RE: Original Sin (was Re: RATE)

From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Tue Oct 07 2003 - 06:58:27 EDT

  • Next message: RFaussette@aol.com: "Re: October 16, 2003: "Wild Justice and Fair Play: Animalorigins of social ..."

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
    >Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 9:42 PM
    >To: Walter Hicks
    >Cc: Glenn Morton; asa@calvin.edu
    >Subject: Re: Original Sin (was Re: RATE)
    >
    >
    >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.

    I will play a bit of a devil's advocacy here. It isn't so much for Wells.
    Wells would argue that the RC approach is not the same as mankind arising in
    'this ascendant manner' and that such an event is not spoken of in Scripture
    there for it is very ad hoc of those theologians to advocate (or make up)
    this view.

    (I am merely playing devils advocate on the abovew)

    But for the below I am not:

    Walt wrote:

    "He was an old time sci-fi person who wrote mediocre fiction and other
    things---- IMO"

    Given that Wells is has had much more impact on this world than either you
    or I, I wouldn't be so condescendingly dismissive of him. His science
    fiction is still being sold in book stores long after his death. He wrote a
    very popular history of the world, and was involved in writing a very
    massive book on paleontology and the history of life. I don't think either
    of us has done that.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 07 2003 - 06:58:58 EDT