RE: [asa] Our discourse here

James,

Happy to extend the olive branch, but I am not sure this deism qualifier removes the conflict.

You said:
> If you choose not to believe that God was intimately involved with the
> creation of man through Adam and Eve, then that’s your choice. As for me and
> my family, we choose God."

I don't know what you mean by intimately involved but as I stated, I don't think I and a lot of people on this list neccessarily believe that and I resent the implication that means I am not choosing God. This assumes a historical Adam and a literal Genesis and as you know there are many on this list that reject both.

In fact, I think the opposite is more true, that the PSI Gulo pseudogene evidence shows that man was likely not the result of any intimate involvement (e.g. special creation) unless you consider the spiritual aspect of man and that would likely be imperceptible to science anyway, rendering this to be by all appearances identical to the deistic position anyway.

So again, we are back to your strawman argument that God NOT being intimately involved in Adam and Eve means not choosing God and that God HAD to leave His fingerprints on Adam and Eve to get the credit for creating them. But neither is true and neither are scientific statements. And neither are supported by data either.

Thanks

John

--- On Tue, 2/24/09, James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> From: James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net>
> Subject: RE: [asa] Our discourse here
> To: john_walley@yahoo.com, asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 8:51 PM
> Oh, now I see what upset you. I didn't mean it that way
> at all, I could have
> worded that better. I think everyone who is interested
> enough in this topic
> to be involved has "chosen" God. I mentioned
> deism a couple of paragraphs up
> - that's more or less what I was referring to. I
> certainly should have
> added: "I'm sure you do too", to the end of
> that paraphrase from Joshua.
>
> I am very sorry.
>
> JP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of John Walley
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 6:41 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu; SteamDoc@aol.com
> Subject: Re: [asa] Our discourse here
>
>
> Ok fair enough. My apologies to JP and the list for my
> inappropriate
> response.
>
> However, when some people come on to the list and take a
> shot across the bow
> like that, I for one feel that some response is in order.
> This is the second
> time this has happened and no rebuttal has ever been
> offered.
>
> And as Steve pointed out, I am overly sensitive and a bit
> defensive about
> this so I felt compelled to say something. I let my anger
> get the best of
> me.
>
> But I do feel the "not choosing God" commment was
> gratuitous and over the
> top and is at least as deserving as a sermon as my response
> to it.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
> --- On Sun, 2/22/09, SteamDoc@aol.com
> <SteamDoc@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > From: SteamDoc@aol.com <SteamDoc@aol.com>
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Our discourse here
> > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > Date: Sunday, February 22, 2009, 10:34 PM
> > Steve Matheson wrote:
> > --------------------
> > [SNIP]
> > Most importantly, though, I'm just trying to keep
> us
> > focused on the fact
> > that some of the bad ideas around here are potentially
> > damaging. They are errors
> > that can harm the gospel and the church, specifically
> by
> > endangering the
> > faith of those who are victimized by (for example)
> the
> > reckless abuses of RTB. My
> > point is that concern about proper conduct in the
> absence
> > of concern about
> > such practices is unbalanced and unbiblical. One
> might
> > disagree by denying
> > that such conduct is damaging, or even by affirming
> the
> > assumptions of RTB and
> > its followers. But those who see such errors as
> dangerous
> > should be much more
> > circumspect, in my view, when posting links to sermons
> on
> > civil conduct and
> > adding hearty "amens" to those who do.
> > ----------
> >
> >
> > For what it's worth, as the one who started this
> > particular thread, I agree
> > with much of what Steve M. has said in reply.
> >
> > I agree that intemperate discourse is by no means the
> only
> > thing on this
> > list damaging to the body of Christ. If, for example,
> > somebody implies that
> > those who see God doing his creative work through
> natural
> > processes are failing
> > to "choose God", it is right to speak
> against
> > that. Anybody who has been on
> > this list for a while knows that I am not shy about
> > opposing some things,
> > like God-of-the-gaps theology, slavish concordism
> that
> > twists Scripture and/or
> > science (and yes, I would place some of RTB's
> > positions in that category), and
> > approaches to Scripture that verge on bibliolatry.
> >
> > But yet, in this communication among the body of
> Christ, we
> > must speak the
> > truth in love. We can oppose pernicious ideas without
> > personal attacks on
> > people. We can be firm without being vicious. We can
>
> > treat others with grace
> > and humility rather than contempt. We can be
> constructive
> > in our comments
> > rather than snarky. We can be wary of possible logs
> in
> > our own eyes. I think
> > David O. got that balance right in his message
> earlier
> > this evening. And his
> > thoughts about the murky purpose of this list are
> also
> > apropos.
> >
> > My purpose in providing that link was not to stifle
> > discourse but to try to
> > make our discourse more edifying. Edifying discourse
> does
> > not mean ignoring
> > bad doctrine or bad science when it hits our inboxes
> in
> > some sort of "let's
> > all just get along" mode. But I think it does
> mean,
> > as with all our
> > interactions, striving to be people of grace even as
> we
> > advocate what we believe to be
> > right and oppose what we believe to be wrong and
> harmful.
> >
> > Allan (ASA member)
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado |
> SteamDoc@aol.com
> > "Any opinions expressed here are mine, and
> should not
> > be
> > attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cat"
> > **************Need a job? Find an employment agency
> near
> > you.
> >
> (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusye
> lp00000003)
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 24 21:40:25 2009