Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


Messianic Judaism & Theistic Evolution

posted by David Klinghoffer

It is, of course, the comparison that only this blog would dare to make. But isn’t it obvious? Messianic Jews, of whom we spoke in the previous entry, think you can coherently believe in Jesus and Judaism. Theistic evolutionists think you can coherently believe that evolution was driven by random events and that it was guided by God. Both are convenient delusions that give believers the comforting feeling that they don’t have to choose between logically exclusive alternatives.

Joe Carter at the First Things blog also smartly points out a parallel between theistic evolution and Biblical literalist creationism, that dreaded menace. Both are committed to the view that God disguises his work as something else to fool us, with the possible purpose of testing our faith:

[Francis] Collins’ view of God making evolution appear undirected is similar to [creationism’s] idea that he planted dinosaur fossils and created geological strata to fool us into thinking the earth has been around more than 6,000 years. Creationists have to interpret the evidence to fit their theological preconceptions; Collins has to interpret the evidence to fit his theoretical preconceptions.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(11)
post a comment
Turmarion

posted June 18, 2009 at 1:06 pm


C. S. Lewis gave an analogy about a man walking a dog on a lead, about to pass by a lamppost. The dog dashes off to the side, and the man pulls him back. From the dog’s perspective, the man seems to be frustrating his (the dog’s) desire to go forward, since the man is pulling him back. He can’t understand that the man has a broader perspective and deeper understanding–the man knows that if the dog plunges ahead, he’ll tangle his leash on the post. The man pulls the dog back in order to allow him to go forward (i.e., to go past the post). Thus, to the dog it appears as though the man is pulling him in the opposite direction of where he wants to go; while in actuality the man is helping the dog to go in the very direction he wants to.
I think this is useful to ponder in cases like these in which the argument seems to be made that God should be working in a more obvious way than He is (in other words, He shouldn’t make things “seem” random). Heck, this applies in other areas, as well. In Ecclesiastes, Qoheleth complains that the evil prosper and the good suffer, a seeming contradiction of God’s promises to the contrary. It would be nice if the evil were always visibly and obviouisly punished and the good rewarded in this life, and it would certainly make God’s action in the cosmos a good sight clearer, but it doesn’t seem to work that way, does it?
Once again, the issue isn’t what is convenient or more workable for religion. If evil didn’t exist, it would be much easier to make an argument for an all-good, all-powerful God; however, evil does exist. Thus, rather than pretending that evil isn’t real (as some religions do), we need to rework our theology. Likewise, it would be nice if life came about in a way that clearly showed the acts of a Designer, but that doesn’t seem to be the way it worked. Thus, we have to rework our theology. We can’t deny reality because it doesn’t fit with our theological preferences.
As to Messianic Jews, here’s where the analogy fails: the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, or for that matter that Bar Kokhba, Sabbetai Zvi, Menachem Schneerson, or Larry the Cable Guy, for that matter, is the Messiah, is not something demonstrable by empirical methods. It’s a matter of faith and interpretation. A Christian, a Sabbataian, and a Jew could proof-text until Doomsday and never convince each other, since they interpret the relevant Scriptures in different and incompatible ways. Until the World to Come, we all must agree to disagree.
On the other hand, science is based on empirical proofs and evidence. The best available evidence is that evolution has indeed occurred. The theology is irrelevant. At the time of Galileo, many insisted that one could not coherently hold that the Earth moved around the sun and at the same time believe in the revealed truth of Scripture which implied the opposite. Well, the science supporting the heliocentric cosmos become indisputable, so theology had to adjust. Likewise, while evolutionary theory (like many other areas of science) does not claim to give a perfect view of reality which can’t be improved upon, in its basics it’s pretty much unassailable, contra the ID people. Thus, the issue isnt’ whether it’s incoherent to hold that evolution exists while being a theist; the issue is how we do theology in light of evolution.
One more thing: note Isaiah 45:15: “Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.” Perhaps our trying to figure out how and why He did things the way He did, instead of in a more obvious or more easily understoot way, is part of His way of operating!



report abuse
 

Glen Davidson

posted June 18, 2009 at 2:26 pm


[Francis] Collins’ view of God making evolution appear undirected is similar to [creationism’s] idea that he planted dinosaur fossils and created geological strata to fool us into thinking the earth has been around more than 6,000 years. Creationists have to interpret the evidence to fit their theological preconceptions; Collins has to interpret the evidence to fit his theoretical preconceptions.

