Perhaps, I guess we'll now when the crisis comes. Of course it'll be too
late then. I personally would err on the side of caution.
Don P
-----Original Message-----
From: george murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 11:34 AM
To: Don Perrett
Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu
Subject: Re: End of the Law (Was Re: cosmology & polygamy)
Many of the OT laws did not have to do with "ceremonies" but were
rules
for daily life. The rationales for some are now obsolete while others have,
as
you note, a great deal of sense to them today. But Christians are not bound
by
the law period. If we decide that eating ham is unhealthy, OK, & we may see
some continuity between that insight and the OT prohibition but we are still
not
bound by the later prohibition.
Genetic engineering is not a realm of God that we have to stay out
of.
Among things of this world there are no such realms - Ps.115:16. Particular
types of genetic engineering may or may not be wise but that has to be
decided
on a case by case basis, not wholesale.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
Don Perrett wrote:
> Hi George,
> I do agree that some of the OT laws are perhaps ceremonial, but I'm sure
it
> doesn't take a PhD to figure out that some just make good sense. The idea
of
> Christ is salvation. Not lawlessness. While the punishment for sin has
> changed, assuming we believe in Christ, that does not mean that we should
go
> out and commit sins. I'm quite certain that Christ himself did not commit
> sins, laid out in the OT. Bear in mind that some laws may have been
> necessary for the people of that time, as you said, but some still apply.
> How about murder, should we say that this is ok, because God forgives?
Let's
> not make the same mistakes that many have, with regard to science. It's
been
> said that people should stay within their own field of expertise. Well I
> would say that genetic engineering is God's. Let's stay out. Studying and
> learning how God created things is one thing. Playing with his creations
is
> another. But you don't have to believe me, we'll all find out when the
> geneticists have thoroughly caused an epidemic by creating some new virus,
> even by accident. Example: We try to create crops that resist bug
> infestations. Should the plant create natural hybrids, as suggested by
> another, this new plant and so on introduce this same genetic sequence.
> Eventually the number of available crop for insect consumption is reduced
> and insects populations begin to decline. What happens? Does anyone on
this
> listserv not know the importance of insects? While our narrow minds can
see
> the threat of killing off all the whales, but somehow we just cannot
fathom
> the consequences of playing with things we are not yet ready to handle. We
> don't know what the weather will be a week from now, how can we say what
> effect these tinkerings will have a hundred years from now?
> Don P
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: george murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 9:07 AM
> To: Don Perrett
> Cc: Robert Schneider; Asa@Calvin. Edu
> Subject: End of the Law (Was Re: cosmology & polygamy)
>
> Combining a couple of posts -
>
> Don Perrett wrote:
>
> > While I claim no divine understanding or interpretation, the passage in
> > question is Deuteronomy 22:9 "Do not plant two kinds of seed in your
> > vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of
> the
> > vineyard will be defiled."
> > In the various churches I have attending, it has been present as being
the
> > restriction of creating hybrid plants and fruits for consumption. You
may
> > say that this is not a correct interpretation. That is your right. I
would
> > say though that unless you have direct evidence to the contrary, it's
> better
> > to be safe than sorry. It amazes me how we can require the listing of
> things
> > such a MSG and other things on food, but have no law requiring the
> labeling
> > of hybrids and genetically manipulated food. While some may consider
> > themselves to be as knowledgeable as God, and enjoy playing with
something
> > we are still trying to understand, I see no value for such things. Some
> will
> > say that with this technology we can make crops that hold up to weather
> and
> > insects. This may help the farmers produce higher yields, but at what
> risk?
> > Just look at what it did to the cattle in England. In no way am I saying
> > that we should not continue research in genetics, but studying and
trying
> to
> > manipulate are two different things. Would you let your child grab the
> stove
> > just to see what would happen? Why do we as a society allow such
> techniques
> > to be used in science? "Let's see what happens if we do this." This
seems
> to
> > be the catch phrase. Let's first understand completely what we are doing
> > before we truly mess up our entire ecology.
> > Thanks for you patience.
>
> There is something much more fundamental here than the
> interpretation of
> this particular regulation. Christians are not bound by the laws of the
Old
> Testament. "Christ is the end of the law" (Rom.10:4). "Now that faith
has
> come
> we are no longer under a custodian" (Gal.3:25).
> This does not mean that the Law is irrelevant. We still must live
> in
> society and be subject to its just laws for the sake of our neighbor, and
> the OT
> law may provide helpful guidance for the formulation of such civil law.
And
> since Christians continue sin, the Law still functions to point out &
> admonish
> that sin. But insofar as we do walk by faith in Christ, the Law is not
our
> basic ethical guide.
> Again, the law may give us helpful insights. E.g., Lev.25 shows
> that
> care for the land, linked with justice among human beings, is an important
> part
> of God's intention for the world. But the particular way of caring for
the
> land
> commanded there - simply letting it lie fallow every 7th year - is not one
> we're
> bound to follow. Agricultural science can teach us better methods, just
as
> medical science can give us better ways of treating skin diseases than
those
> set
> out in Lev.14.
> "Evangelical" means gospel-centered, not law-centered.
>
> (BTW, the listing of MSG in foods is not really required. It can
be
> disguised under a lot of listings like "natural flavoring". My wife has
> major
> problems with this & has learned to be very wary.)
>
> On a related topic, the WWJD slogan, Dave Siemens said:
>
> >I am also aware that somebody was
> >trying to come up with a catchy motto. But they produced confusion
> >between what the Lord did and the principles he gave his followers to
> >live by. These may be thoughtfully applied to our ethical puzzles, though
> >it may not be simple. May I suggest a more accurate acronym, AACTT:
> >Always Apply Christ's Teachings Today.
>
> This is questionable because it seems to see Christ primarily as a
> new
> legislator. But Christ does not really give any new _teaching_ that isn't
> already there (at least _in nuce_) in Moses & the prophets. When Christ
is
> appealed to as a guide for Christian life in the epistles it is especially
> his
> passion & death, not his teachings, which are pointed out. (E.g.,
> Phil.2:4-11,
> Heb.12:2-4, I Pet.2:18-25).
>
> Shalom,
>
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> "The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 17 2002 - 14:03:58 EDT