SAS,
There are many theories regards Jesus, but say you were going on a expedition to some distant place (eg an expedition to a distant island in the middle of an ocean, an expedition to the south pole, an expedition to another planet etc). Who would you take with you to make up a crew?

Personally I would want to take a crew who knew how to operate the boat / dog sled, / space craft etc, and I would want a doctor, and probably I would want a theologian or someone of religious background.

Persons I would not take would include Social Scientists, politicians, TV celebrities etc, as I think that with such people as a part of the crew, the chances that the expedition would be successful would be much reduced.

My only objection to Dr. Sellick's article on Intelligent Design is on the general point of natural theology. Scripture itself tells us that the created order speaks of its Creator. Although what it tells us is far from being exhaustive in breadth or detailed in depth, it does tell us "of the glory of God" and acknowledges itself (nature) as his handiwork (Psalm 19:1). The New Testament affirms this in a slightly more specific way saying that God's "invisible attributes his eternal power and divine nature" are "clearly seen" and "understood" through what has been created (Romans 1:20). Now, my intention is not to quibble over words, but Dr. Sellick is apparently unwilling to go this far: "It is not clear what nature has to say to us and we must conclude that if has anything to say, its message to us is ambivalent".

To SAS,

Your reasoning is so interesting and believe as a political scientist and self-professed moral philosopher, that it does not harm the compassionate conception of Christianity one little bit.

A study of Western History and philosophy back to the Golden Age of Greece, does tell how Alexander the Great
before he died ordered the building of a library in Alexandria, the Egyptian city built in his honour. Also the Great Library, as it became called, was later badly damaged by devout Christians, during AD years. However when Jesus was a lad, it is intimated by some historians that the future Christ might have attended the Great Library.

At least, because most of the attenders of the Library were Jews apparently of enquiring mentality, very likely these were the same people whom it is said in the New Testament that the boy Jesus impressed with his question-asking or his devout reasoning.

George C, WA - Bushbred

Alyosha,
I would think that having an ambivalent attitude towards nature would not be a sole characteristic of Christianity, or of any other religion. For example, people who have very little contact with the natural world, would probably develop an ambivalent attitude towards nature, and with so many people now living in cities; having an ambivalent attitude towards nature could be becoming the norm for many people.

But maybe the concept of ID should be incorporated into Biology classes.

Present the students with a simulation exercise, whereby a bare, lifeless planet is given to the students to do with it as they please. What would they do?

· They could declare the planet a natural park, and make laws that prohibit mankind from interfering with that planet.
· They could carry out some type of mining or exploitation of that planet.
· They could carry out terraformation of the planet, and seed the planet with suitable life forms.

I think that it would be an extremely interesting and educational exercise for those students, as the technology to carry out exploitation or terraformation of another planet, may be available within 50 – 100 yrs

>>Scripture itself tells us that the created order speaks of its Creator<<

Well, that's all right then.

When will it occur to you scripture folk that it speaks only that which you want to hear? Boaz will read into it what he wants to get out of it, in the same way that he understands other folks' scriptures (i.e. the Koran) only in the terms of what he, as an individual, wants to get from it.

What is not at issue is that these documents were written by people, ordinary people. Nostradamus wrote stuff too, that some people believe actually has meaning - but once again, these folks are only seeing the interpretations that they want to see.

I have no problem with this, people are after all entitled to believe that Nostradamus, or Matthew or whoever, holds a key to understanding some of life's mysteries. But that is a purely personal, individual understanding, and holds no objective value. It makes no sense, if you are trying to illustrate a point or fortify an argument, to use the Bible, the Quran or Nostradamus' prophecies as an end in themselves. By all means refer to them as illustrations of how a person or a particular group of people thought at some point in the past, but to rely on "the scriptures tell us" as a form of proof statement, intrinsically proven and entire of itself, is utter self-delusional nonsense.

Pericles, -I won't (read into it what I want) my understanding of the revelatory value of the natural creation is limited to the exact same thing mentioned by Aly.. "The glory of the Creation and its Creator" that's it.

Scripture says as much, -who am I to go further.

SAS.. I think you need to read more widely, and investigate things more openly. The 'Theories' about Christ are the Biblical ones, (the real ones) and the 'rest' i.e. false ones.

Now, Pericles (who is soon to be converted :) mentioned "If one can find evidence of intelligent design, that would convert me" of course, the 'evaluation' of the evidence is the more crucial issue there, but his point remains valid, and applies very much to you also in regard to Jesus.

Most 'theories' about Christ begin with some idea which is conjured up out of the neurons of the theorist, which is then applied to the evidence, which in turn is re-constructed to fit said theory. The classic example is that of Rudolph Bultman eminent German theologian, who spun it like this. "People today are not raised from the dead, therefore Jesus could not have been". Which is on a par with "There are no Date Palms today in such and such an Oasis of the Arabian desert,.. therefore there could never have been."

So, perhaps a re-examination of the ACtual source material would be in order. By all means survey the material on various 'source' theories for the Gospels "Q" for the synoptics etc.. dependance on Mark + "Q" or however, but still, FF BRUCE has a pretty good grasp of the issue:
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm

There is no space here to list and demonstrace the vast array of weaknesses and self defeating directions of many liberal theologians, but to my mind they are definitely there.

Our perception of many issues will truly depend on our heart condition, and our relationship with Christ (or lack thereof) but at least I wish to make some small contribution to balance up your rather negative and aggressively hostile approach to the evidence.

Cheers all