That’s Michael Behe, who claims that god designed everything to look like it evolved according to the predictions of non-telic evolution.
But you wouldn’t say that of a fellow of the Delusional Institute (which is at least as fair as your “delusion” attack on theistic evolutionists, of course), would you David?
Of course, you have no reason for why everything in life fits evolutionary predictions either, do you David? Rather you hang onto delusions like those of Cornelius Hunter, that biologists are doing biology with a theory that has no basis in fact, and it fails because it doesn’t fit the misrepresentations of evolution that you conjure up to knock down as strawmen.
And it’s Collins who is delusional (not directly stated, but implied, as was the “useful idiot” label not too long ago)? Well, possibly he is (I haven’t read much of his output, so have little to go on), but he doesn’t claim that everything was designed to look like it wasn’t designed, which is how I have to interpret the nonsense coming from the DI. Yours and Hunter’s heady ignorance don’t change the fact that we’re not stupid enough to believe recycled creationist delusions concerning the evidence of evolution.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592



report abuse
 

ariel

posted June 18, 2009 at 8:12 pm


Theistic evolutionists think you can coherently believe that evolution was driven by random events and that it was guided by God.
Different Theories of Theistic Evolution:
A)G-d created a world and then intervened in nature to guide evolution.
B)G-d created the world and guided evolution through nature.
C)G-d created the world with the conditions necessary for life to develop randomly.
I don’t see what problems you could have with A & B, and I don’t see what C has to do with Jews for Jesus. I think the problem is it’s too close to Deism, but I don’t see anything contradictory about it.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted June 20, 2009 at 1:14 pm


