Re: [asa] ASA Newsletter

David -

The asa list is just a venue for discussion of science-religion issues & questions. It isn't the totality of the ASA. That doesn't rule out discussions here of what ASA policy should be or what initiatives it might undertake, but no such discussions in themselves will change policy or bring about action. There are other ways to do those things.

I don't think the question of how people "get saved" is irrelevant to ASA policy or practice. One of the functions of the ASA should be to support the church in its mission. If scientific issues have no bearing on the question of salvation then ASA as an organization has no distinctive contribution to make to the church's work of apologetics or evangelism. If they do then it does.

Shalom,
George

---- David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:
> George,
>
> In response to your post, if you are serious about the ASA being a resource,
> I've been wanting to suggest a FAQ developed by those with expertise
> might be a better way to deal with challenges from atheists and those from
> schools of higher criticisms.
>
> Then ASA members could then focus on discussing how to improve the topics
> on the FAQ.
>
> I wrote this about 3 different ways but then didnt send any of them. The
> list then wandered off into "how people get saved" which is irrelevant to
> what ASA policy should be. It doesnt matter how people get saved - what
> matters is what the ASA does. What answers the ASA has and where the ASA
> puts the answers. How the ASA allows new challenges to get posed. The
> current system of free-for-all is very ineffective.
>
> -Dave
>
> PS,
> So when one is speaking of people coming to Christian faith, is one
> speaking only of western secularists as the audience?
>
> In some respects I have often thought the the list is too broad because it
> is open to non-ASA members and to non-Christians. But in some respects it is
> obviously too narrow. Where are the Muslim and Jewish theologians,
> historians, and scientists? I mean, if we are going to have atheists
> sneaking in and saying that faith should be abandoned, then that applies not
> just to Christianity but to Islam and Jewish beliefs as well. Should not
> those thinkers have a chance to defend their history and theistic beliefs?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 11:17 AM, <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Agreed that general apologetics is not a distinctive ASA task - i.e., one
> > in which it has special competence - & thus shouldn't be our primary focus.
> > But today a lot of the obstacles that keep people from coming to Christian
> > faith have to do with science - some real & some not. & eliminating those
> > obstacles is a task that ASA ought to be able to help with. That doesn't
> > mean that it should be our main emphasis but we should at least be able to
> > be a resource for others engaged in competent apologetics - with stress on
> > "competent."
> >
> > Shalom,
> > George
> >
> > ---- David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ASA members,
> > >
> > > Regarding the issues raised pertaining to Africa, my feeling is those
> > sorts
> > > of matters really are of concern to ASA members only.
> > > Probably many members will disagree with me. Its just that when it comes
> > to
> > > strategies for outreach and mission it seems to me you have to get you
> > > ducks in a row before starting to catch grenades.
> > >
> > > As far as the ASA doing basic apologetics for Christianity in general,
> > I'm
> > > not against the ASA doing that. I'm just surprised the ASA has to do it
> > at
> > > all. It just seems slightly misplaced. (So if I am wrong here, please
> > > tell me so.) Is it not true there are many many other venues that
> > perform
> > > that function? Would it not be more appropriate for someone with
> > questions
> > > or challenges to Christianity itself to go to a more appropriate venue?
> > I
> > > am ambivalent about that. I never had the expectation that it is the ASA
> > > that had the answers in this area. Or the charter to develop those
> > > answers. I suspect the enemies of Christianity do not really want
> > answers.
> > > Are they really trying to understand, or are they are just making
> > trouble
> > > and trying to distract?
> > >
> > > My personal opinion is it is far more important for us to dialog with
> > > Muslims, for example, than it is to dialog with atheists. We have
> > something
> > > in common with Muslims, and Muslims are far more likely to ask a
> > question
> > > that gives them insight into Christianity than is any westernized
> > atheist.
> > > In fact I would suspect the entire population of China and the old
> > Soviet
> > > Union makes for better dialog than do western atheists. The same goes
> > for
> > > non-believing Africa.
> > >
> > > So, if we are going to have to regurgitate CS Lewis's moral argument
> > for
> > > God's existence, and that sort of thing, etc,
> > > ad nauseum, perhaps we should do it in a form that is more likely to be
> > > digested by those who are really trying to understand?
> > >
> > > Dave C (ASA member)
> >
> >

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 7 13:10:51 2009