Re: Original Sin (was Re: RATE)

From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 23:12:03 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Armstrong: "Re: Original Sin (was Re: RATE)"

    George Murphy wrote:

    > 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.

    George Murphy wrote:

    > 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.

    I do buy into that (RC) theological viewpoint (easily).

    > So much for Wells.

    He was an old time sci-fi person who wrote mediocre fiction and other things---- 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 - 23:11:57 EDT