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

*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> 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 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.
>

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 11:43:26 2006