RE: [asa] Adios, ASA List

From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
Date: Thu Mar 19 2009 - 14:59:35 EDT

Hi Bill:

 

As one particular re-interpreter I can give you my perspective and then
dodge brickbats as they come, although I don't consider where I have come to
a resolution would be thought of as a radical move away from any of the
major tenets of our faith. In fact, my faith is stronger and deeper than
ever before because I have put my beliefs in conclusions drawn from data and
evidence. I find contentment in that.

 

Although all mankind appears to have a sin nature, accountability begins
with Adam who was "created in God's image" and yet disobeyed. So Original
Sin comes from Adam's disobedience. That was the first sin as he was first
capable of it. He was selected to represent God on earth and that is what I
believe it means to be in the "image" of God just as Christ was in the image
in the NT. Thus the "fall" was Adam's failure to live up to what God had
intended for him and the stage was set for Christ. One could argue whether
all mankind is in his image, I think not, but I know those who think so.
And I respect them.

 

The order of creation in the fossil record follows the Genesis record with
the following exceptions, the KJV uses "fowls" three times in Genesis 1
where in the first instance "flying creatures," an acceptable translation,
could refer to insects; and the sun, moon and stars God created on Day One
were appointed or commissioned on Day Four as timekeepers for the sighted
creatures who come along on Day Five and Six. Further, the animals God
created prior to man (or Adam) in Genesis 1 Adam named in Genesis 2. There
is no good reason to think God was popping animals out of the ground at the
time Adam was naming them.

 

The progression of life appears to move along quite satisfactorily under
God's governance without his taking special action or intervention along
life's long journey. Thus natural evolution does seem to work best.
Otherwise if God intervened to cause speciation or novel features in
specific life forms we would be left to wonder what he was doing when all
the genetic imperfections crept in. Don't credit God with the bacteria's
flagellum and don't blame him for Down's Syndrome.

 

The heart of the problem as I see it is that we don't use the same terms of
expression or patterns of speech that the Hebrew prophets used when they
wrote the various books. We read English translations that contain errors
and are slanted toward preconceived biases. In short, I see nothing
egregious in the Hebrew, but I do in the translations.

 

Dick Fischer, GPA president

Genesis Proclaimed Association

"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"

www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of wjp
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:42 AM
To: Don Winterstein
Cc: gregoryarago@yahoo.ca; asa; David Opderbeck
Subject: Re: [asa] Adios, ASA List
Importance: Low

 

I would agree that there is a tension created by modern science that tends

to encourage a reassessment of Scripture and Christian doctrine, and that

there are a number of ways in which to respond, including reassessing

the derivatives of science.

 

I am on this list primarily because I am interested in observing how those

who have made some of these "reinterpretations" deal with, in some cases,

radical alterations to Christian doctrine (e.g., original sin, the Fall,
order of

creation, image of God, special divine action).

 

Otherwise, I am pretty much relic of the ancient past, which doesn't bother

me since I am that way in almost every other aspect of my life, including

farming (which is one of the reasons I retired from a lucrative career).

 

bill powers

now farming in White, SD

 

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:21:37 -0800, "Don Winterstein"
<dfwinterstein@msn.com> wrote:

> I don't read everything on this list, but I read enough--including a lot

> that David O. has written--to conclude that he's overreacted. I've seen

> very little in response to his posts that would justify his

> characterization: "...anger, arrogance, and self-indulgence of the flame

> wars that characterize this space." I may have missed important

> instances. But he departed immediately after one of my responses, and my

> response was not of that kind.

>

> As I see it, everyone on this list writes as an individual, not as a

> representative of a particular point of view that's trying to overwhelm or

> shut down all other points of view. A few contributors--e.g., Vernon

> Jenkins and Janice Matchett--have been discouraged, but the discouraging I

> think had more to do with their tactics than their ideas. Apart from them

> there have been strong disagreements among participants but no real

> attempt to exclude anyone. I doubt anyone wanted to exclude David O. In

> fact, I think everyone respected him and his views. But there's a

> difference between respecting and agreeing.

>

> People with a background in science pretty much uniformly recognize that

> some Christian teachings of the past, including many still strongly held

> by conservative Christian groups, require at a minimum some

> reinterpretation in view of scientific discoveries. Most participants

> here have that much in common. What we do not have in common is agreement

> on the degree to which teachings need to be reinterpreted. But once you

> recognize a need to reinterpret, it's hard to draw a line on where to

> stop.

