Re: [asa] First human

I would rather change Gregory's question, at least as I understand it.

The problem here is not so much biological as theological.
The question of the first human is really a question of when life
becomes in some sense accountable to God. That is, what is the first
living form that is a candidate for Hell and Heaven?

I personally don't see this as a problem for me. I trust that God can
and has worked it out. In fact, as far as I know, perhaps all living
forms are potential candidates for heaven. God simply has not told me
what the destiny of animals and plants after death is.

What I think might be considered a problem is that some might claim that
even God can't work it out. The argument might be that God would have
to act arbitrarily to decide. But this is nothing new. Romans 9 deals
with the very same issue. The very notion of salvation by grace alone
and without merit introduces to our minds the possibility that God acts
arbitrarily. Why one is saved and not another is an ancient puzzle.

So if you think you can solve one of these, you can probably solve the
other.

Let me know what you come up with, and then examine Romans 11:32-36.

bill

On
Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Jon Tandy wrote:

> Let me rephrase Gregory's challenge more explicitly, as a statement. If
> there were no point at which there were "humans" as opposed to "non-humans",
> then we are not humans and thus we are *just* animals. The acknowledgement
> that there *are* humans, when prior to some point there *were not* humans,
> seems to be a reasonable and necessary assertion that we could all agree on.
>
>
>
> The problem for this question in practical terms is defining what is human,
> what *was* human as differentiated from what was previously not human, and
> when did that change occur. Gregory has stated that he is not so concerned
> about *when* or *how* (or probably even *what*), but rather simply *that*.
> I think *that* is the easy question, based on the presumption that we are
> human, and that we somehow know how to define what human is. (But is that a
> reasonable presumption? What is "human" Gregory, in sociological terms,
> since that is what you are more interested in than biological terms?)
>
>
>
> The problem of differentiating one species from another at one "point" in
> time is probably unresolvable. If organisms gradually change over time, at
> what point can you say that it's now a new organism? It seems a matter of
> almost arbitrary definition, and one that can only be done in retrospect and
> with broad categorization, not identifying one specific mutant. One
> classification that is used is the ability to interbreed, but I'm not sure
> that is still a valid (or the only valid) distinguishing factor that
> biologists use to distinguish one species from another.
>
>
>
> Now, I can see it theoretically possible that a "mutant" could arise that
> would be distinguishable from its parent, viable in terms of survival, and
> thus constitute a distinct moment in time for a branching lineage. Whether
> this can be identified for non-human to human, in a purely biological sense,
> I don't know. I don't believe that what makes us human or image-of-God is
> purely biological, but must also constitute non-temporal things (mind,
> spirit, agency, law, accountability, etc.).
>
>
>
> What I see happen in both evolution deniers and evolution supporters (among
> Christians) is an absolutist position on what *must be* or *what must have
> been* biologically. Biologists like Ken Miller defend the gapless
> progression of species (including humankind) with just as much evangelical
> fervor as evolution deniers, in so strongly opposing the "God of the gaps"
> fallacy as if a biological gap would somehow invalidate basic philosophical
> truth. Yet they can never prove that this was the case. My position is
> that there could have been a "gap" or gaps (origin of first life included),
> but I am just hesitant to base my faith or lack of faith on the existence of
> biological gaps, knowing how many details that science has so far been able
> to fill in.
>
>
>
> Jon Tandy
>
>
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Gregory Arago
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 3:53 AM
> To: Schwarzwald; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically
>
>
>
> Hiya Schwarzwald,
>
>
>
> Yes, you are indeed correct in saying (other than it seems you mixed the
> names):
>
>
>
> "I don't think Murray [i.e. Gregory] was asking for a specific *when* A and
> B are distinguished, or even necessarily a *how* A and B are distinguished,
> but simply *that* A and B are, in fact, distinguished. That there was,
> somehow and someway, a 'first man' - and that man is distinct from non-man."
>
> Yes, I was asking, not for a specific *when* or *how*, but rather for a
> *that*. This is precisely an issue of great significance, imho. It would
> surprise me if it was *not* an issue of importance for others too. In other
> words, it is the 'degree or kind' question of old.
>
>
>
> It seems that Murray has agreed with this, i.e. that *there was [*must have
> been*] a 'first man',* which is "distinct from non-man," however, with
> certain (imo reasonable) qualifications.
>
>
>
> - G.
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2009 1:50:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically
>
> Heya Murray,
>
> Just a short comment here. I'm in agreement with quite a lot of your
> perspective (sounds like you've taken in quite some interesting observations
> from aboriginal beliefs/practices!), but I don't think Murray was asking for
> a specific *when* A and B are distinguished, or even necessarily a *how* A
> and B are distinguished, but simply *that* A and B are, in fact,
> distinguished. That there was, somehow and someway, a 'first man' - and that
> man is distinct from non-man. Pretty simple, and I agree with Gregory about
> such a man existing, though I agree with you in turn about what the real
> importance of those passages were. So I guess I'm somewhere in the middle
> (though your take on Paul is also fascinating. You should be writing
> articles, Murray.)
>
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> p.p.s. you wrote: "sin isn't primarily an issue of disobedience but of
> relationship" - this is agreeable. Once you say 'degree' to a human-social
> scientist, however, there is a problem (though admittedly not to all of
> them/us) - it *is* a full-frontal attack on HSS sovereignty (even if you
> didn't know this when you spoke it).
>
>
>
> This is a really curious remark - but I suspect my perplexity is due to the
> brevity of your comment.
>
> There are some things which - without any protestation - are a matter of
> degree - colours on a spectrum, volume of noise, distance from a fixed
> point. And I can't imagine that such facts constitute a "full-frontal attack
> on HSS".
>
> So I can only guess that the issue is that if we can't precisely delineate
> the "human" then all that is generally regarded as "human" collapses into
> the merely "natural" leaving no place for a HSS perspective. Is that about
> it?
>
> Blessings,
> Murray
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the
> boot with the <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/> All-new
> Yahoo! Mail
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 5 16:21:17 2009