Re: [asa] Two questions...Ayala's article

Excellent discussion Preston. Yes, the things you mention are problems for
any kind of "recent representative" view. My response would be that God
didn't give us any details up any such things, so we don't need to know. At
some point we have to acknowledge that there were "humans" before "Adam" who
in many ways were not like us -- Homo Habilus, Homo Erectus, Homo
Heidelbergensis, and so on. If we acknowledge this, the inevitable question
is, what was the moral and spiritual status of these human species dating
back four million years or so, which were so like us and yet so not like
us? We just don't know. But I think God wants to tell us is that we all
are human, both beautiful and corrupt at the root, and corporately and
individually responsible before Him.

Obviously this doesn't in itself require any kind of biological / genetic /
geneological connection with a first pair. Lots of people hold the sort of
view you're proposing. The problem with that view, IMHO, is that it tends
to become Pelagian -- it tends to suggest that "sin" is just a social
problem and that human beings qua human beings are capable of doing better
by themselves. A second problem is that the Biblical story is given to us
in terms of a first couple. So, every view has problems. I doubt any one
view has it all "right."

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

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Preston Garrison <pngarrison@att.net>wrote:

> Preston said: The trouble I see with this is, what of the people, say,
>> 3000 years ago, who were not direct descendents of this supposedly
>> theologically important pair who lived 6000 years ago?
>>
>> I respond: I don't see why they couldn't be. I also don't see why 6000
>> years ago is the magic date (could be farther back).
>>
>> David W. Opderbeck
>> Associate Professor of Law
>> Seton Hall University Law School
>> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>>
>>
> O.k. maybe they could be. But does it really make sense to think that a
> sense of conscience was passed on in a descendancy relationship?
>
> If it was, it has to mean that at some times shortly after the pair lived,
> morally and spiritually responsible people were living among, and in many
> cases closely related to, people who were not directly descended from the
> special pair, and hence were not morally and spiritually responsible. This
> is a 2-tiered society with a vengeance.
>
> Is it o.k. for the Adamic people to enslave the non-Adamic people? After
> all the non-Adamic people, on this view, would just be very advanced
> animals. Could they be kept in zoos and studied the way we study chimps?
> Should they be excluded from being tribal elders? They have no real
> conscience, so shouldn't they be excluded?
>
> These things are an inevitable consequence of thinking that the status of
> being fully human is passed on by descendency, unless there is a bottleneck
> of 2, and everyone around is Adamic. Even the presence of non-Adamic tribes,
> say Neandertals, raises the problem. They are going to encounter each other.
>
> The problem is very similar to what developed in New England when they
> decided that they were obliged to, or even could, figure out who was elect
> and who wasn't. They weren't looking for a descendency relationship
> (although some Calvinists toyed with that idea until the absurdities were
> pointed out to them), but just the idea that there were two kinds of people
> around and that the differences are immutable (you either are elect or you
> aren't - you either are Adamic or you aren't) creates a big problem. If you
> say, "We must not try to guess who is elect/Adamic!" you still secretly
> will. You won't be able to help it.
>
> You may say, they weren't aware of the distinction, so they didn't have to
> make any decisions. This might mean that everyone looked like they had a
> conscience or a spiritual capacity, but only some really did. But wouldn't
> such a profound difference make a difference in behavior that would become
> apparent, if only the propensity for saying, "You shouldn't have done that
> to me! That's wrong!"?
>
> I just don't see how it can make any sense or fit the facts.
>
> A few possible "solutions":
>
> 1. A & E (not S.) were representatives and the result of their garden
> encounter was passed on to everyone else instantly as it happened. Sort of a
> giant communal inverted Vulcan mind wipe.
>
> 2. Everyone alive at a particular time had their own garden experience and
> all sinned.
>
> 3. There really was a bottleneck of 2. It had to happen well over 100,000
> years ago.
>
> I don't find any of these very plausible or scientifically or
> archeologically or historically defensible.
>
> Current ruminations of a complete amateur (if not idiot):
>
> Maybe real moral capacity arrives in individual people at particular times
> through the ages as the Holy Spirit reveals to that person that the world
> contains good gifts and that some particular thing is good and desirable,
> yet forbidden for now, and the person always takes it anyway, and the Adam
> and Eve parts are really two aspects of human nature. And remorse and loss
> and hardship and violence and hope and grace and a long process of suffering
> and believing and failing and learning always follow.
>
> And maybe the question isn't, when did humans acquire the capacity to make
> moral choices and thus get to heaven (anyone who has some spiritual
> awareness AND has just spent thousands of dollars unsuccessfully trying to
> save a couple of puppies from viruses (as some people close to me have),
> KNOWS that all dogs and other creatures that suffer without any choice in
> the matter go to heaven.
>
> Maybe the question is, when does someone acquire enough "knowledge" and
> enough certainty about some version of "the Truth" for it to be possible if
> they go on and on and on focusing on other people's sins, intellectual
> failings, political failings, etc., and not at all on their own, that they
> finally kill the last bit of love in themself, and God has to give up on
> them.
>
> Isn't it curious that it says, "Through ONE MAN sin entered the world,"
> when the story seems to say it was one woman, or one couple?" Maybe the one
> man (or woman) is each of us.
>
> We have met the enemy, and he is me. (And the congregation said, "Amen!)
>
> But I haven't been to seminary, so there's no reason for anyone to take any
> of this seriously. :)
>
> (Can we mail each other a beer? I guess the post office would object.)
>
> Preston
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Feb 28 19:05:36 2009