Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?

From: Iain Strachan <>
Date: Wed Aug 01 2007 - 19:42:02 EDT


Where did I say I was dismissing it??

What I dismiss is the notion that it is interpreted as a literal historical

As an example I've given several times before, but no-one has commented; I'm
about to click the "send" button to send this message off to everyone on the
list. But I'm NOT literally doing that - I'm literally clicking the same
button on the mouse that I'd click if I clicked the "discard" button.

I am of the opinion that metaphor is MORE meaningful than history, not
less. Of COURSE the narrative is central to the Christian faith, which is
why it's so sad that people get "stuck" on the idea that it's a literal
event & then have to invent laughable pseudo-science (and I've had to endure
my atheist colleagues laughing at it) in order to justify it.

Please retract your assertion that I "dismiss" a central narrative of the
Christian faith. I find your accusation to be extremely insulting, to be

Just about to click the mythological "send" button...


On 8/1/07, David Opderbeck <> wrote:
> But Iain, though I agree with you on the need for a broader hermeneutical
> perspective, and though I agree with you that it's too pat and simple to
> attribute carnivorous animals and such to a recent historical fall, I'm
> really struggling with the way in which, it seems to me, you're dismissing a
> central narrative of the Christian faith. The picture scripture gives us of
> human rebellion against God is, in fact, the picture of a man and woman
> eating fruit God told them not to eat. And scripture does, in fact, suggest
> that this somehow messes up everything. It seems to me that we need to *
> appropriate* this picture and *interpret* it in the context of what we
> know about the physical world, but not to *dismiss* it.
> On 8/1/07, Iain Strachan <> wrote:
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > On 7/28/07, Peter Loose < > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Iain and Friends:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I find this stance in respect of 'bad things being literally due to
> > > one historical woman and her husband eating a piece of fruit' to be very
> > > sad.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sorry, but that is exactly what my YEC friends tell me. That the fall
> > is a literal historical event, tied precisely to Adam and Eve eating the
> > fruit, literally on a given day. As direct result of this God put the curse
> > on the whole of creation, and from thenceforth all the bad things happened.
> > "Carnivory" started up (I've even seen articles on this on the AiG website),
> > animals started eating each other.
> >
> > The logical extension to this is that to answer Michael's pointed
> > question as to why God "designed" the Ebola virus is that Adam's specific
> > act of disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit was the direct reason that
> > God made this happen.
> >
> > My creationist friends tell me that the whole Gospel falls apart if you
> > don't accept this.
> >
> > I agree - the whole stance is very sad indeed, and I feel honour bound
> > as a Christian to continue to point out its absurdity - an absurdity that
> > keeps people away from Christianity because most people think you must be a
> > nutter to believe such things.
> >
> > As I have said elsewhere, we must think about what the Fall narrative
> > _means_ rather than being stuck on whether it happened literally as
> > described. (Man+woman+fruit).
> >
> > Iain
> >
> >
> >

After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 1 19:42:37 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 01 2007 - 19:42:37 EDT