Re: [asa] TE The Future

From: David Clounch <>
Date: Wed May 20 2009 - 00:51:18 EDT

Thanks for the feedback.
I'll reply to the list so yours gets posted.
Its bedtime so I wont reply in any detail. You have an interesting view.

Observation - good point. I agree.

A Priori Rejection of Supernatural -- interesting -- wow, so much conflict
seems based on that.

Please note my signature says what it does because I grapple with God being
a Spirit. Not a supernatural being. Spirit isn't necessarily non-physical -
who ever said it was? Yet it consistently seems the main objection against
non-sci-mats. I came to the point where I wanted to say God is not
supernatural. But thats not right either. He is more than just
supernatural. He comes to this earth and stills the waters. And there
nothing more non-natural about that than when I swing my hammer to build my
house, or mow my lawn.

 Have you read Lisa Randall's book (you are a physicist, right?).
I think in terms of strings and branes. To make a simple analogy, God is
like the sphere in Flatland. He is like dark matter. He is ELSEWHERE, but
that doesnt mean He is far away or non-physical. I think we are only at the
very beginning of getting any clue as to how it all works.


On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Murray Hogg <>wrote:

> Hi David,
> I don't normally post to individuals - but for some reason my recent posts
> to the ASA list haven't been appearing. Obviously, receiving messages isn't
> a problem or I wouldn't be responding! Anyway, please be aware that this is
> actually an online or public e-mail - so you can respond via the ASA
> list-serve. We just have to wait and see if my other posts make their way
> onto the list.
> That said...
> I imagine TE's hold a range of ideas on the end-times, but speaking only
> for myself, I don't see TE as necessarily implying anything on the matter.
> I know that some will argue that it's inconsistent to appropriate
> scientific theories of the universe's past whilst not also appropriating
> scientific theories of the universe's future - that is to say they will
> claim if one holds to evolution on scientific grounds one should also hold
> to the entire heat death of the universe idea on scientific grounds - but I
> couldn't more strongly disagree.
> I hold to the view that evolutionary theory is grounded in observations
> rather than an a priori rejection of the miraculous - and so it's quite
> consistent to argue that evolution happened "naturally" but that everything
> will be brought to fulfillment supernaturally. One doesn't, in other words,
> have to rule out a cataclysmic divine intervention just because on thinks
> evolution occurred.
> In terms of how science bears upon eschatology, I do think that how we
> conceptualize time and space is a relevant consideration - I don't, in
> particular, think we can meaningfully speak of the the deceased with
> reference to our temporal framework unless we also speak of them in
> reference to our spatial framework - if the deceased aren't locatable with
> respect to (say) New York, then they aren't locatable with respect to
> Eastern Standard Time. I recently did a presentation on this to our
> Australian science/Christianity group ISCAST which was vetted by a number of
> people with quite respectable standing in the physics/mathematical
> communities. Overall, it was rather well received, so I think the claim I'm
> making is reasonably sound - but that aside, the point is that the issue is
> one which strikes me as quite independent of concerns about evolution and
> human origins.
> I'm happy to elaborate, but despite leaning toward some form of TE as the
> correct model of origins, my eschatological views are tentative, but such
> views as I admit to are quite boringly amillenial in shape.
> Blessings,
> Murray
> David Clounch wrote:
>> Dear ASA members.
>> Because I have never been told the answer to such matters I wanted to ask
>> what a Christian theory of TE does to answer concerns about the future. And
>> more.
>> Specifically:
>> 1) When a person dies what are the possibilities. for example, do they
>> live on? Do they wake up next second in a state of physical resurrection,
>> thousands of years having passed? Is there a physical resurrection of
>> individual believers?
>> 2. What is the fate of Jesus Christ after his death?
>> 3. What about the physical return of Jesus to the earth to rule the
>> nations? How does TE blend in such events?
>> 4. What is the fate of the earth as a planet? The universe at large?
>> I suddenly realized I have no idea what Christians who purport to believe
>> in TE have to say about any of these biblical concepts.
>> The conversation focuses so much on origins very little is ever said about
>> the end goal. I would imagine a comprehensive theology that fits TE hand in
>> glove must deal with these somehow.
>> Thanks Ahead,
>> David Clounch
>> --
>> =========================
>> Jesus showed us God can be both transcendant *and* physical. Deistic
>> Christians want to say God cannot be physical because God is 100%
>> supernatural. I don't believe this.

Jesus showed us God can be both transcendant *and*  physical.   Deistic
Christians want to say God cannot be physical because God is 100%
supernatural.  I don't believe this.
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 20 00:52:11 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 20 2009 - 00:52:12 EDT