 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Serious Question | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/22/2004 4:22 AM (GMT -6) |   | Questioner
Everything that you cited happens AFTER the "fall". It's Dr. Boyd's view that after the fall, death and carnivorousness began to take place. But BEFORE the fall, everything was vegetarian. You've read "Satan and the Problem of Evil", right?
Iconoclast
But, if "everything was vegetarian" BEFORE the fall, then how is it that death only occured AFTER the fall? It seems to me that eating a plant kills it.
So, for death to NOT occur AT ALL before the fall means that BEFORE the fall we were really totally spiritual beings eating spiritual plants.
Also, how do plants live without death being present? The nutrients that feed plants come from a process of decay of other organic material.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/22/2004 4:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast:
quote:
But, if "everything was vegetarian" BEFORE the fall, then how is it that death only occured AFTER the fall? It seems to me that eating a plant kills it.
So, for death to NOT occur AT ALL before the fall means that BEFORE the fall we were really totally spiritual beings eating spiritual plants.
Also, how do plants live without death being present? The nutrients that feed plants come from a process of decay of other organic material.
Hey. I'm with you. This is why I would opt for saying the whole thing's mythic. I'm just saying what Dr. Boyd's line of thought was. Remember, I'm more of the mind that death (and entropy) IS a natural process. I'm more of the mind that carnivorousness is a natural God-blessed thing. I'm just saying that Scriptural testimony (and historical theologizing on the same) by and large does NOT hold that view. The view held is that death (physical and spiritual) come ultimately from sin...and that, LIKE PAUL SAYS, death is an enemy of God. Therein, my problem.
Q | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/22/2004 5:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Questioner,
quote:
Hey. I'm with you. This is why I would opt for saying the whole thing's mythic. I'm just saying what Dr. Boyd's line of thought was. Remember, I'm more of the mind that death (and entropy) IS a natural process. I'm more of the mind that carnivorousness is a natural God-blessed thing. I'm just saying that Scriptural testimony (and historical theologizing on the same) by and large does NOT hold that view. The view held is that death (physical and spiritual) come ultimately from sin...and that, LIKE PAUL SAYS, death is an enemy of God. Therein, my problem.
If you are arguing that Christendom is wrong to accept as true the Scriptural testimony about death and the nature of evil, what do you suggest they do? When they assemble, what are they supposed to teach? Who will be the authority?
When Paul told the Corinthians that the Word of God came not OUT OF them, but UNTO them only, he was saying that the Word of God is the basis for determining when prophecies are false and all that. When we abandon the intellectual commitment to the MEANING of the text, our sensibilities will rule?
For example, Paul says that women are to have a sign of authority on their heads for the sake of the angels. ICON doesn't believe in angels, so he can just write off that passage. But Paul ALSO says EVEN nature teaches that it is a shame for men to have long hair, etc. So not only does the scripture go, but also Paul's interpretation of nature. But then Paul's claim that homosexuality is against nature is up for question, too. And if homosexuality is not wrong, then what about fornication?
In another thread, you said the following to ICON:
quote:
A thought. All of this thought only works if you assume that sentient, eternal non-corporeal creatures (ie angels/demons) don't exist. The existence of these creatures that exhibit sufficient epistemic distance to "fall" would be evidence that entropy leading unto death would NOT be necessary.
By the way, WHY do you not believe in angels/demons anyway? THAT would be a great thing to know. Why do angels/demons have to be metaphors. The Walter Wink idea of "powers" is a great idea (and a true one, I believe)...and the parapsychological explanation of certain weird phenomena is a good idea too. BUT, both these ideas can be held alongside a belief in sentient, non-corporeal, free-willed creatures. So why the disbelief in angels, then?
If the Bible is wrong about creation, death, the nature of evil, etc., by what intellectual process would you jump to the conclusion that angels exist? You would need evidence for such a belief. Do you have any?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/22/2004 7:02 AM (GMT -6) | | WJS;
quote:
If you are arguing that Christendom is wrong to accept as true the Scriptural testimony about death and the nature of evil, what do you suggest they do? When they assemble, what are they supposed to teach? Who will be the authority?
I'm not arguing about what "Christendom" should do. I'm talking about ME. These are the avenues I see left to me:
1) Take Scriptural teaching on "death" as true and harmonize it any way I can. (What I think Greg does most consistently)
2) Take Scriptural teaching on "death" as true and not question it at all.
3) Take Scriptural teaching on "death" as the inspired, yet all-too-human perspectives on the world that are inaccurate.
I'm leaning heavily towards 3. Doing 2 would feel like me giving myself an intellectual lobotomy. Doing 1 is not working, as all the harmonizations seem to be obvious "stretches" that are all-too-telling of such.
What would you recommend I do?
_________
WJS:
quote:
If the Bible is wrong about creation, death, the nature of evil, etc., by what intellectual process would you jump to the conclusion that angels exist? You would need evidence for such a belief. Do you have any?
Just because some things may be wrong doesn't mean that everything is wrong. Do we have any reasons, philosophical or otherwise, to RULE OUT the existence of angels/demons? If Jesus did believe in angels (which he very well may have), what reasons do we have to DISBELIEVE that? In my opinion, we have sufficient reasons to call into question the accuracy of 1) a literal Adam and EVe thing and 2) death, deterioration, and carnivorousness coming ultimately from sin. But we DON'T have well laid-out arguments, philosophical or otherwise, against the existence of angels. Just because Wink's idea of "powers" and parapsychological phenomena may be true doesn't negate the possible existence of angels.
Q | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 8/22/2004 7:33 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Questioner
JEE,
quote:
I must say that I find the idea that a predator such as the eagle is a demon-twisted creature, and the idea that all animals originally were created to be plant eaters, to be patently ludicrous.