I actually found this post, after further consideration, a good spur to thinking. I think I’ve got a grasp on the problem I have with the thought of Carter and other IDers on this. I’m going to break this into three or four separate posts because it’s going to be a little long, but I think that’s worth it in order to properly develop the ideas.
The main issue here is “randomness”. Let’s just forget about evolution, Darwin, and biology in general and focus on that concept for now. What does it mean to say something is “random”, anyway, and what theological implications are entailed? The way I see it, “random” could mean one of four basic categories of events:
1. Events that have a deterministic, discrete cause or series of causes, but which cannot be predicted individually by us because of the complexity of the causes; but which can be predicted in the aggregate according to probability distributions. Example: flipping a coin. How it lands depends on the mass, area, shape, and composition of the coin; the angle at which the flipper initially holds it; the direction in which it’s flipped; the air resistance, and probably also humidity and barometeric pressure; the number of times it spins; the force of the initial toss; and on and on. Since the causes are so complex, numerous, and interrelated, no one can predict the outcome of a single toss of a fair coin. However we can say that there is a 50% chance of either heads or tails. What this means is that for an infinite number of tosses, half come up heads, half tails. The larger the number of tosses, the closer to 50-50 the results (so that if I toss a coin four times, it wouldn’t be particularly unlikely to get three heads and one tail, or vice versa; but if I tossed it fifty million times the results will be pretty close to twenty-five million heads and twenty-five million tails).
Keep in mind, this kind of “randomness” is a result of our ignorance. One who knew all relevant factors would alwaysknow the outcome of any coin toss. Since God knows and understands perfectly all relevant factors, He knows the outcome of all coin tosses, dice rolls, roulette wheels, etc. etc. For him they are no more random than the dropping of a released object to the ground is for us.
2. Events that have a deterministic, discrete cause or series of causes, and which cannot be predicted individually or by probability. Example. the decisions of free creatures. Specific example: My friend Jim loves Taco Bell, and if he stops at a fast food place, that’s usually where he’ll go. However, every now and again, he surprises me by going somewhere else (say, McDonalds). This is causal–Jim’s preferences, what he ate the day before, his mood, and so on cause the choice. However, not only can I not predict when he’ll decide to go to a burger place instead of a taco place, I can’t even set a probability (say, 5%) on it.
Whether God foreknows the decisions of creatures with free will has become a hotly debated topic in the last couple decades, and I don’t intend to go into it here. Suffice it to say that most theists believe He does know such decisions in advance, and even those who think He doesn’t would say that he knows what they will probably do with a high degree of accuracy. Thus, for God, such free-will decisions are not random, either (or have a very small component of randomness).
3. Events that are perceived as meaningful but which have no causal relationship. Example: A man is driving down the road, and begins to think about his favorite song. He turns on the radio, and there it is–his favorite song is playing! Though this is meaningful to the man, there is no causality–thinking of the song didn’t cause it to be on the radio, and its being on the radio didn’t cause the man to think of it. It is a random coincidence.
Now those who believe in psychic phenomena might think there was causality of some sort (pre-cognition, etc.); and the skeptical types might say there is no meaning at all beyond the spurious meaning imposed by the man’s mind. In any case, what we can agree on is this: each part of the event by itself is causal (the DJ put the song on as a result of its being in the Top 40, or the man in the car saw something that reminded him of the song and began to think of it). Whatever the relationship of the two parts to each other (and I’ll come back to this), God certainly foreknows them both.
4. Events that are truly random and (perhaps) acausal. Example: quantum events. According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, events such as the decay of a radioactive particle or the postion of an electron are not the result of complicated causes that we just don’t know (as with a coin toss), but really are indeterminate until observed. This interpretation is the source of much debate in the physics community, and I don’t know that anyone has considered whether God can be said to know the result of quantum events. In any case, He certainly knows the aggregate results, which are probabilistic, and since this category doesn’t bear on the rest of my discussion, I’m going to leave it at this.
To sum up: events of categories 1 and 3 above are certainly known to God and not “random” to Him at all. Categories 2 and 4 are debatable, but 2 is for all intents and purposes known, or at least suspected with high probablity by God, and thus not “random” to any great degree; and 4 is not relevant to the discussion here. Broadly, therefore, we could say, for the most part, that for God nothing is random. Randomness is a human construct, the result of our ignorance and narrowness of perspective, cosmically speaking.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted June 20, 2009 at 1:17 pm


