Re: Re[2]: Fw: Underlying assumptions
Robert L. Miller (rlmiller@garlic.com)
Thu, 12 Dec 1996 21:07:45 GMT>The evidence that Glen Morton and others have alluded to on this list that
>the religious impulse in the human species is very ancient supports Paul's
>contention that the unrightous recognize the evidence and with deliberation
>twist the evidence to mean worship of the created thing instead of the creator.
>
> How many of us humans have come to know the GOD of
> Abraham Isaac and Jacob through natural revelation? I think
> none. All of us have had some form of
> supernatural intervention in time (the span of such
> intervention is not relevent here), either being born into
> christian families or have been close to christian
> influence, and have heard God's revelation through a
> material medium (that is essential as long as we are
> humans-i.e.,body-spirit unities). Therefore, to interpret
> Paul's contention to mean that God can be known through
> nature but that people twist the evidence makes it rather
> unfair to these people and indirectly implies an "unjust
> god". I am not sure how you unravel Paul's words on the
> rationale for universal disbelief. I am curious to know how
> one resolves this conundrum.
>
Your agrument is not with me of course but with the Apostle Paul. He is the
one who made the claim. You might be interested in reading some evidence for
the claim in a book by Don Richardson, "Eternity in their Hearts", Regal
Books, 1981. He details many stories of missionaries going into primitive
tribes, who had no prior contact with western civilization, but who already
had a sophisticated concept of one creator God, and in some cases had
anticipated the arrival of messengers who would arrive to give them more in
depth knowledge. He claims that 90% of all such primitive peoples, when
first encountered by missionaries and anthropologists, had a concept of the
creator God. (pg. 54)
Bob Miller