God himself sanctioned human consumption of animal flesh
Everything that you cited happens AFTER the "fall". It's Dr. Boyd's view that after the fall, death and carnivorousness began to take place. But BEFORE the fall, everything was vegetarian. You've read "Satan and the Problem of Evil", right?
Q
If eating flesh were inherently evil, wouldn't it always have been so? It would seem highly unlikely that God would command those he put in charge of the world to do something unnatural, and against the original design of Creation, like eating meat would be in this case.
I mean, c'mon, this is a basic biological and survival issue--organisms have to prey on other organisms in order to survive, even at the microbial level; it's a basic fact of biological life. The fact that humans may have been strictly vegetation in the beginning doesn't have to mean that eating meat is in and of itself evil or contrary to nature.
I've read S&TPOE, yes.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/22/2004 8:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Questioner,
quote:
I'm not arguing about what "Christendom" should do. I'm talking about ME. These are the avenues I see left to me:
1) Take Scriptural teaching on "death" as true and harmonize it any way I can. (What I think Greg does most consistently)
2) Take Scriptural teaching on "death" as true and not question it at all.
3) Take Scriptural teaching on "death" as the inspired, yet all-too-human perspectives on the world that are inaccurate.
I'm leaning heavily towards 3. Doing 2 would feel like me giving myself an intellectual lobotomy. Doing 1 is not working, as all the harmonizations seem to be obvious "stretches" that are all-too-telling of such.
What would you recommend I do?
I agree that 2) is wrong. But living by faith, as I understand it, compels us to do 1). I wrestled for years on reconciling Genesis with what I believe to be the trustworthy findings of science. In that search, I came to realize that the reason why there are always a handful of holdouts on any reigning paradigm is because there are serious problems with those paradigms.
It seems beyond doubt to me that the earth is much older than a few thousand years old. But there is also good reasons to believe that it may not be anything like billions of years old. Even a few atheists like Richard Milton and Alfred de Grazia came to that conclusion for non-religious reasons. Even those, like Derek Ager, said that the GAP is MUCH greater than the record. As we speak, there are Big-Bangers toying with the idea that radioactivity rates may have varied in the past to help resolve problems with the BB theory. If I remember correctly, John Maddox argued that a revolution in physics will be necessary to ultimately explain what's going on in space.
So how do I deal with 1)? I accept that the earth is OLD, but I don't know HOW old. I accept the fact that science hasn't yet PROVED that the heavens are vastly older than the earth. That being the case, I take a literal Genesis, and accept that most of the fossil record is post-Flood and caused by a continual evolution of the earth (probably earth expansion possibly caused by a change in the constants of physics) that began in Peleg's days and resulted in a continual decline of the life-spans of humans; that at some point the Babel incident occurred dividing the human race into diverse languages and geographical regions; that eventually there was another FALL of angels which ultimately led to God calling out Abraham to deal with the giants again, etc. and to be uniquely blessed as the "brethren" of the promised seed.
I accept that fossil succession must be explained as the combination of factors that are recognized by paleontologists with the added realization that fossil ranges are continually increasing and have been since fossil collecting began. But catastrophism and a possibly shorter time range DOES change how we would interpret fossil succession. It would make more probable the idea that dominance instead of time of origin is the reason why certain fauna show in the record when they do:
"'Some gaps in the fossil record are due to sheer bad luck,' says David Raup. 'For example, we know that insects have been around for at least 300 million years. But during the Cretaceous period (between approximately 135 million and 65 million years ago), their fossil record is all but absent. Conditions for their fossil preservation just happened to be virtually nonexistent for an enormous block of time.'"
My own reconciliation may be wrong, but I still see that 1) is the only way to go.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Bible is wrong about creation, death, the nature of evil, etc., by what intellectual process would you jump to the conclusion that angels exist? You would need evidence for such a belief. Do you have any?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because some things may be wrong doesn't mean that everything is wrong. Do we have any reasons, philosophical or otherwise, to RULE OUT the existence of angels/demons? If Jesus did believe in angels (which he very well may have), what reasons do we have to DISBELIEVE that? In my opinion, we have sufficient reasons to call into question the accuracy of 1) a literal Adam and EVe thing and 2) death, deterioration, and carnivorousness coming ultimately from sin. But we DON'T have well laid-out arguments, philosophical or otherwise, against the existence of angels. Just because Wink's idea of "powers" and parapsychological phenomena may be true doesn't negate the possible existence of angels.
You're right. All things don't have to be wrong. But your reply reveals why my argument stands. You say that Christ MIGHT have believed in angels. So if YOU believe in them, it is not because the scripture SAYS they exist. The inductive method says we shouldn't postulate what there is no evidence for. Why is it rational to believe the bible except for parts that you think can be proved wrong? Once ANY significant part is proved wrong, the rest has to be validated with evidence. Your approach seems to be neither faith nor reason.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/22/2004 8:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconclast:
quote:
I would recommend reading "Metaphors We Live By" and "Philosophy In The Flesh" and then applying these concepts to the scriptures. I have no problem harmonizing the scriptures teaching about death being an enemy of God when it is clear to me that it is speaking metaphorically. When it is using the literal source domain of physical death to point to the target domain of separation from God.
That would be a cool recommendation, but there's one problem. I don't believe that Paul was speaking metaphorically. There's no real evidence to even believe that. I could just pull a Rudolph Bultmann and do what you ask (or make a return to Alexandrianesque exegesis where each text had four types of meanings, including "spiritual") ...but I know that I would just be doing that so that I could say that what Paul was saying was true. It would be nothing more than an attempt at rationalization.
How can you be so sure that Paul meant his stuff metaphorically? There no way you can assert that exegetically.
Or...are you saying that Paul meant his stuff literally...but GOD wants us to look at the deep spiritual truths behind it?
