Re: RTB vs Dick Fischer

In a message dated 4/14/2006 8:08:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
drsyme@cablespeed.com writes:
As far as the origins of Man, both models are lacking.

First of all, IMO, the RTB model is wrong because it denies common descent.
They claim that each species, especially Man, is specially created. I do not
believe they have adequately explained all of the genetic evidence for common
descent.

While preferable, I think that Dick Fischer's model has some serious
theological problems that I have not seen him address satisfactorily. I am sure that
he thinks he has, but I have not seen anything convincing, maybe I just missed
it. But I have a problem with his model in how it deals with original sin.
Namely, how can Adam bring death to all men? Why should a previously innocent
human being in Australia, Europe, or Asia suddenly become guilty, as well as
all of his descendants, because one human in mesopotamia gave into temptation,
and screwed up his relationship with God? I think it was George Murphy that
made a post about this, saying that this makes God the author of sin, and I
think that is a valid criticism.

Glenn's model, doesnt fit, IMO, because biblically Adam clearly is a bronze
age figure, and I think that Dick Fischer's model is superior overall in these
terms. But, none of the models fit either the scientific evidence completely,
or the biblical evidence.
Adam is an allegory representing the difference between men and animals
modeled after a similar allegory involving Enkidu in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
The specific difference between men and animals is the difference between
instinct and learned behavior. Lambs are easily led to slaughter because they do
not "know" death. They behave instinctively. Men "know death" because they are
self conscious and ponder their own mortality. In all of theology, east and
west, it is the conscious self, that is impermanent, that dies. The soul lives
on in God in the west and in "God" in the east. All men inherit original sin
because all men are conscious of self and have the knowledge of good and evil
and can choose to be good or evil which is a consequence of the evolution of
learned behavior. Animals must behave instinctively, do not have the knowledge
of good and evil, cannot choose to sin and therefore cannot pass an "original
sin" they never commited down to their descendants.
Because men can choose to sin and do, they need redemption. Because animals
behave instinctively, they cannot sin, they do not need redemption. They are
not "dead" to God because they never "chose" to leave God in the first place.
Adam was not an individual in Mesopotamia. He is an allegorical archetype
employed to explain man's fundamental theology and never lived.

The fall of Adam and Eve is a timeless and scientifically accurate
description of human nature and its predicament.

rich faussette
Received on Sat Apr 15 10:00:49 2006