>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Don Perrett
>Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 2:56 PM
>
>Mike wrote: I also have to agree with Glenn that animal sacrifice is animal
>sacrifice.
> How did Adam and his descendants sacrificing the
>lives of domesticated
> animals show that they had "God's image" any more
>so than those who
> sacrificed the lives of bears and other animals to
>God in earlier times? I
> don't understand this at all. Maybe you can explain
>it to me.
>
>You are right. sacrifice is sacrifice. This action alone does not determine
>ones spirituality. If so, I guess we need to get busy killing some animals.
>My question to you would be, regardless of whether man was performing
>sacrifices prior to the perceived time of Adam, do you feel that
>preadamites
>knew the God that we worship today? If so, then what verse of the Bible
>would you use to support this?
Romans 1:20 comes to mind. "For since the creation of the world God's
invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly
seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without
excuse."
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
just because preadamites may have performed
>religious acts and had a belief in a higher power or god, does not
>mean that
>they worshipped the God of Abraham. It is my position that Adam as you said
>is a representative. This is the point which Dick and others make.
>Adam came
>along after man had already been here and he was the first one to know of
>the God we worship today. If you don't see this, let me give another
>example. Hindis over time continue to add new gods into their
>beliefs. A god
>worshipped by some today did not "exist" in the past. Pagan religions that
>existed in prehistoric times, that generally was based on
>elemental gods, is
>not the same as ours. I pray that you would at least recognize that. No one
>is claiming that religion started with Adam, around 7kyr ago. What is being
>defended is the idea that our religion and the understanding of a one true
>God of creation started with Adam. If you're unclear on this, ask
>Glenn what
>the name of the god was that the bear killers worshipped. Somehow I don't
>think it was the same. In fact he quotes northern tribes(eskimo). Take a
>trip to Alaska one of these days, as I have. The locals will tell you they
>worship elemental gods to this day. I know you don't think this is the same
>god we worship. In conclusion, if you wish to prove that the God of Abraham
>is the same god worshipped by these Neanderthals or Eskimos, etc
>then please
>do so. I would love the insight. But if you agree that ours is a
>more recent
>and unique God from the ancient religions, then please point to when this
>began. 1.5myr ago? Or would it seem more likely that based on history and
>the Bible it is around 7kyr ago? The difference between us is not that
>great. Some take the point that Adam brought a new dimension to the
>understanding of God, as did Jesus. He was not the first man, but the first
>to know God. Others seem bent on trying to prove that Adam was the first
>man and first to know god. Of these some will say that either Adam was much
>further in the past than is accepted by biblical interpretations. Or, they
>will say that Adam was not the first man and was not the first to know god
>because man seems to have been around for so long. Which is how I take what
>you were saying. While it is true that the word adam can mean man and not
>necessarily ADAM, this begins to have a problem when it comes to the
>genealogy. It most likely applies to Genesis 1, but it becomes difficult to
>take as generic man after that, not impossible. This is also how "we" take
>it.
>
>Not necessarily for you MIKE: On a more general note: It seems
>that many are
>in disagreement on various things. Someone makes a point on one thing and
>the other answers with comments on another. We can't seem to even
>talk about
>the same fruit let alone the same apple. I cannot say what others
>may try to
>gain from these discussions, but I myself want to gain more knowledge and
>understanding. In doing so, I hope to be able to be more convincing to
>atheists and other non-believers. Convincing anyone on the ASA that already
>believes in God is unfruitful. Although some would say that trying to match
>history and science to the bible is pointless, can anyone show a passage in
>the bible that says it's wrong? If so, please do. If not then accept the
>fact that while each of us has our own goal and purpose in life, some are
>here to strengthen God's word through current scientific
>knowledge. Those of
>you that can understand and accept this, please show your understanding by
>either debating the specifics that others hold or confer these findings. I
>personally hate political rhetoric and it seems that too many are
>tied up in
>it. Even some of the brightest seem to love pointing out how wrong someone
>is but not being specific. I feel like I'm back on the elementary school
>grounds. It would be much more fruitful for everyone to just pitch in and
>make an effort to come to a conclusion that is understood by the majority.