Q
Note. I've read both books already. Been awhile though. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/22/2004 9:23 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
If eating flesh were inherently evil, wouldn't it always have been so? It would seem highly unlikely that God would command those he put in charge of the world to do something unnatural, and against the original design of Creation, like eating meat would be in this case.
I mean, c'mon, this is a basic biological and survival issue--organisms have to prey on other organisms in order to survive, even at the microbial level; it's a basic fact of biological life. The fact that humans may have been strictly vegetation in the beginning doesn't have to mean that eating meat is in and of itself evil or contrary to nature.
Obviously eating animals is not intrinsically wrong. But that doesn't mean that, given the original intent and planned duration of the original earth, that vegetarianism was not the most benevolent way to live. That is what the issue is about to me - benevolence and it's relation to a rational theodicy.
The idea about the plants and the microbial level are not relevant because non-sentient life has nothing to do with suffering and, thus, has nothing to do with a theodicy or the problem of evil.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/22/2004 1:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast:
quote:
And since we know that physical death is not really the death of us - that we go before God after death - why suppose that Paul was speaking literally of this physical death? Why not understand our physical death as more of a transition? Is our physical transition to the spiritual realm the "enemy of God"? Why would it be any more than a fetus' transition from the womb to the world?
Also, why do you not also list the possibility of Paul speaking metaphorically as one of the options for comprehending this seeming contradiction? Why do you write it off so quickly - especially if it fits? Isn't that in itself strong evidence of it being true - that it resolves the contradiction in an effortless manner?
Paul knew very well that physical death was not the end. He mentions this more than a few times. But this goes with his view of physical death being a product of sin and being an enemy of God. We don't have to take Paul's words metaphorically in order to make sense out of them, given the content and context of what he's saying. The ONLY reason we'd have to take his words as being metaphorical about SPIRITUAL (not PHYSICAL) death is to reconcile his teaching with what we "know" about death NOT being 1) ultimately from sin and 2) AGAINST God's creational intention. There's no other reason, textually or CONtextually speaking. How does this not somehow end up being rationalization to keep the Bible "infallible"?
Besides, I don't know of many evangelical scholars who would go to these lengths to say that Paul's claims are "true". They'd be giving up the farm, if they did what you are doing.
Q
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 8/22/2004 5:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Questioner
There has been a lot of posting going on this weekend and I haven't had a chance to read everything, but three things I noticed:
1. Death - No one has mentioned the second death and how it is used in context in Revelations. It could shine some light about understanding the first death.
2. Satan, that old devil, the dragon is in Revelations 20 and how he is bound for a season and the reason he is released for a season then finally thrown into the lake of fire gives some behind the scenes insights, to me anyway.
3. The Holy Spirit is left out of the mix when speaking of the scriptures whether infallible or not. If he is missing as guide and teacher, well, the spirit of man knows the things of man, but the Spirit of God the things of God, ect.
These observations are drawn from many of the posts during the weekend and I apologize for not having the quotes referenced whether from you or one of the replies. If you are still around tomorrow maybe we can talk. If you are a night owl, I'm not, maybe these 3 observations may help in some way.
I also read some of your replies on the spiritual warfare thread to Semia about the reality of Satan's existence or not. In case some of these observations don't make any sense on this thread.
Peace
Ron | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/22/2004 5:52 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm on the sidelines for this one folks. Watching. Thinking. Scrathcing my head. Have some thoughts running around my head. Nothing worth posting just yet.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/23/2004 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | | So, this is where I'm leaning thus far...
1. I am fully persuaded that Jesus Christ is Son of God and the Word of God, who was incarnated, lived, died and rose again.
(Most important to me!)
2. I believe that the collection of writings called the "Bible" are together God's Word for the world.
3. I believe that Spirit of God operates uniquely in the Church insofar as the Church is indeed the Body of Christ, the UNIQUE Son of God.
4. I believe that there are literal non-corporeal, sentient creatures that are good and evil.
5. I believe that there is a primary literal non-corporeal, sentient entity that opposes God. (ie Satan, whatever name you choose)
6. I believe a form of universalism is true.
7. I don't believe there was a literal Adamic couple.
8. I don't believe that death, deterioration, or carnivorousness came ultimately from sin.
9. I don't believe that the "Bible" is inerrant or infallible, meaning I think that the Bible can be inaccurate on scientific, historical, and theological matters.
Now. What am I? A liberal? A flake? An apostate? What?
Q | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 8/23/2004 12:12 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
John,
quote:
If eating flesh were inherently evil, wouldn't it always have been so? It would seem highly unlikely that God would command those he put in charge of the world to do something unnatural, and against the original design of Creation, like eating meat would be in this case.
I mean, c'mon, this is a basic biological and survival issue--organisms have to prey on other organisms in order to survive, even at the microbial level; it's a basic fact of biological life. The fact that humans may have been strictly vegetation in the beginning doesn't have to mean that eating meat is in and of itself evil or contrary to nature.
Obviously eating animals is not intrinsically wrong. But that doesn't mean that, given the original intent and planned duration of the original earth, that vegetarianism was not the most benevolent way to live. That is what the issue is about to me - benevolence and it's relation to a rational theodicy.
It is not clear to me why consumption of animal flesh would necessarily be unbenevolent. As a matter of fact, science has shown us that without a properly balanced food chain, an overall far worse result obtains; i.e., overpopulation of species which are no longer subject to predation (such as wolves used to provide for deer in the U.S.), inevitably leads to far MORE suffering on the part of the herd, in the form of disease, a less healthy genetic pool because unfit animals are more likely to reproduce, and starvation, for an unculled herd is much more likely overgraze an area. It seems to me that if you take carnivorousness out of the equation, the entire ecological system would be ruined.
quote:
The idea about the plants and the microbial level are not relevant because non-sentient life has nothing to do with suffering and, thus, has nothing to do with a theodicy or the problem of evil.
