Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3

From: John W Burgeson (
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 - 12:06:20 EST

  • Next message: Steven M Smith: "Re: Why methodological naturalism?"

    Jim wrote: "Howard, you give up easily. What are the consequences if you
    are wrong?
    I would suggest that you strongly prove Genesis one doesn't = science
    jumping to other conclusions. Remember, we have to defend the faith to

    Jim, you really need to read Howard's book before suggesting that he
    "gives up easily." And you need to think hard about what "defending the
    faith" really means. I would suggest that establishing a personal
    relationship with God through Christ is what the "faith" is all about and
    that it has absolutely nothing to do with one's "belief" in the truth of
    some statement about history.

    Let me put it more bluntly. Although I think the virgin birth really
    happened, I neither think that belief in any way "saves" me, nor do I
    think that one who does not hold that belief, for example Marcus Borg, is
    ipso facto not a Christian. Substitute any historical statement for
    "virgin birth" in the above and I assert the same thing. Noah's flood,
    floating ax head, Jonah or Job as literal history, water - into - wine at
    Cana -- I will make the same statement.

    Turning it around, I do think that one may have an absolute belief in all
    the above, and still not "know God," nor, indeed, be a Christian
    (although he.she may think they are).

    John Burgeson (Burgy)
           (science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
            humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 12:09:12 EST