Tom Wright: Theistic Evolutionist

[czali]

Since this is a Christian forum, and philosphical ethics is the basis of this thread, your suggestion to ignore those issues is questionable.

It's not questionable when those issues have nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the theory.

Maybe you need to actually view the original video posted by the OP. Because the guy, Wright, is saying the same thing I am saying.. that Darwin's ideas were used by other people to further their own aims.

Are you arguing for him, for me, against him, against me or what? i truly am confused. maybe arguing simply for yourself?

I already know that evolution is an never ending argument with people using the idea to further their own agendas so I am not going to argue with you about it. No one has ever proven Darwin's theories with facts, including Darwin himself, and at least, in the end, he admitted it. Numerous fraudulent examples of attempts to prove it do even exist to prove that the idea is used to deceive.

Even Darwin's letters to various people are available online if you search around. they are very interesting. Every book he ever wrote is probably available online. There isn't any reason to exist in the dark and wonder in this area.

The theory of gravity is backed by hard science, proven by the fact you are not floating off your chair. Things fall down, not up, on planet earth. No one can argue that fact.

 

[wayseer]

Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham is supporter of Theistic Evolution whih is crazy in my opinion.

Anyone who aligns themselves with the philosophy of 'Dawkinswatch' is crazy in my opinion.

Bishop Tom Wright is well respected within the Christian community as a forward thinker and one not afraid to challenge the very concepts that lie at the heart of 'Dawkinspeak' - that Christianity is somehow afraid of its own shadow.

If you want to criticize Tom Wright it is better to acquaint yourself with what Wright says rather than basing your assumption on biased and engineered agendas arise out of the fires of Mount Doom. Wright has an excellent website - try to make use of it.

 

[Yab Yum]

Genesis 3 is historical, but not literal, truth.



Literalism is the last refuge of the zealot.

I love those pictures of the dinosaurs entering the ark.

 

[Yab Yum]

A theory in science is the closest thing that science can get to a truth.

Gravity is a theory. Am I suddenly floating off my chair now?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Maybe you need to actually view the original video posted by the OP. Because the guy, Wright, is saying the same thing I am saying.. that Darwin's ideas were used by other people to further their own aims.

From what it looks like by other commentary in this thread, the original post about Wright seems to be quite deceptive as well--which really isn't a surprise. Creationist organizations also frequently like to quote mine.

Are you arguing for him, for me, against him, against me or what? i truly am confused. maybe arguing simply for yourself?

I am arguing against misconceptions about evolutionary theory and science in general.

No one has ever proven Darwin's theories with facts, including Darwin himself, and at least, in the end, he admitted it.

What Darwin admitted or did not admit (leaning towards did not admit) does not matter. The theory is vastly different today than Darwin's original conception. As for empirical evidence? You should look up transitional fossils, endogenous retroviruses, frame shift mutations, the E. Coli experiments, and the numerous observed instances of speciation we have on record.

Numerous fraudulent examples of attempts to prove it do even exist to prove that the idea is used to deceive.

You mean things like Piltdown Man? Things that were exposed as a hoax in science long before creationist organizations heard about them? Those hoaxes that creationist organizations still tout around as if it has any present bearing on the matter? It's done in order to attack the character of the science (which it has none of). By propping up a non-existent "character" of evolutionary theory, it becomes possible to attempt to discredit it based on that. But since there's no "character" in the actual theory, it is a straw man argument like almost all other creationist arguments against evolution.

Even Darwin's letters to various people are available online if you search around. they are very interesting. Every book he ever wrote is probably available online. There isn't any reason to exist in the dark and wonder in this area.

What Darwin thought about this does not matter. Darwin is long dead. He postulated the initial theory, and the evidence has only grown from there.

The theory of gravity is backed by hard science, proven by the fact you are not floating off your chair. Things fall down, not up, on planet earth. No one can argue that fact.

As is the theory of evolution. Fossils, retroviruses, mutations, and pretty much everything else points towards it. Gravity is observable (as evolution is), but we still don't know the finer points of gravitational theory. The jury is out on exactly how gravity works. The Young Earth model is completely negated by the rest of science, and while Old Earth Creationism is a bit better, it still misses the final ingredient.

 

[speakout]

Hmm, whoever wrote the original article linked to by the OP either doesn't know what he is talking about or is a liar:

This is simply untrue as anyone who has read or listened to his comments on emerging church would know.


(sic)



LOL. The Church of England wanting earthly power. That's a good one.
But the statement is also factually untrue - +Tom has talked extensively about the origins of deism.



More meaningless rhetoric.



Tony Blair was at HTB does not equal The Church of England are against the bible.



This is untrue. +Tom has challenged certain traditional understanding about the atonement.

In other words the entire article is empty attack and misinformation. Draw what conclusions from that you think appropriate.

Evolution as a seducing spirit, he wants to commit fornication with it.

Obviouslly, the theory of Evolution can in the Garden of Eden, The serpent said " You will become like gods" ( You will evolve into gods)

 

[speakout]

Proof that Tom Wright believes in Soul sleep, a heresy

What is heaven? N.T. Wright has the answer. | Three ways to live

 

[ebia]

Evolution as a seducing spirit, he wants to commit fornication with it.

