Guy Blanchet wrote:
>
> Mr. Murphy,
>
> We are both well entrenched in our ideas and not about to budge.
Speak for yourself. I don't feel "entrenched" &c. I was very much
impressed when I read Athanasius' interpretation of the image of God in
humanity years ago & still think that rationality is a significant component of
that - but it isn't the whole story or the primary emphasis of Genesis 1.
> 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.
I mean that humanity is to care for creation according to the command &
example God gives us - which means ultimately according to the pattern we're given
in Christ.
Which sounds like stewardship - & I have no basic problem with the use of
the steward image for the commission humanity is given in Genesis 1 (& 2 as well -
especially v.15). But a steward is not a museum guard whose task is simply to maintain
the ststus quo. A steward of a large estate may be called upon to make major decisions
& significant changes in the way things are done & in the organization of property.
Failure to make changes & take chances may be bad stewardship - the parable of the
talents, Mt.25:14-30, is germane here.
Shalom,
George
>
> 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/
-- George L. Murphy gmurphy@raex.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 04 2000 - 19:53:24 EST