RSS

Representing God

28 Dec

It stands to reason that anyone who claims to be a follower of God would actually represent Him and his words correctly. After all that is what the word represent actually means

to act or speak officially for (someone or something)

to bring clearly before the mind (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/represent)

Which then makes one wonder why someone who is supposedly representing God is accusing others of misrepresenting him because they speak of what God did at creation.

http://christiannews.net/2014/10/20/catholic-astronomer-calls-young-earth-creation-beliefs-almost-blasphemous/

1. Vatican Astronomer Calls Young Earth Creation Beliefs ‘Almost Blasphemous’

Since God did not say one word about using processes, long eons of time or any alternative to Genesis 1 or Hebrews 11 then it is not the YEC people who are being blasphemous.  Here is what the word ‘blasphemy’ really means:

great disrespect shown to God or to something holy; something said or done that is disrespectful to God or to something holy the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God; the act of claiming the attributes of deity irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy)

What is blasphemy is representing God as saying and doing something he did not say he did or used. That is not a smart thing to do. All indications point to a young creation but we do not know exactly when God did create all things. And the reason for that has been talked about here on this website as well as myriads of others.

An influential Catholic astronomer who works at the Holy See’s Vatican Observatory told a news outlet last week that the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account is ‘almost blasphemous theology.

How he comes to this conclusion is without merit as there is no instruction anywhere in the Bible to believe the Bible in any other format than literal when it comes to God’s acts in history.  Hebrews 11 tells us that those who believe God created as he stated in Gen. 1 are honored people

 Now faith is the [a]assurance of things [b]hoped for, the [c]conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old [d]gained approval…

39 And all these, having [y]gained approval through their faith, did not receive [z]what was promised, 40 because God had [aa]provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

There is no mention of any such honor or acceptance for those who doubt God and his word or who side with alternatives to them.

2. “It’s almost blasphemous theology,” Consolmagno alleged, according to the Brisbane Times. “It’s certainly not the tradition of Catholicism and never has been and it misunderstands what the Bible is and it misunderstands what science is.”

No, YEC does not misunderstand the Bible or science. It believes the Bible and realizes that science contains false teaching meant to destroy people not lead them to the truth. YEC is realizing the truth about what the Bible says and closes its ears to the lies of the unbelieving world.

3. The papal astronomer said he rejects the literal interpretation of Genesis and instead finds truth through “science.”

Yet God did not say to use science to find the truth about our origins. Why would he when he already told us how he did it? We can use science to find the truth about biology, orbits, and other aspects of life as long as we do not attributed God’s work to some non-existent process or catastrophe but we have no permission to use science to say God lied or misrepresented himself in his own Bible.

4. Science is a way of getting close to creation, to really getting intimate with creation, and it’s a way of getting intimate with the creator,” he claimed. “It’s an act of worship.”

But we are not to be getting close to creation or intimate with it. We are to be using God’s act of creating to get close to and intimate with him. An actual act of worship is not going to God’s enemy and saying they are right over him and proclaiming God lied while deceived people are telling the truth.

5. Science goes out of date—it’s supposed to,” he insisted. “Now, if you’re turning the Bible into a science book, then you’re saying you should throw it out after three years. … The very concept of a science book didn’t exist when the Bible was written.”

If science goes out of date then why appeal to it at all or why use it to find answers? The answers will be out of date and useless for anyone. Why go to science at all if it is going to change its answers after only a few years? What good is science and its conclusions then?  That last line is an argument from silence and nonsensical.

6. The search for literalism, the search for absolute truth, isn’t what science is about and it’s not what religion is about,” he opined.

Then what good is science? How can we get close to or intimate with creation if we are not going to be fed the truth or even find the truth? What good is science then? Is it just to occupy our time so we do not get bored and kill ourselves out of sheer boredom? What is religion about if we cannot get absolute truth from it?  What good is a belief if it leaves you in the dark and fails to bring you to the right answers? Why have a belief under those conditions? Why follow a God who doesn’t give you absolute truth but keeps you guessing and sending you to some other source to get any answers?

7. Many influential leaders of the Roman Catholic Church have endorsed evolution and disregarded the literal interpretation of Genesis. In 1950, Pope Pius XII declared that there is no intrinsic conflict between Catholicism and evolution, and, in 2007, Pope Benedict XVI stated that “there are … many scientific proofs in favor of evolution.”

So if previous popes jumped off a cliff and proclaimed suicide as good does that mean jumping off cliffs and suicide are good and acceptable?  Using the lemming argument to support your heresy is not helping you but undermines any claim of credibility you may have. Why appeal to people who got it wrong and are or were in error? That is not a legitimate argument and shows a lack of research and real evidence for one’s point.

8. Wait a minute,” Thomas said in an interview with Christian News Network. “Does he mean that it’s absolutely true that science is not about the search for absolute truth? What experiment did he do to lead him to that conclusion? Likewise, does he mean for me to take as absolutely true his religious statement that religion is not about the search for absolute truth? If his science or religion has given him the truth that science or religion cannot give truth, then his statement cannot possibly be true.

Great point. He says it better than I.

9. Consolmagno implied that those who believe in biblical creation mistakenly use the Bible as a science text, but this misses the mark,” Thomas told Christian News Network. “The Bible supplies information about the past, so when people believe what it says, they do not pretend the Bible is a science book—they simply take its history straightforwardly. It’s about history, not science.”

Another good point. There are two more good points in that article in opposition to Consolmagno’s point of view. The point of this article is that if you claim to follow and represent God then you need to follow and represent God. If you present a different version of  what God said then you are neither following God nor correctly representing him. Instead you are following and representing a god of your design.

It is a choice you have to make. If you want to be a Christian and represent God then you have to choose to represent him accurately, clearly and truthfully without changing his words or revelations. Anything else undermines your claims about following and representing God. God has clearly represented himself and his actions we have no authority to change those words or deeds. Such permission has not been granted to us.

It is not wise to side with the enemies of God and why supposed Christians and Christian officials decide to do so is not rational or logical. Why go against the God who can destroy both body and soul in hell? If you want to make an argument for what is rational or logical, start there because it is not irrational or illogical to back, believe and follow the one who has so much power that all he needs to do is speak and it takes place.

What human scientist can do that? Think about it then make the right choice. Rational and logical thinking means you follow God and the Bible not those who make God out to be a sinner who is worse than the devil.

Advertisements
 
Comments Off on Representing God

Posted by on December 28, 2014 in academics, astronomy, Bible, church, creation, faith, history, leadership, science, theology

 

Comments are closed.

 
%d bloggers like this: