RE: Bear sacrifice

From: Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Tue Apr 23 2002 - 21:07:41 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: A matter of trust? Or why YEC persists)"

    Hi Don
    You wrote:

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
    >Behalf Of Don Perrett
    >Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 4:41 AM

    >Don: I might be willing to agree that this would indicate that someone was
    >aware of God since the creation. It is somewhat strange though. If
    >one takes
    >this literal, then you would have to deduce that microbes must have been
    >aware and perhaps even worshipped God. After all they were here before us.
    >The passage says, however, "so that men are without excuse".

    Men not microbes, dogs or martians.

    >Bearing in mind
    >that the reference here, as with most scripture, pertains to "man's"
    >relationship to God. So the question then becomes, do we accept that prior
    >species of hominids are "men". If so then this would certainly bring this
    >passage closer to your understanding. If not then we must take this as
    >either poetic license, or perhaps it just pertains to "men" as it says. In
    >the later case, this again would point to homo sapiens, although not
    >necessarily Adam.

    The Bible, saying nothing about the earlier hominids, leaves the question
    open as to when men became men. Thus, in my mind, it is a matter of evidence
    not of Scripture. So when we look through the anthropological record and see
    things that look for all the world as an altar (and indeed would be
    interpreted as an altar were H. sapiens bones found with it) it seems a bit
    ad hoc to then claim that we must interpret the same object differently if
    found with Neanderthal than if found with H. sapiens. Why the double
    standard?

    In either case, I would agree if there is consensus. Your
    >prior posts concerning other hominids, I consider to be a separate
    >issue. We
    >have no way of knowing what god they worshipped, except to look at related
    >tribes that may practice this today. You never did answer that
    >question.

    Frankly, before the advent of writing, we have no idea what gods anyone
    worshipped. Some Australian aborigines have a religion involving a Rainbow
    Serpent. That religion goes back at least 9000 years as there are paintings
    of the Rainbow Serpent which date that old. Did they have the same
    religious conception as those alive today? No one knows.

    If this doesn't answer the question you mention above, please ask it more
    directly.

     So,
    >short of any evidence, I will continue to accept that only since Adam
    >forward, or perhaps since homo sapiens began, have we known the
    >one true God
    >of creation, as we know him today. Perhaps the day will come when we find
    >out some bit of evidence that shows how Australopithecus worship the same
    >God as we do.

    Barring the finding of a theology book of that era and the incredible luck
    in figuring out how to translate it, we would never be able to determine who
    these people are worshipping. Thus you have set a standard which can never
    be met and thus you will never be forced to change an opinion in this area.
    But when one sets a standard which is impossible to meet, it is no longer
    science but dogma.

     Until then I must remain ignorant, as do we all. There is no
    >dishonor in being unaware. It is fault with awareness that makes us evil.
    >That was the point of original sin.
    >Sorry just a little preachy today.
    >Thanks Glenn.

    My pleasure. I hope people learn a wee bit from my posts.

    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
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 23 2002 - 13:06:18 EDT