Re: Genesis One and Concordism (was a lot of other things previously)

From: Michael Roberts (topper@robertschirk.u-net.com)
Date: Tue Feb 19 2002 - 11:43:59 EST

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"

    My wife Andrea says I am not genteel - unless it means something different
    in the US but it's not in my Englsih- American phrasebook.

    Michael
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
    To: <topper@robertschirk.u-net.com>
    Cc: <hvantill@novagate.com>; <burgytwo@juno.com>; <jeisele@starpower.net>;
    <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 11:28 PM
    Subject: Re: Genesis One and Concordism (was a lot of other things
    previously)

    > Michael,
    > You and Howard phrase things as you do because you are more genteel. The
    > correct understanding is that God is smart enough to agree with me.
    > Dave
    >
    > On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:41:20 -0000 "Michael Roberts"
    > <topper@robertschirk.u-net.com> writes:
    > > I prefer " How to play intellectual ping-pong" In every argument it
    > > is
    > > either PING or PONG and never PING-PONG.
    > >
    > > This is not my original but comes from an essay by Basil Mitchell
    > > "How to
    > > play theoloigcal ping-pong" so we always take the two extremes and
    > > say
    > > choose one
    > >
    > > Creation/Evolution
    > > Jesus of History / Risen Lord
    > >
    > > Lots more examples from every sphere of society.
    > >
    > > Michael
    > >
    > >
    > > > Perhaps one character trait of any form of fundamentalism
    > > (religious,
    > > > political, racial, etc.) is its binary logic: You're either "us"
    > > or
    > > "them."
    > > > Given that approach, the tribal "God" is presumed to be of the
    > > same
    > > "mind."
    > > >
    > > > Howard Van Till
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 19 2002 - 13:50:34 EST