| Posted (binsar) in Christianity, Theology on February-13-2008 |
|
The topic of evolution and anthropology started with the reading of Genesis 1 and note down some possible tensions between the message of this chapter and the general scientific knowledge and theories of the origin, development an essence of universe, the earth, life and especially the human. Herman Bavinck says that we have to chose between the two: “The antithesis cannot be sharper: Adam the image of gorilla and chimpanzee or the image of God.” The question then is, can we develop a worldview in which there is a fruitful dialogue between notions from Christian theological anthropology and from a scientific theory of evolution? What is the relation of science and religion? Naturalism tries to explain everything that everything happens for a reason. It is not excluding God’s existence, it is only excluding that God relates in such a way to the world of phenomena, that he is the reason beyond all things. Naturalism cannot explain all. There are feelings that cannot be ‘explained away’ (compare this to Anton Houtepen’s emotion theses). Since the phenomena in the world revoke the thoughts of God, they refer back to God.
Continue reading » |
| Posted (binsar) in Christianity, Theology on February-13-2008 |
| The scripture is the message about God. It is not of God because it is actually a story about God. It is a story telling about the relation between God and human. It tells the story of relation and confession about God rather than a precise historical event. Relation has something to do with love and events. The event of God’s revelation that took place in the past must be told to the next generations.
One cannot make a stress on different relation, objectivities, and events. It is far more complicated than talking about the other. It is also not more than an information of God, telling about God in such a way that He Himself present to us. Therefore, there has to be truth, not in a scientific way, but that it is really happens. However, the truth as such does not mean that the Bible is book of ethics or some sort of a historical book. The Bible is not the book of ethics. Ethics and religion is not the same. Looking at the Bible as a book of ethic is a reduction of the meaning of the Bible itself. The Bible must be read precisely the same way with how the first congregation read the bible, which is the paradigm of story telling about the mighty acts of God.
Continue reading » |
|
Ethnicity and religion are recognized as an immensely powerful basis of collective identity. However, religion is often – if not say always – excluded from social science on collective identity, also vice versa, church ignored sociology as well. As powerful basis of identity, religion and ethnicity are intertwined. These two factors have been influencing one another, therefore it is important to find what is the primary unifying element the two of them: is it religion or ethnicity.
Three models can be used to explain ethnicity and its relation with religion. First, primordialism and universalism: where ethnicity was a priori category, a primordial feature that identified and defined the social group. Religion was part of the identity. It is deep within people and it established their ethnic affiliation and identity no matter what the external realities may be. Religion is a stable, conservative, and traditional social force that keeps ethnic group members true to the ordained order of being. Second, circumstantialism/instrumentalism and particularism: where ethnicity is a variable that depends upon particular circumstances and interactions. People define ethnic identity themselves in response to unique interests, goals, and agendas. Ethnic identity may change as well when interests change. Ethnic groups is not a fixed things, they are formed without shape and content. It is a dynamic process, not a stable given. Religion is not a cause of identity. It is an aspect of the social system. The last one tries to combine them dialectically, which is constructivism: where in the constructivist approach there are two facets to expressions of ethnicity: 1. the primordial: ethnic identity is expressed in terms of cultural features which are said to be ancient and perceived to be a priori charactheristics by which its members define the group in distinction to other groups. 2. circumstantial: an ethnic identity is expressed in varying intensity through the interactions of the group and its members with neighboring groups as individuals are mobilized in response to issues which focus group in opposition.
Continue reading »
comments