Allen Roy wrote (in response to Glenn):
>> Ah, I see, the procedure is this. If what I see with my eyes is in
>> disagreement with my theology, my eyes are lying. .....
<<ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your theology must interpret what your eyes see. If not, you have no theology. What usually happens is that the interpretation of what is seen comes from someone else's conflicting theology. It is the theologies that
are at war, not what you see.>>
I'm sure glad that 2000 years ago, when people's theology told them that a suffering (not to mention resurrected) Messiah was ridiculous, there were some people who encountered Jesus and accepted the observational data, rather than following Allen's approach.
It is of course a legitimate point that our philosophical outlooks affect how we interpret data, and we should remember that. I don't actually have a problem with anybody who takes the approach that special revelation (Scripture) has priority over human observation. A problem with YEC, as Burgy among others has pointed out, is that it elevates a dubious human *interpretation of Scripture* (one that does violence to its purpose and context by treating it as a science text) to the status of Scripture itself.
Allan Harvey, steamdoc@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 15:01:02 EST