Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting)
Message-ID: <591@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Jul-85 14:06:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.591
Posted: Wed Jul 31 14:06:14 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 08:17:10 EDT
References: <1182@pyuxd.UUCP> <800@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1202@pyuxd.UUCP> <2127@pucc-h> <1215@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 46
Summary: 

In article <1215@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>
>I didn't say that I did.  I said that there was (and is) evidence that the
>beliefs are rooted in wishful thinking anthropocentrism.  There is evidence
>that the creationist line as spouted by the Bible is, in a literal sense,
>fallacious, despite numerous attempts by wishful thinkers to prop up
>creationism with augmented wishful thinking.
>
	I must nit-pick here. It would be more correct to say "the
creationist line as spouted by certain hyper-literalistic
interpretations of the Bible". Reading the Bible without such
preconceptions produces quite different results!

>>>This sudden acceptance of the possibility of extra-terrestrials is a
>>>modification to the literal "truth" of the Bible, is it not?
>
>> Not necessarily. The Bible doesn't really say anything on the subject one way
>> or the other; after all, its concern is with human beings.  In that sense it
>> is anthropocentric, but again, it was written to help humans toward a fuller,
>> more joyous and freer life on this earth, so it could hardly be otherwise
>> (and it would be of negligible use to humans if it were).
>
>I thought it was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  Ask
>a creationist, who won't even accept the incredibly beautiful notion (put
>forth by a Christian clergyman) that the whole creation story is wuite
>metaphorical, and that evolution itself shows how beautiful the Bible is
>in telling that story in an imaginative way (actually he said that evolution
>was the most beautiful interpretation of the creation story he had ever heard).
>In any case, the creation story also describes the earth as god's focal point
>of the universe, so I would have to say "yes, necessarily".
>-- 
	Ah, but creationist are really only a minority of
Christians(or at most barely a majority). The Bible is the truth,
*in* *areas* *it* *addresses*, in other areas, it simply says nothing.
The existance of ET's is one of these areas. In fact all of science as
we know it today is one of these areas. The creation myth describes
the Earth as central to *the story of the Bible* *not* as God's focal
point in the Universe. After all since we live on Earth, its creation
is most important to *us*, and is thus quite naturally concentrated
upon in a book written by and for us.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen