Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically

Hiya Schwarzwald, Yes, you are indeed correct in saying (other than it seems you mixed the names): "I don't think Murray [i.e. Gregory] was asking for a specific *when* A and B are distinguished, or even necessarily a *how* A and B are distinguished, but simply *that* A and B are, in fact, distinguished. That there was, somehow and someway, a 'first man' - and that man is distinct from non-man." Yes, I was asking, not for a specific *when* or *how*, but rather for a *that*. This is precisely an issue of great significance, imho. It would surprise me if it was *not* an issue of importance for others too. In other words, it is the 'degree or kind' question of old. It seems that Murray has agreed with this, i.e. that *there was [*must have been*] a 'first man',* which is "distinct from non-man," however, with certain (imo reasonable) qualifications. - G. ________________________________ From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com> To: asa@calvin.edu Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2009 1:50:48 AM Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically Heya Murray, Just a short comment here. I'm in agreement with quite a lot of your perspective (sounds like you've taken in quite some interesting observations from aboriginal beliefs/practices!), but I don't think Murray was asking for a specific *when* A and B are distinguished, or even necessarily a *how* A and B are distinguished, but simply *that* A and B are, in fact, distinguished. That there was, somehow and someway, a 'first man' - and that man is distinct from non-man. Pretty simple, and I agree with Gregory about such a man existing, though I agree with you in turn about what the real importance of those passages were. So I guess I'm somewhere in the middle (though your take on Paul is also fascinating. You should be writing articles, Murray.) On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au> wrote: Hi Greg, > > > >p.p.s. you wrote: "sin isn't primarily an issue of disobedience but of relationship" - this is agreeable. Once you say 'degree' to a human-social scientist, however, there is a problem (though admittedly not to all of them/us) - it *is* a full-frontal attack on HSS sovereignty (even if you didn't know this when you spoke it). >> >This is a really curious remark - but I suspect my perplexity is due to the brevity of your comment. > >There are some things which - without any protestation - are a matter of degree - colours on a spectrum, volume of noise, distance from a fixed point. And I can't imagine that such facts constitute a "full-frontal attack on HSS". > >So I can only guess that the issue is that if we can't precisely delineate the "human" then all that is generally regarded as "human" collapses into the merely "natural" leaving no place for a HSS perspective. Is that about it? > >Blessings, >Murray > > >To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with >"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. > __________________________________________________________________ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 5 04:54:02 2009