We've been having speradic problems with our provider & this
apparently didn't go to the list yesterday.
___________________________--
Vernon raises a valid question here: If we take the idea of
original sin
seriously, how can we trust our reasoning about the world that leads to
conclusions such as evolutionary theory, the age of the earth, &c? But
as an
objection to those conclusions, the argument won't hold up.
First, original sin has to do primarily with our relationship
with God -
we are unable to have "true fear of God and true faith in God." Of
course that
has implications for the way we deal with other people and the natural
world as
well. But even those who have held a very tough view of original sin
have not
denied that the natural human being is capable of understanding the 10
Commandments as civil law, and are able to refrain from murder,
adultery, &c.
I.e., even fallen humanity is capable of functioning in the world - &
this
requires some understanding of the world.
Secondly, no one raises the original sin objection to the
results of
science when they're not being related to issues of origins or age of
the earth.
When nuclear physicists measure decay rates of some isotopes carefully &
say that
half a sample _would_ decay in 4.5 x 10^9 yr or whatever, nobody says
"But
original sin is distorting your reason so we can't trust that result."
It's then
incumbent on the person raising this objection to the age of the earth
to say at
just what stage of applications of scientific results to radioactive
dating
original sin introduces an error.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> John,
>
> You wrote (10 Mar): "As you know, we have a couple (of) YECs who lurk
here
> and sometimes post. They have a rough time of it because so many of us
are
> quick to jump on their arguments. When you get six rebuttals to a
single
> post, it does not take too long to determine that answering them is
not a
> good use of time."
>
> It is possible that I am one of those you had in mind. However, the
point I
> wish to make at this time has wider implications than the mere defence
of
> YEC.
>
> Christians on the ASA list will know that the Scriptures paint a sorry
> picture of post-Edenic man: he is portrayed as an enemy of God and of
His
> Christ (eg Ps.2); a creature of evil imagination from his youth
(Gn.8:21);
> and deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (Jer.17:9). A
> devastating indictment indeed! - and one that goes a long way toward
> explaining many of the world's ills, and the progressive undermining
of God's
> Word by generations of higher critics and a largely unbelieving and
powerful
> intellectual establishment.
>
> Clearly, if the biblical strictures are to be believed (and why not? -
since
> they provide the raison d'etre for Incarnation, Cross and
Resurrection!) then
> they represent a fundamental barrier to our understanding of the
Creator and
> a proper assessment of His work in creation.
>
> Those on this list who question the sanity of the YEC position should
let us
> know where they stand in respect of this foundational matter. Do they
accept
> God's assessment of man's essential nature, or not? If not, then why
not?
> And, if so, do they therefore proceed to accept that views so
confidently
> expressed, and conclusions so stridently declared, in respect of earth
and
> life history may be merely the fruits of potentially-flawed cognitive
> processes? - perhaps living examples of the 'evil imaginations' we
read about
> in Gen.8:21!
>
> I suggest it behooves us all to accept gracefully, and with humility,
that we
> can be hopelessly wrong in our understanding of what is, and what is
not
> true. That is why God has deemed it necessary to provide us with a
body of
> 'revealed truth' . If we are wise, we will grasp this as does a
drowning man
> the lifebelt thrown him!
>
> Sincerely, and with regards,
>
> Vernon
>
> http://www.otherbiblecode.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 14 2002 - 08:44:34 EST