Re: [asa] First human

Hi George,

I mentioned a couple of days ago (I think) that sin lacks "positive ontological status" - i.e. doesn't exist as a "thing" in its own right, but is a negation (or absence) of godliness.

In that vein, I was pretty chuffed to came across this nice little quote whilst researching a paper comparing Synoptic and Johannine soteriology last night;

"Righteousness, love, faith: the negation of these is sin"

(Howard, Wilbert Francis. Christianity According to St. John. 1958th ed. London: Duckworth, 1943. p.96)

Taking a definition of this sort I think can allow us to essentially "stretch" the Irenaean notion that humanity was created in "infancy" and by God's grace enabled to grow into the divine likeness.

Given you know your Lutheran theology - how would the idea of sin as negation (or absence) square with that tradition? (my Luther is lamentably weak as a consequence of very few Lutherans in our neck of the woods, I'm afraid).

Blessings,
Murray

George Murphy wrote:
> Sin comes from human beings. You try to make this into a great mystery
> but it is human beings who have other gods beside the true God, with all
> the consequences of that fundamental sin. & as far as we can tell,
> humans have been doing that ever since there were humans who had any
> awareness of any "gods". Of terrestrial creatures only human beings can
> sin but human sin affects the rest of creation &, in varying degrees,
> deflects it from being what God intends it ultimately to be. While
> Christ did not die for other creatures who do not sin in the sense that
> he did for sinful humans, scripture is quite clear that "all things" are
> reconciled to God through the cross - cf.Col.1:20.
>
> As far as "reformulating where sin came from", you can read my take on
> the matter at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF6-06Murphy.pdf .
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Dehler, Bernie <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 05, 2009 5:15 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [asa] First human
>
> George said:
> “If only "humans" (which in a theological sense need not be equated
> 1 - 1 with members of H. sapiens) were really of interest to God
> then there would be some point in trying to decide who's in and
> who's out. But there's no reason to assume that only humans ARE of
> interest to God.”
>
>
>
> Doesn’t it all have to do with Christ and salvation- Christ having
> died for mankind (not all animals)? So when it comes to salvation,
> ONLY humans are concerned. Your pets don’t need to be redeemed, and
> won’t be going to everlasting torment in hell for lack of
> redemption. I’ve never seen or heard of anyone baptizing pets, but
> people do baptize their households, per the Book of Acts.
>
>
>
> That’s why it is important to recognize the “fall” as ancient (and
> wrong) theology, and reformulate the idea of where sin came from, I
> believe, if one is a TE. This is because, given biological
> evolution (human descent from an apelike creature), we know there
> was no ‘first human,’ as others have explained in detail.
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On Behalf Of *George Murphy
> *Sent:* Monday, October 05, 2009 1:51 PM
> *To:* tandyland@earthlink.net; dfsiemensjr
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] First human
>
>
>
> If I may butt in, it seems to me that this whole discussion is
> rather pointless theologically. If only "humans" (which in a
> theological sense need not be equated 1 - 1 with members of H.
> sapiens) were really of interest to God then there would be some
> point in trying to decide who's in and who's out. But there's no
> reason to assume that only humans ARE of interest to God.
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* dfsiemensjr <mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
>
> *To:* tandyland@earthlink.net <mailto:tandyland@earthlink.net>
>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 05, 2009 2:02 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] First human
>
>
>
> Jon,
>
> You note the problem, which springs from the normal assumptions
> of formal logic. Everything is divided into A and non-A. It
> works with some things, but not generally. To take the common
> example, there are clearly some men who are bald and some who
> are not bald, but there is no way to draw a precise line
> bet\ween the two classes because of the fuzzy middle. Similarly,
> t\here are individuals who are clearly members of /Homo sapiens
> sapiens/, and in the past there were members labeled /Homo/ that
> were not, let alone the other genera leading up to /Homo/. But
> to draw a line on what is essentially a continuum is a futile
> demand.
>
> Dave (ASA)
>
>
>
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 10:50:42 -0500 "Jon Tandy"
> <tandyland@earthlink.net <mailto:tandyland@earthlink.net>> writes:
>
> 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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 *All-new Yahoo! Mail *
> <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> $5,000 a Week For Life
> Publishers Clearing House winner annouced on NBC. Enter now.
> <http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/c?cp=v6iDF4ERlLqYjh6bm9LO7QAAJ1C299ic4kQXCDEcUzIPh2aFAAQAAAAFAAAAAArXIzwAAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAkBmQAAAAA=>
>

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 19:56:50 2009