RE: [asa] Our discourse here

Hi Preston, you said (to John Walley):
"You want to remove the lynchpin from that completeness by removing Adam and Eve, and original sin."

It depends on what you mean by this: "You want."

Truth is truth, and it doesn't matter if we "want" something to be true or not... that has no bearing on the truth. However, if one "wants" to do something based on the truth, that is a different matter. So I'm saying if John Walley "wants" to remove Adam and Eve, you have to ask why. If it is because science seems to have proven something, then it is correct. If it is because of a hope or wish, then it could be a bad thing (but no one would know for sure because it is a matter of faith, meaning no one knows for sure yet).

I used to think Adam and Eve were literal people. I no longer do because of how I understand science. I didn't want to remove the idea of a literal Adam and Eve, but I do out of necessity in aligning to the truth (yes, it almost made me become an atheist because I thought a literal Adam and Eve were vital for the Christian faith). Since I've done that, I see everything differently, and so it may now look like I just "wanted" to remove them. I didn't remove them because I "wanted" to, but because I had to. I think it is the same with John Walley, from what he wrote.

If you think that someone has to believe in a literal Adam and Eve to be a "true Christian" (and I'm not saying that you do), that is ok with me, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I appreciated your input to the discussion.

What SUPER IRRITATES me are book authors who write about the origins issues, and don't even bother mentioning how to interpret Adam and Eve, and don't even have Adam in the Index. I consider them spineless & gutless. I have a number of these books now.

...Bernie

________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of James Patterson
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:37 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Our discourse here

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 14:20:19 2009