Not just in Kansas, Anymore....
Fri Jul 27 23:34:35 CDT 2001
I have stated my position before that putting both opponents into the same
ring and letting them duke it out is a good idea. It is a bad idea to force
anyone to believe anything, or isolate or prohibit anyone from exposure to
other views. The God of the Bible actually presented two conflicting
systems, two paths to humanity and let them choose.
My objection to creationism in public schools (as a cleric) is a fear that
the teachers will not stick with "the facts" as they see them but also
become evengelical - even to the point of bringing in all our historical
denominational warring factions. There are some (a few) who would actually
stick to pragmatic information, statisticts, analysis etc. But people are
just kidding themselves if they think the dogs are gonna walk by the tree
and not p*ss on it - that is what dogs do. Religious people proselytize not
just evangelize (which is fine in its place).
You may find the following useful at some point perhaps not. If a
creationist is any kind of theologian he will acknowledge that the light of
day one is not talking about some type of radiation (see also John 1 fist
several verses). What I would like for them to just consider is that it is
not even talking about good vs. evil. - it is speaking of life vs. death.
The account states that to begin with there was noting - or death - which
is simply the absence of life - or a life force.
Day one says a life force was put into the chaos by a rational entity AND
that the life force was greater than the lack of life and overcame it -
that's it. How did it "win" over the nothingness, lifeless-ness? By
bringing life where there was absolutely none previously. Everybody knows
the word for day is the "original" has absolutely no connection at all with
a 24 hour limitation. It could have been billions of years or a day on
Day two says there was a soup - waters, minerals, elements, swirling . The
life force "spark" interacted with and in the soup and what followed was
the earth brought fourth, the earth brought fourth, the sea brought fourth,
the earth brought forth.
Moses wrote down those simple and primitive accounts as he was dictated to
by a divine entity. The object was to get to the advent of modern man and
his problems etc. etc. There is a ton of other stuff here and I won't even
get into it via personal email. I wrote an article once many years ago that
I should dig out, type in and put in a pdf file. Virtually all my preacher
friends don't like it. They have nothing to combat it with and agree it
sounds correct. However, it so blows many of their Genesis 1-3 traditions
right out of the water - by their Bible - that they would rather remain in
darkness rather than admit they and _their_ holy church is wrong.
I am far from a liberal theologian and I think my personal conservative
credibility (the source) is what pricks at their closed minds the most.
Put it to a creationist this way. 1) Does the Bible say there was no life
here first? Their answer would have to be yes. 2) Can't day one be taken
as the manifestation of that which would bring about life. Their answer
should be yes. 3) Isn't day two focusing on a mix of raw earth elements,
chemicals, liquids and thus would it be inaccurate to refer to this as a
primeval soup? Their answer should be no, that would be accurate. Then
tell them that their Bible supports your view that a spark in the soup
birthed life on earth. 4) Ask them why it says over and over that the earth
and sea brought forth. There are a number of other really good questions
but one would have to know the correct biblical answers first to cut
through the tradition and falsehood.
Back to the public's schools. The question to be asked is - Who is going to
teach these "creation" classes and what will be the standard by which their
credentials are to be established and accepted? Our children need to be
exposed to various intellectual positions - they need to be protected from
True faith opens the mind it does not close it.
More information about the Taxacom