Allegory

I think that use of "evil" could easily be translated "calamity" or "disaster," which is how many translators have rendered it. But I don't understand how God is supposed to have created science, nuclear weapons, or evil. No offense to anyone involved in the discussion. I'm all for discussion; I've just never heard it put this way before. Humans made these things. Science is a human study of the universe. Nuclear weapons are clearly a human invention, for which God would have no need. God created the universe, and the universe contains beings with intelligence, freedom, and responsibility. God might use calamity to achieve his purposes (though I completely reject the absurd fundamentalist notion that every natural disaster is "judgment"), but God does not create evil (understood in the traditional Christian moral sense as lack of good).

 

First my Church is the Charismatic Episcopal Church and I describe myself as Anglo-Catholic, it would be nice if you found out about people first. Actually I see many of your positions that are not Orthodox to Christianity in general

 

That rings a vague bell/chord/note. When was the organ built?

 

Hang on--Are you assuming that I do not have or appreciate a good education? I assure you this is not the case on either front.

 

It is rather wonderful that much of our basic geological and biological knowledge in the 19th century is due to country vicars stumping around the country side observing. This is what the understanding of glaciation is based on. Here's a helpful start about "unconformities", http://geology.about.com/od/geoprocesses/a/unconformities.htm .

Edited for implied disparagement of other members.

 

Great idea. What do you pull from the creation accounts that makes it evident that Moses was giving an allegorical account of the origin of the world and life? Is there an internal cue within scripture that puts us on notice that he was was not speaking literally? Is there some the tradition of the church or early fathers that shows a consensus that the creation accounts were merely symbolic? Perhaps something from the formularies or Anglican reformers? What makes you think that noncreationism is somehow orthodox?

 

The recent wave of disbelief and doctrinal slander has no bearing on historical doctrine. If you've read the Creeds or Articles, then you've met Anglican Creationists!

Jeff

 

Please explain from this page http://forums.anglican.net/threads/allegory.921/page-3, which I quote and further comment on.

I recall when I posted this, I did not reference anyone specifically but simply stated the fact of creationism not accounting for the data and observations, and that those with science education are unlikely to accept creationism when they understand science and how it works. Nothing about anyone specific was stated. I am further startled by Admin not intervening when a specific new member was roundly chastised on these boards and told she was bound for hell. Which was more clearly implied that anything I stated. Please explain.

 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876

Science, Evolution, and Creationism


from the National Academies of Sciences.

 

Here's an interesting article reflecting the current thinking among some Episcopalians. I may not agree with it but I do find it a compelling perspective, especially when it appeals to traditional anglican sources of doctrine:
http://episcopalscience.org/theology-creation/

And here is an episcopalian attempt to unify creation theology with current scientific thinking: http://episcopalscience.org/creation-science/

 

Yes I only put that in to stir people up. But I also find alot of the time anything controversial in the Bible is explained by less than perfect translating.

From memory it was last year.

 

No, I was there in 2005. It was a very interesting experience. The whole thing seem almost entirely symbolic. Afterwards I talked to another member of the congregation, a NZ journalist, who said that, "we're so far away here in NZ that we can get away with things". My thoughts turned to Geering.

 

Sadly, I'm well versed in these watered down, non-threatening explanations of what the national church perceives as "difficult verses", but again, they only represent very recent and modern "interpretations". If you push the Presiding Bishop or any of her theological minions on the issue, they'll admit that the creeds are horribly outdated and should be removed from the liturgy, and many individual parishes have removed the phrase "The word of the Lord" after the Sunday readings, replacing it with "hear what God is saying to the church". The national church and many individuals have lost the capacity to endure sound doctrine, and have invented their own interpretations, mainly over using the allegory trump card.

