you tell me that TE is incompatible with end-times when you don't even know what my end-times theology is?!

 

[juvenissun]

Well then how can you tell me that TE is incompatible with end-times when you don't even know what my end-times theology is?!

Some obvious contradictions do not have to be learned to know their existence. I am not a theologian and I do not study eschatology. However, I simply know that the concept of evolution does not match well with what's said in the Bible. The purpose of this thread, for me, is just explore this hunch a little bit more. So far, I should say thanks to all of you who responded to it. It is very helpful and interesting.

And this is not only my problem as a creationist. People in TE also have quite different understanding regards to this question. I have already seen some diverse opinions among the responses.

 

[juvenissun]

However, though, some theists do speculate about things that are beyond our full comprehension. There are process theists out there that would have a good many things about eschatology to say to your OP. John Haught in his God After Darwin did indeed touch upon eschatology as well as my personal favorite Father Rahner in many of his writings.

I quickly checked Haught's "God after Darwin". It seems to me that he "has already" accepted the evolution as a truth, and began to discuss how should conventional theology be modified so it would accommodate the new impact. Is this true? Also, I am not sure Haught tried to focus on eschatology anywhere in the book. If you have read the book, I will appreciate it very much on your command on that.

 

[Assyrian]

If you want to compare eschatology with origins it is probably worth looking at the roots of the modern YEC movement, ie Seventh Day Adventism and George McCready Price's work on flood geology. The Seventh Day Adventists in turn were one of the offshoots of the Millerite movement, which fell apart in 'the Great Disappointment' when Jesus Christ did not return as expected in 1844. Like it or not, this is the exegetical tradition that produced modern YEC. It does not have a very good track record for working out God's timetable.

Closely related, the other thing I would say if you think there should be some sort of symmetry between origins and eschatology, isn't that all the more reason to apply Peter's warning to both? 2Pet 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The danger in both origins and eschatology, a pitfall the SDA and Millerites fell into, is thinking we can fit God's prophetic word into an easy to understand timetable, that God's view of time is the same as ours. This apples equally to God's revelation about the future and the past.

 

[gluadys]

And this is not only my problem as a creationist. People in TE also have quite different understanding regards to this question. I have already seen some diverse opinions among the responses.

I expect that is because TE is not a theology in itself, the way creationism tends to be---although there is quite a bit of diversity among creationists too.

The only thing TEs can be expected to agree on is that evolution is good science and not in conflict with Christian faith or scriptures. We don't have a master plan for working out the harmony between our theological and scientific views. That we each do on our own so the results are quite diverse.

 

[theFijian]

Some obvious contradictions do not have to be learned to know their existence.

In what way does this sentence make any sense to you?

I am not a theologian and I do not study eschatology. However, I simply know that the concept of evolution does not match well with what's said in the Bible. The purpose of this thread, for me, is just explore this hunch a little bit more. So far, I should say thanks to all of you who responded to it. It is very helpful and interesting.

Since your concept of evolution is completely whack it's not surprising you find contradictions.

And this is not only my problem as a creationist. People in TE also have quite different understanding regards to this question. I have already seen some diverse opinions among the responses.

What that should be telling you is that one's origins theology doesn't necessarily impact upon one's eschatology, therefore the whole end-times thing is a red-herring on your part. You just don't like TE plain and simple so you're looking for another angle from which to attack it, not because you're honestly or earnestly seeking answers.

 

[juvenissun]

I expect that is because TE is not a theology in itself, the way creationism tends to be---although there is quite a bit of diversity among creationists too.

The only thing TEs can be expected to agree on is that evolution is good science and not in conflict with Christian faith or scriptures. We don't have a master plan for working out the harmony between our theological and scientific views. That we each do on our own so the results are quite diverse.

One purpose of this thread is to REMIND you that TE and theology can not be separated. Evolution (fact or not) does NOT match the theology of salvation. People in TE should face this inconsistence (or, incompatibility) more seriously. (this response applies to Fijian too)

 

[juvenissun]

Since your concept of evolution is completely whack it's not surprising you find contradictions.

Now you are uttering nonsense (why do you want to spoil a nice atmosphere of discussion in this thread so far? You can leave this type of comment to the C&E forum.). I know the nature of evolution as well as any scientist in this world. That is why I can make sensible comment on this thread.

 

[Mallon]

Now you are uttering nonsense (why do you want to spoil a nice atmosphere of discussion in this thread so far? You can leave this type of comment to the C&E forum.). I know the nature of evolution as well as any scientist in this world. That is why I can make sensible comment on this thread.

juvie, you've admitted several times on these very forums that you know next to nothing about evolution. And now you're saying that you know as much about it as "any scientist in this world." You're being completely inconsistent here. I'm with theFijian: you're just attacking evolution for the sake of attacking it. And, I'm sorry to say, you're coming across as a real fool. Make sense, man!

 

[juvenissun]

Closely related, the other thing I would say if you think there should be some sort of symmetry between origins and eschatology, isn't that all the more reason to apply Peter's warning to both? 2Pet 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The danger in both origins and eschatology, a pitfall the SDA and Millerites fell into, is thinking we can fit God's prophetic word into an easy to understand timetable, that God's view of time is the same as ours. This apples equally to God's revelation about the future and the past.

This is an acceptable argument. But it has big problem.

So, you TE people would accept that the second coming of the Lord could be 10 million years from now according to the world time (Crawfish suggested that too). We understand that the evolution process is evaluated according to the world time. So, we could continue to evolve into other species and still waiting for the salvation.

That is really weird. I don't think any Christian would like this particular idea of Christianity.

------

By the way, Assyrian, remember our discussion on the radiometric dating and time? What you said here is really one of the important reason that I do not accept the radiometric dates as true ages. It is only an apparent age to us and is not adequate to be an evidence of an old earth. (this is an off topic comment, please do not make strong argument on this).

 

[juvenissun]

juvie, you've admitted several times on these very forums that you know next to nothing about evolution. And now you're saying that you know as much about it as "any scientist in this world." You're being completely inconsistent here. I'm with theFijian: you're just attacking evolution for the sake of attacking it. And, I'm sorry to say, you're coming across as a real fool. Make sense, man!

I have been written very carefully, so I would expect you to read it very carefully too. Don't put words in my mouth.

I still admit that I know very little data on paleontology. But I do know the principle of paleontology very well. Nothing in the current knowledge of paleontology (and genetics) can surprise me. The logic behind all these studies is very simple.

I am not attacking evolution at all in this thread. So stop that nonsense.

 

[Mallon]

I have been written very carefully, so I would expect you to read it very carefully too.

juvie, this sentence doesn't even make sense. So no, you haven't "been written very carefully". Your sentence structure and grammar are atrocious. It's little wonder so few people here believe you're actually an instructor of geology.
Sorry for being so straightforward. But let's call a spade a spade, here.

I still admit that I know very little data on paleontology. But I do know the principle of paleontology very well. Nothing in the current knowledge of paleontology (and genetics) can surprise me. The logic behind all these studies is very simple.

You may think you have much knowledge of palaeo, but you've done nothing to demonstrate that knowledge. Ditto genetics.

I am not attacking evolution at all in this thread. So stop that nonsense.

Right.