RE: [asa] God's changing ethics (was: ID question? - TE does or doesn't 'limit evolution'?)

From: Dehler, Bernie <>
Date: Thu Oct 29 2009 - 13:51:49 EDT

Gregory to George:
"To me it seems ridiculous to suggest that 'God evolves.' Yet you have suggested that 'God's ethics evolve,' haven't you? "


If 'ethics' has to do with figuring out how to respond to someone wronging us, then here is clear evidence of ethical behavior change from OT vs. NT. One example:


Exodus 21:23-25 (New International Version)
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.


Matthew 5:38-42 (New International Version)
An Eye for an Eye
 38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[a] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Is it evident that God changed his mind? Either that or one (or both) don't really speak for God as they claim.

From: [] On Behalf Of Gregory Arago
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:34 AM
To: Gregory Arago;; asa; Ted Davis
Subject: Re: [asa] ID question? - TE does or doesn't 'limit evolution'?

"I agree that evolution as a totalizing metanarrative should be challenged." - George Murphy

Yes, Amen!
So, how are you challenging totalistic evolution, George?
What are the limits of 'evolution' as a concept, idea, paradigm, framework, Rev. George? Surely there are some.
To me it seems ridiculous to suggest that 'God evolves.' Yet you have suggested that 'God's ethics evolve,' haven't you?
I don't expect you to have an alternative to 'naturalism' (i.e. raising the conversation to ideology), but rather that you might somehow contribute to a dialogue in which 'physicalism' is defeated, 'materialism' is defeated, and in which 'naturalism' is placed in contrast to *higher* (i.e. more complex) fields such as anthropology, economics, psychology, or sociology (i.e. where the most important topics that sway the 'public' about the *reality* or *non-reality* of 'evolution' remain), so that a crude (let's even call it 'vulgar') 'evolutionism' as a totalizing ideology cannot gain a foothold. But it seems that you resist this role, George, for whatever reason, and I don't understand why. But then again, I am not american!
You are against 'evolution' as a totalizing metanarrative. Hurrah!!! Yet it seems you are hesitant to take this view any further because you don't want to be seen as a 'creationist' by Americans. Is this accurate?

Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 29 13:52:24 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 29 2009 - 13:52:24 EDT