Re: [asa] (ancient theodicy, 'ancient theology') Deism, Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments

Dave,

I can only speak for myself in regards to my EC position. I don't think the
language of "fall" is helpful. It assumes an original righteousness, and
some sort of paradisal state. I prefer to talk about the entrance of sin
into the world and an original innocence, rather than original
righteousness. By this strand of thought, the entrance of sin into the
world was historical and it severed humanity's relationship with God. It
did not, however, affect human health or the cosmic order. Animals kept on
ripping into other animals, and people kept on dying of appendicitis. We
never were immortal. The change wrought was entirely moral.

Bethany

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 9:28 AM, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> I once wrote a posting called "Was Adam Green" to point out that
> organisms ate other organisms for energy - humans did not derive their
> energy due to chloroplasts.
> So biology worked like normal before the fall.
>
> The fall doesn't have to do with physical death of organisms. It has to do
> with man's relationship with God. We don't know what kind of health care
> benefits Adam possessed. We do know he lost them due to his sin.
>
> So I think you are oversimplifying a complex doctrinal situation. And it
> isn't core in spite of the fact that bothy you and AIG may think it is
> core. So what? It is the core principles, such as the virgin birth,
> resurrection, etc., that are important.
>
> So, why wouldn't someone who thinks through this Adam problem keep their
> faith but move to a more leftist position? You have been insinuating they
> will shift all the way to atheism. I don't see that happening. It might
> have happened to you, and it allegedly happened to Shermer, but what was
> it you thought you were believing in in the first place?
>
> I don't think scientism and evolutionism are warranted just because AIG
> makes theological mistakes.
>
>
> However....Bernie does raise one good point...
>
> I said "We don't know what kind of health care benefits Adam possessed. We
> do know he lost them due to his sin." To which someone will say "but Adam
> didnt have health care benefits because nobody was there to provide them
> (ie, nobody was there to tinker)."
> This is another area of the theory of TE that needs explanation. Unless
> the TE position is that Adam would have been immortal in the evolutionary
> scheme of things. 9wow! the search is on for the gene of immortality!) So
> I have to ask what the TE position is with respect to the fall? Is it
> denial of the fall?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:
>
>> David said:
>> “Explain to us how this ancient theology is going to cause millions of
>> Christians to lose their faith?”
>>
>>
>>
>> Because Christians learn a certain popular apologetics, which state that
>> Adam brought sin and death into the world. That is ancient theology and
>> wrong. When they learn that death was in the world long before Adam, they
>> will throw out everything else in Christianity too, because their
>> apologetics teacher told them this was foundational to the faith.
>>
>>
>>
>> …Bernie
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 22, 2009 8:43 AM
>> *To:* Dehler, Bernie
>> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] (ancient theodicy, 'ancient theology') Deism,
>> Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments
>>
>>
>>
>> Explain to us how this ancient theology is going to cause millions of
>> Christians to lose their faith?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Dehler, Bernie <
>> bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> *George Murphy* said:
>>
>> “In any case, theodicy is a fairly hot topic today - note debates not only
>> in connection with evolution but also, e.g., the Indian Ocean tsunami (about
>> which one nitwit Anglican bishop said in effect, "It was just plate
>> tectonics. God had nothing to do with it." Theology at its best!) “
>>
>>
>>
>> If only Jesus would have taught how to deal with things like the tsunami
>> or 911... Wait, I think He did!
>>
>> I think this passage is the same thing:
>>
>>
>>
>> *Luke 13*
>>
>> *Repent or Perish *
>>
>> 1Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the
>> Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2Jesus
>> answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the
>> other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3I tell you, no! But unless
>> you repent, you too will all perish. 4Or those eighteen who died when the
>> tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the
>> others living in Jerusalem? 5I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too
>> will all perish."
>>
>> 6Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his
>> vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. 7So he
>> said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've
>> been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it
>> down! Why should it use up the soil?'
>>
>> 8" 'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll
>> dig around it and fertilize it. 9If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not,
>> then cut it down.' "
>>
>>
>>
>> People then knew about a terrible evil that Pilate had done. Jesus, how
>> do you explain that? Or when the tower fell and killed so many innocents-
>> everyone heard of it- how do you explain that?
>>
>>
>>
>> I think ‘ancient theology’ explains it this way: these tragedies are due
>> to sin.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jesus modifies it with saying those people probably died because of their
>> sin, but wait, you better take note and your use of a ‘second chance’
>> because you really aren’t much better. I think that is Jesus’ answer to
>> theodicy, but theologians don’t like it today.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes- I’m aware of the other passage (John 9:2) when Jesus was asked who
>> was responsible for the man’s blindness, the man or his parents, and Jesus
>> said neither because it was a set-up for Him to do a miracle and prove His
>> powers. I think that was a special case to the general theodicy (ancient
>> theology) answer of sin being the reason behind sickness. I think Jesus’
>> disciples where asking Jesus if the ‘ancient theology’ on theodicy applied
>> to this guy, verse 2 : “His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this
>> man or his parents, that he was born blind?"”
>>
>>
>>
>> …Bernie
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>>
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>> Behalf Of George Murphy
>>
>> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 6:25 PM
>>
>> To: Schwarzwald; asa@calvin.edu
>>
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Deism, Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) I said, "I don't think the issue of theodicy is easily disentangled
>> from questions about science & religion" & I stand by that - if you
>> wish, with the qualification "today." That's not the same as claiming
>> either that all questions of theodicy are due to science or that theodicy
>> has always been as heavily influenced by science as it is today. In any
>> case, theodicy is a fairly hot topic today - note debates not only in
>> connection with evolution but also, e.g., the Indian Ocean tsunami (about
>> which one nitwit Anglican bishop said in effect, "It was just plate
>> tectonics. God had nothing to do with it." Theology at its best!) & when
>> the topic does come up - with or without scientific connections, my approach
>> has something to say & ID-related arguments don't.
>>
>>
>>
>> << other parts deleted to save space.>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Shalom
>>
>> George
>>
>> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm<http://home.roadrunner.com/%7Escitheologyglm>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Aug 24 12:46:48 2009