tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1481633930458110395.post7186506519957572793..comments2013-02-14T09:44:37.238-08:00Comments on Reflections in Exile: Problems With Creation Science IV: When Death Isn’t DeathBaddelimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00401080005530162767noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1481633930458110395.post-38068683804228938562007-12-19T03:21:00.000-08:002007-12-19T03:21:00.000-08:00Hi Michael,I'm not sure what to make of those feel...Hi Michael,<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what to make of those feelings you highlight. I tend not to see feelings as either reliable indicators of reality nor as wrong. By and large, I prefer to just work with feelings as they are.<BR/><BR/>The feelings could arise from not having enough enough to do with animals-many farmers and the like don't seem quite as sentimental about pets as I am. But it may be like either aspects of life, where one regrets that something comes to an end, even though it's meant to (like a course of study that brought people together). <BR/><BR/>I suspect that I do see far more tragedy in the ending of a species than the ending of an individual, when the species is designed to be mortal. Although this also raises the possibility of <I>species</I> intended to be mortal...Baddelimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00401080005530162767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1481633930458110395.post-71717005683133315262007-12-16T19:01:00.000-08:002007-12-16T19:01:00.000-08:00Thanks, Mark, I've just been pointed to your serie...Thanks, Mark, I've just been pointed to your series, and have found it thoroughly stimulating.<BR/><BR/>I'm curious about your take on our experience of grief at the death of a beloved pet. (I appreciate that some of your readership will have never experienced this, especially in relation to cats.) Our experiential conviction is that there is something inherently <I>wrong</I> at the demise of a furry friend.<BR/><BR/>Is this just because we have foolishly anthropomorphised companion animals? Theologically, you conclusion seems to suggest that we should only mourn the loss of <I>species</I> of animals (say, for example, the extinction of domestic dogs) rather than individual animals (e.g. Fido).St Barnabas Broadway (Barneys)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00377845196063126448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1481633930458110395.post-11851007877848248942007-12-11T14:41:00.000-08:002007-12-11T14:41:00.000-08:00Hi Dannii,Sure, the 'distinction' I was speaking a...Hi Dannii,<BR/><BR/>Sure, the 'distinction' I was speaking about was whether the big category in thinking about immortal life was ensouled life versus nonsouled 'life' or whether it is human versus non-human. <BR/><BR/>I agree that if we just look at souls, there's evidence that that is something animals and humans share. They're both souls (or have souls, depending :) ). But when we bring the other issues in, is the common factor of the soul decisive? I think that's the focus of my argument.<BR/><BR/>Apologies that the other question isn't clear. I'll try and make it better. I remember you arguing that Genesis 1 can only make the theological points it makes if the history it recounts is factual. (Not trying to force words upon you that you don't like there). I take it that you don't think plants are not alive. Doesn't the view that Genesis 1 is predicated on the idea that plants aren't alive undercut your argument a bit? Wouldn't this be something that it recounts that isn't factual for you?<BR/><BR/>Is that any clearer?Baddelimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00401080005530162767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1481633930458110395.post-3212727735469771812007-12-07T06:24:00.000-08:002007-12-07T06:24:00.000-08:00The distinctions about being human are that we're ...The distinctions about being human are that we're made in the image of God and we have a spirit. I'm not sure if there are any distinctions made as far as souls go...<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what you're asking or how it would be a weakening?Danniihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13934835328750335927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1481633930458110395.post-70332457812201070862007-12-07T02:21:00.000-08:002007-12-07T02:21:00.000-08:00Hi DanniiThanks, that's a much better indication o...Hi Dannii<BR/><BR/>Thanks, that's a much better indication of the validity of the category than I gave.<BR/><BR/>I'm not suggesting that the Bible doesn't make a difference between plant and animate life, just that that division doesn't seem to be as significant as the division between human and non-human.