Re: [asa] Letter to thinking Christians (and other theists)

Jack -- you are right -- there are three repetitive posts by me, because the
first two got caught up in their spam filter. I did not intend to keep
posting the same material. And I am indeed, banned for daring to ask
questions. Oh well.

On 4/16/07, Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>
> Dave, I hate to mention this, maybe there was a problem with your posts
> appearing on their site, but there are five *long* posts in a row from you
> that are repetitive, maybe that is why you were removed? On the other hand
> the posts are still there, and a post that you made after he said you were
> removed is still there so go figure.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* Dawsonzhu@aol.com
> *Cc:* pvm.pandas@gmail.com ; asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 15, 2007 11:09 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Letter to thinking Christians (and other theists)
>
>
> Well, finally the other shoe dropped -- Bill Dembski removed me from the
> UD discussion. I invite you all to take a look at what I wrote and
> determine for yourselves whether it was warranted. It's really too bad
> --I'd like to have added something to the discussion of secondary causes,
> which, in typical fashion, is getting botched by Bill's and Denyse's
> sycophantic commentators.
>
> Shame on you, Bill, for letting this travesty of a post be published and
> for removing me as a result of a comment based on what actually transpired
> here on the ASA list and on a theological point about Aquinas. You are
> losing whatever battle it is you're fighting, and this kind of thing is why.
>
>
>
> On 4/15/07, Dawsonzhu@aol.com <Dawsonzhu@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > Within Denyse O'Leary's screed,
> >
> > What you need to ask is a much simpler
> > and entirely determinable question: Is this stuff compatible with your
> > spiritual tradition? If not, recognize the situation for what it is:
> > undermining from within
> >
> >
> >
> > Hmmm, "spiritual tradition".... as in what, which
> > whose, where?
> >
> > I don't think Calvin dwells much on what a soul is
> > does he? He usually seemed to have the good sense
> > to stay out of meddling in matters well outside his
> > understanding of law, scripture and theology. It seems
> > to me, we might do well to follow such examples.
> >
> > At any rate, the one lesson we should understand by now is that
> > we don't know what the soul is and therefore, we are currently at
> > a loss on how to mesh it together with our scientific investigation
> > of the mind. Better that we learn to accept that we don't know how
> > to put it together, than to shout vociferously empty claims of such
> > knowledge and take the high and foolhardy road to thorough
> > destruction.
> >
> > by Grace we proceed,
> > Wayne
> >
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 16 11:02:10 2007