Re: Agnosticism: Sondra Brasile's comments

From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Sat Nov 23 2002 - 14:59:57 EST

  • Next message: Josh Bembenek: "Re: Fwd: "ICONS OF EVOLUTION?" posted at NCSE"

    >From what I know of Ted he will have looked at most things in depth ,
    possibly as much, if not more than anyone else on this list.

    As before Jim is not polite and I wonder why I reply.

    Michael
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jim Eisele" <jeisele@starpower.net>
    To: <TDavis@messiah.edu>
    Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 6:39 PM
    Subject: Agnosticism: Sondra Brasile's comments

    >
    > Ted writes
    >
    > >Early in the process, I tried to get Jim to read some really good and
    > >thoughtful stuff about science and faith. I don't know if he did, nor can
    I
    > >say whether it would have been helpful if he had.
    >
    > A) How much has been written in the world?
    > B) Who has time to read everything?
    > C) Some people can't even read.
    >
    > I find the "God" that you put forward awkward and unattractive
    > (obviously, you hold a different opinion). There are probably dozens
    > of arguments against your "path to God."
    >
    > For some reason, you're not much on discussion. To each his own,
    > but it is aggravating being part of a discussion list where someone
    > says "read this, then you'll see." A position that is hidden off in
    > some writing has little value if it can't be discussed. It borders
    > on obscurantism.
    >
    > Personally, Ted, I think you are ignoring a lot. Some of us "jump
    > right in" and are willing to change our minds if the evidence, reasoning,
    > and logic point in a different direction than our current way of thinking.
    >
    > >If you're ready to reopen that conversation somewhere down the line,
    >
    > This is a general, vague statement with no specifics. It dodges and
    > begs questions. I wouldn't be too smug about that.
    >
    > On the remote chance that you are capable of discussing something
    > specific, how about giving Ex 20:8-11 a try? And try following your
    > answer to its logical conclusion. That is the type of thing that
    > occurs in a discussion, when you can't refer someone to a writing and
    > then go run and hide.
    >
    > Jim Eisele
    > Genesis in Question
    > http://genesisinquestion.org
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 19:13:35 EST