Re: lame creation concepts

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (
Date: Thu Sep 04 2003 - 15:16:56 EDT

  • Next message: Steve Petermann: "Re: lame creation concepts"

    On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 10:04:19 -0400 George Murphy <>
    > But traditional theologies have their own problems. I find
    > it strange &
    > somewhat disheartening that on this list people think that they can
    > discuss "God" &
    > "creation" in some detail without ever referring to the one who by &
    > for whom, according
    > to the NT (Jn.1:3, I Cor.8:6, Col.1:16-17, Heb.1:2), all things have
    > been created. To
    > put it bluntly, most of the discussions of creation here - from the
    > standpoints of both
    > process thought & more traditional theism - are of very little value
    > because of this
    > defect.
    > Shalom,
    > George

    Must something be defective because not everything is mentioned? Is a
    chemist's discussion of NaCl crystals somehow faulty because she failed
    to mention that copper sulfide (the common experiment heating copper and
    sulfur) does not match the formula assumed from valences? Does the work
    of the Godhead always have to be allotted to distinct members of the
    Trinity? Granted, sin and redemption are not the only matters which
    necessarily connect to the incarnation. But does everything have to be so
    carefully focused?

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 04 2003 - 15:22:00 EDT