RE: Adam never met Eve

From: glenn morton (
Date: Thu Nov 09 2000 - 17:21:27 EST

  • Next message: glenn morton: "RE: Adam never met Eve"

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: []On
    > Behalf Of

    > Glenn Morton wrote (in a concluding remark):
    > << Don't miss the fact that I have clearly stated that there
    > is much that I believe that can't be verified in Christianity.
    > Feelings can't be verified. I have experienced feelings in
    > worship services and in devotions. However, shamons in New
    > Guinea feel their religion every bit as intensely as any
    > Christian glossalia participant. But feelings don't tell us
    > which of the two religions is true----only objective data can
    > do that.
    > >>
    > I think the place where the rubber really meets the road in
    > the Old Testament (OT) is the issue of Moses and the Exodus.
    > If that is utter myth, I would have to say that the Bible is
    > nonsense and not worth taking seriously. The OT rests on that,
    > and it is at the core of the Jewish (and Christian) faith.
    > It is what gives us hope and faith that God really does act in
    > history, and that God treats us as moral creatures who will be
    > held accountable for our deeds --- like it or not.

    Let's take your scenario to illustrate what I see as the two different
    reactions of the conservatives on the one hand and liberals on the other.
    This case is fascinating because there is NO archaeological evidence for the
    Exodus, especially one with so many people.

    The conservative, in order to maintain his belief and avoid leaving
    Christianity, can reject the total lack of scientific observation as being
    important. This is what they do with creation. THey reject the observational
    data that contradicts their views or say it really isn't important.

    The liberal on the other hand, in order to maintain his belief and avoid
    leaving christianity, will say that the Exodus was not meant to be taken
    literally--it was meant to teach us about humans and the human conditions
    and our relationship to God. It simply doesn't have to be historical.

    This is why I reject both approaches. They are heads I win, tails you lose


    for lots of creation/evolution information


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 09 2000 - 17:20:29 EST