Those "foo"s were just dinging George for telling me to say "theology" 3
times in a previous post. (I should not have done that. Sorry, George.)
The English language is poor in conveying concepts I think. Too bad we
cannot communicate in unambiguous Fortran.
I have certainly did not say that I was supporting the infallibility of
Bible and literal interpretation as such. I really don't look upon it
that way at all.
There are all kinds of "rules" that people make up about what is
necessary to be a Christian. I have a simple one: It is up to Jesus
Christ to determine who is "saved" and who is not. We are not to be
judges of our brothers at all. I have rules for myself, I don't apply
those same rules to others.
The street you describe goes two ways. I have seen both. I also have
seen people loose their faith because of evolution. It is our fault for
allowing the atheists like Dawkins to take the high ground and convince
people that: If evolution is true, then there is no God.
Jan de Koning wrote:
> At 11:46 PM 04/05/02 -0400, Walter Hicks wrote:
> >So, with respect to your notion that Genesis 1-11 is a myth (whoops, I
> >mean "theology"), I say "foo". Let me repeat that: "foo". Trying saying
> >it: "foo" (instead of "theology"). I just know that you can, George.
> >Genesis was history to folks before the 21st century and modern science
> >has not changed the truths of the Bible. IMHO
> I probably have said this before. I accept all people who believe the
> infallibility of the Bible as Christian brothers and sisters, who depend
> for their salvation on Christ's death. That does not mean that I accept
> their reasoning, and I hope I never said in words what I exactly think
> about their scientific thinking. Fact is that some people keep part of
> their life out of the sphere of serving God. The danger becomes a great
> danger, if one wants to force Christian physicists and biologists in
> thinking something that according to them clearly would force them out of
> the Christian community. Believe me, I have seen that happen.
> For that reason, I plead with all of you to stop implying unfaithfulness of
> those who disagree with you. Modern science has not changed any of the
> "truths" of the Bible (I have before written about the change in
> implications of the word "truth."). I personally, note that I say
> personally, believe that YE believers have done great harm to the way the
> Bible is being read. It, to me, does not appear to be in the line of the
> Reformation, as I was taught.
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <email@example.com>
In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 05 2002 - 23:42:09 EDT