>Brother Glenn,
>I think I have found a serious difference between us:
Only one????
>
>On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Glenn Morton wrote:
>
>> I think
>> that there must have been "ontological/theological/historical" truth.
>
>
>You can't conflate non-reductionistic categories(ontological/theological)
>with reductionistic categories (historical). It's hockey pucks and
>footballs . . . it's like Glenn and Denis ;-)
I agree, partially. But we have to ask ourselves which type of knowledge
is more certain, non-reductionist or reductionist knowledge.
I am going to tell you about a rather blasphemous thing I once read. It
was a total re-interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3 to make Lucifer out to be
the hero of that story and Jehovah the villain. I don't think I kept a
copy. The reason I tell you this is that that person also was relating an
ontological/theological message from Genesis 2,3. Unfortunately there is
no means by which to objectively tell who is correct as long as one
isolates the story of the fall from the rest of the Bible. Only
objective, reductionist data is capable deciding truth in a manner that
allows all to agree. If we say that the story is only designed to tell us
the ontological/theological truth that man is a sinner, unfortunately,
that is subjective and non-reductionist. Another non-reductionist can
come up with a different truth.
>
>Historical events certainly can give impetus for making/extrapolating
>ontological/theological statements, but the latter do not need a
>historical context to validate them (eg. the parable of the Good
> Samaritan functions very well in the Scriptures without there being a
>historical event supporting it).
>
True. But the context of the good Samaritan story is quite different from
the context of Genesis 1-11. Jesus was giving an illustration. Genesis
1-11 is not in that situation.
>And "zai Ji Du li ni de ge-ge" to you too,
>Denis
Let me teach you some Mandarin. Since I am older than you, you have to
say, "zai Ji Du li ni de di-di". The Chinese have a different name for
older and younger relatives and mother's vs father's relatives. It is all
quite complex and confusing. There are names for mother's older brother,
mother's younger brother; etc. etc. One must have a program to tell them
all apart. I do not have all the names memorized.
glenn