Glen wrote:
:
If all we have is grossly inaccurate, then one must wonder if we have a
similar theology. That is why historicity is important.
"
I think my argument inplicitly suggested that
our theology was not all that important -- at least not in the sense
that one must be at least X% accurate to attain heaven
So, in the end, I'm not sure historicity is important for the
religious questions of interest. Amend that -- some historicity.
The events of 30 AD and the witness accounts about it have to stay
as of fundemental importance. But again, I'm not sure even these
qualify in a salvationist sense.
My YEC friend Gish really believes in his theologies concerning origins
and the earth's age. Yet even he has said to me that these particular
beliefs
are not of concern as far as salvation is concerned. I had a Mormon
co-worker once
with whom I had fairly extensive discussions about the
book of Mormon. He was not particularly concerned that I found that book
incredible -- obviously he wished I'd change my mind on this -- but it
was
not of "ultimate" concern that I do so. Nor did I feel urged to argue all
that
much to get him to change, even though I thought him to be quite misled.
I guess I feel the same about Dr. Gish.
Burgy
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 29 2001 - 16:39:30 EST