Re: [asa] No Adam?

From: John Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com>
Date: Tue May 05 2009 - 09:52:46 EDT

A fair analysis. I had no intention of suggesting that my experience
was normative. It is just one of my memories from about 75 years ago.

I'm sure I read "better" now than then -- but not with greater sense
of accomplishment!

j

On 5/5/09, Merv Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
> John Burgeson (ASA member) wrote:
>> On 5/2/09, Merv Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
>>
>> "But it would be impossible and useless for us to identify the day and
>> hour that this "switch" happened and we became literate."
>>
>> It might be "useless," but I can clearly remember that day and hour.
>> It was late evening; I was riding in the back seat as my parents drove
>> home. We passed the Ford dealer and I spelled out the sign -- F O R D
>> -- and ask dad what it said. When he told me it was like a veil being
>> lifted! Letters spelled out real words, and I could decode them! I
>> made a real pest of myself on the rest of the way home! I could read!
>>
>> I have never quit!
>>
>> Burgy
>>
> Yes, but I pretty strongly suggest that you weren't reading at the level
> you are now on that very next day! Nevertheless, your reply illustrates
> something at play here: our propensity or need to "nail things down"
> and commemorate those important milestones as it were. Think how
> important it is to some Christians to be able to recite day and hour
> when they became saved. They resist or set aside the notion that there
> may have been any progression or process involved because they/we all
> are more comfortable functioning as binary thinkers. We celebrate a
> birth"day" even though we were quite alive the day before and
> incrementally progressing there for around nine months before that. But
> a trip down the birth canal is a significant event and as good as any to
> choose for documentation purposes. But my point is that these are
> conveniences for the sake of our own thought processes about the world
> and not necessarily accurate reflections of reality. We want to think
> of "one" Adam and "one" fall event that neatly happened at one time
> because that is easier to process, relate theological truths about,
> etc. I think it a valid form of accommodation. Hence the wrestlings of
> others here over "just who was the first" to be this or do that. They
> may be missing the point that the historical accommodation shouldn't be
> the focus of the theology --particularly not after it is recognized as
> accommodation. This only gives others unnecessary grounds for
> dismissing it.
>
> --Merv
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 5 09:53:25 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 05 2009 - 09:53:25 EDT