Re: Dick Fisher's "historical basis" remains no less doubtful

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:44:14 -0500 "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
writes:
>
> But if this is true of all human beings, it was true for the 1st
> humans (&
> how many there were or when they lived is of 2dary importance.)
> That raises
> the question of how humanity came to be in this state. It isn't
> sufficient
> just to say that we've always been that way, for that suggests that
> God
> created humanity (via the evolutionary process) as sinners, & thus
> that God
> is the creator of sin.
>
> What is necessary for an adequate theology of original sin with an
> evolutionary anthropology is to be able to say
>
> 1) How the 1st hominids who were _theologically_ human could have
> been
> responsible for initiating this condition of alienation from God
> without the
> assumption (unrealistic in view of what we know about human
> evolution) of a
> "state of integrity" as a an historical period of human existence,
> &
>
> 2) How this sinful condition continues to propagate itself with the
> idea
> (again unrealistic) that there is something like a "sin gene."
>
> These are the real theological issues. Localization of the 1st
> humans &
> historical concordist interpretations of Genesis are of relatively
> minor
> importance in comparison.
>
Let me try to come at these matters from a different angle. I am finite,
a state which goes beyond a limit on what I can cram into my intellect. A
more disturbing aspect is that I recognize an absolute standard for what
I strive to understand, truth, but also have to recognize that my best
efforts do not guarantee that what I believe is true. In other words, I
miss the mark of truth. So it is frustrating to me to be merely human.
Now missing the mark is /hamartia/. However, I do not see how I can blame
God for my problem, the consequence of my finitude. Indeed, is there any
way that I could evolve perfection?

Applying finitude to goodness (some would say right), the situation seems
similar for the moral. There is a standard, but human beings, recognizing
the standard, fall short. Just as there are an infinity of different
statements which may be true, so there are an infinity of actions which
may be good. This is where /hamartia/ is usually applied. Can I blame God
for this state?

A matter that affects both intellectual and moral areas is that each
person is internally aware of one individual, and concerned primarily
about that one. This means that you cannot feel my injury, nor I yours.
We may sympathize or empathize, but we do not feel the pain of another's
mashed thumb. Unfortunately, some people, specifically where they do not
like another, feel joy at the injury or even wish it were worse. Is God
to be held responsible for such a departure from goodness?

I believe that this sort of approach can be developed within an
evolutionary framework, whether what may be termed soul develops or is
granted to some ancestor or ancestral group of human beings. This state
will necessarily be more ancient than Mesopotamian settlements. But,
either way one thinks soul happens, that it happens to a finite being or
group, does not make the deity responsible for sin.

Obviously, this is just a start on a possible evolutionary staurocentric
theology. But I think the pieces can be fit together, though Dick's
"solution" would be excluded.
Dave
Received on Sun Nov 14 22:49:38 2004