Animals can be put to death without suffering being involved, just like people can. Another important thing to keep in mind is the fact that animals are not moral agents, and God created mankind to dominate and administrate all other life. God killed at least one animal to make clothing of animal skin for Adam & Eve; I'm not comfortable with the implication that God would do something unbenevolent. (I believe even hell is an expression of God's benevolence towards all).
P.S.: "The lion lies down with the lamb," I submit, does not necessarily mean that carnivorousness will eventually cease. A more plausible explanation of the phrase would be that it is a powerfully hyperbolic metaphor to describe the extreme peace that will rule over mankind in the golden age.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/23/2004 1:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Totally agree up through 5. Then…
quote:
6. I believe a form of universalism is true.
7. I don't believe there was a literal Adamic couple.
8. I don't believe that death, deterioration, or carnivorousness came ultimately from sin.
9. I don't believe that the "Bible" is inerrant or infallible, meaning I think that the Bible can be inaccurate on scientific, historical, and theological matters.
Now. What am I? A liberal? A flake? An apostate? What?
If you believe in universalism, then you don’t need to be concerned about what you are (liberal, flake, apostate, whatever), you believe you’re sure to make it in.
I’m not convinced on #6, but I don’t know that I’ve heard the best arguments for universalism. Would love to hear it at its best. I’m most interested in exegetical matters.
I could be convinced of #7 but don’t see the importance. If there was a literal couple, cool. If you assume an evolutionary history, then you still have to posit some point in time at which our race was endowed by God with his image. It’s THAT event that makes us unique.
I’m with ya on #8 for the time being too. But I really think something is escaping us regarding the NT teaching on “death.” I was just thinking the other day about the eternal state, our existence on this renewed earth in quasi-physical/glorified bodies (whatever that will mean). I’m assuming that the earth will be a beautiful, flowering, place. Lion lays down with the lamb. Hmmm. Does that suggest an end to carnivorousness in the animal kingdom? Let’s assume so. What of the lifespan of animals? What of the lifespan of flowers? Assuming flowers and plant life still live on and reproduce, won’t that entail a “death” of sorts (seeds falling and dying, giving new birth—Christ calls this “death”) even AFTER “death” is thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20)? See what I’m getting at? Perhaps we’re missing something in assuming entropy and death, if they aren’t two words for the same thing, at least entail each other. Perhaps that death “as [theological] enemy” which is Paul’s focus doesn't refer merely to the existence of death (viz., THAT it happens at all, i.e., perhaps that was an inevitable part of our being finite) but to something which mere physical death has BECOME because of our sin, to some role or effect death has now in our lives because we are away from God. I guess my mind wonders to Hebrews where the author tells us Jesus came “…so that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their life subject to bondage.” Not even sure where I wanna go with that. I'm all lose ends.
I think this is a deep, perhaps one of the deepest, issues we can settled on, so I intend to put up with the tension of not concluding one way or the other right now. Might turn out to be a looooong study.
As for #9, I'm very interested in knowing how you square this with #1. You're fully persuaded that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Word of God. These are "theological" claims of course. Yet you concede that the Bible can be theologically inaccurate.
I don’t think it's helpful or makes sense to claim that the Bible is “God’s Word to humanity” and yet is theologically inaccurate. Doesn't this just amount to saying the Bible is God’s inaccurate Word to humanity? How you go about deciding what is theologically accurate and what isn’t? And isn’t that just elevating yourself to a place of infallibility, or at least a higher place of authority, over what God's Word to humanity really is? Seems so.
Heck, I can live with scientific and historical inaccuracies where the accuracy of such isn’t strictly required by the theological point being made. For example, the intended meaning we are to gather from Jesus’ words, “If any one believes in me that person has passed from death to life,” requires at least as much historical accuracy as will support the claim that Jesus was a real person who lived in history and who uttered these words (or their equivalent in his mother language). If this much is off historically, then he didn’t live and didn't utter these words; consequently this invitation to eternal life is vacuous (except in your case, where even if it's historically accurate, Jesus might still be theologically mistaken). On the other hand, if Luke was in fact off by a year or two regarding the census of Quirinius, then no real damage is done I don’t think. So I'm very interested in what it means to believe the Bible is sometimes theologically fallible and inaccurate but that you're fully persuaded about the theological claim of Jesus' being God.
If you believe the Bible is inaccurate theologically, then why the concern over this issue at all, Q? Moreover, if your “God’s Word to humanity” is theologically off and YOU'RE the one deciding (and you are) where it’s off and where it’s on, how does this not simply make the Bible “YOUR Word to humanity”? How can you establish whether or not Jesus' claims about himself as life-giver, Savior, or anything else you seem fully pursuaded of and which are necessary to your Christian hope are true? Is it just on the basis of the life-changing power of having encountered him and his message personally? Personally I think this is why we have faith in the Scripture (and not the other way around). So if such a life-changing person tells you "I love you and you're saved" you believe him based on your experience of him, but if he tells you something about Adam and Eve you DON'T believe him based on your experience of him. But if your experience of him grounds your confidence, what grounds your doubt?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/23/2004 3:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
quote:
I could be convinced of #7 but don’t see the importance. If there was a literal couple, cool. If you assume an evolutionary history, then you still have to posit some point in time at which our race was endowed by God with his image. It’s THAT event that makes us unique.
The importance, I think, would be in whether or not Paul (and those who took after Paul theologically, ie the author of Timothy) believed in a LITERAL Adam and Eve. It gets back to the Scripture issue.
