FW: The wee people

David asked me to send this to the list. He is having trouble

> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 11:20 PM
> To: glennmorton@entouch.net
> Subject: Re: The wee people
>
>
>
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:38:59 -0400 <glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:
> > ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> > From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> > Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:12:01 -0700
> >
> > >First, Wells' first sentence is obviously true. The second is not
> > >necessarily true. A need for redemption springs just as surely from
> > human
> > >finitude, egoism and selfishness, poorly controlled anger, the
> > whole list
> > >of works of the flesh, etc., as it does from a literal Fall.
> >
> > Many atheists dont see the truth of what you state here, mor do they

> > see the meed for redemptiom. Your statememt assumes so mamy
> > previous things
> >
> Your statement is relevant if we can prove to the atheist
> that he needs divine help. Since he denies the existence of
> God, this is more than a little difficult. Further, since he
> will take any reading which can be twisted to demean the
> deity, that it will not convince him is hardly relevant.
>
> > Whether the
> > >Fall is historical or no more than an explanation for the human
> > state,
> > >atonement is necessary. It is also necessary unless our ultimate
> > >aspirations are no more than a cruel hoax.
> >
> > And this is precisely why your above assertion about the need for
> > atonement is so presumptive. It is quite conceivable that
> it is all
> > a cruel hoax. Given the mutually exclusive religious claims among
> > the world's various religions, someone is being fooled.
> >
> Seems to me that you're looking for proof where there is
> none. I take seriously the statement that those who come to
> God must _believe_ that he is, not know. Knowledge of God's
> being and acts is beyond our finite capacity.
>
> > Why must an explanation that
> > >could be understood by the ancients be historically and
> > scientifically
> > >true? If it has not "entered into the heart of man" (I Corinthians
> > 2:9),
> > >why assume that we have it all pinned down?
> >
> > I don't believe I used the word 'all'. As to what the ancients
> > could understand, it is always with a note of condescension that we
> > in the 21st century state that they were too stupid to understand
> > truth, even historical truth.
> >
> OK, skip the "all" as hyperbole. As to what the ancients
> _could_ understand, being human, they had the same capacity
> as contemporary human beings. But they did not have the means
> to determine scientific matters. Note, for example, Jacob's
> technique for controlling the genetics of sheep, a sort of
> instant Lamarkism. Whether you like it or not, their mindset
> was notably different from ours. This is not a matter of
> stupidity, for they kept long narratives in mind, something
> that some contemporary tribesmen still do and modern peoples
> do not. But, because of a change in notation, children now
> can handle mathematical matters that were beyond the capacity
> of ancient geniuses. That doesn't make the ancients stupid.
>
> > >
> > >Second, although you express the common view, you are involved in
> > the
> > >fallacy of many questions when you ask about creation. I don't
> > think
> > >there is any other passage where /bara/ is taken as /creatio ex
> > nihilo/.
> >
> > I don't think I actually said ex nihilo. You have a way of seeing
> > words in sentences which I didn't write in them. You do this a lot.
> >
> Like it or not, your statement about Genesis 1:1 requires
> production rather than differentiation. That's what I called
> you on. Don't try to weasel out.
>
> > >Finally, why is the alternative to "true history" be "mush"? Seems
> > to me
> > >that there is also literalist mush among the products of human
> > thought.
> >
> > Because everyone keeps saying that it wasn't meant to be true. To
> > me, if it isn't true, then it isn't real.
> >
> Sorry about your problem here. In contrast, I find more truth
> in Shakespeare than in most psychology texts.
>
> > The claim that the creation accounts weren't meant to be real
> > because of the talking snake, a claim made here recently is
> patently
> > ludicrous in my opinion.
> >
> > Has anyone here considered the ludicrousity of rejecting the talking

> > snake while accepting that 5 fish can feed 5000 and leave many
> > baskets left over? Or that rejecting a talking snake while
> > accepting that a man can walk on water seems a bit odd? Or that
> > rejecting a talking snake while accepting that men dead 3 days can
> > get up and walk around? or believing that Jesus could walk through
> > solid walls, or ascend to heaven? Come on, if The latter
> things can
> > be real, what is a little talking snake between friends?
> >
> >
> These are not my statements.
> Dave
>
Received on Mon Nov 1 06:38:08 2004