From: Jim Eisele (email@example.com)
Date: Sat May 17 2003 - 08:43:37 EDT
>If I write anymore I will have a book here. So, I hope you can see my
>approach to Genesis is perfectly reasonable but at the same time perfectly
>honest. I don't have to distort the Bible or the sciences, and the
>recognition that the science in Gen is ancient is based on the empirical
>evidence showing that it is found in the ancient Near Eastern writings. The
>recognition that the theology is indeed a divine revelation is based on the
>witness of the Holy Spirit , yes, but also on the fact that the theology
>stands in strong contrast, indeed in some places apparently purposeful
>contrast to the theology of the times; and it is superior to that ancient
>Think about this. It is a different paradigm, just as reasonable as the old
>rationalistic one, but it flows from the data, not lording it over the
Well, Paul, I face a couple of issues when discussing matters
You are shedding light in an area that desperately needs it.
Not only that, but you have access to religious people who
need education to improve their lives.
Your approach works for you. And you can write a lot of
words about it. As a human, I cannot overlook all the harm
that false religion causes people. I can't help but determine
that you are engaging in special pleading.
Words attributed to a deity are shown to be inaccurate.
Instead of concluding these were merely human words, you
determine the deity was being compassionate (accommodating,
in your words).
Personally, I think you have other reasons for believing.
The sad state of religion today is that religious people
rely on highly subjective personal experience. That's
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 17 2003 - 08:44:13 EDT