----- Original Message -----
From: <PHSEELY@aol.com>
To: <mortongr@flash.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 6:02 PM
> To my
> > But, the real issue you bring up is history. Christianity
distinguishes
> > itself from other religions as being more solidly based in history.
>
> Glenn replied
>
> >>You forget that historical sciences like geology, paleontology etc tell
us
> the real history of the planet. If the Bible is contradictory to the real
> history of the planet, then Christianity can not possibly be more solidly
> based in history than other religions. And if you think that Christianity
is
> more founded in history, i.e., more documented, then you haven't ever
read
> anything of the Baha'u'llah of the Bahai faith. Here is an extract from
a
> web page on him:
>
> >>Bahá'u'lláh was born in Persia (now Iran) in 1817 to a family descended
> from royalty. As a young man, He chose to give up the life of luxury, and
> the government career SNIP>>
>
> I should have said the _majority_ of other religions. But even if the
Bible
> is contradictory to the real history of the planet, Christianity can
still
> be more solidly
> based in history than at least the majority of other religions---because
they
> do not offer a real history of the planet either. So, they do no better
on
> this count and still fall behind on the other.
Well, to me that is a great argument for atheism. If God doesn't have the
power or the will to communicate to us anything substantial about the
history of the planet, how on earth can we possibly expect him to be able to
get a message to us about his theology. I mean, goodness gracious, we expect
to be able to trust God to inspire a true theology when he is incapable of
inspiring a true history? Give me a break!!!!
>
> to my
> > one cannot assume that the history in the Bible, even though inspired,
is
> > better than its available sources>>
>
> Glenn replied,
>
> >Then there is little reason to believe it is inspired other than a warm
> fuzzy feeling in one's gall bladder.<
>
> Only if inspiration is defined as a commitment on God's part to correct
the
> available historical sources, rather than inspiring the writer to employ
> them wisely for God's purpose of making them profitable for making a man
of
> God. Where does Scripture say that inspiration is to be defined as you
have
> defined it? Without a clear biblical foundation, there is no basis for
your
> definition but a warm fuzzy feeling in the gall bladder.
And if God isn't willing to correct people on observational data errors as
part of his inspiration, why should we believe that he is willing to correct
theological errors. And exactly how would we know which theology is the
correct one? After all David Koresh thought his theology was correct, so
did Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Tertulean (both before and after he became a
heretic), so did Mani, the Persian founder of Maniceism. They all thought
they were write, yet they are all mutually exclusive.
So why didn't God correct the errors of these people's theology? In fact,
how do you know that God corrects the errors of theology?
>
> Glenn replied,
>
> >>This sounds so Clintonesque! It doesn't matter that the history Clinton
> presented of l'affaire Lewinsky doesn't make it all false. Jeemenie,
surely
> we don't want that for the Scripture do we?>>
>
> Even with such an extreme example, Clinton's lie does not logically entail
> that everything he has said is false. And, the example is not analogous.
> Leaving biblical history to human sources, is not the same thing as lying.
> Accommodation is not the same thing as lying. This is the fundamental
error
> upholding fundamentalism: that God only has two choices: lie or tell the
> truth. This is not logically or biblically sound.
>
> Accommodation is a third option; and, Mt 19:8 shows that inspiration can
> encompass accommodation. Fundamentalism is based on a definition of
> inspiration which is neither logical nor biblical.
And if God accommodates his message to the science of the day there is no
way you can possibly ensure that he doesn't also accomodate his message to
their theological presuppositions of the day. If God accommodates to the
theology of the day, then there is no way to know if the theology we have is
true or not.
And, it is this
> definition of inspiration which has given us Creation Science on the one
hand
> and a basketful of conflicting concordistic "solutions" on the
other---none
> of which, if you press the details, really agree with the Bible. Is this
the
> definition of inspiration we should be upholding?
So we should uphold the idea that whatever we fell the Bible teaches
theologically and philosophically is what it teaches?
>
> I agree with you that there must be (and is) an objective element in our
> faith; but, it should conform to reality, not a priori definitions.
So exactly what in theology is objective in your view? Science is objective,
events in history are objective, theology isn't. All those guys I listed
above have their own theology.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:50:48 EDT