RE: [asa] (about pithiness) "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

" I, for one, find Paul's writings to be something less than crystal clear on the theoretical level, and when someone simply directs me to a text, and says, "the answer is there", that is not very helpful."

I learned from experience when someone answers like that, it really means they don't want to talk about it anymore, so I drop the conversation with those people at that point.

Murray later said:
" But Bernie's demand that I "precisely and concisely" provide pat answers on complex theological questions so he can offer a critique? Sorry, but that's not a game I have any interest in playing."

The alternative is to make a rambling post, an essay, or a sermon, and I don't have time/interest for it. I appreciate pithy responses, such as the ones that George Murphy and Denis Lamoureux make.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Cameron Wybrow
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 5:18 PM
To: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] (introducing... sin) "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

Murray and others:

While I think that Bernie has sometimes focused on the wrong questions, and
got himself tangled up in the letter of religious teachings rather than
their spirit, I don't think that all his questions are unreasonable, and I
think that some of his very recent posts are getting evasive answers.

Murray, I believe that Bernie is asking you to give YOUR interpretation of
Romans 7. In particular, since it was you, not Bernie, who insisted that
"the right questions" are:

"What is sin?"

"When did humans become morally culpable for it?"

I think it is your responsibility to answer them.

I, for one, find Paul's writings to be something less than crystal clear on
the theoretical level, and when someone simply directs me to a text, and
says, "the answer is there", that is not very helpful. It has always seemed
to me that (if I may employ a slight exaggeration to make a point) there are
almost as many different Pauline theologies as there are readers of Paul. I
think you need to give at least sketchy answers to the two questions above,
questions which, according to you, are the ones that Paul purports to
answer. Bernie needs to know how you interpret Paul, and whether or not you
agree with Paul.

Cameron W.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray Hogg" <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] (introducing... sin) "Evolutionary Creation" book
comments

> Hi Bernie,
>
> Quite right, my previous answer was quite inadequate.
>
> I should have written;
>
> Go and UNDERSTAND Romans 7, not just "read" it.
>
> Apologies for the confusion...
>
> Blessings,
> Murray
>
>
> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>> Murray said:
>> "Again, you're asking the wrong question."
>>
>> You say my question is wrong, then propose others, and don't give an
>> answer to your new questions. Please precisely and concisely provide
>> your answers, so I can critique and offer an alternative.
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Murray Hogg
>> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 3:18 PM
>> To: asa
>> Subject: Re: [asa] (introducing... sin) "Evolutionary Creation" book
>> comments
>>
>> Hi Bernie,
>>
>> Again, you're asking the wrong question.
>>
>> The RIGHT question is NOT "how did sin enter the world" but, rather;
>>
>> 1) What is "sin"?
>>
>> and
>>
>> 2) When did humans become morally culpable for it?
>>
>> If your answer to (1) is "breaking God's law" or anything even remotely
>> resembling it, then you're confusing cause with effect. Time to re-read
>> Romans 7 and start again.
>>
>> Blessings,
>> Murray.
>>
>> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>> Murray - let me ask you this pointedly, and see if you can be precise.
>>>
>>> How exactly did sin enter the world? Please be specific and describe the
>>> actual reality, not in analogy.
>>>
>>> I will also tell you my understanding.
>>> Denis Lamoureux said the inerrant theological truth to the origin of sin
>>> was that it was introduced by humans (I can quote it if you want),
>>> although he won't explain the details. Do you agree? If so, explain
>>> how humans introduced sin into the world.
>>>
>>> I will then explain how we can know that humans did not introduce sin
>>> into the world.
>>>
>>> My counter-point to Lamoureux is that the idea of humans introducing sin
>>> into the world, using his own hermeneutics, should be classified as
>>> "ancient" (and incorrect I might add) theology. (Lamoureux and I both
>>> agree there was no literal Adam or first human.)
>>>
>>> ...Bernie
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>>> Behalf Of Murray Hogg
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:16 PM
>>> To: ASA
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] (dreamtime) "Evolutionary Creation" book comments
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>>> Therefore, to be precise, the Adam of that story was not a real guy,
>>>> because the story is not real. It is merely a parable using well-known
>>>> existing characters. Am I correct?
>>> Actually, to be precise, you are committing a category error.
>>>
>>> The claim "the story is not real" merely begs the question "real in what
>>> sense?"
>>>
>>> To which your answer, as far as I can tell, is "real in the sense modern
>>> history is real"
>>>
>>> My response: It's not modern history, thus your question ("was Adam
>>> real") presumes a category error and allows of no answer.
>>>
>>> There is, simply put, NO WAY to tell from Genesis 1/2 whether Adam was a
>>> "real" person even though, from what we know of pre-modern oral
>>> tradition, it is highly unlikely that such a significant story would be
>>> attached to an entirely fictitious figure.
>>>
>>> Blessings,
>>> Murray
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> 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 Fri Oct 2 11:30:39 2009