Part II: Now for theological considerations.
Atheists, agnostics, and Deists would say that God doesn’t work in the world, since He either doesn’t exist, or has left the cosmos on its own since its creation. Neither of these views conflicts with evolution, of course; however, since I am not an atheist, agnostic, or Deist, none of these will be discussed. Theists, by contrast, all agree that God operates continually in the Universe in some fashion or other. Let us consider just how He does so.
It seems that there are two ways in which God can act in the world: directly or through secondary causes.
When God exerts Himself directly on the world in spectacular ways (the parting of the Red Sea, the feeding of the five thousand by Jesus, etc.), this is what we call a miracle. God in these cases acts direcctly on the world, sometimes even “breaking” natural laws. I, as a Christian, have no problem in believing He can and sometimes does do this. Millions of Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others would agree with this belief. What most of them (along with myself) would probably also agree with is that the situations in which God so acts are vanishingly rare. For reasons known but to Him, God seems to prefer an orderly cosmos and seems to prefer not to monkey with it directly 99.9% + of the time. I don’t think that this would be a controversial statement for most theists.
The other way in which God acts is through secondary causes. For example, when Cyrus decided to allow the Jews to return to Israel and rebuild the Temple, presumably God didn’t write letters of flame in the sky to tell Cyrus to do so. Rather, Cyrus was raised in the reletively tolerant, quasi-monotheistic faith of Zoroastrianism; he happened to defeat the Babylonians and was thus in an expansive and benovlent mood; he thought it politically desirable to do favors for vassal peoples in order to increase his influence with them; and so on and so on. In short, God didn’t “put a whammy” on Cyrus so that he’d hypnotically say, “Yes, Master…must…free…Jews…must…rebuild…Temple….” Rather, by ordering the cosmos in such a way that numerous natural causes were naturally in place, all God had to do was sit by and allow fate to play itself out. Thus, it’s not a question of whether it was Cyrus’s temperament and the political situation that “caused” him to allow the Temple to be rebuilt or God’s will–it’s not either-or, but both-and. God, by means of natural and secondary causes, inspired Cyrus to do what he did and thereby accomplish God’s will (whether Cyrus knew he was doing so or not).
Another example from human affairs. Suppose a fireman rescues a person from a burning building. Certainly, the fireman saved the person–he was the cause of the person being saved. Now, suppose the building burns down and is replaced by a new one. Suppose further that the architect puts in many innovative safety features (extra-sensitive alarms, special escape routes that are usable with the power out, emergency powered safety lights, etc.). The new building catches fire and burns down, but the safety features allow everyone to get out. Now the architect didn’t “save” them directly as the fireman did; but I think we’d all agree that if the safety features got everyone out safely, the architect truly saved those people. He did so through secondary causes, but just as surely as the fireman in the first example!
One more example, moving back to the Divine realm. Most theists pray, and believe that God (sometimes, at least) answers these prayers. In most such cases, though, such answered prayers, even when extraordinary, are answered through secondary causes. Take the radio example above and tweak it. This time, the man driving down the highway just broke up with his girlfriend. She was distraught, begging him not to leave, but he did so anyway. After he leaves, she fervently prays to God that her love come back. As the man drives morosely down the highway, he can’t help but think about the dashed relationship, wondering if he did the right thing. One thought leads to another and as he broods he thinks about “their” song. Absently, he turns on the radio, only to hear that very song playing! Stunned, he realizes he’s made a mistake. He pulls a drastic U-turn, speeds back to his beloved’s house, and tearfully makes up with her. They eventually marry and live happily ever after. He tells the girl of the song, and she attributes it to God’s mercifully answering her prayer. The end.
Many of us have experienced such astonishing events as this. Nevertheless, please note that all the things that happen here are through natural, secondary causes. God doesn’t have to “zap” the DJ or rematerialize the automatically played tape to make the song play at that moment. Rather, He orders the world in such away that it happens naturally at the right place and time. In one sense, the song just “happened” to play at that moment on that car radio; in another sense, God ordained that this be so. Both are true.
C. S. Lewis once spoke to this, giving the example of a novel. Say I’m writing a novel and I’m at chapter one. I have thought out the plot and know that one of my characters, Susie Q., will face an immense problem in Chaper 15. I consider the plot and decide to introduce certain things into Chapters 2-4 which will ultimately result, in Chapter 20, in the resolution of the problem Susie faces in Chapter 15. Consider: from Susie’s point of view, the problem arises and the solution plays out afterwards. But from her perspective the writer solved the problem before it even happened! Lewis draws the analogy with God, saying that prayer, in a sense, can change the past. That is, God, forseeing the needs and prayers of His creations eons in the future, may have set in motion chains of events in the distant “past” (as we perceive it) which will ultimately bear fruit as His response to said prayers. From inside the cosmos, the answers to the prayers result from a purely natural chain of events stretching (perhaps) to the beginning of the world. But to God, and those who see with the eye of faith, they are His gracious way of dealing with the needs of his people in the world by the means which He prefers.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted June 20, 2009 at 1:18 pm


