Re: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Sun Oct 11 2009 - 15:03:50 EDT

In principle you're right that there's no necessary correlation. Some very conservative theologians have a clear understanding of modern theologies that they don't in fact accept. But in practice a lot of people have trouble seeing clearly theological concepts outside their own belief systems - & the farther outside, the harder it may be. My post to which you referred - insistence of those whose theological understanding has been framed in YEC terms even if he/she may have rejected that belief system) on thinking about Christian anthropology in terms of an originally perfect creation, literal Adam & Eve &c - is one example.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Powers" <>
To: "George Murphy" <>
Cc: "Dehler, Bernie" <>; <>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux

> George:
> You wrote in replying to Bernie:
> "& your insistence on phrasing the issue in terms of an historical Adam
> shows
> that you have not escapted from your YEC understanding of Christianity.
> You may not believe it anymore but I suspect that your understanding of
> Christianity is still framed in those terms. & that will of course make it
> difficult for you to understand Christian theology that is not formulated that
> narrowly."
> Perhaps this is changing the focus of the thread, but I am interested in
> what ways you believe a "YEC Christianity" is different from a TE, OEC, or
> ID, etc. forms of Christianity.
> It is not clear to me that there are any "necessary" correlations.
> But it does seem to me that non-YEC forms of Christianity *tend* to
> engender a less immanent or less personal god.
> bill

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Oct 11 15:04:56 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 11 2009 - 15:04:56 EDT