Re: [asa] Wells and traditional Christianity

David,

I wasn't accusing God of being like that, nor being blasphemous. I was
simply stating that one wasn't supposed to take it literally. If you do
take it as absolute literal historical truth, then the only logical
conclusion is that God caterpillars got eaten on the insides by wasps simply
because Adam ate a bit of fruit when God told him not to.

The point I was trying to make was that it clearly means so much MORE than
that, as you have demonstrated.

Sorry if the plain talk offended you. But I can think of at least two of my
atheist friends who have described God as a "monster", and they want nothing
to do with Him. This, perhaps, is because of the danger of taking things
too literally. You accuse me of blasphemy. I would contend that it's
blasphemous to treat the story of the Fall as absolutely literal (and indeed
an absurd reduction of it). I was making a reductio ad absurdum argument.
If one is going to take it literally, then one is logically turning God into
a monster.

Iain

On 9/1/06, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *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
> >
>
>
>

-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.