<BR/><BR/>My question from what you've said here, is that if Genesis 1 teaches that plant life is an extension of the earth, how does that square with your view that it has to conform with reality we see it to be true (from an earlier comment)? Isn't this at least a little weakening of that principle?Baddelimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00401080005530162767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1481633930458110395.post-64200749936958777592007-12-05T17:40:00.000-08:002007-12-05T17:40:00.000-08:00It's not animal vs plant life, it's souls verses s...It's not animal vs plant life, it's souls verses soulless. In ch 1, God makes many souls, like the birds, sea creatures and land animals. In 2.7, man became a living soul (nephesh). In ch 9 it's the souls that Noah is to take on the ark, and it's with every soul that he makes his covenant. In Lev 17 we find out what defines a soul: blood.<BR/><BR/>As an interesting aside, in Gen 1, God doesn't create the plant life, but rather instructs the earth to sprout vegetation. The soulless plants are an extension of the earth. I wonder if the krill are an extension of the seas?Danniihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13934835328750335927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1481633930458110395.post-25940971356420210752007-11-29T15:24:00.000-08:002007-11-29T15:24:00.000-08:00Hey cynergy,Well no, anyone who knows you knows ho...Hey cynergy,<BR/><BR/>Well no, anyone who knows you knows how well my wife named you :D (although Earthmother does win hands down...)<BR/><BR/>I don't have a problem with anonymity in a very wide range of circumstances. Anonymous blogs, anonymous comments, even anonymous articles, letters to editors and the like.<BR/><BR/>My problem arises when a person is using that anonymity to enable them to get away with things that they wouldn't try if their identity was known - personal attacks, snarkiness, and the like. And the blog in question has got form in these areas, so I'm putting the boundary for them up front. Anyone else wanting some kind of anonymity who doesn't want to use it to avoid consequences from bad behaviour is fine with me.<BR/><BR/>As to there being some kind of link between human sin and animal death, I'll agree that the two often are linked--animals often die because humans sin and bring a widescale judgement down. I'm not sure I'd want to see the sacrificial system as part of that matrix. Not sure why, but it doesn't 'feel' right. But showing that animals sometimes die because humans are being judged doesn't really prove that animals would be immortal except for Adam's sin, to my mind.<BR/><BR/>It might help an argument to that effect as a strand of evidence (like a counter to my strands of evidence in the blog entry), but it'd need a lot more to go with it, I think.<BR/><BR/>And yeah, this has caused a reaction out of all proportion to what I thought would happen. Once again, where angels apparently not only fear to tread, but have put up "Danger, Stay Away" signs in bright colours that I somehow missed...Baddelimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00401080005530162767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1481633930458110395.post-26641206017317778502007-11-28T01:53:00.000-08:002007-11-28T01:53:00.000-08:00Wow, you stop reading a blog for a little while an...Wow, you stop reading a blog for a little while and everyone jumps in! But I can see why, it is a thorough-going interaction with the issues raised by creationists.<BR/><BR/>I agree with your 4 conclusions here but was wondering from a very early stage in the post, or perhaps waiting, for a discussion of the role of the OT sacrificial system. Even at a theologically naive level, like mine, there is a huge link between human sin and animal death... Of course it bears only tangentially on the robust discussion at hand - but it was where I thought you would end up?!<BR/><BR/>I will also say here that it has been interesting reading all of them in succession, having just spent half a day trying to 'deplagiarise' some lecture notes that have been bequeathed to me on plate tectonics and continental drift. I didn't find it difficult to conceive that the 'land' could be flooded entirely at all! It is hard for us scientists to NOT wonder how things in the early chapters of Genesis occurred (although that is not to say that 'artsy' folk don't also wonder!). I find that I constantly have to reboot my mind to think and read Genesis as theologically polemical - as a strong message of ancient counter-culture. My 'doubts' dissipate rapidly when read that way, yet one always wonders if it is nothing but a salve. Looking forward to the last three!