glenn morton wrote:
>
> At 07:12 AM 3/9/00 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
> > May it be so! But the problem is that the things which are debated seldom
> >brought into any connection with what should be the center & basis of
> Christian thought.
> >I don't mean that the answer to every question is "Jesus" or that all
> disagreements can
> >be resolved by referring to the cross. But when ID, irreducible
> complexity, the flood,
> >functional integrity, fossils, imago dei, the big bang, apparent age &c
> can all be
> >discussed by Christians at great length with little attempt to relate them
> to the
> >christological center then something is awry.
>
> I would suggest one other reason for the lack of what you want.
> Observational evidence. The issues above which you note are discussed all
> involve observational evidence and scientists (who make up a big part of
> this list) love observational evidence and the discussions it can generate.
& a lot of scientists (including this one) also love theories. & as I think
we've generally come to recognize, the boundary between the two is fuzzy.
> But when you get into theology, there is no grand arbitor of which
> interpretation is correct, at least not one that we all agree to.
As scientists we agree that observations are important but we aren't all agreed
on the observational data or interpretation of them. As Christians we agree on the
centrality of Christ but not on specific ways of understanding his person & work. I
think the parallel is closer than you suggest.
> And while you may not see a relationship to Christ in our discussions, I
> certainly do. As you and I have debated before, if there was not fall, then
> Christianity is a myth and Christ was unnecessary.
> And I for one, AM
> uncomfortable making that event a myth with little connection to reality
> and by that, I mean HISTORY. While lots of people have no problem taking
> that approach, I for one, can't and won't go that direction. If I became
> convinced that there is no possible way for the primeval story to have any
> relationship to what aactually happened in the space-time manifold of our
> universe, then I for one, would do what Provine did--leave the faith. so,
> you may not see this as important at least one member of this group does
> see it as important and related to Christ.
Note that I said there is "little" - not no - attempt to relate issues to
the christological center. The type of argument you suggest here is one of the
relatively few attempts to make such connections.
Having said that, it may seem churlish to say that I disagree with the way you
try to make the connection. But briefly, what necessitates the saving work of Christ is
the pervasiveness of human sin & the inability of people to solve that problem
themselves. Lack of an historical account of how that condition came about doesn't make
Christ unnecessary. (I do not mean that it is therefore of no value to try to
understand the origins of human sinfulness in the evolutionary process. But actually
what's harder is to make sense of the idea of original righteousness.)
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 09 2000 - 20:14:44 EST