tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-223797477664258632.post5556582742752071392..comments2023-09-11T01:18:18.763-07:00Comments on Natural Right and Biology: Untimely Meditations on DarwinKen Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580209017016829598noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-223797477664258632.post-35188512726777178562013-05-30T10:32:22.888-07:002013-05-30T10:32:22.888-07:00An interesting twist: a review of a book one hasn&...An interesting twist: a review of a book one hasn't read!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-223797477664258632.post-17712375405618630792013-04-28T22:15:13.090-07:002013-04-28T22:15:13.090-07:00I somehow missed this comment until tonight. To s...I somehow missed this comment until tonight. To say that the original sin was inexplicable means that there was no reason for Eve and Adam to transgress. They had everything they needed and had no problems that required a solution. The garden was good without qualification. <br /><br />If the founding family did not sin out of want or out of some innate inclination, then why did they do it? You may say because God granted them freedom, but that only explains how they were able to do it; it does not explain why they used their freedom in that way. They just did. Surely that is the point of the story. <br /><br />When I say that grace is equally inexplicable I mean precisely that "it wasn't earned or deserved". If there was not reason to expect it then there is no way to explain it. <br /><br />As for the subtle serpent, I always thought that he WAS Satan and I think that is the orthodox reading. I have to say that allowing him into the garden, if read as more than a metaphor for the possibility that Adam and Eve would abuse their liberty, makes it look like we were set up to take a fall. Ken Blanchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09580209017016829598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-223797477664258632.post-63409851977473235562013-04-21T17:52:47.244-07:002013-04-21T17:52:47.244-07:00I grew up thinking Satan had possessed the snake t...I grew up thinking Satan had possessed the snake too, but it always troubled me, because I didn't understand why God would curse the snake if the devil made him do it. I felt a bit better when I realized that Satan wasn't there.<br /><br />It's possible, though, that sin was introduced before Adam and Eve got into the garden. Otherwise, what was making the snake sin and if he wasn't sinning, why was he punished?<br /><br />I think I must have missed the teaching that sin was supposed to be inexplicable. That wasn't something I was ever taught. Therefore, the idea that sin might be explained doesn't really like a threat to Christianity to me. Some might even welcome an explanation.<br /><br />Grace was never impressive to me because it was inexplicable. Instead, it was impressive because it wasn't earned or deserved. <br /><br />You use the story of Jean Valjean as an example in another post. I will use it here. In class, you mention that the story of the Bishop who claims that he has given Jean Valjean his silver as a gift is what Christanity is all about. I agree. Miranda Flintnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-223797477664258632.post-54649174725536397432013-04-21T08:21:04.981-07:002013-04-21T08:21:04.981-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-223797477664258632.post-78518285946317147822013-04-15T20:24:45.007-07:002013-04-15T20:24:45.007-07:00Miranda: you might square the circle here by appea...Miranda: you might square the circle here by appeal the story of Satan's fall. As you suggest, it is not clear that that story is Biblical. I know as a boy that I understood the serpent in the garden to be the Devil; however, there is little in the story itself to suggest that. <br /><br />If we were to reconcile the ancient biological roots of sin with the Biblical account in such way as that, it would surely transform the traditional reading of Genesis. According to that reading, man and the world were created without flaws; it was human misbehavior that brought sin and death into the world. I think that that is standard doctrine for both the Western and the Eastern churches. If Satan in fact introduced both before man even got here, then human kind looks like the children of a bad divorce. <br /><br />It seems to me that the basic Christian teaching has always been that sin is inexplicable. There was no reason for the transgression; it was an act of sheer freedom. Likewise it can be mended only by an equally inexplicable grace. <br /><br />One that Darwinian theory certainly does is to make sin entirely explicable. Ken Blanchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09580209017016829598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-223797477664258632.post-85271902316804435302013-04-14T17:31:51.275-07:002013-04-14T17:31:51.275-07:00I'm not sure the idea that sin and death are o...I'm not sure the idea that sin and death are older than man is necessarily a problem for biblical religion. Christian tradition has Satan falling (sinning) before man is created. I'm not sure that idea is supported by the bible itself, but it seems to be widely accepted and if it has caused the kind of tension that exists between Christianity and Darwinism, I haven't noticed it.Miranda Flintnoreply@blogger.com