Re: [asa] Wells and traditional Christianity

Iain,

Sorry -- I misconstrued your comments. I see now that you were saying the
"theology of the cross" perspective on "natural evil" gives a richer picture
of God's character than the YEC "perfect creation cursed" picture. I
agree.

(I also have some atheist friends who bring up the "monster" God, because of
"natural evil" and also because of the so-called "jihad" passages of the
Bible and the doctrines of predestination / providence and hell. I usually
find those discussions very frustrating because they almost never get beyond
the unfair rhetoric. These are indeed hard questions, but it seems you can
never convince a committed skeptic that a more balanced, wholistic
understanding of God's character is possible).

On 9/1/06, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 absurdumargument. 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.
Received on Fri Sep 1 15:52:40 2006