Proposed Dialogue on your Original Sin PSCF article Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

Hi George,

You said:

> I would be quite happy for there to be a forum for discussion of my
> article. However, I'm something of an internet klutz & don't know how to go
> about setting up such a thing.

The technical internet side of this is easy to solve – anyone running a blog
could set this up. I would certainly be happy to host the exchange on my
blog. If you (or maybe someone in ASA leadership) can find a couple of good
dialogue partners (and I'd suggest at least one of them be a Reformed
theologian), we could be set to go very quickly. But, I think there are
probably better places to host this exchange – maybe even as a launch to a
new ASA blog (hint, hint).

My view on how an exchange like this would work:

Post #1: Moderator – introduction
Post #2: George – quick summary and link to the PSCF paper
Post #3: Dialogue Partner #1 – response to paper
Post #4: Dialogue Partner #2 – response to paper
Post #5: George – response to posts #3 and #4
Post #6: Moderator – conclusion
Notes on mechanics:

   - Lagtime between all posts (except #1 and #2) of maybe one week. This
   allows all readers to digest the material. (I for one am frustrated that
   many good discussions on for eg. this ASA list are over before I get to
   them).
   - Comments turned OFF for posts#1 to #4. Just allow readers to read the
   posts.
   - For 1st 2 days or so of post #5, comments ON for George & the 2
   dialogue partners only. After that, open it up to all other readers (or
   maybe a limited audience?).

I think there are a whole lot of really good PSCF articles that just don't
get a broad discussion – and your article on Original Sin is a case in point
(I think I remember reading about a local ASA chapter having a group
discussion on this once, but that is about it). As well, I'm betting
dollars to donuts that once all the biblioblogs & theology blogs out there
catch wind of this discussion (& there are probably more than a few of us
that would glad to help with the marketing) this exchange will be well
publicized and read.
Would the above work for you? Do you have a better idea on how to structure
it?

*All: *
Anyone else think this is a good idea? Or is this basically a good idea
that needs to be tweaked a bit (or a lot)? Or am I completely off the deep
end?

Thanks,
On 6/9/08, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Steve -
>
> Yeah, using the word "simply" can be sort of lazy. There certainly is
> continuity between creation & salvation, & in fact the way I suggest
> understanding the work of Christ is as reorientation of creation -
> "creation" being understood there as an ongoing process. Pictorially, the
> distinction is between the "taking the wrong road" image which I suggest for
> "the fall," in which case Christ gets us back on - or pointed toward - the
> right road, & that of Christ moving us along the road we were on from the
> beginning. I don't know if the latter is what Karl would say but it is,
> e.g., the type of thing one has in Teilhard. (& so no one thinks
> I'm anti-Teilhard, I quoted him positively in my sermon yesterday, though on
> another matter.)
>
> OTOH I think Collin overstates things when he says that Karl's ideas "sound
> quite Pelagian." Basic Pelagian claims have to do with the status of
> present day humans in relation to God. It is possible to take a strong
> Augustinian position on that - e.g., that all all people are born without
> true fear of God and true faith in God - without ascribing this condition to
> an historical fall from perfaction of the first humans. OTOH, Pelagian or
> semi-Pelagian views are very attractive to many people, & evolution provides
> one way for people with such tendencies to support their views.
>
> I would be quite happy for there to be a forum for discussion of my
> article. However, I'm something of an internet klutz & don't know how to go
> about setting up such a thing.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>
> *To:* George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
> *Cc:* Bethany Sollereder <bsollereder@gmail.com> ; Rich Blinne<rich.blinne@gmail.com>; David
> Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> ; ASA list <asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Monday, June 09, 2008 10:16 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?
>
>
>
> George: Some good points here. On #1 dealing with the historicity of A&E
> as individuals and as "surrogates" are indeed separate issues. And I agree
> on #3 as well – I'll be interested in hearing Karl's response to this (part
> of my question to him that I'll post later today).
>
> On #2 and "salvation becomes simply part of creation": I'm always
> suspicious when I see the word "simply" used in this way (ie. simplifying
> someone else's idea in ways that they may not intend). I think you are
> referring to the fact that creation & redemption are indeed very much
> related & have lots of overlap, but that Karl's position (from your reading)
> neuters the essentials of redemption theology. Is this what you mean?
>
> Re: repeatedly referring to your paper on Original Sin, personally I have
> no problem with that – a very important contribution to the discussion. I
> just wish there was more discussion on it. Any chance you (or someone
> else) can arrange a forum where there can be dialogue on that paper
> specifically? Maybe a PCSF exchange? Or maybe some electronic forum with a
> couple of theological dialogue partners who can critique / exchange ideas?
> I think that would be helpful for those of us not trained in theology.
>
> ...........................
>
>

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