Part III: Now on to ID and evolution. I will give the ID crowd, David included, agreement for a key point. They argue that if God is not active in the Universe, then any kind of traditional theism (as opposed to Deism of various flavors) is no longer possible–thus, exeunt Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and others. I will also agree with them that if it could be shown that the scientific worldview precluded such action, then theism, to the extent that one accepted the scientific worldview, is a dead letter. So far as this I’m willing to go with them. The thing is, I don’t think science (including evolution) precludes such action!
Typically, IDers and other anti-evolutionists argue that if life aries merely by “random” natural events, there is no place left for God to interact with His world, thereby destroying the basis for any theistic faith. My contention is that this comes from a misunderstanding of what “random” means and of how God works in His world. Recall: God can work in the world in one of two ways. He can act directly, circumventing or outright counteracting natural laws–that is to say, by producing a miracle; or He can acct indirectly, through secondary causes that obey the natural laws at every step (see the examples of Cyrus and the couple with the song on the radio from the last post). OK: IDers and their fellow-travellers seem to believe that, with regard to life, at any rate, the only acceptable means for God to work is through miracles!
Let me unpack this. As far as I can tell, most IDers, or at least most of the ones I’ve read (Behe, Dembski, David, etc.) are not young Earth creationists. They do not take Genesis literally, and allow for a vastly ancient cosmos and (in some cases, anyway, such as Behe, who even acknowledges the kinship of apes and humans) common descent and evolution of life forms from simpler forms. To this extent, at least, they, too, are “evolutionists”! The thing they tend to do is to argue for “irreduceable complexity”; that is, they argue that there are certain aspects of life (usually at the biochemical level, though this varies) that seem to be incapable of arising by “random” actions in nature. Examples given are the flagella of certain cells, some aspects of blood clotting, and the structure of the malaria plasmodium, to name a few. Things of this sort, it is said, bear the marks of “intelligent design”. As to the details, beyond this IDers tend not to say much.
Apparently the idea is this: while things can for the most part proceed by evolution as biologists usually understand it, certain aspects of life needed to be “jimmied” or put in to place directly by the Designer (God, although IDers are often very coy about making this identification in contexts where they are addressing the public at large). So it seems to be like this: God creates the world and life, then allows life to proceed along a normal evolutionary course–except that at certain points He intervenes directly to get the process where he wants it–preumably by putting in the mechanism for flagella, or for protein synthesis, etc. Then he allows it to chug along by itself again. To give an analogy: It is like someone setting up an elaborate chain of dominoes but leaving a gap in the middle. He tips the initial domino and allows the chain to begin falling in intricate patterns. When it gets to the gap, it stops. Thereupon, the person steps in, tips over another domino, and the second half of the pattern begins to fall, reaching the ultimate result.
I trust that it is apparent that this is odd. The fascination of domino-toppling is to see the whole thing play out unassisted after the initial tap. Or, to use another example, pool wouldn’t be interesting if you were allowed to hold the balls in your hands and just drop them in the pockets! The interest of the game lies in the complexity and intricacy of making complicated shots!
Likewise, one can imagine God making the universe as is, along the lines of Biblical literalists; or one can imagine Him setting up a complicated drama that played out by “natural” forces over eons. To think of Him as making a universe that plays out by natural laws, except when it doesn’t, though, seems odd. It would be like playing pool where sometimes you shoot the balls and sometimes you drop them in the pockets with your hands–a strange game, to say the least!
I think there is a reason for this, though. Anti-evolutionists believe that if God is not present and active in the universe, there is no room for theism (with which I’d agree). Further, they believe that chance forces producing evolution leave no room for God to act. However, the more scientifically literate anti-evolutionists are well aware that most things in the cosmos can be explained by natural forces and that this is well-established–this is why they don’t deny a multi-billion-year-old cosmos or the fact of evolution to at least some extent. Thus, in order to preserve the God of theism, they must find some way to wedge Him back in–some place (such as flagella) where He “needs” to be invoked. I contend that this is not necessary.
As we saw, there is no such thing as a “random” event from the perspective of God. Also, we saw that God can and does work through secondary causes, and that these are as much the action of God as are the more spectacular, but much rarer, miracles. Thus, I fail to see why there is a problem with an evolution that proceeds by random events–if no events are random for God, and if He can work through these secondary and “random” events, then evolution proceeds directly through the acts of God!



