Re:  The Oldest Human Fossils ...

In a message dated 3/2/2005 7:52:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, "George L. Murphygmurphy@raex.com" <gmurphy@raex.com> writes:

You continue to ignore what I've said.  Though you seem to have little idea about how theology - as distinguished from religious studies - is done, you will imagine that your statements about how to relate faith and science are "correct" because you aren't interested in what anyone else has to say if they don't agree with you.  Happy soliloquizing.
>
>Shalom,
>George
>

George,   I ignored what I agreed with or found neutral. I only remark where there is a conflict/question. You said in a number of different ways in a few posts something about a Christological something or other looking back to Genesis something or other and I tried to point out to you that to look at the texts scientifically and we were only looking at Genesis, you had to pick a discipline and applies its tools to the texts, be it history or anthropology or archeology, etc. without any references to Christ or any theology at all and to look with non-prejudiced eyes at what emerged from your study and only then compare the result to your existing theology to see if it supports or refutes it. Even bringing up Christ in a thread on the meaning of Genesis clouds the issue if you are doing a scientific analysis. I scanned your articles. You should read mine. It's not literary criticism. It's Darwinian exegesis and it explains the two most important archetypes in Genesis, person!
al and communal redemption, the heavenly chariot that the kabbalists say (what do they know?) is the science of nature in Genesis. George. Read it. It's correct whether you talk to me or not.

George, if I only talked to myself, I wouldn't get an argument.
Read and argue my paper George online with your peers. Tear it apart. Oh no. It's better to prove your point by not talking to me.
Best,
rich
Received on Wed Mar 2 21:45:02 2005