Re: missing communication: Schroedinger and abortion

But Howard, this is perhaps THE fundamental claim of Old Testament
Judaism and now Christianity. God uniquely reveals Himself in Jewish
salvation history and in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Our
understanding is not just the result of our reflection on "the
sacred". I would suggest that in the Judeo-Christian tradition it's
not even primarily that. God Himself became a man and taught us and
acted to save us. And, yes, he came uniquely in space and time to a
specific people. So fundamentally I reject your notion that
Christianity is a primarily human construct. Of course, there is lots
of humanness in our formulations and articulations (although I will
continue to assert that there is unique divine inspiration to that
which we recognize as scripture--they are Holy Spirit authored in
addition to being humanly authored in ways that other religious is
not--seeing and admitting to their humanness does not necessarily
detract from their divine authorship and authority.

While it is true that mankind gropes around to find God--evidence
itself that "that which is known about God is plain to them, because
God made it plain to them"--the testimony of scripture is that
mankind "exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and
served the creature rather than the Creator". Human religiosity is
completely suspect in the eyes of both the Old and New Testaments.
It's only when God comes down and shows himself, began in the Old
Testament and fully manifested in Jesus Christ, that we know the
truth about God--not because we're so smart and figured it out, but
because he chose to show himself, and somehow, we got included in
that number.

Many, including yourself apparently, are offended by the exclusivity
expressed in this viewpoint. Hopefully, it softens the blow a bit to
hear that the message of the gospel is for all people. There's a
significant non-exclusivity to the Christian faith.

I see the fundamental claims of Christianity to be two--1) God became
a human being in Jesus Christ and 2) His life, death on the cross,
and resurrection on the third day accomplished a reconciliation
between God and man that is received by faith in Jesus Christ.
Especially with respect to #1--either God did that or He did not. The
claims of Christianity and the teaching of scripture are either true
or not on this point. There's no "revering" of the holy texts if we
disregard their most fundamental claim. Yet it is this central claim
that is so exclusive--excluding Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, other
Eastern religious, and, as far as I can tell, most forms of process
theology. If we're going to waffle on the Incarnation and the
Atonement, why don't we be honest and call it something besides
Christianity.

Of course, all of this is just traditional Christianity--which is the
stated basis for the ASA and our science-faith discussions here on
this list--it's not really up for debate. I'm fully aware that this
may not be where you are in your thinking, and I continue to wonder
why you think it productive discussion. You have a whole new set of
theological and philosophical problems that interest you that are
largely created by your rejection of scripture as an authoritative
answer to some of these questions.

The upshot is that in an ASA discussion group such as this it is
desirable to keep the common ground beneath us--"common fidelity to
the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of
science" (as spelled out in the ASA Statement of Faith). While this
doesn't mean that we can't ever revisit and review those foundations,
the reason most of us seek out ASA fellowship (the email list, the
journal, annual meetings) is to discuss our interests and concerns in
light of the common ground.

TG

>I had said:
>
>>> Yes. One Sacred Being, but many portraits -- each incomplete and less than
>>> wholly accurate -- each portrait having been crafted by creatures with
>>> limited knowledge and a particular cultural history. I think the
> >> children's book, Old Turtle, by Douglas Wood, conveys the idea well.
>
>George replied:
>
>> One problem with this imagery is that it pictures God, or "The Sacred," as
>> an essentially passive object of human investigation and reflection.
>
>Point well taken. However, I would describe God not as passive, but rather
>as inclined to be equally experienced by all peoples, irrespective of the
>tribe to which they happen to belong. On what just basis would one tribe be
>favored over all others?
>
>> But if
>> it is God whose actions are primarily responsible for human knowledge of God
>> then it is at least possible that such knowledge, while ultimately intended
>> for the benefit of all people, would be communicated first of all to one
>> part of the human race.
>
>Possible? Yes, I suppose so, depending on the character of God. But are
>there any a priori reasons to expect such unequal treatment by God of the
>various members of the one human race?
>
>
>> Such an idea of election is of course offensive to
>> some people but that has little to do with its plausibility.
>
>Yes, I do find claims that "our tribe" has been specially chosen (elected)
>by God to represent God to the rest of humanity to be highly suspicious at
>best, perhaps the height of hubris on the part of those who present
>themselves as "the elect." Religious exclusivism or triumphalism, whether
>practiced by Christian Fundamentalists, Liberals, Protestants, Catholics,
>Orthodox, or Jews, or Muslims, is, I submit, rightly offensive to other
>religious communities. Has this not been one of the principal causes of
>major human wars? History is full of examples of what kind of behavior is
>encouraged by tribes (past and present) who feel free to declare themselves
>special in the eyes of God -- perhaps even commissioned by God to destroy
>the non-elect.
>
>Howard

-- 
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado  80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu  http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801