<BR/><BR/>PS - your other half gave me my moniker - I am not wilfully being anonymous! :)cynergyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15055787226488235124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1481633930458110395.post-12937497032120053012007-11-27T23:31:00.000-08:002007-11-27T23:31:00.000-08:00To take up Bruce's point: are Adam and Eve 'natura...To take up Bruce's point: are Adam and Eve 'naturally' immortal, or are they immortal because they are sustained by eating from the tree of life?michael jensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15379361601019023165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1481633930458110395.post-72165159235879082772007-11-27T06:00:00.000-08:002007-11-27T06:00:00.000-08:00Mark this is a fine reading of the Scripture on it...Mark this is a fine reading of the Scripture on its own terms, and well-suited to your purpose. But it leaves one (very important) stone unturned: a naturalistic understanding of human death. If you plan to address this in post V, I am happy to wait for it, but let me sketch my concern briefly:<BR/><BR/>I often hear from the pulpit, or in pious Christian talk, reflections on the sheer unnaturalness of [human] death. In a sense one knows what this means: it is contrary to our individual value and --- how shall one put this? --- spiritual nature. It is offensive. And yet ... as animals, we die: we are mortal. This is uncanny, and recognised as such even by quite secular figures, but it is obviously <EM>unnnatural</EM> only in a certain sense. <BR/><BR/>To forestall a criticism: like many naturalistic objections, this needs no strong closed-universe or atheistic framework to proceed. On the contrary, quite weak premisses are enough. I understand it may not be your chief concern, but it is an elephant in the room nonetheless ...Bruce Yabsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10091471695711534450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1481633930458110395.post-4732875768499435952007-11-27T05:05:00.000-08:002007-11-27T05:05:00.000-08:00If death in the biblical sense is refering to huma...If death in the biblical sense is refering to human death, do you see a place for human evolution? When did the chain become 'human' (and therefore when did death become something more than a natural process)?<BR/><BR/>Also Bill Dumbrell has written some interesting stuff (if I am remembering him correctly). He notes that Adam was made outside the garden, and then placed in the garden where there was the antidote to death in the the form of the tree. I think some interesting things follw from this observation:<BR/><BR/>1. Sin existed outside the garden<BR/>2. Adam was formed outside the garden in the realm of death (allowing for evolution)<BR/>3. Inside the garden it's not that death didin't exist, it's just that there was an antidote.<BR/>4. Adam and Eve's punishment was that they were barred from the antidote.<BR/><BR/>Interesting stuff.Martin Kemphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17908454108625787731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1481633930458110395.post-29010845904553553752007-11-27T04:04:00.000-08:002007-11-27T04:04:00.000-08:00Hi MarkNicely put and a good expansion on the poin...Hi Mark<BR/><BR/>Nicely put and a good expansion on the point I raised in my comment to Part II - your exposition makes things clearer than mine. I find it such a weird mental blank in people who claim to be "literalists" and yet they mistake what the Bible <I>says</I> for what they <I>want</I> it to say.<BR/><BR/>I am, perhaps, as guilty, but I don't try to make a multi-million dollar ideological empire out of it like the Creation Scientists have done - Ken Ham, for example, sprang from our home country and now has major influence in the USA, but at the cost of burning bridges here in Australia. He parted with the Australian arm of "Answers in Genesis" on less than Christian terms.<BR/><BR/>A minor sin for a greater cause? Or a sign that the modern edifice of Creation Science is really based on the ego of people like Henry Morris and Ken Ham? They've quite willing sacrificed honesty in exegesis for what sells. The number of well-meaning Christians who have taken up vegetarianism in the mistaken view that it's somehow a result of sin that we eat meat... well you get my drift.<BR/><BR/>All I can say is that good exegesis goes a long way towards reframing this tired debate over "literal Genesis" versus "liberal Genesis" - did Jesus use the genealogical data to make a point? Or did he speak about what the Word was trying to tell people in his day and ours? God's Word in Genesis still applies to us - "what God unites let us not divide" (to paraphrase) - as it applied 2000 years ago, and however many before that.qraalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13436948899560519608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1481633930458110395.post-23443053206292709572007-11-26T22:27:00.000-08:002007-11-26T22:27:00.000-08:00Hi Mark,Enjoying your work. Mercifully this is not...Hi Mark,<BR/><BR/>Enjoying your work. Mercifully this is not a big issue in our current situation, but it certainly deserves more sustained reflection than it is often given.<BR/><BR/>AndrewAndrew Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17718046514716375441noreply@blogger.com