RE: [asa] a theological exercise

I can see the similarities. Both require an change in a hermeneutical
approach. It was once thought that geocentricity was a clear teaching of
scripture, now we know it is not. How? By studying the actual creation. Same
thing with "No death before Sin." This "Death" must be something other than
physical death of anything at all. It boils down to a denial of reality.
Unless of course, what we see in the fossil record was all planted by God,
or Satan. I have heard both approaches, as absurd as that is, because if
what we see is real, their faith would be blown wide open.

=========================================

  -----Original Message-----
  From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
  Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:15 PM
  To: panterragroup@mindspring.com
  Cc: ASA list
  Subject: Re: [asa] a theological exercise

  But -- IMHO there is a significant difference between reinterpreting some
scripture verses about the sun rising or about "days" of creation, and
delving into the nature of sin and atonement. Whatever the result of
theological reflection eventually ought to be, it just isn't fair to compare
revisioning our understanding of humanity and the fall with revisioning the
geocentric universe. Yet, maybe that reflects my own historical
situatedness to some degree.

  It's also wise, I think, to consider the extent to which science can
revision theology by looking at some of the directions process thought and
panentheism have taken. Some of the articles in, say, Zygon, can't possibly
be acceptable to Christian theology under any meaningful definition of
"Christian." There is always some point at which the rubber band goes
sproing, isn't there?

  On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 4:58 PM, skrogh. <panterragroup@mindspring.com>
wrote:

    Sometimes I find it amazing that Star Trek (TOS) addressed so many of
society's peculiarities, for lack of a better word.
    http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TOS/episode/68790.html

    In this episode, the crew of the Enterprise reveals to an ancient
society that worship their Oracle, that for centuries, they have actually
been inhabitants of an asteroid-sized spaceship that is not guided by an
Oracle, but rather a super computer, that was programmed by an even more
ancient civilization, to flee the destruction of their solar system. Their
entire reality was blown wide open.

    To respond to the objection of altering one's theology to meet
scientific facts, I would say, "Why not, it has been done before and you
engage in it, as well. If you didn't, you would count yourself among the few
holdouts for Geocentrism." If they respond that the Bible no where teaches
Geocentrism, I would say, "well, we can say that now, and we pretty much
have to, otherwise the Bible would be in error."

    =========================================

      -----Original Message-----
      From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of drsyme@cablespeed.com
      Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 2:31 PM
      To: 'ASA list'; 'George Murphy'
      Subject: Re: [asa] a theological exercise

      My difficulty with your analogy of the scientist changing a theory in
the face of new evidence, is that most of the evangelicals that I have
talked to about this, claim that altering one's theology to meet scientific
facts is not acceptable. To them, there would be no possible scientific
evidence that would get them to reconsider. They understand the
implications of evolution, the most difficult being those David O mentioned,
and most are not at all interested in even trying to see if there is a
consistent Christian theology because the only revelation that they are
concerned about is biblical. In other words they will criticize because you
have changed your views based on science, and the conversation stops there.

      On Tue Jun 3 14:07 , "George Murphy" sent:

        The first book we were assigned when I started seminary was a small
volume by Helmut Thielicke, A Little Exercise for Young Theologians. I'd
like to propose here what I think is an important little exercise for
Christians, young & old, who want to engage in theology-science discussions,
& especially those relating to evolution.

        Let me begin with a scientific preliminary. One of the tasks of a
scientist, & especially a theoreticians, is to try to see how well some new
discovery fits in with what he/she has up until that point regarded as the
best theory in the relevant field. E.g., are the data generated when a new
particle accelerator comes on line consistent with current theories of high
energy physics? If they are consistent without any tinkering with the
theory then they can be regarded as predictions of noverl facts by that
theory. Perhaps some relatively minor adjustments of secondary aspects of
the theory are required. Or maybe there's just no natural way in which the
new data can be understood within the theory's framework - in which case all
but diehards will decide that a new theoretical framework is needed.

        OK, assume now that somehow - & "how" is not something I want to
debate now - it has been demonstrated scientifically, beyond any reasonable
doubt, that present-day human beings have descended from pre-human ancestors
without any unexplained gaps - physical or mental - in the process. (Some
might claim that that's already been done but again that isn't the point
now.) The exercise is to see how well this could fit in with your
theology - with the way that you understand God, creation, sin, salvation
and other aspects of the faith. Does the evolutionary reality flow
naturally from your theology, does that theology require some modification
in its secondary aspects, or is there just no way to make human evolution
part of your theology without changing it (the theology) totally? A really
serious effort should be made to accomplish the task in some detail. It
need not produce a dissertation but has to be more elaborate than "Evolution
is how God creates" or "The Bible rules out evolution."

        & now the point of the exercise. Only a Christian has honestly
tried to do this - not necessarily succeeded but tried - has any business
criticizing the views of Christians who do accept human evolution.

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

      To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

  --
  David W. Opderbeck
  Associate Professor of Law
  Seton Hall University Law School
  Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 3 17:35:20 2008