RE: appendix

What are we to make of verses like "Then He continued by saying to them,
Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there
will be great earthquakes, and in various places plagues and famines;
and there will be terrors and great signs from heaven." Luke 21:10-11.

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Michael Roberts
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 12:24 PM
To: George Murphy; wallyshoes
Cc: asa@calvin.edu; Steven M Smith
Subject: Re: appendix

Here's an equally dumb comment from another Episcopalian the dear Dr
David Virtue;

"But the origin of natural evil, like moral evil, resides in The Fall.
Such horrendous acts of nature did not exist prior to the sin of our
first parents, it came as a result. The universe groans and has been in
travail since then. The record of Jesus' words seem not to take in
unimaginable suffering, he simply calls his followers to repent."

Now that is YEC101.

And another comment from Virtue's newsletter

This is a metaphor for the theology of what went wrong this week off the
coast of Indonesia. To be sure, the physical geology of the event tells
us how a devastating wave forms in the ocean, but biblical theology that
tells us why such a thing would happen: The world is broken. Our
foundation is cracked. The world is not perfect and we should not expect
paradise. God created it to be perfect (He cannot do less), but when sin
entered the world through human rebellion and pride, the whole of
creation fell, or "cracked", just like my house's foundation. Things
started to go wrong. very wrong. Man has been experiencing the physical
pain of that spiritual sin ever since.

 The tsunami is an epic disaster. The destruction and grief are vast.
All
the lives lost are precious to God. But tsunamis are to be expected in a
world broken by sin. Nothing will work right all the time. But don't
blame God for the so-called "acts of God" that happen in nature. Instead
look beyond the brokenness of this world to life everlasting that God
has provided for every one of us through His son, Jesus Christ."

-The Rev. Canon David Roseberry is rector, Christ Church, Plano, Texas

I ask how much does this kind of nutty stuff reflect the conservative
Episcopalians? I wish to associate with neither them not Bishop Gene

Michael

        ----- Original Message -----

        From: George Murphy <mailto:gmurphy@raex.com>

        To: wallyshoes <mailto:wallyshoes@mindspring.com>

        Cc: asa@calvin.edu ; Steven M Smith <mailto:smsmith@usgs.gov>

        Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 1:51 PM

        Subject: Re: appendix

        What's going to be a helpful answer to a person who asks the
question "How could God let this happen?" depends a lot on that person's
situation - whether it's merely a theoretical question or one coming
from that person's own suffering, his/her religious beliefs, &c. But
one thing we need to get at when that question is raised is, what "God"
are we talking about. Is it the immutable, impassible God of
philosophical theism or the biblical God who is with his people in their
sufferings & whose fullest revelation is in the cross?

        BTW, last night's CBS news had a short segment on this question
with soundbites from representative of several religions - Hindu,
Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and, saving the dumbest for last, Christian.
The Christian representative was the Episcopal bishop of D.C. who opined
that the tsunami was just a matter of geology and that God didn't have
anything to do with it: Deism 101.

        Shalom
        George
        http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

                ----- Original Message -----

                From: wallyshoes <mailto:wallyshoes@mindspring.com>

                To: George Murphy <mailto:gmurphy@raex.com>

                Cc: asa@calvin.edu ; Steven M Smith
<mailto:smsmith@usgs.gov>

                Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 7:40 AM

                Subject: Re: appendix

                George Murphy wrote:

                             A more serious problem is that while Hart
refers to the Incarnation, he makes no reference to the cross as God's
participation in the suffering of the world. While that doesn't provide
a neat solution to the theodicy question, I'm convinced that anything
said about the problem of suffering that doesn't appeal to the cross is
worth little. Shalom
                        George
                        http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
                        <http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/>

                
                Christian to Christian that can make sense. But what do
we say to non-believers who question the "goodness" of God? I have no
good answer; do you?
Received on Fri Jan 7 14:58:25 2005