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

Murray,
Amen!
Denis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray Hogg" <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] (introducing... sin) "Evolutionary Creation" book
comments

> Hi Bernie,
>
> Again, you're asking the wrong question.
>
> The RIGHT question is NOT "how did sin enter the world" but, rather;
>
> 1) What is "sin"?
>
> and
>
> 2) When did humans become morally culpable for it?
>
> If your answer to (1) is "breaking God's law" or anything even remotely
> resembling it, then you're confusing cause with effect. Time to re-read
> Romans 7 and start again.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray.
>
> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>> 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 20:10:50 2009