From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:17:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.051414.19230@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
[Someone wrote]> What is the purpose of mankind?
[Lionel Tun replied]> To worship God.
[A third Party replied]
>> >   As a Christian, I feel obligated to point out that this answer
>> >is a.) not Biblical, and b.) not the historical Christian view. 
>> >I doubt it is even a common Fundamentalist view.
I replied:
>> 	Well, so what? You haven't told us what the purpose of mankind
>> is, accourding to these groups you try to speak for. What is it?
>
>Bruce?  What the hell is going on?  There *is* no scriptural statement
>that *I* am aware of that specifies a "purpose of mankind"[*] -- nor is
>any such thing a matter of doctrine in ANY Christian sect I know about.

	I find it hard to accept that Christians are silent on this
matter even though there is no explicit Scriptural citation: "The
Purpose of Mankind is....". What is arguable is whether Lionel speaks
for any or some or no Christians, and whether some people argue for
doctrines like Creationism as if they knew the answer and argue for
such doctrines with religious statements. I read the above reply to
mean that Lionel gave the Wrong answer, not that there was no answer.
I drew my criticism from the fact that the reply was a negative one.
It did not say that there was no answer, that the question was not one
answered from Scripture or other authority, and that the groups cited
had not formulated an answer. It would be refreshing to know that
Christian doctrine gives no answer and that to supply one oversteps
the bounds of prudant theology.

>That Lionel Tun is willing to utter inane nonsense in response to a
>question is all very nice, but hardly relevant to anything.

	But he did so while at the same time calling himself a
Christian, or at least a Theist, and without support. Is he not
a Christian? Did he not imply that the answer grew out of his
religious convictions? How can you argue that you are correct
and he is not in asking and answering the question?

>> To attone for the sin of Eve? Or something else as dire? Or is it
>> to Love one another? Or something as vague? Pray, tell us what it is
>> then?
>
>Why don't YOU tell us?  That has about as much point as trying to
>elicit an equally banal response from Christians to a silly question.

	Are you telling me that I am grasping such suggested answers
out of thin air, that there is no basis for a Christian having given
them as an answer, and that they were never given as an answer by
Christians? I think that they were, and that they may not be in
fashion is something that needs explaining.

>Suppose, for a moment, that some earnest "Christian" will undertake
>to "explain" the "purpose" of Creation.  Why should you think this
>person has a clue?  I repeat: there is NO SUCH DOCTRINE in Christianity.
>[*]
>there are some passages in Jeremiah about God as Potter and humanity
>as God's pots.  Besides the (evident) metaphorical character of such
>texts, it is not exactly easy to infer from them anything substantive
>about purpose.

	If Lionel overstepps his bounds as a Christian in making such
claims, then he is in the company of lots of other people who call
themselves Christians who similarly overstep bounds. How do right-
thinking people, who know the limits to Christianity, inform these
other Christians that they are wrong? Is there anything to prevent
the error from repeating itself over and over? I think not.

Bruce Salem


Newsgroups: talk.origins