Re: [asa] Wells and traditional Christianity

*An all this because Adam ate a piece of fruit that he shouldn't have.
..Therefore, I have to conclude that either God is a vindictive (and
petualant) monster like a child that trashes the room when it doesn't get
its way, or, that we're not supposed to take it literally.*
**
This way of putting it bothers me greatly, not because of the theodicy
problem, but because it seems to me an absurd reduction of the story of the
Fall, regardless of its literalness, as well as blasphemous. There may be
reasons to suggest the fruit wasn't a "literal" fruit or to wonder how the
whole story relates to modern ideas of history, but if you write off the
whole story because you think it makes God look childish, IMHO, you've drunk
too deeply from the wells of skepticism and scorn. This is the false and
defamatory rhetoric of atheism, not the response of a fair-minded inquirer
into the text.

If you read the whole of scripture and trace the historic Christian (and
Jewish) understanding of God, how can you possibly come away with a God who
is vindictive, petulant and childish? Even if there was a literal Adam and
a literal forbidden fruit, how can you possibly miss that this was no
arbitrary rule about good and bad apples, but rather went to the heart of
the relationship between man and God? How can you miss that the apple isn't
the point, the point is how the created man is to relate to his holy,
sovereign creator-God, a God (the God) who is so far above and beyond man
that there is no reason man had to be created, never mind related to
intimately, by this awesome God?

And, if you read the whole of scripture and trace the historic Christian
(and Jewish) understanding of God, how can you even dare suggest that God is
a spoiled child? How can you even think of comparing him to even the
greatest men in history, much less to the pretty little girl with the pretty
little curls? We shouldn't forget what the Bible says about those who mock
and scoff at God (see Psalm 1, Acts 13, 2 Peter 3, Jude, etc.) and about
those who deny there is a God (they are "fools," in no uncertain terms --
Psalm 14). If you bring an atheist's presuppositions to the table, you'll
end up with the atheist's answers.

On 9/1/06, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9/1/06, Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
> >
> > --- so which, according to Scripture, is our deeper more inherent
> > natural state: our fallenness? (i.e. naturally inclined toward
> > evil) or our goodness? ( ... and it was very good, as stated before
> > the fall) It seems that the position one takes on this question
> > determines much of their posture in the debate. If death and
> > resurrection is to be a theme woven throughout all creation from the
> > beginning as I think George said, then does that imply that death had to
> > be part of the "and it was good" category?
>
>
>
> I guess it does. I'm just working through these ideas myself.
>
> I find the "literal" interpretation to be something that is way too hard
to stomach; namely that everything was perfect and there was no death and
suffering. Then Adam & Eve go and eat a piece of fruit that they were told
not to. As a result God puts the most appalling curse on the whole of
creation, not just Adam and his progeny, and animals start eating each other
and inflicting suffering on each other. I have sympathy with Darwin, who
said:
>
> I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have
designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their
feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars
>
> Those so if we take Genesis as literal history, God would have to zap the
Ichneumondiae wasp that previously found its food elsewhere, so that it now
paralysed its victim and ate their flesh while they were still alive (the
point about paralysing the victim and not killing it is to keep the meat
fresh). An all this because Adam ate a piece of fruit that he shouldn't
have.
>
> Therefore, I have to conclude that either God is a vindictive (and
petualant) monster like a child that trashes the room when it doesn't get
its way, or, that we're not supposed to take it literally.
>
> I would therefore think the right approach is to centre everything about
Christ's death and suffering - this wasn't the ultimate fix for Adam's
disobedience. It was planned right from the start. God knew that Adam
would fall and that He would have to come into the world and redeem us.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > It's interesting that aggressive atheists use Occam's razor in exactly
> > the same way as Vernon did (only in the opposite direction) --
> > recognizing the weakness of needing to invoke "miracle" for each and
> > every gap. They use it to throw out God altogether.
>
>
>
>
> Yes, indeed - this is why I was very surprised at Vernon's invocation of
Occam.
>
>
>
> >
> > Iain, how would the TE concept of God be different than the deist
> > version of God? From the YEC point of view, I can see why they would
> > regard those positions as suspiciously alike.
> >
> > --merv
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> For a TE, God is someone who does intervene, you pray, you get answers,
and miracles happen. Francis Collins gives a very good discussion in his
book of miracles, and why it's feasible for a Christian to believe in
miracles. As I understand it, a deist just proposes a creator who doesn't
care or intervene in nature. I regularly pray for people (who are ill, or
seeking God, or whatever), for example. What God doesn't do (according to
the TE position), is continually meddle in the way nature works ( e.g. to
assist the evolution of a particularly tricky organism). Miracles are God
showing His love for us, not the mundane process of making stuff work.
>
>
> Iain
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Sep 1 13:38:06 2006