>This of course means that if one has an objection, it should be pointed out
>specifically and an offering of substitution must be made. One cannot just
>say "your wrong" because of something, without saying what is the correct
>idea. Does anyone, that has children, tell their child what they do wrong
>without telling them how to do it right. How would anyone learn if the
>teacher or parent didn't tell you the right way. YOUR WRONG< YOUR WRONG<
>YOUR WRONG. Boy wasn't that easy. Of course I don't know what's right so
>therefore I should not speak. It is also difficult when one asks a question
>out of genuine curiosity and someone else jumps in and tells you how
>ignorant your are or how unimportant your question is. If someone does not
>like the question either because it is based on a lack of knowledge or they
>just don't see it's importance, the best thing to do is nothing. Trust me,
>if you just ignore someone it works. My point here is that the level of
>intelligence on the ASA is high but sometimes the level of
>etiquette is very
>low. If anyone thinks that they can maintain a degree of intelligence while
>showing how little they have by using personal attacks, they're wrong. I
>realize this has been a long speech, for which I would reward those that
>have thus far endured. The only reason I am so concerned is because I worry
>for our youth and our future. If we cannot agree about the very same God we
>worship, how can we begin to hope for peace with people that have a totally
>different god of worship, or none at all.
>Thanks for the time, ladies and gents.
>Don P
>
>.
>+OK 3427 octets
>Received: from bdsl.66.12.166.228.gte.net ([66.12.166.228]
>helo=inia.cls.org)
> by praseodumium with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8)
> id 16znS0-0007iq-00
> for glenn.morton@btinternet.com; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 00:42:28 +0100
>Received: by inia.cls.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) id g3MNXSq03302
> for sand-outgoing; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 18:33:28 -0500 (CDT)
>X-Authentication-Warning: inia.cls.org: majordom set sender to
>owner-sand@inia.cls.org using -f
>Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net
> [207.69.200.226]) by inia.cls.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
> g3MNXCg03294 for <sand@inia.cls.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 18:33:23 -0500
> (CDT)
>Received: from user-112ucqa.biz.mindspring.com ([66.47.51.74]
> helo=GLENN.ncseweb.org) by blount.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim
> 3.33 #1) id 16znIz-0001PT-00 for sand@inia.cls.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2002
> 19:33:09 -0400
>Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020422162900.021f36e8@mail.mindspring.com>
>X-Sender: ncse@mail.mindspring.com
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
>Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:30:14 -0700
>To: sand@inia.cls.org
>From: Glenn Branch <ncseoffice@ncseweb.org>
>Subject: [sand] Hovind on 9/11
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>Sender: owner-sand@inia.cls.org
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: sand@inia.cls.org
>Status:
>
> From
>http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=3914626&BRD=580&PAG=461&d
>ept_id=401608&rfi=6:
>
>>Hovind had strong words about the American government and events he said
>>were created by the government to lessen freedom and promote more
>regulation.
>>
>>Although Timothy McVeigh was convicted for the April 19, 1995, bombing of
>>the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, Hovind said that McVeigh
>>only took responsibility for the bombing which was a ploy of the
>>government "to get anti-terrorism legislation passed which stalled in
>>Congress."
>>
>>Hovind cited various Web sites to support his claim and said he
>had talked
>>to people who said that the explosion had occurred inside the Murrah
>>building and was not caused by McVeigh parking a truck carrying a
>homemade
>>explosive bomb outside of the building.
>>
>>" ... All we need is a crisis and we lose our freedom," he said before
>>Saturday's crowd.
>>
>>"These crises are intentionally designed so we run in fear and give up on
>>our freedoms."
>>
>>Hovind took a similar stance on Sept. 11's World Trade Center attack.
>>
>>The destruction was caused by hijackers but was allowed to happen by the
>>American government, he said.
>>
>>"Our government knew it would happen and allowed it to happen
>because they
>>wanted more government control on airports," he said.
>>
>>An article is posted on his Creation Science Evangelism Web site to
>>support his claim about the Sept. 11 attacks.
>>
>>The article, by Bill Sardi of the Word of Knowledge Agency in San Dimas,
>>Calif., is a compilation of suspicious events which occurred prior to and
>>immediately after the attacks. Sardi's conclusion is that the events
>>provide evidence that the government knew the attacks were coming.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Glenn Branch
>Deputy Director
>National Center for Science Education
>http://www.ncseweb.org
>-
> The Tero Sand mailing list (sand@inia.cls.org)
> All posts are confidential and privileged. Users must obtain
> permission in writing from the author before disclosing or
> redistributing.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 23 2002 - 01:13:35 EDT