Original Sin: Can't Live With It, Can't Live Without It
Dr. Richard Schoenig has a new essay at the Secular Web called Original Sin: Can't Live With It, Can't Live Without It. Schoenig has two Ph.D's, one in Chemistry and the other in Philosophy. In 2007 he participated in a little known debate against Jim Laws on God's existence.
4 comments:
Ugh. That could have been condensed into a much more interesting-to-read blog/essay format.
I found this to be quite concise and helpful, actually. I'm sure I'll refer to it when I get into an argument on one of the points. Interesting? I wouldn't expect it to be; sort of like sorting someone else's old (intellectual)clothes before giving them to Goodwill.
Only 31% of fertilized human eggs make it out of the hatch? Why are there no Hallmark cards for married women who have periods? No floral arrangements and church services? A "baby" has died!!! - and nobody is exploiting this income potential. It's un-American.
Interesting article. I think the fall is one of the most targetable areas of tangible assessment of Christian doctrine since it requires many things to have taken place for original sin to stand. Without original sin, there is nothing to be redeemed from.
I had long desired to illustrate what one has to believe in to accept the fall vs. what naturalism suggests in graphical form and finally took a shot at it on my blog (LINK).
Quoting from the essay:
John 16:3 proclaims that God so loved human beings and wanted to save them from sin and its harmful effects.
And Richard Schoenig expects to be taken seriously by Christians when discussing the Bible after making such an elementary blunder?
Blunders aside, his arguments are ineffective against a Reformed system of theology, which he does not specifically address.
Post a Comment