Jeff

 

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer, the organ underwent a major rebuild 'twixt 2006 & 2011; more pipes added, location moved, and a general overhaul.
This is all a bit off topic but Yes Geering, Lloyd to his friends, yes we have interesting people in NZ , possibly as a reaction to our old staid 50's attitude we use to have. We have voted in a transgender MP, Geering you will be told, had a heresy trial, it was actually for "Doctrinal Error" but heresy sounds so much better, I might tell you about the interesting present and his predecessor Bishops of Wellington, some time unless someone would like to know now

 

Over forty years ago I lived on the outskirts of Bristol in the west of England. A near neighbour was the first ever Methodist minister to be defrocked. He openly announced that he no longer believed in God, and hadn't mentioned God in a sermon in three years. He was asked to resign. And refused. So he had to go. My boss at the time was a Methodist and she told me that of course other Methodist Ministers had "run out of faith", but had either resigned or kept it quiet. I suspect that that's happened in Anglican Churches and the RCC too.

I'm sure it's not off topic for you to tell us about the two Bishops!

 

Ok here it is.

Here in Wellington NZ we have a new Bishop elected about 1 Year ago after his pedecessor retired. Before that for the previous 15 years we had a Bishop who was almost a characature of a Bishop, staid ,European, grey haired , conservative, and generally unexiting. He even had a name seemingly to go along with this image "Tom Brown".
When he retired a new Bishop was elected, if you saw this new Bishop at first glance you would think he was a pot smoking , no hope-er , rastafarian. He is 44 years old has long dreadlocks, and a habit of not wearing shoes.
But this guy is a breath of fresh air in the NZ anglican scene. Although he is ordained he has never been the vicar of a church here, though he did a couple of years relieving in England. He has spent his life actively trying to help down and outers on our inner city streets. Taking in the unfortunates and trying to turn them around. He relised after some time it was better to try to help people away from the city environment and set up a rural retreat to try and help people.
This guy is a hands on person and I get the impression as Bishop he is going around the churches asking what ministers have actively done to implement their Christianity. He appears to be a "boat rocker" which is probably what Anglicanism needs.
When Justin (good name for a Bishop) Duckworth (google him) became Bishop an inner city prostitute came up to him after recognising him and said "Oh you’re a Christian, we thought you were a pimp".
I have heard nothing but good reports about Justin. He seems to be gingering up all the clergy and keeping them on their toes.

It seemed like Justin had been in the job 5 minutes when it was anounced that the 70 year old Tom Brown had relinguished his preists licence. This took everyone by surprise then it was anounced that he was separating from his wife of many years. His wife said if anyone wants to know why, speak to Tom.
It now transpires that the Right Reverend Dr Tom Brown is now cohabitating with the Reverend Canon Kate Carey-Smith, chaplin to Wellington’s most prestigeous anglican girls school and wife of the Reverand Cris Carey-Smith chaplin to St marks anglican school.
Reading between the lines I think Justin said to Tom "buck up your ideas, and put things right" Tom said "no" and resigned his license before Justin could withdraw it.
　

 

Many thanks. I did some googling! The Wiki entries need updating, by the way, but it's not for a Pom to get to involved in matters Kiwi. Incidentally, the fact that the interesting and, let's be honest, scurrilous news about Dr Brown has not reached these shores. I'm sure the Murdoch press would love it. I suppose it shows how isolated you are.

In Ireland a few years back, the Anglican (CofI) Bishop of Cashel and Ossory resigned in similar circumstances. Another Church of Ireland Bishop, an Englishman, was put in an embarrassing position when his wife became RC. He took it well, but it must have been awkward for his wife to discover that her episcopal husband was, in fact, a "layman" working for a body which is "not a church in the real sense". They have since returned to England.

 

Reading through this thread, perhaps it is presumptuous of me...but I wonder if I might ask what you good people mean in this discussion by 'science' or at least share what you understand scientific enquiry to be doing when undertaken please?

And then perhaps someone would be so kind as to explain exactly why the use of the word 'creation' (I shall leave aside 'creationism' since that appears to me at least as more defined set of beliefs and ideas') is incompatible with a scientific account of our origins? Or another way I suppose is why does 'science' interfere with 'theology' (or vice versa)?

For my part, I believe the evolutionary acocunt is credible, and I find 'creationism' a difficult position to maintain. It seems odd that something so poetic as Genesis 1 should be press-ganged into prosaic scientific and quasi-scientific arguments.