Re: Observer/ Vatican theologians say 'prudent yes' to GM foods

From: Guy Blanchet (guyblanchet@sympatico.ca)
Date: Tue Jan 04 2000 - 06:15:56 EST

  • Next message: Scott Wendorf: "Duped?"

    Mr. Murphy,

    We are both well entrenched in our ideas and not about to budge. Unless some new approach is
    taken up by someone else who cares to jump in I am bailing out of this discussion. But one last
    thing: would you please clearly explain what you have in mind when you speak of man as "God's
    representative on earth"? You used that expression a few times.

    Guy Blanchet

    George Murphy a écrit:

    > Guy Blanchet wrote:
    > >
    > > George Murphy wrote:
    > >
    > > > Guy Blanchet wrote:
    > > > ................
    > > > > God made man steward of His creation, not co-creator.
    > > >
    > > > Without prejudice to the question of GM foods (on which I commented earlier),
    > > > I see no basis for this statement. Gen.1:26-28 does not speak explicitly of
    > > > humanity as "steward" or "co-creator". It does speak of having dominion and being made
    > > > in the "image and likeness" of God. This certainly means being God's representative on
    > > > earth and, since Genesis 1 is all about God as creator, it isn't too much of a stretch
    > > > to say that being in the image & likeness of God has something to do with human creative
    > > > ability.
    > >
    > > The expression "image and likeness of God" has the unfortunate tendency of fluffing up man's
    > > high esteem of himself (the same high esteem which caused Adam and Eve to commit the first
    > > sin). Some have a lot of trouble keeping themselves from thinking that the expression means
    > > we are little gods. It takes an outlook based on all of Scripture to get an accurate idea
    > > of what it implies. The likeness it talks about is firstly observable in man's basic
    > > ability to understand. For example a Bible-broken person can share the same thoughts as God
    > > and find them reasonable, or again, man can observe Nature and discover its God-imposed
    > > laws. Second, in terms of raw logic God would agree that if a>b and b>c then a>c.
    > > Thirdly, God is a free-agent and created us as free-agents. We are endowed with a perfect
    > > free will. I doubt that the expression goes beyond that.
    >
    > Yes, we have to look at the whole of Scripture to understand "image and
    > likeness of God" in Genesis, but we have to start with Gen.1:26-28. & there is nothing
    > there _explicitly_ about understanding or free will. Instead, the statement "Let us
    > create humankind in our image, according to our likeness" is followed immediately by
    > "and let them have dominion ...". The second statement is an explanation of the first.
    > Now we have to have understanding & relative freedom in order to "have dominion" but
    > that is a theological deduction rather than an explicit statement of the text.
    > Our problem has not been the idea that we are to represent God but that we too
    > often have the wrong idea of the God we're to represent, thinking that it is a God of
    > unchecked power and exploitation of the world - hence, e.g., the criticism, to some
    > extent justified, that inyterpretations of this text have been responsible for our
    > environmental problems.
    > "And let them have dominion," _weyiredu_, is related to a Hebrew word radhah,
    > which can mean to subdue or tread upon. 2500 years ago, in a culture in which people
    > were at the mercy of natural forces far more than we are today, and in which humans were
    > often seen (as in Babylon) as menial slaves of the gods, this would have had a
    > liberating effect. Today we have to be careful with the idea. & here is where looking
    > at the whole of Scripture becomes important. The true natural image of God is Christ, &
    > he shows us how God rules the world - with love, compassion, self-giving & ultimately
    > willingness to die for it.
    >
    >
    > > > "Co-creator" may not be the ideal term for that - in some ways Tolkien's
    > > > "sub-creator" might be better. & imaging God's creative activity involves more than
    > > > just being able to do lots of things: Our whole orientation to the world is to be the
    > > > one we see in Christ. But I see no justification for the idea that we're to have a
    > > > hands-off attitude in certain areas like genetics. "The heavens are the LORD's heavens,
    > > > but the earth he has given to human beings" (Ps.115:16).
    > >
    > > I find the word "steward" to reflect God's intent towards man's role. God asked man to
    > > "mind the store" i.e. to manage, acting for the Owner. To say that our managerial role is
    > > to rearrange the creator's design is an exercise in self flattery.
    > > I think this question all boils down to educated Christian common sense. One has to know
    > > the difference between intelligence and wisdom. To illustrate the difference between the
    > > two I offer the following example. An intelligent person may be able to construct a very
    > > powerful weapon to sell to, say, a group of terrorists. However if that same intelligent
    > > person is also wise, he will not construct it! It's absolutely not a question of creative
    > > abilities.
    > > As I mentionned previously, genetic modification is a panic (and also lucrative) answer to
    > > an environmental problem which was not adressed at the proper time. We could have solved
    > > the problem at its source, but we did not. This make us very bad managers. And, as for the
    > > pope, in his acceptance of genetic modification as being theologically acceptable, he is a
    > > bad manager of his flock. I rest my case!
    >
    > You haven't made a case. The use of various genetic technologies in a given
    > situation may or may not be wise. I think we need to be extremely careful, e.g., with
    > any suggestions for human germ line modification. But there is simply no justification
    > for opposition to genetic technologies as such. Theologically they are no more
    > objectionable than other technologies (e.g., selective breeding - cf.Gen.30:25-43.)
    >
    > Shalom,
    > George
    >
    >
    > George L. Murphy
    > gmurphy@raex.com
    > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 04 2000 - 07:17:19 EST