Re: [!! SPAM] RE: [asa] baby-making

From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Date: Tue Feb 17 2009 - 20:01:36 EST
This resonates pretty well with me, including the collateral implications. Seeking to call a spade a spade here, I'm not so sure here but what the real operative tension is between observed fact (to the best of our ability) and comfort (that which brings us comfort in the absence of, or even in spite of the evidence or understanding of an event). We can come to know or discover something that contributes to or explains the physical reality of a stillborn loss, but that offers little comfort to the one experiencing the loss. For that reason alone, there will always be a very human need for explanation that goes beyond the facts but has an explanatory ability to bring some measure of solace to the wounded heart. For those (arguably comprising most of human kind), the raw processes and explanations of evolution alone will remain a very hard sell, no matter how marvelous and elegant and God-created those workings and positive (from our perspective) consequences might appear to others. These sterile factual explanations compete with more comforting exo-factual explanations which more easily and understandably get integrated into ones belief system. In turn, they equally easily get rehearsed essentially as fact (or very plausible explanation) with others in social and faith-related communities. There being little to no basis or even motivation for fact checking in that sort of conversation, it is quite natural for those more comforting explanations to become de rigueur and conventional wisdom.

As a practical matter, a challenge to grace and integrity is for an evolutionist to find a way to be of comfort to one who suffers such a loss. On second thought, having "explanation" taken away from us in such a situation might help us be a closer comforter.

JimA [Friend of ASA]

wjp wrote:
Bernie:

The discussion here appears to be a specific case of what is called the problem of evil.  The child that is born still born, or is born to live but a few hours.  

You attempt to "understand" such events.  You want to be able to explain it.  In one sense the explanation is simple.  The child was malformed in her mother's womb.  Perhaps there was a genetic defect.  This and similar remarks would suffice for science.  Of course, the modern scientist is to have no teleology.  Nothing is to be said of purposes, i.e., nothing is permitted in the explanation that would link the future (intentional, telos, goal) to any present events.  Events are only permitted to be explained by antecedent events.  This is what we mean by causal.

As a Christian, we may be willing to accept these constraints as a professional scientist; however, it is not enough for a living person.  So the question arises as to where God is in the death of the still born.  

The kinds of answers we expect of such a question reflects our prior understanding of how God relates to His creation in general.  Do we believe God hears, or even answers, prayer?  Do we believe that God can and does suspend or overturn what we call physical law?  What is the nature of physical law?  Do we believe that God only interacts with His creation in some general manner, i.e., only in a way that influences the entire creation?  Do we believe that we could even understand any answer that would be given?  Remember, Job knew no more about God's participation in his suffering at the end than he knew at the beginning.  What do you mean by faith?  Is faith a commitment to a class of propositions about God, or is it a behavior or attitude towards God?  Is our faith and trust of God consequent upon certain evidence, or is it independent of any evidence?  If it is founded upon evidence, what evidence, only some evidence or all evidence?  

Science has influenced the kinds of answers we expect.  The problem is accented by a possible tension between epistemology and faith.  I believe there is a necessary tension.  Asking why may not be a matter of faith, but of epistemology.  How do we relate to God: epistemologically, by faith, or both?  

I think I'll just end with those more or less general comments.  But, it seems to me, that unless some of these questions are put on the table and somewhat clear, our response, especially the living response (i.e., it's my still born child) can not be clarified.  Often it is just such events that cause us to question previous presumptions or clarify them.  All is the work of the Holy Spirit.

bill powers
White, SD

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:29:02 -0800, "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
  
What about a baby that is naturally aborted a day after it is conceived
(not born, but conceived)? Is that a beautiful person that God knitted
together?

It is easy to make a claim and then say that all exceptions are
"mysteries."

One can say that God makes everything beautiful, and if there's a problem,
it is a "mystery."  I think it is better to be realistic and say God is not
responsible for biological garbage... and there is tons of it being made on
a daily basis.

I never said who or what is biological garbage.  I never said Hellen
Keller was garbage.  We are all broken in different ways.  No one is
perfect on the outside or inside.  But I don't see any beauty or value in
so many natural abortions- women are not even aware of them because they
happen so early.  Then there are also lots of freaks of nature, such as
two-headed people, those born without a brain, etc.  How can anyone think
that God knitted those together, literally?  Sometimes these conjoined
twins are separated, and one dies.  God's will?

Sometimes there is biological garbage.  But I'm not saying what is or
isn't garbage- it is not black and white (grey zone with black and white
on the edges- just like most others things in life).

I love all the kids in my family (direct and extended); and yes, some have
special needs.  I don't look at special needs kids as "junk."  I agree with
everything you wrote in your last paragraph.  But at the same time, there
is lots of biological junk being made, I think.