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted June 20, 2009 at 1:21 pm


Part IV (the last!): I think that perhaps the reason that anti-evolutionists don’t like the idea of theistic evolution is that, in their view, it doesn’t involve God in a direct enough manner. They seem to have problems in seeing God’s work through secondary causes, seeming instead to prefer something more obvious and visible–preferring, in short, miracles. However, we have no reason to believe, based on philosophy, theology, or the teachings of any of the specific monotheistic religions, that this is indeed a normal mode of action for God. In fact, the very fact that miracles are so-called (from “miraculum”, related to the Latin word for “wonderful” or “marvelous”) indicates that even believers consider them rare and remarkable. Certainly most believers are eager to attribute God’s action to events in their own lives, even when such events are obviously of secondary causation (e.g. getting a check in the mail just when a financial burden loomed, or the radio example above). Why are some so reluctant to attribute to His actions the very same type of secondary causation involved in theistic evolution?
This is where Carter’s analogy is false. Those who argued (or perhaps still argue) that fossils and such were merely created by God to appear ancient, as a test of faith, are indeed putting forth an absurdity. You might as well say that God created the universe last Thursday, with all our memories of life before then implanted by Him. On the other hand, when theistic evolutionists assert that God works through what appear to us to be random acts and secondary causes, they are merely asserting that He acts regarding evolution the same way that believers assert that He acts in their lives and in the world in general all the time! If an IDer wants to argue that it is somehow not correct to see God as directing evolution through chance events, then I reply that it’s incorrect to see Him as answering prayers, interacting with us, and ordering the universe in general, either, since He does this, for the most part, by the same action through chancee events. You can’t have it both ways–either God works indirectly most of the time, and does so through evolution as well, or He acts only through miracles, which means seldom, if at all.
Thus I think, on purely philosophical grounds, that God is perfectly able to act through the normal, “radom” events of “natural” processes to effect His will, be it the answers to prayers, the inspiration of Scripture, or the evolution of life. The question in determining how He did in fact act in the case of life is, what is the evidence? Is the evidence that life appears suddenly a short time ago (geologically speaking) with no development, no intermediate forms, and no indications of common ancestry or change over time? Or is the evidence for the gradual development of life over hundreds of millions of years through many intermediate forms with various mechanisms developing over time? The answer here is clear–the evidence enormously favors the latter, and no evidence to the contrary has yet been produced. Thus we must assume that God has directed evolution through secondary causes by means of what appear to be “chance” or “random” events. No problems, no endangering of the concept of God or of His action in the cosmos. Problem solved!
At least it should be. For whatever reason, anti-evolutionists seem stubbornly unwilling to accept such an analysis. I, on the other hand, don’t see any flaws with it. In any case, as I’ve said many times, the issue isn’t what’s easier for theology, but what the evidence dictates–and it clearly dictates evolution. IDers need to realize that we are on the same side in terms of defending the idea of God and His action in the world–where we part company is that we defend the integrity of science, as it is done with our God-given intellects, to understand the world that God created.



report abuse
 

Throbert McGee

posted June 22, 2009 at 2:26 am


Turmarion: Let me take you a step farther. God willed that intelligent, self-aware, morally-conscious life should develop in the Universe; He designed the Universe to make this inevitable. Furthermore, God planned that once such lifeforms appeared, He would designate a group of them to be His “Chosen People” — the ones who would be a guiding light unto the other groups. He even planned that other groups should act as foils to the CP group, causing a lot of pain and strife, but in the process gradually nudging the entire species towards Enlightenment.
Suppose that all this was in His plan, BUT…
…God was totally indifferent as to whether intelligent life should develop on Earth, or on Mars or Venus, or in this particular solar system at all, so long as it developed somewhere
…and if, by random processes, Earth should be the planet on which life appeared and evolved towards self-aware intelligence, God didn’t particularly favor super-brainy monkeys over super-brainy penguins or super-brainy lobsters, so long as eventually some species got smart enough to ask “Why are we here, and what should we do or avoid doing?”
Suppose, in short, that it’s by God’s Design that you and I are able to think and reason about abstractions, and that we have moral consciousness, and that we can make aesthetic distinctions, and so forth; God wanted the Universe to be populated with creatures possessing all of those qualities…
…but the fact that you and I have hair and not feathers, that we have four limbs and not six or eight, that we breathe oxygen and not ammonia, that we have our hard skeletons inside our squishy muscles, and not the other way around, are all essentially “random accidents” from God’s point of view, being the outcome of undirected evolution.