Obviouslly, the theory of Evolution can in the Garden of Eden, The serpent said " You will become like gods" ( You will evolve into gods)

This is just meaningless...

 

[ebia]

Genesis 3 is historical, but not literal, truth.



Literalism is the last refuge of the zealot.

I love those pictures of the dinosaurs entering the ark.

I wonder if you meant that as a metaphor.

 

[ebia]

Proof that Tom Wright believes in Soul sleep, a heresy

What is heaven? N.T. Wright has the answer. | Three ways to live

1. If you want to know what somebody believes, read what they wrote in full, not somebody else's soundbite of what they wrote. You cannot do theology by soundbites.
2. Either way read it properly: "It is not clear what happens during this state. We will be with God and with Christ, resting and being refreshed, we will be conscious, but compared with being bodily alive, it will be like being asleep.
3. (slighly off the track) who gets to decide "soul sleep"is a heresy. It's not something the creeds or the ancient and collective church has ever pronounced on. Heresy does not mean "something I think is wrong" and to reduce it to such is pathetic. Docetism and gnostism, say, are heresies rife in our age - not least among those least comfortable with Tom Wright. 'Soul sleep' (whatever one might mean by that) is not.

 

[speakout]

This is just meaningless...

Okay who told ve to eat the forbidden tree?

Now we know that Lucifer disguises himself as an angel of Light.

 

[wayseer]

I do nt care whoho supports him, he is against the Bible and a wolf , who pretends to be a Christian to the world , when he does not believe.

And you have your exegesis ready to support your statement?

Wright is not 'against the Bible'. All you are doing here is demonstrating your ignorance of Wright's writings.

 

[BrendanMark]

At leat in Orthodoxy, John is awarded the title of Theologian. The only others to be so honoured are St Gregory the Theologian (who set out the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity) and St Symeon the New Theologian.

Theology permeates the New Testament, explicit or implicit. Lieteralism is a modern invention.

 

[speakout]

1. If you want to know what somebody believes, read what they wrote in full, not somebody else's soundbite of what they wrote. You cannot do theology by soundbites.
2. Either way read it properly: "It is not clear what happens during this state. We will be with God and with Christ, resting and being refreshed, we will be conscious, but compared with being bodily alive, it will be like being asleep.
3. (slighly off the track) who gets to decide "soul sleep"is a heresy. It's not something the creeds or the ancient and collective church has ever pronounced on. Heresy does not mean "something I think is wrong" and to reduce it to such is pathetic. Docetism and gnostism, say, are heresies rife in our age - not least among those least comfortable with Tom Wright. 'Soul sleep' (whatever one might mean by that) is not.

Tom Wright writes 20 books a year, I will judge him by what he says.

 

[wayseer]

Theology comes in because what it the Roman church going to do with the pagan philosophers?

So turn them into Theologians and slowly corrupt Christian minds, into total apostacy.

So you rely on a literal interpretation.

 

[ebia]

Tom Wright supports the attack on Atonement by Steve Chalke ( a tony campolo representative in England)

Link
Church Times - Atonement row gets personal as Evangelical partnership splits

If you actually follow what happened instead of more soundbites, Steve Chalke rather ambiguously had a go at some common characatures of atonement, Tom Wright confirmed what Steve Chalke had actually meant and supported that.

If you actually read Tom Wright's theology you will find that he affirms atonement, but has some challenges for the way it is often understood. But if you keep trying to do theology by soundbite you won't understand that.

 

[ebia]

Tom Wright writes 20 books a year, I will judge him by what he says.

Not quite, but I'm insisting you read everything he's written - just that you read or listen to some of it instead of someone else's summary because what you are doing at the moment is condemning somebody largely for views they do not hold, and to continue to do so now that has been pointed out would hardly be Christian, would it?

 

[laconicstudent]

Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham is supporter of Theistic Evolution whih is crazy in my opinion.

As does the Pope, and the rest of the Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, for about what? 20 years now?

Also, a number of Orthodox bishops and most Protestant denominations.

Theistic Evolution and a non-literal interpretation of Genesis has been mainstream theology for decades now, your a bit behind the times.

If you do not believe in Genesis three, how can yoou believe in Atonement?.

Lol. Really easily. I manage. Its called: "Genesis 3 is allegory."

 

[Assyrian]

If you do not believe in Genesis three, how can yoou believe in Atonement?.

What exactly constitutes "believing in Genesis three?"

Genesis chapter 3

So the atonement means Jesus the seed of Eve redeemed us by literally stepping on a snake's head?

 

[speakout]

As does the Pope, and the rest of the Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, for about what? 20 years now?

Also, a number of Orthodox bishops and most Protestant denominations.

Theistic Evolution and a non-literal interpretation of Genesis has been mainstream theology for decades now, your a bit behind the times.




Lol. Really easily. I manage. Its called: "Genesis 3 is allegory."

The bible says they will be a great falling away, I do not care what theology talks about I want the Bible ( textus receptus) nothing else.

When has christianity been about consensus, Jesus and John the Baptists were consensus people?

They should have listened to pharisses and Saduceees and save us a whole lot of triuble.