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

Hi Bernie;

1) I believe I can see where you're coming from on sin and suffering - but simply ascribing it to an evolutionary ancestry for humans is, in my opinion, no more satisfying than palming it off onto a mythical Adam.

At the end of the day, it's not the temporal, but the ULTIMATE origin of sin and suffering which is at issue and, in my mind at least, we are stuck with three claims which don't seem to fit together very well: a) everything which exists is ultimately to be ascribed to God; b) Evil exists; and c) Evil is not, ultimately, to be ascribed to God.

There are various ways of dealing with this - blaming Adam (or Eve!) - is one such. Denying the existence of evil (i.e. after the Buddhist claim that suffering is an illusion) or positing a secondary "evil" god after the manner of Gnosticism is another. From a Christian perspective some such responses are, of course, ruled out.

But as for the alternate responses, I personally think it's a very hard question: why WOULD God choose to create through evolution when the process is intrinsically competitive and contrary to the command to love one's neighbour?

Again, "I don't know" is, to me, an appropriate response and one I can live with.

2) On "Ancient Theology" - yes, I do sympathise with your position to a degree but only to a degree. I do not, for example, think the story of Adam and Eve is "wrong" any more than I think the story of "the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg" is "wrong." If anything, I personally think the ones who are wrong are those contemporary Christians who maintain that the ancients' primary interest in recounting Genesis was historical. As I tried to explain in a previous thread, using the Australian Aboriginals as an example, ancient cultures don't share contemporary Western outlooks on such matters. A Dreamtime story can be "wrong" in its historical "facts" but "right" in what it actually does seek to convey. Ditto for Genesis.

Blessings for the journey,
Murray

Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> Pastor Murray said:
> " If you ask, "well, from where did sin and suffering arise?" my response is "Don't know.""
>
> Why is it a difficult question?
>
> Animals sin all the time (rape, murder, etc.). They just aren't conscient of it. Humans are, because the conscience gradually arose.
>
> Suffering is a part of life, as soon as life arose that had nerve endings. Where's the mystery, if you accept evolution?
>
> Pastor Murray is the first I've seen to validate my term 'ancient theology.' Once you go down the path trying to find out what is 'ancient' and wrong in theology, and what is correct, you'll enter my world... It isn't pleasant, but it is the destination of truth-seekers...
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Murray Hogg
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 4:50 PM
> To: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] (ancient theodicy, 'ancient theology') Deism, Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments
>
> Hi David,
>
> You wrote;
>> So I have to ask what the TE position is with respect
>> to the fall? Is it denial of the fall?
>
> Speaking only for myself (hence not offering "the" TE position), I believe the implication of evolution is that the fall narrative needs to be interpreted theologically rather than historically (as an aside, I find it curious when people say "I don't think Adam was a historical person" but then proceed to interpret Genesis as though it were narrating historical events).
>
> What this means is having an understanding that "myth" as a genre looks like, but has a quite different function, than does "history." Basically, myth is primarily about explaining the present, not explaining the past.
>
> In a sense I agree with Bernie that it's "ancient theology" - although I'd personally want to nuance that claim a fair bit. For instance, I would want to emphasise that the narrative is not making a historical claim (Adam did X and caused Y) but a theological claim - amongst which: Although God alone is creator and sustainer of the entire universe, he cannot be "held to account" by humans on the basis of events we experience and observe.
>
> What this means is that I take the reality of sin and suffering seriously, but I don't look for some historical personage (Adam OR God) at whose feet I can lay the blame for it all. Along with the author of Genesis I affirm that (1) God created all things; (2) that sin and suffering are realities; and (3) humanity cannot "blame" God for the existence or effects of sin and suffering.
>
> If you ask, "well, from where did sin and suffering arise?" my response is "Don't know."
>
> Personally, I'm happy with that ambiguity as I don't think the appropriate response to sin and suffering is to locate a historical response or a philosophical explanation. The appropriate response is to trust in the essential goodness of the God who reveals himself in Christ. And that, I think, is about the rub of it.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray
>
> David Clounch 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
>
> 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 Aug 25 18:25:07 2009