report abuse
 

Throbert McGee

posted June 22, 2009 at 2:40 am


P.S. I like to think that on a distant planet in one of the other 50 billion galaxies apart from our Milky Way, a feathered, eight-limbed, ammonia-breathing crustacean named David Klinghoffer is writing a blog post comparing theistic evolutionists to those kooky Messianic Jews…



report abuse
 

Alber

posted June 22, 2009 at 3:55 am


Klinghoffer – you offer no actual information other than your (obviously unstudied) opinion that Messianic Judaism is incompatable with Judaism — do you know anything about Christianity? Obviously not.
You are part of the problem in today’s world – you are unstudied.
But going with Klinghoffer’s divisive theories that nothing is related and everything should be put into separate boxes – does everyone reading this site realise that the Fox Corporation owns Beliefnet? Would anybody trust Fox/News Corp to bring you actual religion? The two seem incompatible – impossible even under Klinghoffer’s theories: Fox = religion? No way.
Well Fox can and is trying – but these two things seem incompatible on the surface.
The only thing that makes sense about Klinghoffer’s ‘self-ordained’ big title of his column/blog here is that Fox hired him to be divisive – to create turmoil with no real foundation.
i’ve subscribed to this site for years – i am a Meshianic Jew – and a kabbalist for 20 years now — but Klinghoffer is offensive – opinionated with divisive statements offering no facts to back his statements up – looks like FOX brought him in to do nothing but stir trouble.
The title alone of Klinghoffer’s blog is arrogant and offensive – Kingdom of Priests? i know many gifted Rabbis and Rebbis, and Klinghoffer doesn’t have the understanding or skill to represent.
YHVH Adonai Sabaoith sees, Klinghoffer. Someday you will answer for your arrogant, ignorant and divisive words – even if you think you are correct – it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it – and you say it with no facts. You are not serving anyone here but yourself and your ego. Shame on you.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted June 22, 2009 at 9:41 am


Throbert: I’m not sure, from God’s perspective, that there are “random events”, “accidents”, or “undirected” events. As to us, it may be that God wanted to have intelligent primates such as we are, and brought that about. Or, as you suggest, he may have desired intelligent beings capable of knowing Him and been indifferent as to the specific species (bird, dinosaur, primate, etc.), allowing “random” events to take their course, if this is intelligible from the perspective of an all-knowing being. I don’t necessarily have a problem with either perspective. The overall point I was making was that IDers have trouble seeing God at work in any mode other than the miraculous.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Kingdom of Priests. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Kabballah Counseling Happy Reading!

posted 11:24:22am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Animal Wisdom: The Voice of the Serpent
Our family watched Jaws together the other evening -- which, in case you're wondering, I regard as responsible parenting since our kids are basically too young to be genuinely scared by the film. The whole rest of the next day, two-year-old Saul was chattering about the "shark teeth." "Shark teeth g

posted 3:56:33pm Mar. 16, 2010 | read full post »

Reading Wesley Smith: Why the Darwin Debate Matters
If the intelligent-design side in the evolution debate doesn't receive the support you might expect from people who should be allies, that may be because they haven't grasped why the whole thing matters so urgently. I got an email recently from a journalist whom I'd queried on the subject. "All told

posted 5:07:12pm Mar. 15, 2010 | read full post »

The Mission of the Jews
Don't miss my essay over at First Things on the mission of the Jews to the world. This, I think, the key idea that the Jewish community needs to absorb at this very unusual cultural moment, for the time is so, so right. Non-Jews are waiting for us to fulfill the roll God gave us in the Torah. Please

posted 6:14:16pm Mar. 05, 2010 | read full post »

Darwin at the Mountains of Madness: Evolution & the Occult
Of all the regrettable cultural forces that Darwinism helped unleash, perhaps the most surprising and seemingly unlikely is its role in sparking the creation of modern occultism. Charles Darwin himself could not have been less interested in the topic. But no attempt to assess the scope of his legacy

posted 2:04:11pm Mar. 04, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.