Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>
> Dear George,
>
> You use the term that we act "bestial" not to indicate a kinship of man to
> animals or beasts, but as humans knowing a sort of sin nature in man. Such
> inner knowledge must be for the evolutionist some sort of illusion since the
> notion of sin conveys no scientific meaning. But the notion of sin in man
> is all important in understanding who Christ is and what He did on the
> cross. Take away sin, and there is no need of Christ. Of course, one can
> patch up evolutionary theory and take account of sin. I find such patch ups
> unconvincing.
a) Note that I used the term "bestial" in setting out my understanding of the
views of some with whom I don't agree.
b) Of course atonement presupposes sin but the assumption that the Incarnation
took place _only_ because of sin is unwarranted.
c) Evolution and sin are both realities, though of different types. An
adequate theology needs to take account of both, which is something quite different from
"patching up" evolutionary theory.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 14 2000 - 13:52:57 EST