Notation after the fact: perhaps only the last paragraph is worth reading -- hopefully.
jd
One of the more important debates in the world of psychology is whether or not thoughts define a person. I rather think the heart of man is emotion. If the emotion is not given serious nourishment, words can ravage the heart. But if the emotion of belonging is given adequate provision in community (family, church, God in Christ in us, and the like) words (thoughts ) will have little negative effect. Words and thoughts are only an _expression_ of who we are (ontology) . Some theories of speech present the opinion that expressed speech (thoughts) originates in the sympathetic nervous system and has [only] an emotional pre-existence [to _expression_.] As such, they are not "right" or "wrong."
Not all bias is wrong. And that is never more true than when we speak of the deeply felt emotional bias of the person. It is from this centre that man speaks and acts. Catastrophic "failure" in emotional development makes acceptable behavior impossible -- whether expressed in action or speech.
That is why a well reasoned debate response often will have no influence over the opposing person -- she is controlled by an emotional centre that cannot receive the extension of another's emotional bias -- the two centre's are not enough alike.
I have friends, for example, whose emotional extension (their words, their thoughts) are the same (for the most part) as mine. "We liked each other from the very beginning." Our emotional centre's have a shared commonality.
So what in the world am I saying? Emotions are never "wrong." Their _expression_ may be ill-advised but they are not "wrong" in a soteriological sense of the word. Hence, thoughts that express our emotional bias are not wrong. If "authenticity" is the true _expression_ of a person, and thoughts are given regulation by the larger group (say a legalistic church fellowship) , the true person will never be known and repair to her "soul" will never be made --- at least not at "church."
jd
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Other than the possible uniform affirmation that God in Christ (see Colossians) is the 'commencer', I suspect that the views of most informed believers would vary greatly on Gen 1-11. Why wouldn't they?----- Original Message -----From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: March 18, 2006 07:48Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11More than one observation: There are plenty of reasons for believing that "day" in the creation account does not mean a 24 hour period. First , the Hebrew word itself is not limited in definition to this meaning. Secondly, Adam and Eve did not die in the "day" they transgressed unless, of course, you believe that "day" is more than a 24 hour period of time. Further, in Gen 2:4 "day" is a summary of all that was created...... not a 24 hour period. Thirdly, very little in the creation account was completed on the "day" it was begun. The events of Day One are extended into Day Four. Day Two is extended into Day Three (re the waters of firmament), if rain or heavy mist does not occur until or at the time of Adam's creation (which 2:4-7 might suggest), then Day Three extends into Day Six and we are not concerned about plant life before the creation of the sun because it did not begin to grow until the sixth day. Thus, there is biblical argument for believing that creation was a series of events that played out over a period of time and extended into other creation events.If "day" is a 24 hour period, how long does it really take for God to say "Let there be light." That expressed time (elapsed time in creation) is anything other than a metaphorical _expression_ is unlikely and for all the reasons stated.Bishop J-------------- Original message --------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> When I say that I'm not a strict creationist, I'm refering to the
> idea that
> the universe, the earth, and everything living on it were created
> roughly 10000
> years ago. Certainly I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe that God
> created the universe, there's no other way it could have come to be. Also,
> you are completely right:
>
> David:
> > I think your attitude of waiting for a third
> > option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the
> > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it
> > all.
>
> That is precisely why I am waiting for a third option. I believe that a
> purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution can't explain life
> getting here. I t hink there is a lot of necessary evidence missing for
> evolution, but that evolution is accepted because the only other possibility,
> God, is ruled out in advance (by scientists). However, I also believe
> that the
> universe, the earth, and (possibly) life have been around for a very
> long time.
>
> Quoting David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Conor wrote:
> >> Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven
> >> days of creation are meant to be taken literally.
> >
> > I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the
> > emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account
> > appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to
> > the second creation account.
> >
> > Conor wrote:
> >> Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist,
> >> or a strict creationist. I'm s till waiting for a third
> >> option, which seems to be slow in coming.
> >
> > If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a
> > creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God
> > did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution
> > is the only option.
> >
> > Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should, but
> > scientifically oriented evolutionary models cannot and do not incorporate
> > any creationist components. I think your attitude of waiting for a third
> > option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the
> > purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it
> > all.
> >
> > My sense is that the earth and universe is old, but life on earth is of
> > relatively recent origin.
> >
> > David Mil le r
>
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how
> you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend
> who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> he will be subscribed.
