At 02:16 PM 2/11/00 -0600, Russell Maatman wrote:
>> I haven't seen you define 'imageo Dei'. Without a clear definition of
>what
>> it is, rather than who you think has it, subjectivity will reign in its
>> application. Racists will use it as they want with others using it in
>other
>> ways.
>
>Since we began this discussion a few days ago, I have been wondering (I'm
>not surrendering any of my beliefs here!) what would happen if I dropped
>"image of God" in the argument and merely insisted that human beings are
>all the descendants of Adam and Eve, and that there never have been any
>other human beings. For fundamental theological reasons I wanted to use the
>image of God concept, but in this particular argument it has seemed to be a
>stumbling block.
I would have no problem with that. The debate would then shift to how old
humanity is. Each year anthropologists push back the date for some
'characteristically' human behavior or activity. So I would still argue for
an ancient humanity both because of the present evidence and to have an
ability to accept the future evidence which inevitably will come.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 11 2000 - 21:46:44 EST