RE: [asa] Believing Scripture but Playing by Sciences Rules

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Tue Feb 13 2007 - 12:51:24 EST

At 11:04 AM 2/13/2007, Alexanian, Moorad wrote:

>I suppose I am still stuck on the notion of how a scientific
>development of life on Earth "allows" sin to enter into animals that
>henceforth became humans. Note that the notion of sin has no place
>in a scientific theory. Does that mean that something or someone
>from "outside" stepped in and added that element in the animal world
>to "change" some primates into humans? If so, then, how do we study
>the history of the universe and know when and how that someone from
>"outside" stepped in and made some changes in the time-development
>of the universe? Do we minimize that "interference" or maximize it?
>Who is to tell what occurred in the past and how to tell? ~ Moorad

@ Indeed. Animals act by instinct, aren't "self-conscious" and
therefore can't be guilty of "sin".

 From my previous post today:

"..The Semitic Totality Concept means that "a man's thoughts form one
totality with their results in action so that 'thoughts' that result
in no action are 'vain'." [ibid, 60] To put it another way, man does
not have a body; man is a body, and what we regard as constituent
elements of spirit and body were looked upon by the Hebrews as a
fundamental unity. Man was not made from dust, but is dust that has,
"by the in-breathing of God, acquired the characteristics of
self-conscious being." Thus Paul regards being an unbodied spirit as
a form of nakedness (2 Cor. 5). Man is not whole without a body. A
man is a totality which embraces "all that a man is and ever shall
be." ... " J.P.Holding

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 13 12:52:06 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 13 2007 - 12:52:06 EST