Re: [asa] An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong

A thoughtful response, but I don't think this is necessarily a move
toward deism since I wasn't talking about a God who is distant from and
uninterested in us.

There is certainly a physical context in which we dwell, and it is a
context necessary for our existence. In that regard, God might be no
longer particularly interested in (i.e., may be satisfied with) the
general workings of physical reality. That could be sorta deist in view,
but it does not necessarily mean a disinterest in it/them. But at the
same time, we also speak distinctly of spiritual things, a realm of
existence that is "other" than the physical. Such other "plane(s) of
existence" may be distinct or could be entangled in some way we do not ken.

I respect your references to Hebrew-Biblical views, and rejection of
knostic dualism. But, these are typically somewhat polar views for the
sake of definition. I would just observe that the relational acts of
providing a cup of water to the thirsty, and food for the hungry, and
acting in behalf of justice and mercy more often than not involves
stewardship of the physical. Your post acknowledged that.

I don't know what to say about your comment that "The whole notion of
'non-physical aspects of our existence' is foreign to scripture."

The idea of redemption of the physical is a theological position that
seems to be held by many good folks. I'm not sure how much sense that
makes, and it remains a matter of debate. In one form, it is an edenic
hope, more of a destination-prespective. As such, what does salvation of
the physical creation really mean with respect to the physical world
aside from a revised physical context for us? That certainly could be
something like that afoot, but it is only one line of thinking.

In the mean time, as you suggest, the scriptures that speak of judgment
seem to (all?) focus on the justice and mercy stuff. That focus
plausibly relegate the physical to a context role, not unimportant, but
subordinate and of less interest than the primary focus. In turn, that
would seem to make any physical "redemption" more in the nature of an
active faithful Kingdom-connected stewardship in which we respond to the
hurts and deprivations that result from or occur in the context of that
physical world, to the glory of and in service to what we understand to
be God's intent and instruction. That could I suppose be a distant sort
of transaction, but it need not be.

Or so it seemeth to me. JimA

David Opderbeck wrote:

> God may well be more actively interested in the activities,
> relationships, and nature of the spiritual aspect of our existence
> than to spend any more effort than required to set Creation into
> motion in such a way as to serve as a competent, active, developing
> background for His real primary interest.
>
> The problem, I think, is that you start moving here towards a deism
> that is foreign to the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is
> sovereign over and actively interested in every aspect of His
> creation. Take a look at Psalm 104, for example.
>
> It's interesting that the relation of God to creaton is an age-old
> problem, and that the great minds of the faith have consistently
> refused to accept the "distant god" view. I've been reading Pelikan's
> history of Christian doctrine, and these sorts of concerns were very
> important to the Church fathers, who were combating the early gnostic
> heresies. The distant god is a very much a gnostic idea.
>
> But honestly, does not Scripture really deal more importantly with the
> non-physical aspects of our existence?
>
> I would say no. The whole notion of "non-physical aspects of our
> existence" is foreign to scripture. It's a Greek dualist view of
> human nature, not a Hebrew-Biblical view of the integrated person.
>
> I would agree with you that scripture is supremely concerned with
> salvation, defined not just as individual salvation, but as God's
> eschatological plan for all of creation. But that is not a matter of
> "physical" versus "non-physical." The eschaton is portrayed as
> physical as well. And scripture never focuses on the "not yet"
> aspects of God's plan to the exclusion of the "already." Salvation
> begins now for those who have been brought into God's Kingdom through
> Christ. Salvation involves present physical realities in which we are
> to work for justice and mercy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/1/06, Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net
> <mailto:jarmstro@qwest.net>> wrote:
> > This caught my eye as well. Actually, I like it. It seems to be
> > articulating the perspective that God may well be more actively
> > interested in the activities, relationships, and nature of the spiritual
> > aspect of our existence than to spend any more effort than required to
> > set Creation into motion in such a way as to serve as a competen,t
> > active, developing background for His real primary interest. WE make a
> > big deal of the physical Creation (which I highly respect, and think we
> > ought to understand and honor). We think it is so important that its
> > created character might require God's continuous, or at least
> > intermittant, husbanding in order for it to proceed on its desired
> > trajectory. But honestly, does not Scripture really deal more
> > importantly with the non-physical aspects of our existence? If one
> > follows that track to its sorta obvious conclusion, God doesn't need to
> > have a job of this physical-Creation-husbanding sort, ergo is
> > superfluous in that regard. But that certainly does not put Him out
> of a
> > job. It just relegates the physical Creation, with its perhaps
> > methodological naturalism, to the background of existence and
> relationship.
> > Or so it seemeth to me. . . . today! JimA
> >
> > Terry M. Gray wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Oct 31, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Pim van Meurs wrote:
> > >
> > >> Note that God being superfluous is not necessarily an argument
> > >> against God.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is actually a very interesting sentence. Are you meaning
> > > "superfluous with respect to our scientific theorizing?" In other
> > > words, this is just a way of talking about methodological naturalism.
> > >
> > > I'm fairly certain that both Dawkins and Hauser would resist your
> > > sympathies with belief in God, even if you distance yourself from
> > > including God in your theorizing. This seems to be the gist of the
> > > Wired piece--not only do these new atheists not believe in God they
> > > think that belief in God is harmful and needs to be resisted.
> > >
> > > TG
> > >
> > > ________________
> > > Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
> > > Computer Support Scientist
> > > Chemistry Department
> > > Colorado State University
> > > Fort Collins, CO 80523
> > > (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 1 11:18:44 2006