Re: Spellbound? (was Re: Cobb County)

Christopher,

I suggest that your criticisms of remarks recently made in my posting to Michael can only be properly considered when we have arrived at a mutually agreed position with respect to the validity of MN. You appear to have sidestepped this matter - which is unfortunate, because in my view it is central to the issues we are now debating.

Clearly, the supernatural played a significant role in the life and times of our Lord, and beyond, and anyone foolish enough then to press the merits of MN as a working principle would have been laughed out of court. What has changed? Has Satan been tamed - so that he is no longer a threat? Hardly! - Eph.6:10-18 and 1Pet.5:8 surely give the lie to that naive idea. No, the supernatural hasn't conveniently gone away; this is simply an erroneous perception - sadly, shared by many Christians. (Perhaps our resident theologians would be prepared to confirm my understanding that this is really a symptom of _unbelief_; we no longer believe key biblical teachings because evolution has largely undermined our respect for the Bible's Authority). However, the tables are now turned: the Lord has graciously provided firm evidence (in a form that intellectuals of all disciplines are able to appreciate and understand) that the supernatural is still around - an important factor in all our lives.

Christopher, are you able to suggest a reasonable naturalistic explanation for the Genesis 1:1 numero-geometrical phenomena? If not, then can we agree that MN can no longer be considered a valid assumption for those who practise science? Clearly, methodological _supernaturalism_ (MS) then becomes the proper alternative. [By the way, you may remember that A.R.Wallace - co-author of the Theory of Evolution, and Darwin's _goad_ - was of this mind (though not himself a Christian).]

I'm sure you will agree that until this particular matter is satisfactorily resolved we can't proceed to discuss the specific content of your posting in a meaningful way.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com
 

----- Original Message -----
  From: CMSharp01@aol.com
  To: vernon.jenkins@virgin.net
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 6:02 AM
  Subject: Re: Spellbound? (was Re: Cobb County)

  In a message dated 2/1/2005 3:29:51 PM US Mountain Standard Time, vernon.jenkins@virgin.net writes:

    The Lord expects us to exercise our minds in these matters. And that is particularly exemplified in respect of 'creation ex nihilo'. Here, we might readily conclude that God deceives us in that the bringing into being in this manner _must_ result in an appearance of age. But having told us clearly how things happened, using the formula, 'And God said let there be...and it was so.', we surely can have no reasonable complaint.

  Here we are back to this absurd appearance of age argument, which is
  inherently deceptive. One could argue that Adam created mature had
  an appearance of age in order to be fully functional, but impact craters on
  the moon, dead stars like white dwarfs and other astronomical and
  geological items which are due to long processes and are non-functional,
  therefore God creating, say, white dwarfs, is a deceptive God.

  Incidentally God did not say "And God said let there be...and it was so.",
  but the authors of Genesis, who were inspired by God to write within their
  cultural framework of the day.

    You will find that in my exchanges with George I have suggested possible deceptions by Satan - carried out, of course, with God's acquiescence. Those deceived having been adequately warned of the consequences of their unbelief, no charge of deception can be fairly levelled at the Creator

  And here we are again using Satan as an explanation. Using Satan, God, angels or goblins as a scientific explanation is not scientific, as there is no way of testing
  this assertion. I've noticed a tendency of creationsts to use the appearance
  of age arguments or Satan as an explanation as a cop-out when they have no
  other arguments.

  Christopher Sharp

  http://csharp.com/creationism.html
Received on Thu Feb 3 16:07:09 2005