-----------
Tom:
quote:
I’m with ya on #8 for the time being too. But I really think something is escaping us regarding the NT teaching on “death.” I was just thinking the other day about the eternal state, our existence on this renewed earth in quasi-physical/glorified bodies (whatever that will mean). I’m assuming that the earth will be a beautiful, flowering, place. Lion lays down with the lamb. Hmmm. Does that suggest an end to carnivorousness in the animal kingdom? Let’s assume so. What of the lifespan of animals? What of the lifespan of flowers? Assuming flowers and plant life still live on and reproduce, won’t that entail a “death” of sorts (seeds falling and dying, giving new birth—Christ calls this “death”) even AFTER “death” is thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20)? See what I’m getting at? Perhaps we’re missing something in assuming entropy and death, if they aren’t two words for the same thing, at least entail each other. Perhaps that death “as [theological] enemy” which is Paul’s focus doesn't refer merely to the existence of death (viz., THAT it happens at all, i.e., perhaps that was an inevitable part of our being finite) but to something which mere physical death has BECOME because of our sin, to some role or effect death has now in our lives because we are away from God. I guess my mind wonders to Hebrews where the author tells us Jesus came “…so that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their life subject to bondage.” Not even sure where I wanna go with that. I'm all lose ends.
I'm assuming that you are not a preterist, right? What I'm hinting at is that we'd better watch out how we interpret and use the Revelation, with respect to this issue.
---------------------
Tom:
quote:
I think this is a deep, perhaps one of the deepest, issues we can settled on, so I intend to put up with the tension of not concluding one way or the other right now. Might turn out to be a looooong study.
You are very right. It's way deep.
----------------------
Tom:
quote:
As for #9, I'm very interested in knowing how you square this with #1. You're fully persuaded that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Word of God. These are "theological" claims of course. Yet you concede that the Bible can be theologically inaccurate.
I don’t think it's helpful or makes sense to claim that the Bible is “God’s Word to humanity” and yet is theologically inaccurate. Doesn't this just amount to saying the Bible is God’s inaccurate Word to humanity? How you go about deciding what is theologically accurate and what isn’t? And isn’t that just elevating yourself to a place of infallibility, or at least a higher place of authority, over what God's Word to humanity really is? Seems so.
Is there a problem with God's Word to humanity being theologically inaccurate BECAUSE it is a thoroughly HUMAN work?? Surely, you realize that there are diverse views of God in the writings compiled in the Bible. Ideological agendas and all that. What is so wrong with saying that some of those are VERY human in scope...and may not accurately represent things? None of this says anything against God inspiring this or using it. For example, scholars like Terrance Fretheim (you know, the guy that wrote "The Suffering of God") will say that in books like Joshua, there is OBVIOUS ideological skewing going on. Basically that the authors are in some ways putting words in God's mouth to sanction (or justify? [past tense]) their own yearning for land. But he still considered the Old Testament INCLUDING Joshua to be the Word of God. So what's the issue?
----------------------
Tom:
quote:
I don’t think it's helpful or makes sense to claim that the Bible is “God’s Word to humanity” and yet is theologically inaccurate. Doesn't this just amount to saying the Bible is God’s inaccurate Word to humanity? How you go about deciding what is theologically accurate and what isn’t? And isn’t that just elevating yourself to a place of infallibility, or at least a higher place of authority, over what God's Word to humanity really is? Seems so.
I'll deal with the "higher place of authority" That's more believable! I don't see how saying that God's Word to humanity may have things that are theologically inaccurate means I'm placing myself OVER the text. If I were not submitting to the Bible in some real way, in matters of my faith and life, I wouldn't be having this conversation, now would I? Why would I bother?
------------------------
Tom:
quote:
Heck, I can live with scientific and historical inaccuracies where the accuracy of such isn’t strictly required by the theological point being made. For example, the intended meaning we are to gather from Jesus’ words, “If any one believes in me that person has passed from death to life,” requires at least as much historical accuracy as will support the claim that Jesus was a real person who lived in history and who uttered these words (or their equivalent in his mother language). If this much is off historically, then he didn’t live and didn't utter these words; consequently this invitation to eternal life is vacuous (except in your case, where even if it's historically accurate, Jesus might still be theologically mistaken). On the other hand, if Luke was in fact off by a year or two regarding the census of Quirinius, then no real damage is done I don’t think. So I'm very interested in what it means to believe the Bible is sometimes theologically fallible and inaccurate but that you're fully persuaded about the theological claim of Jesus' being God.
Tom, what are the theological ramifications of saying that...
1) There was no Adam and Eve
2) Death is NOT an enemy and did NOT come from Adam's sin
...given what Paul CLEARLY asserts in Romans and 1 Corinthians!
If you haven't guessed it yet, THERE's the issue. There are some people who say that there MUST be an Adamic couple...BECAUSE Paul believed in that, based certain claims on that, and he COULDN'T be in error on something like that. I'm not buying that anymore. I'm just willing to say that Paul believed what any 1st century Pharisee-turned-follower-of Christ in his time and place would have believed. But that he was wrong about it.
If Paul can be in error on the two things I've said above, then I don't see how the conclusion can be avoided that Scripture can be wrong in things that are DIRECTLY affirmed as being true.
------------------
Tom:
quote:
Personally I think this is why we have faith in the Scripture (and not the other way around).
What does it mean to you to have faith in Scripture? That'd be a good thing to know.
Q
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/23/2004 3:26 PM (GMT -6) | | | Why is there such an evangelical terror about saying that some things in the Bible may be wrong? Rather than rationalization, allegorizoring, or some other taffy-pulling, Plastic-Man stretching harmonizing exercises...just look at the Bible as a HUMAN book...that is inspired by God and testifies to Christ. A true example of divine/human synergy. What's the big deal, ultimately? | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 8/23/2004 3:50 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
1. I am fully persuaded that Jesus Christ is Son of God and the Word of God, who was incarnated, lived, died and rose again.
(Most important to me!)
2. I believe that the collection of writings called the "Bible" are together God's Word for the world.
3. I believe that Spirit of God operates uniquely in the Church insofar as the Church is indeed the Body of Christ, the UNIQUE Son of God.
