Re: The Nature of Atheist - Christian dialogue

From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 09:45:17 EDT

  • Next message: RFaussette@aol.com: "Re: The Nature of Atheist - Christian dialogue"

    Iain Strachan wrote:
    >
    > > “By the sweat of your face, You will eat bread, Till you return to the
    > ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you
    > shall return.” Gen. 3.19
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > I do not see any mythology in this verse. It seems that it describes
    > perfectly the state of mankind. We have to work to eat and one day we will
    > die. Perhaps this is not a valid statement for those who are on welfare but
    > for the rest of us it is quite accurate. Am I missing something?
    > >
    > >
    > With all due respect, I think you are now taking it out of context. What
    > Jim clearly means by stating that this is mythology can only be appreciated
    > in the context; i.e. that God was announcing His punishment of Adam because
    > of Adam's sin. The logical inference to this surely is that this was not
    > the state of mankind prior to Adam's sin. At least, that's how I understand
    > Jim's point. I don't think, therefore, you have provided a satisfactory
    > answer to it. I'm not pretending I have an answer for it either; maybe I'm
    > deluding myself by not taking the atheist option? I don't believe so, but I
    > have to admit that I don't have an answer for this one.

            I think that this whole thread illustrates very well the disastrous results
    that fundamentalist & concordist approaches to scripture can produce when they encounter
    scientific claims.

            A bit of history may be helpful for those relatively new to the list. A few
    months ago Jim Eisele, then new to the list, was trying to defend the truth of the
    Genesis creation accounts - "truth" meaning the kind of thing fundamentalists &
    concordists want, accurate historical &/or scientific accounts. Apparently concluding
    that that wasn't possible, he now declares himself an atheist & criticizes the Genesis
    accounts because they _aren't_ true in that sense.

            I think that a great deal of what Jim says is wrong but he is being consistent -
    or, as he would probably put it, honest. _If_ Genesis 1-3 has to be accurate history in
    order for it - & Christianity - to be true, then Christianity is false. I don't blame
    him for reaching this dead end (though he can certainly escape from it) as much as those
    who got him to accept the false presuppositions to begin with. It is precisely the
    tragedy that YECs &c are setting people up for when they tell them that they have to
    make a choice between "creation _or_ evolution" - that Christian faith requires that
    they reject evolution, think that the universe is only ~10^4 years old, that death (&
    maybe even the 2d law of thermo!) only started when Eve ate the apple, &c. If people
    then become convinced (as they will if they use their brains) that evolution has
    happened &c then they'll take their teachers at their word & reject Christianity.
    Mt.18:6 is relevant here.

            So are the opening chapters of Genesis "myth"? I don't think that's an ideal
    term for them but won't quibble about words. These chapters are, at the most basic
    level, _theological_ statements about the origins of the world & humanity by a people
    (Israel) who believed that God had created them as a people by freeing their enslaved
    ancestors and bringing them out of Egypt. As Christians we read them (or we should!)
    from the standpoint of people who believe that the God who raised the crucified Jesus is
    the ultimate source of all things. The Genesis texts then tell us some profoundly true
    things about God's relationship with the world and with us, & about the human place in
    the world. In particular, they say that the way we see our biological death, colored by
    our sinful condition, is not God's intention for us.

            Jim may want to say at this point that I haven't "explained" Gen.3:19. I
    haven't tried to do more than hint at how one should proceed in interpreting it. But
    until we can (a) establish a proper starting point for biblical interpretation & (b)
    realize that different types of literature have to be evaluated in different ways, then
    there's little to be gained by debating individual verses.

                                                    Shalom,
                                                    George

             

    George L. Murphy
    gmurphy@raex.com
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 09:47:20 EDT