From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 10:31:14 EDT
Josh Bembenek wrote:
> >At the moment I am choosing not to participate in the argumentation
> >concerning specific cataclysmic interpretations of empirical data, but I
> >would be interested to hear your testimony concerning why holding to a YEC
> >position is so important to you. What is at stake here? If the professional
> >science community turns out to be correct on matters of chronology, what
> >would be the loss to the Christian faith as you understand it?
>
> Howard, from what I've come to understand the primary importance is being
> able to claim that mankind is fallen and that has been inherited from Adam
> and Eve. In this view, The Fall requires some kind of mechanistic transfer
> into all of humankind from Adam, otherwise we had no fall. This is
> partially bolstered by the idea that God looked at His creation and called
> it "good." Would the creation of hominids that die, have disease, etc. and
> are inherently fallen creatures be "good?"
It would easier to conceptualize God if we could be assured that God is bound by
the same laws of causality that we are. But certainly we know that he isn't.
Nevertheless, we talk as though God is bound by causality. To say that death
came _because_ of the fall is not the same as saying that death happened _after_
(time wise) the fall. God does not have follow the same rules of causality that
we do.
IMO
Walt
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 06 2003 - 10:31:02 EDT