4. I believe that there are literal non-corporeal, sentient creatures that are good and evil.
5. I believe that there is a primary literal non-corporeal, sentient entity that opposes God. (ie Satan, whatever name you choose)
6. I believe a form of universalism is true.
7. I don't believe there was a literal Adamic couple.
8. I don't believe that death, deterioration, or carnivorousness came ultimately from sin.
9. I don't believe that the "Bible" is inerrant or infallible, meaning I think that the Bible can be inaccurate on scientific, historical, and theological matters.
Now. What am I? A liberal? A flake? An apostate? What?
Ron
1 thru 5 and 8 I agree with you but I would qualify number 2 statement by distinguishing the written word as the letter needing the quickening of the Spirit inwardly for life and the Word of God as God's living Word which you can't close and put away when you are finished reading. My Quaker leanings.
6. I don't believe in universalism in any form due to man's evident ability to resist the grace of God and some men loving this world (present world order apart from the kingdom of God) more than truth and serving the evil one for earthly gain.
7. I do believe Adam and Eve were God's creation at the same time I think it is possible there were other beings on the planet in other areas. So I do think the old earth theory is correct and that interpreting Genesis 1 until Adam is time relative to the observer who gave the revelation. This is in "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder sp? The biblical time clock started with Adam. I don't rely on this speculation for salvation because I didn't receive it from revelation, just study, but rely on God's faithful promise in covenant to save.
8. I think death existed prior to Adam's sin and it gained access to Adam and Eve through Adam's disobedience. So I guess I am agreeing with the way 8 was stated.
9. I would qualify the holy scriptures as truth and the necessity of the Holy Spirit's guidance, illumination, and revelation. The translations can be corrupted or skewed to a perspective. Since I now embrace narrative theology so building a doctrine on individual word definitions no longer interest me. I trust the Holy Spirit to reveal the historical and theological truths the church should glean from the scripture stories. Of course I understand my reliance on the Holy Spirit could be interpreted by others as my own rule but since experience and the scriptures confirm this to me I will take that hit.
Now, what are you? My brother in Christ because of our allegiance to the Lord Jesus. Through this covenant allegiance our Father is faithful to save.
Peace
Ron | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/23/2004 5:13 PM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
Obviously eating animals is not intrinsically wrong. But that doesn't mean that, given the original intent and planned duration of the original earth, that vegetarianism was not the most benevolent way to live. That is what the issue is about to me - benevolence and it's relation to a rational theodicy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not clear to me why consumption of animal flesh would necessarily be unbenevolent. As a matter of fact, science has shown us that without a properly balanced food chain, an overall far worse result obtains; i.e., overpopulation of species which are no longer subject to predation (such as wolves used to provide for deer in the U.S.), inevitably leads to far MORE suffering on the part of the herd, in the form of disease, a less healthy genetic pool because unfit animals are more likely to reproduce, and starvation, for an unculled herd is much more likely overgraze an area. It seems to me that if you take carnivorousness out of the equation, the entire ecological system would be ruined.
Your argument ignores my original qualification. God said that man and the animals were to FILL UP THE EARTH. We don't know what would have happened at that point. We don't know how the original reproductive rates might have been designed to work harmoniously towards a symmetric filling. Maybe reproduction would have stopped once the earth was fully populated. If so, your argument about current population equilibrium is probably beside the point.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea about the plants and the microbial level are not relevant because non-sentient life has nothing to do with suffering and, thus, has nothing to do with a theodicy or the problem of evil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animals can be put to death without suffering being involved, just like people can. Another important thing to keep in mind is the fact that animals are not moral agents, and God created mankind to dominate and administrate all other life. God killed at least one animal to make clothing of animal skin for Adam & Eve; I'm not comfortable with the implication that God would do something unbenevolent. (I believe even hell is an expression of God's benevolence towards all).
Let me word it this way: The degree of "goodness" in the original earth was diminished when God cursed the ground and made the woman suffer more in child birth, etc. The subsequent death of humans and animals was just another facet of that diminishing. God's justice was NOT diminished (for those consequences were fitting, as is the lake of fire as you say) - but the degree of goodness DID diminish.
quote:
P.S.: "The lion lies down with the lamb," I submit, does not necessarily mean that carnivorousness will eventually cease. A more plausible explanation of the phrase would be that it is a powerfully hyperbolic metaphor to describe the extreme peace that will rule over mankind in the golden age.
It does not NECESSARILY mean it, but the most perspicuous reading of the text would be that carnivorousness will eventually cease at least in the His holy mount for a millenium (in my opinion). Of course, if one assumes that the implications of vegetarianism in Genesis are allegorical, then I would agree that the other passages probably are, also. But Genesis 1-11 doesn't seem to be allegorical to me. If it is, I know of no hermeneutic that can make good sense out of it. Why else is there so many non-literal interpretations of it. That's not the way metaphorical language is supposed to work. Even metaphorical language should lead to a common interpretation for all reasonable minds.
I know it's very difficult to reconcile a literal Genesis with science, but if it can't be done, I give up on trying to do apologetics for Christianity. I agree with Greg that the problem of evil IS a big problem. The literal Genesis solves it (when combined with the OV) in a very rational way to me. Indeed, I know of no other way to solve it.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 8/23/2004 6:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
Obviously eating animals is not intrinsically wrong. But that doesn't mean that, given the original intent and planned duration of the original earth, that vegetarianism was not the most benevolent way to live. That is what the issue is about to me - benevolence and it's relation to a rational theodicy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John:
It is not clear to me why consumption of animal flesh would necessarily be unbenevolent.
Jeff:
Your argument ignores my original qualification. God said that man and the animals were to FILL UP THE EARTH. We don't know what would have happened at that point. We don't know how the original reproductive rates might have been designed to work harmoniously towards a symmetric filling. Maybe reproduction would have stopped once the earth was fully populated. If so, your argument about current population equilibrium is probably beside the point.
