Re: The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind & you

From: Vernon Jenkins (vernon.jenkins@virgin.net)
Date: Thu Jul 20 2000 - 18:04:02 EDT

  • Next message: RDehaan237@aol.com: "Re: natural selection in salvation history (was Johnson// evolutionimplies atheism)"

    Jack:

    Thanks for your comments!

    In response, just three points:

    (1) Regarding my use of the term 'withering', I believed I was correctly
    interpreting the mood of Stephen's submission. However, since you too
    have read the book, I stand corrected.

    (2) Your reference to 'anger', 'fences', and 'name calling' in respect
    of myself, I find hard to understand. Please explain.

    (3) In your final paragraph you say "I wish that someone would be
    willing to analyze the more serious debates after 15 - 20 exchanges and
    summarize the points, so that casual observers as well as participants
    could properly focus on the issues." Were you here referring
    specifically to my findings in respect of the opening words of Genesis,
    or was this a more general wish?
     
    Sincerely,

    Vernon

    Vernon Jenkins MSc
    [musician, mining engineer, and formerly Senior Lecturer in Maths and
    Computing, the Polytechnic of Wales (now the University of Glamorgan)]

    http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
    http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm

    Jack Haas wrote:
    >
    > Vernon:
    >
    > Mark Noll mentions the 'Creationist' debate in only a minor way in his
    > "Scandal." Certainly not in a 'withering fashion.' That's not his style.
    >
    > The word that sparks your RHETORIC is 'literal.' Noll and others have
    > commented of the influence of Scottish common sense philosophy in infusing
    > this word (rightly or wrongly) into discussions of how to read scripture.
    > The ways that Christians have read the word of God are diverse and
    > influenced by the culture of the day.
    >
    > The anger that you feel toward other correspondents prevents many from
    > hearing your case - however valid it may be. Talk shows and listserv
    > discussions are a waste of time when fences are up and name calling begin.
    >
    > I wish that someone would be willing to analyze the more serious debates
    > after 15 - 20 exchanges and summarize the points, so that casual observers
    > as well as participants could properly focus on the issues.
    >
    > Peace
    > Jack Haas



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 20 2000 - 18:24:13 EDT