George wrote a truly great response to this, one I shall save. He said, in
"one of the basic problems with most Christian discussions of
religion-science issues: They are _not_ connected with the cross and
I think that has to be a central point of agreement among Christians. Else
we run the risk of implicitly saying something else than Jesus Christ, and
Him crucified, is of primary importance. I have studied origins issues for
about 30 years now -- perhaps longer than that. I always insisted to anyone
I discoursed with that the issues of origins were of secondary importance
and that, if the TE position be "true," that just meant that my
understanding of those secondary issues was faulty, not my acceptance of
the Christ as my Lord.
I still hold to this position, more firmly than ever.
The family stories were told -- and retold. We call them "myths" today;
they are really "family stories." Family stories are what everyone in the
family accepts as being accounts of family history. Not history in the 21st
century sense; just "family stories." When you refer to them, and you are
not teaching history, you accept them, you don't qualify your remarks by
suggestions that they may not be in accord with actual historical fact. To
do so would simply dilute the message. That assumes you yourself are even
aware that they may be referring to fiction rather than fact. I doubt that
Peter, for instance, was ever aware of that possibility.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 10 2000 - 11:44:19 EST