>

> People who minimize the need for reinterpretation are obviously going to

> come into conflict with those who think a lot of reinterpretation is

> necessary. They may indeed constitute a minority of the list's

> participants and feel they don't belong. Perhaps they don't.

>

> I myself am a minority of one, and I could easily conclude that I don't

> belong here either. Some years back Richard Faussette fingered himself,

> Vernon and me as the real oddballs on this list. But I enjoy the list and

> find the interaction valuable. I'm confident enough of my beliefs to put

> up with any amount of "abuse" that's likely to come my way.

>

> Scientists often speak bluntly, but bluntness does not in itself

> constitute personal attack. It's a way of clearing the air and coming to

> the point. Ad hominems and insults are never appropriate, but I see

> relatively little of that happening here. Participants need to

> distinguish between expressions of disagreement, valid criticisms and ad

> hominems. That's at least partly what Dick Fischer must have meant when

> he said, "If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen." Nobody's

> perfect, and sometimes criticisms miss the mark. Then you can defend

> yourself. But excessive politeness can be a barrier to communication.

>

> People who are confident of their views should be able to take criticism

> and tolerate disagreements. Whether they want to or not is a separate

> matter.

>

> Don

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Gregory Arago<mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>

> To: ASA<mailto:asa@calvin.edu> ; David

> Opderbeck<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>

> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 10:25 AM

> Subject: Re: [asa] Adios, ASA List

>

>

> David O. wrote:

> "the ASA, particularly as characterized by this list, is hobbled

> by some kind of myopia."

>

> What kind of myopia, if any, could ASA *possibly* be hobbled by?

>

> It might be an excellent exercise in self-reflection for someone

> out there (e.g. an ASA regular or insighful on-looker) to grapple with

> what David might mean in saying this, instead of simply dismissing it and

> carrying on discussion in a form of 'collective' myopia, if such a thing

> might indeed exist.

>

> Now don't get all defensive (and offended) out there folks and

> roll your eyes at his suggestion! Why not take it seriously, since David

> has been contributing to this list for a couple of years faithfully, has

> demonstrated exceptional spiritual perception to all of us, and knows some

> of the features of ASA-list discourse rather well? I share his frustration

> with being belittled and occasionally ridiculed (most recently by Allen

> Harvey in this very thread!), etc.

>

> ~~

> Thanks for all of your inspiring, critical, discerning, sometimes

> conservative, constantly even-handed (even when I made a crack about your

> use of the term 'evangelical' to describe ASA's orientation not long ago),

> attempts, David, to engage natural science discourse with your legal

> studies knowledge and the tradition in which it participates...and for

> many other things related to Christianity! You have been a role model of

> forum communication for me and I am sad that your words won't be gracing

> my screen so regularly.

>

> Fare thee well, David!

>

> Gregory

>

> p.s. the bolding below is not David's, but mine; the thought is

> his and it is a shared one...

>

>

> --- On Mon, 3/16/09, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>

> Subject: [asa] Adios, ASA List

> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>

> Cc: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>, "Randy Isaac"

> <Randy@asa3.org>, Walter_Bradley@baylor.edu

> Received: Monday, March 16, 2009, 3:56 PM

>

>

> The recent discussion on this list about embryonic stem cell

> research has finally pushed me over the edge. I'm tired of being

> belittled, ridiculed, subjected to ad hominems, etc. every time I express

> an opinion that bears even a whiff of a "conservative" or "traditional"

> approach to a Christian worldview. I'm exhausted of having to defend the

> position that the Bible really does communicate truth about human history

> and the human condition in some meaningful sense. I'm sick of the culture

> of suspicion and scoffing that runs through our discourse. I need to
break

> from the anger, arrogance, and self-indulgence of the flame wars that

> characterize this space.

>

> In the past, I've defended the ASA and this email list against

> attacks by various ID folks and others. I still don't think that all of

> the criticisms that have been levied against the ASA by those folks are

> fair. However, I think they are right that the ASA, particularly as

> characterized by this list, is hobbled by some kind of myopia. Yes, I

> know this list isn't representative of the ASA in an absolute sense, but

> it's an ASA-sponsored public discussion space, which is often a travesty.

> I've wasted too much time on it, and it's become spiritually not only

> unproductive, but a liability. Via con Dios.

>

> David W. Opderbeck

> Associate Professor of Law

> Seton Hall University Law School

> Director, Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

>

>

>

>

>

>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
>
>   Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark
> your favourite sites. Download it now! <http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com/>
 
 
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Mar 19 15:00:05 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 19 2009 - 15:00:05 EDT