Re: ID:philosophy or scientific theory?

From: glenn morton (mortongr@flash.net)
Date: Sat Mar 11 2000 - 15:40:53 EST

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: ID:philosophy or scientific theory?"

    At 08:53 PM 3/11/00 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
    > Of course I am not "rejecting" Genesis 3 as you well know if you have paid
    >aattention to what I've said.

    I have paid attention to what you have said. You obviously think that it
    doesn't have to be historical to be valid. I simply can't see how that can
    be. Its the same discussion we have had innumerable times.
    >
    I wrote:
    >> How can Adam fail if the event describing the failing didn't happen? Since
    >> Genesis 3 didn't happen, I can only conclude that Adam was successful
    >> because nothing happened at all with him, Eve and the snake. I can now see
    >> that theologians have really messed it up about Adam all these years. In
    >> fact they have slandered him. He didn't fail.
    >>
    >> To me, George this view is self-falsifying.
    >
    > Because you are operating in caricature mode. I see no point in
    continuing the discussion on that basis.

    George, I am not trying to operate in caricature mode. YOu said in your
    last post:

    >>>But you seem to be arguing that _logically_ the NT claim that Christ
    atoned for sin requires that sin be understood as having originated
    historically as described in Gen.3, & thus that we can conclude that if
    Christ really atoned for sin then Gen.3 must have really happened that
    way.<<<

    If Genesis 3 didn't happen the way it is written, then clearly what is
    written is absolutely false. It happened in some other way that is not
    written. And if it happened in some other way, then Adam didn't sin at all.
    Someone else did in some other way. Either we allow the Bible to
    communicate about its events and accept or reject them as being either true
    or false or we are forced to believe that what didn't happen really
    happened and what really happened wasn't written about. This is all like
    Alice in Wonderland to me. George, I am not trying to mock you. I simply
    can't see how what didn't happen as was written about, can be real and
    important to the atonement of Christ. If what is written didn't happen,
    then what is written is false. That is simple logic.

    I would rather follow Provine, my former boss, Templeton and Farrell Till
    than believe what is false is really true and what is true is described by
    a false story. I really mean that.

    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 : Sat Mar 11 2000 - 21:33:10 EST