Re: The wee people

Being at my son's I can't check to see if I addressed this correctly. Sorry if this is a duplicate

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:12:01 -0700

>First, Wells' first sentence is obviously true. The second is not
>necessarily true. A need for redemption springs just as surely from human
>finitude, egoism and selfishness, poorly controlled anger, the whole list
>of works of the flesh, etc., as it does from a literal Fall.

Many atheists dont see the truth of what you state here, mor do they see the meed for redemptiom. Your statememt assumes so mamy previous things

 Whether the
>Fall is historical or no more than an explanation for the human state,
>atonement is necessary. It is also necessary unless our ultimate
>aspirations are no more than a cruel hoax.

And this is precisely why your above assertion about the need for atonement is so presumptive. It is quite conceivable that it is all a cruel hoax. Given the mutually exclusive religious claims among the world's various religions, someone is being fooled.

 Why must an explanation that
>could be understood by the ancients be historically and scientifically
>true? If it has not "entered into the heart of man" (I Corinthians 2:9),
>why assume that we have it all pinned down?

I don't believe I used the word 'all'. As to what the ancients could understand, it is always with a note of condescension that we in the 21st century state that they were too stupid to understand truth, even historical truth.

>
>Second, although you express the common view, you are involved in the
>fallacy of many questions when you ask about creation. I don't think
>there is any other passage where /bara/ is taken as /creatio ex nihilo/.

I don't think I actually said ex nihilo. You have a way of seeing words in sentences which I didn't write in them. You do this a lot.

>Finally, why is the alternative to "true history" be "mush"? Seems to me
>that there is also literalist mush among the products of human thought.

Because everyone keeps saying that it wasn't meant to be true. To me, if it isn't true, then it isn't real.

The claim that the creation accounts weren't meant to be real because of the talking snake, a claim made here recently is patently ludicrous in my opinion.

Has anyone here considered the ludicrousity of rejecting the talking snake while accepting that 5 fish can feed 5000 and leave many baskets left over? Or that rejecting a talking snake while accepting that a man can walk on water seems a bit odd? Or that rejecting a talking snake while accepting that men dead 3 days can get up and walk around? or believing that Jesus could walk through solid walls, or ascend to heaven? Come on, if The latter things can be real, what is a little talking snake between friends?
Received on Fri Oct 29 22:41:18 2004