RE: on Eastern Orthodoxy and science

Hi George, you wrote:
 
My article that will appear in PSCF will deal with these matters in some
detail. I won't time now tossing around childish insults about cowpies.

 
By all means, if we find questions awkward, defer and resort to rancor.
Why not come down a notch from your ivory tower and engage in a little
mud wrestling with the boys? If your collar gets a little dirty, well,
that's why God created Tide.
 
My position is that humanity climbed down from the trees in Africa a few
million years ago. The writer of Genesis, unaware of the origins or
nature of humanity ignored them altogether, and that Adam, who lived
roughly 7,000 years ago in Southern Mesopotamia, was the first of the
Old Covenant and the first of the special bloodline culminating in
Christ who brought the New Covenant.
 
If I'm wrong, tell me where I've erred. If I'm right, why not adapt
your theology accordingly? It's too late for Irenaeus. He can't change
anything.
 
"The sin of Adam (& Eve) meant that humanity failed to develop in the
way God intended ."
 
On the contrary, "humanity" developed exactly as God willed. At the
point humanity (living in a civilized culture) was able to become
accountable and comprehend, God introduced Adam to spread the word. And
he failed. But had he resisted temptation and carried out his mission
no one would be spouting this foolishness today.
 
"Thus this view is more open to the picture of early humans that
evolution gives us."
 
Doesn't relate at all. Adam wasn't an early human. Or if you think he
was, tell us when and where he lived, and tell us why Genesis has its
facts all wrong. If Adam is a mythological invention, why did Paul, who
was taught at the hand of the risen Christ, name Adam by name in Rom.
5:14, 1 Cor. 15:22, 1 Cor. 15:45, and 1Tim. 2:13 and 2:14? That's a lot
of mistakes coming from the hand of an apostle. What else about Paul's
theology needs correcting?
 
So if your right, I'm wrong, Luke was wrong, Paul was wrong, Jude was
wrong, Genesis is wrong. Okay, I'll give you Irenaeus.
 
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org> www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 5:52 PM
To: Dick Fischer; ASA
Subject: Re: on Eastern Orthodoxy and science
 
Dick -
 
 
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net> Fischer
To: ASA <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: on Eastern Orthodoxy and science
 
Hi George, you wrote:
 
Irenaeus understanding of recapitulation is concerned primarily with
humanity. Humans were created in an immature state ("The man was a young

child, not yet having reached a perfect deliberation" and "It was
necessary
for him to reach full-development by growing in this way" - both from On
the
Apostolic Preaching (Crestwood NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary, 1997), 47.)
The
sin of Adam (& Eve) meant that humanity failed to develop in the way God

intended, toward full maturity and union with God. Christ redoes that
history of humanity with God, succeeding where humanity had failed.
 
As Peter and I have both articulated, it is this tendency to mix
humanity and the origins thereof with the biblical account of Adam and
Eve which gets everybody into trouble - including Irenaeus and you
George.
 
No issue such as Original Sin or Imago Dei can be reasoned out
theologically unless the necessary first step is taken to reconcile the
biological origins of mankind in Africa a few million years ago with the
origins of the Jews commencing in Southern Mesopotamia about 7,000 years
ago articulated in Genesis. One is entirely biological, the other is
entirely historical.
 
If the biblical account as to the time and location in present-day Iraq
at the junction of the specified rivers is incorrect, then there is good
reason to believe the entire account is likewise incorrect. A
mythological Garden of Eden occupied by a mythological Adam has about as
much value as Batman in Gotham City. A purely fictional Adam can't sin
any more than Mickey Mouse can sin.
 
Irenaeus and you are playing in the same sandbox, only you have been
exposed to the folly of this obvious mistake but remain blind to it.
There is no learning curve. Irenaeus and Augustine have excuses. Your
theology remains insulated to facts they never knew. If they had the
benefit of the same information you have been exposed to do you think
their theology would have remained the same?
 
The strength of the EO view in connection with evolution is that it does
not
have the exaggerated view of original _righteousness_ that has generally

been held in the western church. I.e., they don't picture Adam & Eve
originally as intellectually brilliant, having amazing physical
abilities,
freedom from sickness &c. Thus this view is more open to the picture of
early humans that evolution gives us. OTOH the Orthodox view of original

sin is correspondingly weak & IMNHO inadequate.
 
No matter how much whipping cream you put on top cow pie won't taste
like key lime pie.
 
Attempts to factor in somehow a "fictional" Adam and Eve with mankind's
sinful nature, or mankind's special relationship to our Creator, or our
hopes of salvation are flawed from the outset because you can't dovetail
fiction into fact. It won't work in theology any more than it would in
a science lab.
 
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
 
Received on Sat Apr 8 11:38:09 2006