John:
Apart from the fact that the world can reasonably be said to be filled up with animal life currently (at least the livable parts), after the Fall (with predation, death, disease, starvation, etc., all in play) it does not seem reasonable to me to jump to the conclusion that the biological/ecological cycle of life has so radically changed as you seem to think. It's an argument from silence that what is now the normal life-cycle of the animal kingdom, did not exist prior to the Fall.
I think the difference is that I don't see a clear logical distinction between "most benevolent" and "benevolent." For God, "most benevolent" would be an empty category, as for an all-powerful Being to be less than "most benevolent" would in fact make him not benevolent at all. (Doing the most good possible for all). That I think is the real point of departure between us on this issue.
It is not clear to me how God could sanction that which is not benevolent, nor how he could set the ecological system up to be anything less than most benevolent and still remain benevolent himself. Further, I find the idea that God had to change the reproductive cycle and the eating habits of all the animals to accomodate the Fall illogical and without clear scriptural warrant. Such a radical change in ecology would surely have been listed among such relatively trivial matters as thorns, hard work, and snakes eating dust. Seems to me, anyway.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea about the plants and the microbial level are not relevant because non-sentient life has nothing to do with suffering and, thus, has nothing to do with a theodicy or the problem of evil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animals can be put to death without suffering being involved, just like people can. Another important thing to keep in mind is the fact that animals are not moral agents, and God created mankind to dominate and administrate all other life. God killed at least one animal to make clothing of animal skin for Adam & Eve; I'm not comfortable with the implication that God would do something unbenevolent. (I believe even hell is an expression of God's benevolence towards all).
Jeff:
Let me word it this way: The degree of "goodness" in the original earth was diminished when God cursed the ground and made the woman suffer more in child birth, etc. The subsequent death of humans and animals was just another facet of that diminishing. God's justice was NOT diminished (for those consequences were fitting, as is the lake of fire as you say) - but the degree of goodness DID diminish.
quote:
P.S.: "The lion lies down with the lamb," I submit, does not necessarily mean that carnivorousness will eventually cease. A more plausible explanation of the phrase would be that it is a powerfully hyperbolic metaphor to describe the extreme peace that will rule over mankind in the golden age.
Jeff:
It does not NECESSARILY mean it, but the most perspicuous reading of the text would be that carnivorousness will eventually cease at least in the His holy mount for a millenium (in my opinion). Of course, if one assumes that the implications of vegetarianism in Genesis are allegorical, then I would agree that the other passages probably are, also. But Genesis 1-11 doesn't seem to be allegorical to me. If it is, I know of no hermeneutic that can make good sense out of it. Why else is there so many non-literal interpretations of it. That's not the way metaphorical language is supposed to work. Even metaphorical language should lead to a common interpretation for all reasonable minds.
John:
It seems to me that "reasonable minds" among sincere Christians have some very different ideas about truth, Scripture, etc., especially the Genesis account.
Personally, I tend toward the idea that the stories found in the first few chapters of Genesis were never meant to function as a science textbook, but rather that the narrative is a religious epic meant to communicate TRUTH, not necessarily scientifically verifiable facts per se. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the narrative through Gen. 11 is ahistorical, however.
quote:
I know it's very difficult to reconcile a literal Genesis with science, but if it can't be done, I give up on trying to do apologetics for Christianity. I agree with Greg that the problem of evil IS a big problem. The literal Genesis solves it (when combined with the OV) in a very rational way to me. Indeed, I know of no other way to solve it.
Because the more I've studied Genesis and science the less I've realized I truly know, I don't invest as much personally into whether or not it's scientifically verifiable.
I'm interested, though, do you agree with Greg about the Gap theory? While I think it helps answer some questions, it creates a whole bunch of other questions, both scripturally and scientifically.
Enjoying the discussion, Jeff.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/23/2004 6:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Q: I'm assuming that you are not a preterist, right?
Tom: Not necessarily.
Q: What I'm hinting at is that we'd better watch out how we interpret and use the Revelation, with respect to this issue.
Tom: Sure, let’s be careful, but I’m not sure what a preterist vs non-preterist interpretation of Revelation has to do with the nature of creation in the eternal state (the issue I raised regarding entropy and death).
Q: Is there a problem with God's Word to humanity being theologically inaccurate BECAUSE it is a thoroughly HUMAN work?
Tom: There’s no problem with “God’s Word” being thoroughly human. It has to be if it was written by humans to humans. But if it’s “God’s” Word (in a way no other book is God’s Word), then it’s not “merely” human (which may be what you mean by “thoroughly” human), it also has to be thoroughly divine. So I don’t have a problem attributing “theological inaccuracies” to “merely” human works. It’s attributing such inaccuracies to a work (the Bible) which we want to claim is also “mutually thoroughly human and divine,” and divine in a way no other book is divine.
Q: Surely, you realize that there are diverse views of God in the writings compiled in the Bible.
Tom: I realize and teach it.
Q: What is so wrong with saying that some of those are VERY human in scope
Tom: Again, I don’t see how we can avoid admitting that ALL of them are VERY human in scope. But if we’re going to call the Bible (in its diverse theologies) “God’s” unique Word, then we don’t stop at conceding its theologies are human; we also concede that its theologies are divine which whatever else it might mean would at least mean God is involved as thoroughly as are humans in its message. And if it’s ultimately and uniquely God-breathed then his involvement in it is different than his involvement in the sort of inspiration that prompts our posts on this board, or Brother Lawrence’s writing, or Charles Wesley’s hymns, or Calvin’s writings, etc.
Q: ...and may not accurately represent things? None of this says anything against God inspiring this or using it.
Tom: Well, now that’s the issue isn’t it? A historically, scientificially, and now theologically inaccurate book is God’s unique message to us? Assuming God doesn’t lie or knowingly miscommunicate, how do you go about separating accurate from inaccurate on the theological level?