I do stand against those who claim that God made us special and
individually, such as Rick Warren in his 40 Days of Purpose book.  How do
you explain that to a parent who lost a child due to birth defects? I
experienced that.  I don't think it was my sin or the kid's sin that
caused the problem, and I don't think God intended to make a baby that
would die shortly after birth.  And yes, me and my wife strove and prayed
for a miracle, as we knew it was going to happen (sudden death after
birth) because of the ultrasound check-ups.

...Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Christine Smith
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:59 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] baby-making (was: Two questions... (bottlenecking))

Bernie,

You wrote:
"I think the obvious answer is that God does not literally "knit us
together" in our mother's womb, because if He did, it meant He was making
retarded and other such (junk) babies.  Yes- junk, because some of it is
not viable and dies in the womb or shortly thereafter."

Quite frankly, I am horrified by this statement. The utility or biological
functionality of a person has nothing to do with determining the value of a
person. There are no babies that are "junk" - all are loved and valued by
God, regardless of how short their life may be or how broken their bodies
are. Indeed, in II Corinthians 12:9, Paul writes "And he said unto me, My
grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.
Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power
of Christ may rest upon me." and in John 9:2-3, it's written "And his
disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his
parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man
sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest
in him."

What may be "junk" to you may be a beautiful person through which God
works. And who knows what they will accomplish, both in this life, and in
the life to come in God's kingdom? Was Helen Keller a junk baby? How about
those who compete in the Special Olympics? Are disabled children not the
"least of these"? Disabled children are as much a gift to us as
non-disabled children, perhaps even more so because they help us see what
is really important in life; they give us a different perspective. They
help us to see that the value of a person is NOT in their utility or their
biological functionality, its in their very being--their being loved by
God, which is root of all human worth.

In Christ,
Christine



"For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians 5:7

Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit www.azrescue.org to find
out how.

Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to power your TV
for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at www.cleanup.org


--- On Tue, 2/17/09, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

    
From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [asa] baby-making (was: Two questions... (bottlenecking))
To:
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 11:22 AM
I think the obvious answer is that God does not literally
"knit us together" in our mother's womb,
because if He did, it meant He was making retarded and other
such (junk) babies.  Yes- junk, because some of it is not
viable and dies in the womb or shortly thereafter.



Instead, God invented the evolutionary process to create
physical beings- which is brilliant because there's no
better way of doing it (other than creation by fiat which
would create an unrealistic world, because no one would be
able to trust their senses if things were made by fiat).



...Bernie



-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
[mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dick
Fischer
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 9:27 PM
To: 'David Clounch'
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] Two questions... (bottlenecking)



Hi David:



Certainly I don't have any good answers.  I think God
cares more for hearts

that are perfect toward Him than He seems to about physical
death and

suffering which is simply part of life.



Dick Fischer, GPA president

Genesis Proclaimed Association

"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"

www.genesisproclaimed.org





-----Original Message-----

From: David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:13 PM

To: Dick Fischer

Cc: ASA

Subject: Re: [asa] Two questions... (bottlenecking)



Dick,



Its a very good question. Does God  allow us to be born
even though He

knows something horrible will affect our lives and make us
miserable.

Its the "problem of pain" all over again.

Did God cause all this pain?  If so, is He still good?
Seems to me

this question is  something we all have to deal with.



If God allows pain is He good. If by allowing it He causes
it, is He

still good?  Terrible questions, aren't they?



-Dave





On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Dick Fischer
<dickfischer@verizon.net>

wrote:

      
I hope he didn't have Down's Syndrome.
        
Dick Fischer, GPA president
        
Genesis Proclaimed Association
        
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and
        
History"

      
www.genesisproclaimed.org
        
-----Original Message-----
        
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
        
[mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On

      
Behalf Of David Clounch
        
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 5:50 AM
        
To: asa@calvin.edu
        
Subject: Re: [asa] Two questions... (bottlenecking)
        
Yesterday a friend was buried. On the card from his
        
service was Psalms

      
139:13-16.
        
verse 16 says,
        
" Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
        
And in Your book were all written
        
The days that were ordained for me,
        
When as yet there was not one of them. " NASV
        
This Psalm   raises an interesting idea. God knew  all
        
the details and

      
design of  the man's life long before he was born.
        
 And ordained

      
(pre-planned) his days and fate.
        
Sounds like design to me.
        
And I cant see where there is any way any series of
        
natural processes

      
can produce any such pre-planned creature or detailed
        
days of his

      
life.  Not without massive tinkering and interference
        
with the flow of

      
natural processes.
        
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.
    


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 Tue Feb 17 20:02:14 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 17 2009 - 20:02:14 EST