From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 22:41:56 EDT
Walt -
Though I don't think this approach is the most fruitful, one can simply make the
traditional RC argument that the first humans in a theological sense were the first
hominids into whom God infused rational souls, & that they then "fell" according to the
traditional scenario. So much for Wells.
Shalom,
George
Walter Hicks wrote:
>
> Although I seldom agree with agree with Glenn on a lot of details ----- without a fall
> from grace, there seems to be a lot missing from theology (as have been given to understand
> it.)
>
> What is the opinion of other theologians on this list?
>
> Walt
>
> George Murphy wrote:
>
> >
> > Come on Glenn! This is the old YEC/anti-evolution tactic of citing
> > non-Christians evolutionists as theological experts when they talk about the dire
> > theological consequences of evolution - as if they accept their expertise on anything
> > else. Why should H.G. Wells (H,G. Wells! He wasn't even an expert on science, let alone
> > theology.) be considered an authority on these matters?--
>
> ===================================
> 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)
> ===================================
-- George L. Murphy gmurphy@raex.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 06 2003 - 22:43:05 EDT