RE: [asa] (introducing... sin) "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

It is clear that the origin of sin is not a scientific question, is purely historical, and is shrouded in mystery.

Moorad
________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Denis O. Lamoureux [dlamoure@ualberta.ca]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 1:10 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie; ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] (introducing... sin) "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

Bernie, Bernie, Bernie,
You have a "skill" in misrepresenting me.

You said:
"Denis Lamoureux said the inerrant theological truth to the origin of sin
was that it was introduced by humans (I can quote it if you want), although
he won't explain the details."

I said dozens of times that it's a MYSTERY. And I've used the
analogy of the womb. When do we become sinners? Fertilization?
2-cell stage? Neurulation? Gastrulation? etc, etc.

Therefore, it's not that I "won't explain the details,"
it's that I can't "explain the details." That's the nature
of a MYSTERY.

Denis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 10:53 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] (introducing... sin) "Evolutionary Creation" book
comments

> Murray - let me ask you this pointedly, and see if you can be precise.
>
> How exactly did sin enter the world? Please be specific and describe the
> actual reality, not in analogy.
>
> I will also tell you my understanding.
>
> Denis Lamoureux said the inerrant theological truth to the origin of sin
> was that it was introduced by humans (I can quote it if you want),
> although he won't explain the details. Do you agree? If so, explain how
> humans introduced sin into the world.
>
> I will then explain how we can know that humans did not introduce sin into
> the world.
>
> My counter-point to Lamoureux is that the idea of humans introducing sin
> into the world, using his own hermeneutics, should be classified as
> "ancient" (and incorrect I might add) theology. (Lamoureux and I both
> agree there was no literal Adam or first human.)
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Murray Hogg
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:16 PM
> To: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] (dreamtime) "Evolutionary Creation" book comments
>
>
>
> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>> Therefore, to be precise, the Adam of that story was not a real guy,
>> because the story is not real. It is merely a parable using well-known
>> existing characters. Am I correct?
>
> Actually, to be precise, you are committing a category error.
>
> The claim "the story is not real" merely begs the question "real in what
> sense?"
>
> To which your answer, as far as I can tell, is "real in the sense modern
> history is real"
>
> My response: It's not modern history, thus your question ("was Adam real")
> presumes a category error and allows of no answer.
>
> There is, simply put, NO WAY to tell from Genesis 1/2 whether Adam was a
> "real" person even though, from what we know of pre-modern oral tradition,
> it is highly unlikely that such a significant story would be attached to
> an entirely fictitious figure.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray
>
>
> 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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 1 13:35:40 2009