RE: Adam never met Eve

From: glenn morton (
Date: Fri Nov 03 2000 - 01:52:35 EST

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: Adam never met Eve"

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: george murphy []
    > Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 10:33 PM
    > Glenn, you often present quite penetrating insights into
    > the arguments
    > and fallacies of others. It's unfortunate that you don't seem to
    > be able to see
    > that your argument here, which reproduces what you have often
    > said on this list,
    > depends in a critical way on illegitimate use of words like
    > "everything" and
    > "only", as in "If everything in the OT was wrong" or "only a book
    > of morality
    > tales." Neither Howard nor I nor anybody on the ASA list that I
    > can recall has
    > ever expressed such views of Scripture. You are belaboring a caricature.

    If I am defending a caricature, George, then outline right here and now,
    exactly the events in the Genesis 1-11 that you say are historically
    accurate and thus capable of detailed verification. Detailed verification is
    the hallmark of objective data. We apply this to science, we apply this
    standard to the Book of Mormon, but won't apply it to our own Bible.

    So, what exactly do you say is capable of detailed verification in Genesis
    1-11. A list would be very nice. Failure to provide such a list would imply
    that nothing is verifiable.

    > A second, & distinct, point: You seem unwilling to differentiate
    > between morality and theology. The morality taught by many other
    > religions does
    > indeed have a great deal in common with that of the
    > Judaeo-Christian tradition.

    Now, you are reading me wrong. I most assuredly agree that the morality
    taught by other religions is worthwhile. No doubt about it. But if you claim
    that your theology is so great, upon what is that claim based? It seems to
    me that it is based upon nothing more solid than personal and cultural
    prejudice favoring the Christian religion. Why can't the advocates of other
    religions make the same claim that 'christian morality is great, but their
    theology stinks'. It seems to me that this results in a standoff.

    > The same cannot be said for understandings of God and God's
    > relationship with
    > humanity and the world. The belief that God is revealed in the historical
    > reality (N.B.) of the crucifixion of Jesus as the Trinity is not even
    > approximated by other religions.

    What you have presented above is your belief system and your personal and
    cultural prejudices, but you haven't really presented evidence for those
    beliefs. A muslim can claim that his religion's theology isn't even
    approximated by other religions. Big deal, we have two people making
    unsubstantiatable claims. Objective data is the only way out of this


    for lots of creation/evolution information

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 03 2000 - 01:52:23 EST