Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Funerals Instead
Message-ID: <819@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Mar-85 17:25:05 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.819
Posted: Fri Mar 22 17:25:05 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Mar-85 05:33:54 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 62


>>[DuBois]
>>I'd sign it.  However, (and this obviates or vitiates much of the
>>point of Bill's posting) I would not sign it if a clause such as the
>>following were added:  "Point (2) means literal week and I will never
>>consider whether it could possibly mean anything else." 

> [Michael Ward]
> Here we have the classical "out" that is required for all who profess
> to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.  "It don't really
> mean what it says!!!"

> Week doesn't mean week, day isn't really day.  Black is white and war
> is peace.

What I meant was that I would not sign it if that meant I must never
ever consider whether I might not need to reconsider my view of
Genesis.  And the words I used to indicate this were certainly closer
to that statement than the monstrous 1984 interpretation you have loaded
onto them.

Michael, I don't mind being criticised, not even for being dogmatic.
But to be criticized for NOT being dogmatic?  I must protest.  That
is scandalous.

"We have piped unto you and you did not laugh, so we played a dirge
for you and you did not mourn..."  Matthew 11.

Creationists are criticised for refusing to show non-rigidity in the
way they look at Genesis.  But when one of them (myself, for instance)
does just that, *then* we are castigated for being wishy-washy.  Ever
hear of the double bind?  Evolutionists require me to be open-minded
enough to look at Genesis non-literally, but if I suggest that there is
even a possibility that I might do that sometime, then all of a sudden
I am criticized for failure to adhere to strict literalism.
Reinterpretation not allowed!  Though that right is claimed often
enough by evolutionists...  The concept of trying to look at things
from several angles (multiple working hypotheses) is held up here, high
and often.  But 'ware ye, O creationist, ye who dare practice it.  To
the stake with you!  'Tis the exclusive province of others; unto you it
is given that you must fit the stereotypical notions of your
adversaries, and woe to you if you do not.

> Come on, Paul.  If Genesis is a statement of simple historical fact,
> then the words mean what they mean, and not whatever you feel like
> making them mean.

Of course they mean what they mean.  The problem for the reader is to
decide what he thinks it is that they mean.  And those decisions
sometimes change.  Don't they.  Because even a creationist learns
things sometimes that give him pause.

---

But I don't think I wish to get sucked into this any farther.  I do
not think this line of discussion very pertinent.  As I have stated
before, I do not base my articles on contingencies with Genesis.
-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois	{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
                                                                    |