Re: [asa] Greetings from a new member-addendum

I sent that last post too quickly. The claim that the universe can be
understood without reference to God is not simply a "convenient" way of
harmonizing religious belief with scientific reality. To see it that way is
the result of starting with a merely "theistic" theology. If one starts
from the cross, with its claim that God's supreme act takes place in
concealment, and that God typical MO is kenotic, then the comprehensibility
of the world "though God were not given" is a natural consequence. & the
smirk of atheists at that is simply an expression of the foolishness that
"Greeks" see in the cross.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Merv" <mrb22667@kansas.net>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Greetings from a new member

>I am actually replying to one of George's remarks below -- but all the
>same: Glad to have you with us, Christine. Some of us lurk more than we
>post, so keep in mind the audience size could be larger than the "prolific
>posters." -- somebody here recently compared his learning from ASA posts
>to 'trying to drink from a fire hose.' I like that --
> it's true.
>
> George, while the God working 'in, with & under' the activities of
> Scriptures matches daily experience, atheists smirk when they hear it. A
> God who mysteriously and consistently chooses to remain concealed just out
> of our observational reach is, oh so convenient for us theists. While I
> can respect (from our Christian perspective) that God values trust and
> faith without bludgeoning us with direct knowledge and sight, there is
> also Biblical precedent for God wanting his work to be visibly attributed
> to him. I just read about Gideon asking (a couple times no less) for
> the sign of the dew on the flax which was a significant enough deviation
> from the normal ways of things that Gideon was convinced. Or again, when
> God tells Gideon to send away most of their army because, at its larger
> size, they wouldn't give God the credit for the victory. God apparently
> wanted enough deviation from natural ways so that He would get the credit
> or so that it could be effective as a sign to somebody. Would you say
> that such things only apply to miracles (like the signs in John, and the
> resurrection itself)? How do you reconcile the incognito version of God
> with the 'signs and wonders' worker of Biblical times?
>
> --Merv (a kindred doubt & faith wrestler right along with you,
> Christine.)
>
> George Murphy wrote:
>>
>> At least in the vast majority of cases God works "in, with & under" the
>> activities of creatures so that we don't see God at work directly.
>> Luther called the created things through which God acts "the masks of our
>> Lord God, behind which He wants to remain concealed and do all things."
>> This means, I think, that we shouldn't
>> be surprised if, among other things, human beings don't contain any
>> special "supernatural" component.
>>
>> 2. The historicity of Biblical events also remains a
>> challenge. Although I've never taken the Bible
>> literally, or have assumed that it was 100% accurate
>> in terms of historical events, the atheists raise good
>> questions (they claim that temporary burials were
>> common back in Jesus's time, and that Jesus could have
>> been reburied without his disciples knowledge), and
>> even some Christians seem to take the Bible much more
>> figuratively than I do (i.e. Jesus was in the desert
>> for a long time, not necessarily 40 days, etc.); thus,
>> I'm not quite sure through what eyes I should read the
>> Bible at this point.
>> ...............................
>>
>
>
>
> 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 Mon Apr 9 22:20:09 2007