RE: [asa] From Denis Lamoureux

FYI, I don't respond to such emotional responses, instead looking for content to discuss. So if others want to respond and heap up more emotion or go off on the same rant, I won't respond to it, fyi. If they have actual content, I'll respond to it. I'm one that tries to maximize the light and eliminate the heat when disagreeing with others.

Denis' reply also indicates to me he no longer wants discussion, so it would also be pointless for me to ask him anything more regarding his email that might have some content to it. Usually the response to such is more of the same.

Another person has wrote me privately and tried to convince me that I'm stubborn and not open-minded. I responded that changing my belief system proves that I'm open-minded. I also responded that if I agreed with his position, he would not call me stubborn; he only thinks I'm stubborn because I disagree with him. It is al emotionalism that I avoid.

...Bernie

________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 7:29 PM
To: ASA list
Subject: [asa] From Denis Lamoureux

Denis has asked me to post the message below to the list.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

Dear Bernie,
I am no longer on the listserv. And for one reason: I'm tired of repeating the
same responses to you over and over and over again.

Your self-aggrandizing "extension" of my work is a shameful proof-texting.
How many times do I have to tell you that you're entrenched in CONFLATION.
NO firmament & NO Adam DOES NOT lead to NO Image of God. You've
collapsed these distinct categories (2 physical, 1 metaphysical) together.
I do the absolute opposite in my books. Which makes me wonder: did you
actually read them?

Look it Bernie, so you've lost the Faith. That's too bad. As far as
I'm concerned, that's a mistake. But don't try to justify yourself
with these silly pseudo-intellectual "arguments." Just be a stand
up guy and say: I choose not to believe. It's clear to me that your
issues are not academic . . ..

Denis

From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Date: Thu Oct 08 2009 - 10:37:13 EDT

I was just reviewing "the image of God" from my favorite textbook and theologian "Christian Theology" by Millard J. Erickson, and I think it leads me to a fascinating question for Denis Lamoureux and his theories.

Millard describes the three views/theories of "the image of God,' labeled "substantive, relational, and functional." He also says all three views are not completely satisfying (pg. 517 chapter summary), then gives a detailed analysis using Scripture with his own opinion.

So it seems to me, after looking at Millard's discussion, that the image of God is completely spiritual (as well as a mystery), and in no way can be scientifically measured, etc. (just like the existence of God, the Devil, etc.).

However- this does pose a very interesting question for Denis Lamoureux. As I understand Denis, he says "there is no Adam" just like there is no firmament. Can we go farther? The only mention of "made in the image of God" is also from the same passage! No firmament, no literal man named Adam... why not also no literal 'image of God' given at one point. Wouldn't that be consistent? It is all Gen. chapter 1! Shouldn't the same hermeneutic be used on the whole chapter?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Oct 11 12:40:21 2009