Re: Seely's Views 2

From: <>
Date: Sun Aug 22 2004 - 08:48:40 EDT

Jan Dekoning wrote:

> What do you consider to be "truth"?

This is of course a faith statement, but I take Gen 1:1 at face value:
both historically true, theologically true. I cannot prove that it
is true by an experiment or showing His "Intel inside" stamp marked
all over the creation, but as far as one can be persuaded that 1
is greater than zero, I cannot see any reason to why anyone
should deny that God created the heavens and the earth (and a lot
more for that matter). It is a metaphysical statement, and like
such statements, they are difficult to make much progress on
beyond what one ultimately things is the truth.

Your question is like asking me if there is purpose. How can
anyone know for sure? Yet I cannot agree to live my life one day
as though there is, and the next as though there is not. I think
one must decide, and then stick with it. One can take the tactic
as Kai Nelson suggested in "why should we be moral", but I just
cannot agree with him because I think Gen 1:1 is true. In a
universe (multiverse whatever), we are accountable to that
creator for what we do, and that applies whatever ultimate
reality is. But it all begins with taking that one statement
(Gen 1:1) on faith.

> Why is Ge.1-11 in the Bible? Certainly not to tell us history.

Glenn does make one interesting point here. They chose creation
stories that have some relation to what is scientifically true. Not word
for word, but taken poetically, not too bad. It also takes a different angle
from a Buddhist view where the universe has simply been here because
the Bible proposes that there was a beginning somewhere and somehow.

As for myself, I accepted Christ during my college years. I read
a lot of atheist literature at the time, and saw Christians as simple-minded
judgmental weaklings. But there was a gnawing bite on my
soul about the evil deeds of man throughout history that would let
me go. Christ met me somewhere along the way, and I cannot see going
back anymore. I understood that it was a choice, but in spite
of the embarrassment of Creation science and a variety of other
things I see, Christ is the only way I can see (for myself at least)
to go. Salvation is not just for the next life, it is also for this one.
My walk with Christ has little-by-little made me a better man, and
I'm confident that it will make me better still. That doesn't mean
I haven't screwed up, but I think I understand that to be what that
walk as actually about.


> Since we are in the middle of
> moving I don't have the necessary time to say more than that, but I am 100%
> sure that God did not speak to people living 6000 years ago in scientific
> language, nor just to tell us how He made His world. Also, I am convinced that
> He spoke in a language they understood, about concepts they understood.
> The whole Bible is the story of how God wants us to be close to Him, but
> also how we should live responsibly.

It may come down to what we consider valid criteria to define something as
"inspired". Although there are writings on it, inspiration seems rather
personal. Since I actually thought I would go the direction of atheism when
Christ met me, my reasons for seeing God in the text are probably different
from Glenn's and perhaps yours.

I appreciate that Dick, Glenn, and Peter and others wrestle to
fit the whole Genesis 1-11 into some sort of consistent frame. At
the same time, I can see clearly what you, Michael and Paul are
saying. Maybe best to just appreciate each other's differences and
leave it at that.
by Grace alone we proceed,
Received on Sun Aug 22 09:34:40 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 22 2004 - 09:34:41 EDT