Re: The forgotten verses

From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Sat May 31 2003 - 05:46:18 EDT

  • Next message: RFaussette@aol.com: "Re: Preoccupation: Was Do non-U.S. ....."

    >
    > This verbal exchange began as a result of your treating us to some typical
    > hyperbole, viz "What I am saying is that YEC and any fundamentalist
    nonsense
    > creates a severe problem to both the head and the heart of any Christian
    > striving to follow Christ." (23.05) -
    > having earlier said, "If I were presented with the choice of YEC or
    atheism
    > I would choose the latter as being more in the spirit of Jesus.", and " If
    > the choice was YEC and any form of liberal Christianity I would choose the
    > latter for being closer to the teachings of the Bible."

    This was not hyperbole but the way things are. I am required by Jesus to
    love God with all my mind, That i cannot do if I adopt YEC nonsense and
    fabrications, hence if I were given the false choice, that is the way I
    would go.

    >
    > I can well understand why you would now wish to disengage, but before
    doing
    > that perhaps you would now properly address the matter which formed the
    > greater part of my recent posting, viz the essential nature of man - as it
    > is presented in the Scriptures (eg Gn.8:21, Ps.2:1-3, Jer.17:9, Jn.2:25,
    > Ro.3:10,23) - and how this might impact on the C/E debate.

    I am aware of the falleness of man and I dont see what has got to do with
    it, except to say any Christian can still be wrong in what they propound.

    As a Christian
    > minister of long standing you will of course be aware of these
    > 'fundamentalist' Bible teachings - which, incidentally, appear to be
    > adequately confirmed by what we know of ourselves and others. However,
    > perhaps you would like to give us your views.
    You complain of the offensive of others, see to yourself.

    >
    > My own feeling is that the debate cannot be properly and meaningfully
    > engaged until this fundamental human flaw is factored in; for surely, if
    > there is doubt about his being a reliable witness in respect of ultimate
    > origins, then it should be declared - wouldn't you agree?
    Who is the "his"?

    According to the
    > Bible, both Creation and Flood were supernatural events; why then should
    we
    > be expected to believe those who tell us that only natural forces were
    > involved?
    Creation is the initial and continuing act of God. The Bible does not say
    the flood was supernatural.
    >
    > And one further question that has always intrigued me: when you assembled
    > your _condensed_ version of the Bible, how did you decide which verses to
    > leave out?
    I get fed up with the superspirituality and offensiveness of people like you
    who assume that those who dont support your silly myths of numerology and
    YEC have rejected the Bible.

     I have tried to answer your questions but you simply have a closed mind and
    heart

    M



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 31 2003 - 05:51:50 EDT