theo|digital

Yeah. Ty went too. He hadn’t been since he was like seven, so that was pretty fun. We learned about Energy, flew over San Francisco, and visited toilet stalls in Morocco. The Happiest Celebration on Earth!

I’m a Duck!

Incredibly versatile and capable of carrying yourself over almost any surface of the Earth, you are a born traveler. As you journey far and wide, you tend to try to follow the climate to keep things mild and temperate. While you were always told you were ugly at a young age, you’ve since managed to grow out of it. You now find orange to be a very favorable color for shoes. Lately you’ve come to be caught up in the petty peddling of unnecessary insurance.

Take the Animal Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

I formed this question yesterday as Dr. McGrath spoke about theological models:

Did Dr. McGrath just say that religious models are forced to work with what they are given, as opposed to scientific models which can simply choose the model that best fits?

What I mean is, as much as I like the idea of God as Shepherd, it’s a very ancient-nomdic sounding analogy. Not-so-much 2005 Rainforest Cafe and Ikea furniture. Aren’t there new analogies which can be true to God but accessible to our age? I can’t imagine that Jesus would be using shepherd analogies if he was here using wireless internet. Do we still need to use that model as well?

Two comments that were made:

Maybe he means that insofar as we translate scripture accurately, we have to use the words that those authors used to get across their models and analogies. I would imagine he would agree that in discussion with people, or in talks, that any analogy is fair game. He would probably argue that in serious theological study, interaction and engagement with the traditional scriptural models is required.

and

I think we do have to keep using sheep and shepherd and work on explaining the context… it doesn’t mean that we can’t use other analogies informally but those analogies will not have the same weight because they are not in Scripture.

but I said back:

I don’t mean to say that we would be choosing from thin air a new analogy to explain God. For instace, I wouldn’t just say, “God is like a candle” and make inferrences from there. Certiainly someone would have to spend time understanding the *meaning* of the sheep analogies… aspects that can be inferred: sheep can get themselves lost, are in need of guidance and care, etc.

Then we ask: what else in our world easily gets lost, and is need of guidance and care?

I can see where it’d be dangerous, but I’m not sure the sheep analogy can give us *more* information, or is more authoritative than any other analogy that describes orthodox Christian thought.

My brain is spinning.

Today we finished our third day of lectures – we’ve done nine segmented lectures now – and I think I’m in a flat tailspin. Unfortunately, it appears as if Alister McGrath is almost bored with the subject matter. He probably is: this is like intro stuff to him.

The lectures titles we’ve done so far:

1 – Introduction to Theology and Science
2 – Galileo, Newton, and Darwin
3 – Creation
4 – Natural Theology
5 – Analogies and Models
6 – Philosophy of Science
7 – Philosophy of Religion
8 – Critical Realism
9 – Why Richard Dawkin’s Atheism isn’t Scientific

whew.

I’m spending my second day at part of the studio audience at MGM studios Orlando for a special course on Science and Theology by Dr. Alister McGrath. Located on soundstage 1, the set was designed in a black box setting by Annie Wylie. More on the theology being discussed soon.