Theology answers theological questions (evolution, creation, doctrine, church, experience)

[angellous_evangellous]

Despite my belief that theology answers theological questions, and science answers scientific questions, I think that your question of "why" is still valid.

Why wouldn't God choose to reveal Himself exclusively through science or make Himself available through unaided human reason? After all, science is a useful tool, and human reason for some is exceptionally powerful. We can assume that if God made himself available in this manner, that every reasonable person would believe.

From my perspective, as a Christian:
1) God makes Himself available to all people through faith. If He made Himself available through reason alone, only rational people would catch it.

2) Human pride. If we found God through reason, we would be crippled by pride in our accomplishment. The gift of God in salvation does not allow for human pride.

3) God, quite simply, would cease to be who He is, or at least the OT and NT would be false. He has revealed Himself as apart from the natural world, untestable and untouchable. If He were attainable through reason or science, revelation would not be needed and the Hebrew and Christian religion is unfounded.

[angellous_evangellous]

To offer further clarifications:

Examples of scientifically untestable, theological questions:

1) Does God(s) exist?
2) If God exists, what is His/Her/It/Their nature?
3) What is the meaning of life?
4) How does God(s) interact with humanity and nature?
5) Is there an afterlife?

Although theology answers theological questions, it does enter the historical and natural realm with the idea of salvation history. Salvation history is the record of revelation, the history of God's involvement with Israel and the Church. We have evidence that verifies involvement - some historical facts like kings mentioned in the OT and NT and other historical events can be verified. Furthermore, the existence of the historical Jesus is critical to Christian theology and can be historically verified. However, despite the fact that the argument for the historical Jesus being a teacher of the OT and making divine claims is convincing, belief in his teachings as revealed truth takes faith.

So Christians confess that God has revealed Himself. None of us can reach God through science or philosophy, because God is not a part of nature. Despite the fact that He is not nature, He has meet the need for revelation and revealed Himself through prophets. The record is natural and able to be reviewed by the human mind and accepted or rejected on the basis of reason, and its power is realized by placing faith in He who reveals.

[green4u]

There is a possibiltiy for a Scientist to become a theologist and vice versa is not possible .
Why ?

[angellous_evangellous]

Scientists are people too. If a scientist cannot become a theologian, then it is no different than a diesel mechanic not wanting to be a airplane pilot. Any scientist can have faith without being intellectually dishonest because faith addresses the divine, and where it addresses science the scientist has the final say. Therefore, faiths that directly address the nature of things (the apple is the orange naturally) can be refuted by science, which is precisely my point.

In my thinking, a scientist can become a theologian when he studies theology and uses theological methods and approaches issues theologically. No problem.

However, if the scientist thinks that he/she can discover the divine by scientific methods, they will be chasing the wind. Likewise for the theologian. Theologians can be scientists, and science can compliment theology quite nicely. In order for a scientist to be a theologian, she must realize the limits of each field, which I presume the most scientists are well aware of.

My issue is specifically with theologians who try to apply their abstract theology to nature and think that they know the natural essence of a thing without consulting a scientist, whose job is to tell us the natural essence of a thing in nature. The converse of this statement is this: a scientist or philosopher who attempts to posit the divine essence of God(s), which is the role of the theologian.

[angellous_evangellous]

Once God reveals Himself, the revelation becomes a part of nature and is reviewable by means of science (archeology, textual criticism, etc) and philosophy (reason, logic, theological models, etc). Since the revelation touches scientific data (data and not question), the content can be reviewed scientifically - like verifying rulers, the existence of cities, etc. Interpretation can balance scientific findings - like the theological interpretation that God's Word is found in the teaching of the prophet, not everything that the prophet touches. In other words, the Bible is not a scientific textbook, nor is it interested in scientific questions. It is, however, a collection of theological teachings, and when it touches scinece, it is very accurate (eg, cities and rulers). God retains his status as seperate from nature, but his word becomes accessable to the human mind and human review.

The content of revelation is the means by which we can establish criterea for review. Although God remains unapproachable through science and philosophy, when a person claims to have something from God, the revelation enters the natural realm and the content is available for review.

That is, if someone can provide a revelation from god that is evidence for Santa Claus in the North Pole, which actually exists on earth, then we can travel to the North Pole and look around for the fat fella. We can review the revelation for consistentcy and contradiction. If we go and look and come back to the "prophet" and they change their story, we can look again. Pretty soon this will get tiring. However, the prophet who contradicts himself or changes her story is a liar. Scientific and reasonable review is the reason why Christians reject the Gnostic Gospels, the JW's, the Mormons, Christian Science, and many other Christian sects. Their prophesies simply don't add up or make sense.

[angellous_evangellous]

Fortunately, Christians are not asked to believe blindly. Although God is incomprehensible as Creator, He has revealed Himself to nature. The revelation in Scripture becomes a part of nature and is subject to review. That is, we can apply science (archeological review) and philosophy (critical interpretation) to the Scriptures. We can critically review the content to see if it makes sense. Therefore, no one is asked to believe blindly. Come, let us reason together....

Now there are extraordinary claims and miracles within the revelation that require faith. It is not blind because much archeology has been exceptionally kind to Christianity. For example, we know the Gospels were written by folks who had intimate knowledge about Judaism and Jerusalem. They were exceptionally historically accurate with regards to the city of Jerusalem, rulers (the entire NT here), Jewish customs, and first century Judaism. If the writers are so accurate concerning verifiable historical data, why are we quick to dismiss other claims? The answer is easy: philosophical presuppositions (that is, presupposing the nature of the divine) and other agenda (wholesale rejection of the Gospels without regard to any facts concerning their nature).

Seeing Jesus would be a great blessing for all of us, but even folks who saw him did not beleive. Even seeing his resurrected body would not be enough for many of us... divine claims are simply too much to handle. However, there is an added blessing to seeing, but believing in something of this magnitude takes faith - from those who touched Jesus all the way to our very day.