Re: The wee people

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:38:59 -0400 <glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:
> ---------- 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
>
Your statement is relevant if we can prove to the atheist that he needs
divine help. Since he denies the existence of God, this is more than a
little difficult. Further, since he will take any reading which can be
twisted to demean the deity, that it will not convince him is hardly
relevant.

> 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.
>
Seems to me that you're looking for proof where there is none. I take
seriously the statement that those who come to God must _believe_ that he
is, not know. Knowledge of God's being and acts is beyond our finite
capacity.

> 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.
>
OK, skip the "all" as hyperbole. As to what the ancients _could_
understand, being human, they had the same capacity as contemporary human
beings. But they did not have the means to determine scientific matters.
Note, for example, Jacob's technique for controlling the genetics of
sheep, a sort of instant Lamarkism. Whether you like it or not, their
mindset was notably different from ours. This is not a matter of
stupidity, for they kept long narratives in mind, something that some
contemporary tribesmen still do and modern peoples do not. But, because
of a change in notation, children now can handle mathematical matters
that were beyond the capacity of ancient geniuses. That doesn't make the
ancients stupid.

> >
> >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.
>
Like it or not, your statement about Genesis 1:1 requires production
rather than differentiation. That's what I called you on. Don't try to
weasel out.

> >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.
>
Sorry about your problem here. In contrast, I find more truth in
Shakespeare than in most psychology texts.

> 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?
>
>
These are not my statements.
Dave
Received on Sat Oct 30 23:35:22 2004