George Murphy wrote:
.............................................................
> It is important not to overstate (or understate) what is
>required by the
>ASA Statement of Faith. (I would encourage anyone who hasn't seen
>it or is hazy
>about it to look at it on the ASA web site.) This statement does
>not explicitly
>set out the doctrines listed above and does not, e.g., exclude from membership
>someone who interprets the accounts of Jesus' conception in Matthew
>and Luke as
>something other than historical and biological fact. I am not
>saying that such
>an opinion is correct, nor am I trying to start a debate about virginal
>conception (though I probably will). But we shouldn't give the
>impression that
>the requirements for ASA membership are more restrictive than they in fact
>are.
I was merely stating what Christians pretty uniformly believe.
Doesn't mean some of us can't hold alternate views on even the
essentials. ASA members are Christians after all, not just theists.
What may be required as a formalized statement differs from
organization to organization. And formal ASA membership is not
required to join the ASA listserv.
That said, I think the virgin birth is pretty foundational to our
faith. See Matt.1:18-25. My guess is that a counter view would
spark a pretty vigorous debate on this list. Without conception by
the Holy Spirit it would call into question whether or not Christ was
without sin, then how could He have been the "unblemished lamb," then
maybe the resurrection was a fabrication, etc. Did you really want
to start the first domino, George?
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 17 2002 - 09:45:13 EDT