I am not sure that we agree on the details of that evolution. I do believe
that there was a divine component to the creation of man, that it wasn't
'gapless' as Howard Van Till would suggest or as you would say.
One place where we disagree (I think)
>concerns the Fall. I believe that this is another misunderstanding; you
>apparently believe it is historical. That's when the sparks can really fly!
I think that if the Fall is not historical, then H. G. Wells was correct.
Christianity collapses like a house of cards.
>
>"In this way you can't lose at all. No matter what happens Christianity
>can't be wrong. But then, I wouldn't see that you have retained very much
>either. What is the point of believing a set of beliefs that one refuses to
>allow to be refuted regardless of what reality they contradict?"
>
>Had anyone but you said this I would have been upset, because it suggests
>you think I believe that Christianity is right for petty, trivial reasons.
>I do not.
I didn't mean to give offense here. I apologize. I meant that more in the
sense that I don't see what you have retained, not that you don't think you
have retained the essence. I wouldn't see a reason to continue Christian
beliefs if I had your position. It would contradict my standard of
epistemology and standard of truth. And if my standard of truth doesn't
change, then I would be required to reject christianity in order to
maintain logical consistency.
>"True, but both Islam and Christianity claim no separate contexts for their
>authority. Neither would recognize Jesus as Son in Christian lands and
>Jesus not as son in Moslem lands. Your analogy fails."
>
>Actually they do. Christianity claims as its source the God of Israel,
>where as Muslims claim as their source Allah. Modern liberal Christians and
>Muslims tend to agree that YHWY/Jehovah and Allah are one and the same, but
>when the two religions first began, the sources were treated as completely
>different deities.
My wife's uncle was a consular official for the Organization of Arab
States. When my youngest was born, Munir came to my house to see the baby.
He and I had a discussion about this precise issue. He tried to tell me
that Islam and Christianity were really the same. I told him about what
the Koran said about Jesus. He didn't believe me and challenged me to show
it to him in the Koran. (He didn't think I had read it). I went to my book
shelf, pulled the Koran off the shelf and showed him Surah 4:171:
"O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter
aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was
only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a
spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not
"Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One God. Far is it
removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all
that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is
sufficient as Defender. (QS. 4:171)
The people of the Scripture are Christians. And the Koran specifically
says that they are exaggerating the place of Jesus. Munir was so impressed
that an infidel like me, would know the Koran that he started inviting me
to Palestinian fund-raisers. I went to one to see what it was all about. I
was seated next to a Palestinian guerrella (I told him-- a curse on both
your houses). I never went to another. But I was on the Palestinian
mailing lists for quite a while, although they never got any money from me.
Anyway, yes they believe Allah = Jehovah, but they deny the incarnation and
the trinity etc. Someone is wrong.
>"Don't confuse real with objective. I believe that the spiritual realm is
>real. I don't think it is objective."
>
>But objectivity means having an actual existence or _reality_; in other
>words, one definition of objective is that which is real. You are probably
>thinking of one of the other definitions: of or having to do with a
>material object; or uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices, ie
>based on observable phenomena. These definitions can only apply to physical
>reality, not spiritual reality, but since spiritual reality is real, it is
>by that first definition objective.
OK, we are using separate definitions of objective.
As I said in my other post, I need to get some writing done. If you want,
you can have the last word. I am going to take a break from internet soon.
and I have to get my house fixed up to sell.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm