Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey

Gragory -

Stop trying to make me into something I'm not. If you don't understand what I've said (as is often the case, as below) & are interested in understanding it, ask me privately instead of broadcasting misrepresentations on the internet.

I welcome no contribution by Spinoza. In earlier discussion of ID & related topics I explained that I used the term "nature" in the sense of "everything that isn't God" or "creation," and pointed out that this corresponded to the scholastic distinction between natura naturata & natura naturans. The fact that this terminology was used by Spinoza to explicate his pantheism doesn't mean I'm a pantheist.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: George Murphy ; Terry M. Gray ; David Opderbeck
  Cc: jarmstro@qwest.net ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 3:22 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey

  A couple of points, first, noting that George's theology seems to welcome a great contribution by Baruch Spinoza (http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm). For example, his references to 'natura naturata' and 'natura naturans,' as distinguished from saying 'natural' and 'supernatural' or 'creature' and creator/Creator.' The idea of "nature in the active sense" seems indeed to depict Peacocke's panentheism, which I discovered in conversation with him fails to complete the hermeneutic circle between physics/biology and psychology/anthropology. This seems a difficult circle to travel! It would perhaps be helpful for George to spell out explicitly his appreciations for process theology and 'nothing wrong with panentheism', probably in the context of his TE/EC views, instead of being so defensive that others are 'not getting it' sufficiently. We all measure the constellations in our own unique way.

  George wrote: "I am not irrevocably opposed to the idea of some special divine intervention to convert some group of hominids into humanity in a theological sense. As I think my last post indicated, I recognize that there are difficulties with the view that there was no such intervention."

  Could you please expand on this a bit George, how you are 'not irrevocably opposed' to 'intervention'? I thought you were!! I also don't understand how 'hominids into humanity' could take place in 'only' a theological sense, but NOT in a 'historical' sense. This may be a source of great misunderstanding or a gap in understanding between you and I; maybe you aren't implying this. For me, the historical dimension cannot be avoided in the 'evolution/emergence/extension/connection' of human beings in covenent with their (our) Creator, whereas you seem to imply a mystical (implied not negatively) relation between history and theology. From an orthodox Orthodox position, this makes sense as well.

  The second point, of great significance to a human-social thinker, if perhaps less so to a physicist/theologian, science and religion dialoguer, is that a 'group' must consist of MORE THAN 2; two are not yet a 'group.' Three can be a family. This is important for picturing 'Adam and Eve' in the Garden of Eden. Pope Pius XII 'rejects human polygenism explicity' (in the words of David O.), does George Murphy (and the Lutherans...)?

  I find Terry's perspective liberating in its realism for both visible and invisible things. This includes noteworthy the expressed belief by a few people recently on the ASA list in the 'historical' (in addition to the theological) 'reality' of two persons 'Adam' and 'Eve.' Those who consider 'Adam and Eve' or the 'Fall' as 'unreal' historically may indeed be too swept up in a neo-Darwinian evolutionary scenario to allow for certain historical elements in the Bible their rightful interpretive place. They push away the history to support their mystical theology. George recently stated that human history began with Abraham. As people here have said, the baby is sometimes thrown out with the bathwater.

  But y'all have probably grown tired of my criticism of the limitations of evolutionary theories in providing a hermeneutic suitable for 21st century scientists and scholars. I guess its necessary to continue 'putting science in its place,' as we all must do beliving in extra-scientific things in our understanding of God and the universe.

  Gregory A.

  George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
    Dave -

    Your statement about panentheism wasn't just un-nuanced, it was wrong. I don't use the term panentheism for my own position but fail to see anything inherently wrong with it. In his opening essay in All That Is (my review of which was in PSCF recently), Peacocke uses Augustine's image of the world-God relationship an sponge in an infinite ocean to indicate what he means by the term. I trust you'll consider that that gives it at least a bit of an orthodox cachet. & yes, of course Paul was quoting from a Greek author in Acts 17. So what? He still said it, indicating that he found something that could be called panentheism acceptable at least in some contexts.

    Effects of the 2d law get some modifications in an expanding universe, as Tolman showed back in the 30s. Nevertheless, present indications are indeed that the universe will continue to expand & cool forever. Whether or not divine "intervention" is required to bring about the eschaton depends, in part, on what is meant by "intervention." I think Ted Peters' approach in terms of prolepsis & creation from the future (see his Anticipating Omega, my review of which should appear shortly in PSCF) is promising.
    ...
    [from another post]
    Apropos the question of "Adam as a group," may I point out again that the story of the primordial sin in Genesis is not just about "Adam" but about "the woman" and "the man" - in that order. & while there are various cultural factors (as well as antiquated ideas about procreation) which have led the tradition to focus on Adam, Eve can hardly be left out. In fact, the tradition has tried all too eagerly to blame it on Eve - a tradition that starts with Adam himself! In any case, there seems to be a group of at least two involved.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 1 08:20:03 2008