(ctd) <<Peacock and Polkinghorne ... want to blend a Greek understanding of God with the Christian tradition that does not work.>>

Well, they are not the only ones. As you might know, the present pope - who is not a scientists but you can hardly claim he is “not enough theological” - dedicated his controversial talk at the Regensburg university in September 2006 (controversial only because of his quote from an obscure medieval source that outraged islamic fanatics) to more or less the same, the relation of Christianity and the Hellenic culture. For instance:

“Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. ... In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. .. The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity - a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age“ etc.

He will probably disagree with Nietzsche and Alzinger but I do not think he disagrees with the above scientists-theologians. Of course, one has to read the whole speach to understand his point.

George,

On the surface, the theology of Altizer may appear as rather depressing or sad with his apocalyptic visioning. However, a more contextual reading (as you suggest of the Pope) is appropriate. Undoubtedly , the theology offered is radical but he suggests a new beginning. It is only on the basis of this understanding that we can see how radical the choice between an apocalyptic hope and an apocalyptic despair would be.

One should remember Newton not only as not a scientist, but as a heretic and apocalyptic theologian (as his later years show) - he was also a profoundly Christian believer. It is only Spinoza in that world who rivals Newton as a radical theological thinker, and we could even understand that finally Newton made possible not only Spinoza but the whole tradition of modern radical theological thinking. Newton understood God’s presence as a substantial presence in the world, and just as God exists necessarily, ‘by the same necessity He exists always and everywhere’ (Scholium Generale).
Through the Newtonian revolution, and for the first time, infinity is fully realised as the infinity of the world.

The type of thinking offered by Newton was but a starting point. Altizer's belief in an absolute apocalypse that is the death of God, looks like a stubbornness, from the perspective of the surface, but should be read as kenotic—as the absolute emptying that makes the surface sacred, and not just a space of possible experiences. Thus, not only is Christianity the origin of our nihilism, but a full or absolute nihilism is necessary and essential for Christianity, or for an apocalyptic Christianity, or that Christianity which is an original Christianity.

To runner
Since 4.54billion is the currently agreed age as determined by experts in the area who have been studying for quite some time, I will agree until proven otherwise. It is certainly more accurate than 6000 years. Why is it that you accept some branches of science while rejecting other. Scientific method does not differ between branches. It is not as though those who study medicine (the science I am assuming you accept), instead of using empirical testing, sit in prayer groups and pray for new cures. They also develop a theory and test it. They have also been wrong in the past but it is no reason to reject their current findings Why is it that religious types are experts in every subject; genetics, geology etc
Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved."
Do you still believe that the earth is the centre of the universe? No because religion finally caved in to science
Will your opinion change when religion accepts evolution (as it will)
And do not think what I say is crap because there was another “runner” back in the time of Galileo His name was Simplicius
Since there is not a single shred of proof for creation and there is proof for evolution I will believe evolution. The difference between one who believes in evolution and one who believes in creation is that the evolutionist is willing to listen to the argument of anyone who has proof. A creationist blindly rejects all other points of view. As I said previously Present your proof of creation to a scientific journal and if it is accurate it will be accepted.

Using an example from a fictional but well meaning book; I, like Thomas, will not believe without seeing. At least he received proof.
So if Jesus sees it necessary to show proof (holes in hand) then perhaps you should emulate him in this way as well.

George and Relda.

You might like to look at two other articles:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5101

and

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=439

Much of 20th century Protestant theology has pursued a doctrine of God that is not grounded on the usual ontology of things. Reading in 18th C theology I am struck with how the doctrine of the Trinity was understood in terms of persons, following the disastrous translation by Boethius from developed and subtle Greek understandings of hypostasis and ousia into the Latin substance and Person and thus injecting a materialist understanding of God that the Eastern church found reprehensible. Thus God, in the West, became an immaterial substance, whatever that it, and lost the event nature of God so painstakingly elaborated in the East. An immaterial substance is still a category of substance, a category that invited speculation but not much else and destroyed a competent Trinitarianism.

The controversy with Greek thought is that they understood God as distant and unapproachable and above history. Their conception of the universe was a hierarchy of beings with God on the top.

The Cappadocians laid that structure on its side so that time became the x axis, hence my statement that the Hebrew God exists in a transcendence of time and not of space. Certainly we had a lot from the Greeks, it is apparent that the New Testament could not have been as theologically sophisticated in Hebrew. And also the pope’s suggestion that without Greek understanding of reason being central that things might have been very different for us is warranted. However, as Jenson says “The gospel mission did in fact meet with another and fundamentally incompatible identification of God, that of the Greeks, which could not be ignored.” It was in this conversation with Greek thought that endangered the original Hebrew conceptions and threatened the continuity of the Old and NTs.

thecat

You ask why is it that religous types are experts in every subject? Who made that claim? You know as well I do that their are plenty who have studied geology and are still Creationist (sometimes as a result of studying dating methods) there are plenty of Creationist doctors who reject evolutionary biology and plenty of Creationist astronauts. The fact that they are not in the majority means little to me. I would rather listen to those who believe in a Creator than those who make up other stories. Your figure of 4.5 billion years is the latest in a long line of guesses. Evolution is an unproven theory. Creation can't be proved scientifically but the evidence sure points to it a lot more than the other fallacy.

Runner,

You're mistakingly assuming that a belief in God, automatically means that Christian scientists are Creationists.

There are certainly some Geologists who believe in a creator. But I don't know of any who believe the in young Earth creation.

The vast majority of Scientists who believe in God, don't take the Bible entirely literally, and accept that the Earth is very old, and believe that God created life on Earth through an evolutionary process.

Why? Because they can't dispute it.

Could you name for me, some Creationist geologists?

Remember, I don't mean “Christian”, I specifically mean “Creationist”.

Even if you can name some Creationist doctors and astronauts, it doesn't mean much. I could reject the laws of physics and still drive a car.

<<I would rather listen to those who believe in a Creator than those who make up other stories.>>

How is evolution “made-up” when the evidence suggests it? You still haven't provided evidence for Creationism.

<<...4.5 billion years is the latest in a long line of guesses.>>

The difference is though, that they're not “guesses” in this day and age because of all the methods of dating that suggest that the Earth is billions of years old. Here are several links that conclusively disprove your claim. The third link contains hundreds of pages, so take your time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLFKM886l4Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8Ii-dpRrXM
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

<<Creation can't be proved scientifically but the evidence sure points to it a lot more than the other fallacy.>>

Yet you can't show a shred of evidence for this claim of yours!

Admit it, Runner... You're just making things up.