Re: Methane in the late Archean

From: glenn morton (mortongr@flash.net)
Date: Mon Jun 05 2000 - 14:30:30 EDT

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: Methane in the late Archean"

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
    To: "glenn morton" <mortongr@flash.net>
    Cc: <PHSEELY@aol.com>; <adam@crowl.webcentral.com.au>; <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 12:42 PM
    > Christianity is an historical faith but that doesn't mean that it's only
    > a collection of correct historical statements. Its central claim is that
    the answer
    > to the fundamental questions of meaning, guilt, and death are given in the
    life, death,
    > & resurrection of an historical person Jesus who is part of the history of
    Israel.
    > Certainly historical questions (was there a Jesus of Nazareth, was he
    crucified &c)
    > are important for the truth claims of this faith. But whether or not
    Christianity is
    > accepted as one's personal commitment - & not simply accurate history -
    depends on
    > whether or not it provides one a compelling understanding of one's own
    life & experience
    > of the world.

    We absolutely agree that Christianity is not ONLY a collection of correct
    historical facts. Even if all the facts in the Bible are 100% true and
    verified, one still needs faith. But in that case, one would have a BASIS
    for that faith. As it is what I see being offered is a baseless faith based
    on faith alone--no evidence please, just believe!

    > History is important - we can't claim that Christianity would be true even
    if
    > Jesus never lived or if he died in bed at a ripe old age. But that
    doesn't mean that
    > all material in Scripture must be understood as accurate history. Far
    less does the
    > truth of Christianity depend upon speculative mighta'been of ancient
    history to bring
    > Genesis into superficial accord with it.
    > In discussion with people of other faiths which make claims about history,
    of
    > course their (& our) claims will be debated. With Muslims, e.g., did
    Jesus really die
    > on the cross? But what happens in discussion with those of _non_-historic
    faiths, such
    > as Buddhism? As far as I know there's no reason for Christians to debate
    any of the
    > known history of Gautama - as distinguished from his or later
    interpretations of it.
    > What needs to be debated is the relative value of the understandings which
    Buddhism and
    > Christianity provide of life and the world.

    THat can only be debated if one thinks that Jehovah's revelation from the
    beginning to the end is true.

    glenn

    Foundation, Fall and Flood
    Adam, Apes and Anthropology
    http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm

    Lots of information on creation/evolution



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 06 2000 - 19:32:39 EDT