Re: [asa] The Fall (humanity source of suffering)

From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Date: Wed Jun 18 2008 - 15:32:17 EDT

re: "But it seems it isn't."

Yep, and taking that all in, the best I can, it sure looks like it OUR assigned "job" in Creation (at least in part) to moderate the effects of those unpleasant and even destructive natural happenings, and to redeem circumstances and living things from a natural course which would without our intervention cause greater destruction and pain. Wow! Think of that! He seems to have expectations of us!

But seriously, in the big picture, those are the kinds of assets and influences that sentient beings (like us) bring uniquely to a Creation whose trajectories are otherwise pretty much dictated by mindless and conscienceless cause-and-effect processes. They are new ingredients, radically changing some of the chemistry and outcomes! Nature for its part seems to be doing precisely what it was "programed" to do. But in that setting, we get to (have the privilege to) nuance its workings and consequences (both "good" and "bad"), sometimes redirect them, and occasionally bring a measure of redemption in the face of its worst (from our perspective). WE get to bring into being - in time - many of those warning and healing devices mentioned, though usually not as soon as we would like.

That's pretty much the way it works. As long as we are speculating about alternate "Creations", it looks to me that the simple answer to David's question as to why God doesn't provide these benefits unilaterally and inherently is, "It doesn't accomplish His purpose." Just imagine for a moment a world devoid of the naturally-imposed tensions that provide so much of the impetus for creation and action on our part.It might be a sweet and pacific place, but I expect devoid of much of the dynamism that characterizes our existence as is, and challenges and feeds us in the process..

Or so it seemeth to me.....

Jim A [Friend of ASA]

Bethany Sollereder wrote:

David,

You asked why God didn't reveal to humanity the technology needed to give aid earlier.  You also speculate about whether God would have revealed advanced technology to people if they had not been tainted by sin.

Two things:  We should ask not only why God didn't reveal technology earlier, but why he didn't put more warning signs into nature.  He could have devised a system where a loud whistle emits out of an about-to-explode volcano three days early, infallibly, to warn people to clear out.  He could have done many things to reduce the "evil" effects of nature, but he didn't.

Second, speculating about whether a sinless humanity would have been shown how to build technology that saves lives is certainly beyond the scope of the Bible.  Also, the one sinless human being to walk this earth did nothing of the sort.  You don't see Jesus pulling penicillin out of moldy bread, or developing defibrillators, nor even teaching basic anatomy to help with surgeries, or any of the things you could expect.  Certainly one who was not only human, but God himself, would have done those things if that was the way that he worked in the world.  But it seems it isn't.

Bethany

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 9:52 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:

True -- but this begs the question of why aid after natural disasters, and preparation before natural disasters, and lots of other aspects of technology, are relatively modern inventions.  Why is it that God didn't reveal / allow humanity to discover the technology and methods we now employ in this regard until after 10,000 years or so of human civilization and many tens of thousands of years more of human pre-history?  Why is it that God doesn't right now reveal / allow humanity to discovery a vaccine / cure for AIDS, and so on? 

To turn it around -- what would human society and technology be like if the relationships of humans to each other and to God were uninhibited by sin?  What if the worldwide community of scientists and technologists existed in perfect fellowship, if the driver for science and technology policy were love rather than profit and prestige, and if the community had open communication with God?

I think there's no doubt that under such conditions we'd live in a vastly different world because human beings would have been completely free to fulfill the creational mandate to build society, including society's technology, without the limitations of sin.  God's hiddenness includes limitations on social and technological progress.  I think it's possible to acknowledge this without taking a particular view of the genre of the Biblical narrative.

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Bethany Sollereder <bsollereder@gmail.com> wrote:

That doesn't seem very convincing to me, if only because aid after natural disasters is a relatively modern invention, as is medicine that could actually help those people.

Mike, if you have #2, natural evil, you run into all sorts of other problems.  The entire ecological system (food chains and such) would have had to pop up over night.  The same would be true of plate tectonics, air and water circulation and countless other things.  Can you really blame all those on the moral choice of two humans?  And, could the world exist without those things?  The world is dependent on those cycles in order to be able to sustain life.  Is that evil?

Bethany

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

You might have a point there, because even in great natural disasters, many more are killed when aid can't reach them.  Sometimes (many/most times?) the aid is blocked because of politics and crime.

 

…Bernie

--
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 Wed Jun 18 15:32:35 2008