From: rjschn39@bellsouth.net
Date: Tue Mar 11 2003 - 16:11:28 EST
> "Woe unto you who call evil good and good evil."
> From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> Date: 2003/03/10 Mon PM 12:56:39 EST
> To: jbembe@hotmail.com
> CC: kbmill@ksu.edu, asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Johnson on Bible Answer Man
>
>
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:59:13 +0000 "Josh Bembenek" <jbembe@hotmail.com>
> writes:
> > I find this very disturbing because I know alot of Christians who
> > consider
> > the answers given by the Bible Answer Man to be extremely competent
> > and
> > correct. He would certaintly be serviced by Van Till's discussion
> > of
> > minimal verses maximal naturalism. Not at all that I find all of
> > Kenneth
> > Miller's arguments fundmentally sound, nor do I agree with him, but
> > I don't
> > believe he is a minion of satan. The really disturbing thing about
> > this
> > approach is that becoming a true beleiver of Christ and thus
> > committing to
> > your salvation becomes wed to a particular view of origins. In no
> > way
> > should our devotion to our creator depend on how we view his
> > mechanistic
> > operations during the creative process. IMO, as Christians we
> > should find
> > every way possible to free all people to recognize, find faith in,
> > and serve
> > the Creator. What good is any mission against any idea or pradigm
> > from a
> > Christian perspective if it does not accomplish that goal?
> >
> And George wrote in small part:
> >A few comments on the following - <snip>
> > 4) "Doesn't seem to occur to him" is the operative phrase for Johnson.
> He
> >apparently "knew" all the right scientific & theological answers to
> begin with.
>
> Folks, you have to recognize Johnson's foundational premises: "I possess
> THE TRUTH. Anyone who disagrees with me is propagating error and serving
> Satan." To these he adds the principle that the goal justifies any means.
>
> These premises are closely related to what I call Premise Number One,
> both because it is the foundation of more "demonstrations" than any other
> and because it is so firmly held, even though seldom if ever recognized
> by those holding it. One who realizes that he has been using it normally
> becomes very embarrassed. I present it as a formula for the insertion of
> an indefinitely large variety of variables. "Because you disagree with me
> about (insert an item), you are (insert any appropriate pejorative
> term)." Intellectual matters are covered by confused, misinformed,
> ignorant, stupid; ethical, wicked, vicious, perverse; etc. Religious
> matters generate the most extreme condemnations, as evident in Keith's
> original post.
> Dave
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Mar 11 2003 - 16:10:05 EST