RE: [asa] Our discourse here

James,

I know you are a psychiatrist but with all due respect I don't think it is a valid diagnosis for you to say that I have a problem because I reject a literal Adam.

Your message is clear alright and your thought experiment was for your own benefit because I knew where you were coming from before you bothered to tell us simply because I am ahead of you on your journey and recognize that you just haven't thought it through enough yet. Again it is a faulty dilemma to say that Adam and Eve are the linchpin and have to be historical and Genesis literal or else all the Bible and God's supernatural intervention goes away. That is a fairly simplistic and naive view in my opinion and it doesn't work anyway. This is the injustice that RTB is doing to the Body by propogating that to the guillible.

As to all your why questions, I believe in all the supernatural works of God and that he is intimately involved with His creation today and that he answers prayer and cares for us and therefore I seek Him and to do His will and raise my kids to do the same. That is why I am sending you this email. However I do not need to bend science to support a historical Adam to support my faith. My faith is based on spiritual revelation and the experience of hearing His voice and feeling His presence and not any emperical or testable evidence like the RTB model.

I believe the Bible is inspired and God spoke a message to us through it but it is not what you think it was. I reject the attempt of RTB at an overly concordant and literal scriptures to prove faith to be used as an offensive weapon on unbelievers. Jesus denied the Pharisees when they came to Him seeking for Him to prove Himself to them, I do not think it is consistent that He would do so for us now.

I think you and all the RTB followers would be better served by coming to grips with a theology of God creating us gradually and an accomodationist view of scriptures, since that is what you are going to have to face ultimately.

Thanks

John

--- On Wed, 2/25/09, James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> From: James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net>
> Subject: RE: [asa] Our discourse here
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 12:36 AM
> 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.
>
>
>
> Well then, John, perhaps you do have a problem.
>
>
>
> The Bible is an integrated whole, and fits together
> throughout its breadth. You want to remove the lynchpin from
> that completeness by removing Adam and Eve, and original
> sin. I am not sure that Adam and Eve were the first two of
> all mankind. Even if they were the first two of the Hebrews,
> they were the first two. Genesis spends quite a bit of time
> telling us about them. If you want to think that Genesis and
> all the rest of the creation accounts in the Bible are
> made-up, then that is your choice. I believe it’s the
> wrong one.
>
>
>
> Here’s a little thought experiment:
>
>
>
> Genesis 1 and 2 are obviously just symbolic. There’s no
> scientific evidence for Adam and Eve, right? So that means
> all of Genesis is tainted…why not just blow the whole of
> Genesis off? And while we’re at it, Exodus is shaky too.
> There’s no evidence all that really happened. Heck, I
> don’t like any of the Pentateuch, let’s get rid of it as
> well. And while we are at it, Revelations doesn’t seem
> right either. I’m not sure it’s supposed to be there.
>
>
>
> So, since God didn’t have any supernatural involvement
> with the creation of man or his spiritual nature, then why
> accept any of the supernatural accounts in the Bible? Why
> not just become a higher critic, and cut out the portions of
> the Bible altogether that reference prophecy, miracles,
> signs and wonders, and don’t align with science? They
> obviously are false, since the supernatural isn’t real.
>
>
>
> Why not just be a deist then? If all you need is the moral
> law of God, why believe in Christ at all? Why shouldn’t we
> just believe then, that Jesus was “just a good man”?
>
>
>
> Hopefully from this little thought experiment my message is
> clear. If you think that you can “choose God” and deny
> the Genesis account of creation (as well as all the other
> references in the Bible), then I disagree with you, I
> believe you are wrong, I believe that your Christianity
> lacks foundational strength, and I think therefore that your
> faith is on shaky ground. You must deal with my statements
> as best you can, because that’s where I live, and that’s
> what I believe.
>
>
>
> There is a balance. YEC denies science. You deny the
> Genesis account. I accept both. That is not always easy for
> me to like or deal with. You may continue to resent that if
> you wish, but where does that anger come from, really?
> Because you really need to deal with the source of that
> anger – not with me. I am comfortable discussing these
> topics. I will defend my position as best I am able.
>
>
>
> Now…did I touch on a nerve for more than just John? Quite
> likely. However, I think that you should be able to see 1
> Peter 3:15 above, and I think it is wholly consistent with
> Ephesians 4:29. However, perhaps this modification of my
> original statement will appease you:
>
>
>
> 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’s intimate involvement with his Creation.
>
>
>
> JP

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 25 09:08:42 2009