Q: For example, scholars like Terrance Fretheim (you know, the guy that wrote "The Suffering of God") will say that in books like Joshua, there is OBVIOUS ideological skewing going on. Basically that the authors are in some ways putting words in God's mouth to sanction (or justify? [past tense]) their own yearning for land. But he still considered the Old Testament INCLUDING Joshua to be the Word of God. So what's the issue?
Tom: Yeah, I’m familiar with the book. I’d like to hear Fretheim express this. But if yours is an accurate representation of his views, then I’d be interested in knowing from Fretheim what he means when he says the skewed, theologically inaccurate parts are God’s Word. Maybe I don’t know what you mean by “theological.” I don’t see anything deeper than that. So if THAT’S inaccurate and false, who decides what IS theologically TRUE and on what basis?
Q: I don't see how saying that God's Word to humanity may have things that are theologically inaccurate means I'm placing myself OVER the text.
Tom: If the text of Scripture is God’s Word, and if you conclude that its flat out inaccurate and wrong at its deepest (theological) level, that is, its message, then how is that NOT placing yourself over the text at that point? What would it mean to place one’s self over the text if not to declare, “This text is fundamentally and theologically in error here and the truth of the matter is ______”?
Q: If I were not submitting to the Bible in some real way, in matters of my faith and life, I wouldn't be having this conversation, now would I? Why would I bother?
Tom: Which is why I inquired into your querry? I’m confused. If and where the text is theologically erroneous you obviously don’t submit your faith to Scripture in embracing the theology of the text at THAT point, do you? In a partly theologically true and partly theologically false text, I don’t see how you’re not submitted to the true part and not submitted to the false parts. I’m just wondering who decides (how and on what grounds) which parts are true and which are false? I really don’t wanna come off as accusatory or fundamentalist at all Q. I’m just interested in how you work this out.
Q: Tom, what are the theological ramifications of saying that...
1) There was no Adam and Eve
2) Death is NOT an enemy and did NOT come from Adam's sin
...given what Paul CLEARLY asserts in Romans and 1 Corinthians!
If you haven't guessed it yet, THERE's the issue.
Tom: Yes, I guessed that was the issue. What I was suggesting was that when we find ourselves having to choose between affirming or denying the truth of some fundamental theological claim of a biblical author (which is where “God’s Word to humanity” is found) and some other apparently incompatible view (in this case the question of human origins and the origin of death itself), perhaps we haven’t yet gathered all the evidence. Perhaps our definitions (of death, of death “as enemy,” of the eternal state) aren’t as complete as we think. Perhaps we mistook the biblical author. And if we don’t have all the pieces of the puzzle, no wonder we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of having to prefer the truth of science or evolution over that of the theological claims of Scripture. Not sure I’m expressing myself well. I’m not assuming evolution is wrong. I’m just not assuming that its incompatible with the truth of the Bible’s theological truth claims. If I were to conclude evolution was true, I wouldn’t assume this had to mean the Bible is “theologically” in error.
Q: There are some people who say that there MUST be an Adamic couple...BECAUSE Paul believed in that, based certain claims on that, and he COULDN'T be in error on something like that. I'm not buying that anymore. I'm just willing to say that Paul believed what any 1st century Pharisee-turned-follower-of Christ in his time and place would have believed. But that he was wrong about it. If Paul can be in error on the two things I've said above, then I don't see how the conclusion can be avoided that Scripture can be wrong in things that are DIRECTLY affirmed as being true.
Tom: I follow your logic, Q. I was interested in how you deal with what is further implied in this regarding your claim that the Bible is “God’s Word.” If it can be in error not only in non-essential historical and scientific matters, but in its fundamental theological messages to humanity, how do you know its not theologically mistaken regarding salvation, the resurrection, and other theological matters that impact life and faith?
And, as I said, if one is uncomfortable with attributing error to the Bible at this level, then perhaps, given the tenuous nature of the evidence due to our incomplete knowledge of human origins and the intentions of biblical authors like Paul, we might want to postpone final conclusions and give it some time.
Q: What does it mean to you to have faith in Scripture? That'd be a good thing to know.
Tom: I thought I had asked you that. But I’m still wondering what your answer is. I think to have faith in Scripture is to trust its message, to believe that its a true and authoritative guide or rule on matters of faith and life. I’m not sure how it is that if I also believe its message can be and is sometimes wrong. I'd have to at least not trust the message on those issues on which I believed the Bible to be wrong. My question is, if you admit error at this level, on what grounds do you determine whether a theological truth-claim of the Bible is to be trusted or not?
Q: Why is there such an evangelical terror about saying that some things in the Bible may be wrong? Rather than rationalization, allegorizoring, or some other taffy-pulling, Plastic-Man stretching harmonizing exercises...just look at the Bible as a HUMAN book...that is inspired by God and testifies to Christ. A true example of divine/human synergy. What's the big deal, ultimately?
Tom: Not sure about evangelicals, but as for myself, there’s no “terror” about “some” things in the Bible being wrong. Some level of inaccuracy is perfectly understandable given the human part of the synergy you describe. But some level of accuracy is also understandable and to be expected given the divine part of the same synergy. So, if its a true example of divine/human synergy, then why call it a HUMAN book only? Why not call it a divine/human book and then allow THAT faith commitment as one piece of evidence we admit in solving the kinds of issues you've brought up?
So the sword you wield here cuts both ways. One can just as easily wonder why you are so terror-stricken about all the theological claims of the Bible being true. Why are you so afraid to square THAT with other scientific truth claims you’re so sure about given the uniqueness of Scripture as a divine-human synergy, a divine/human book?
Peace Q! Didn’t want to derail the discussion. Was hesitant to jump in anyhow.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| 129 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:24 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|