From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Sun May 18 2003 - 18:35:26 EDT
Dick Fischer wrote:
>
> Burgy wrote:
>
> >Dick wrote: "Liberals pay lip service only. They are scholarly enough to
> >know the similarities are there, but lack the guts to go beyond what the
> >establishment will allow. After all, there is peer pressure, tenure, and
> >other important considerations.>>
> >
> >Interacting with "liberals" as much as I do, I find your characterization
> >of them as "paying lip service" and "lack the guts to" and yout judgement
> >of their motivations as relating to "peer pressure, tenure, etc." to be
> >so far off base as to be unreasonable to hold in any more than a
> >fundamentalist sense. maybe not even in that sense.
>
> Oops, I must have stepped on a liberal toe. To spread the blame a bit,
> conservatives don't fare any better. Any historical documentation of
> Genesis, begs the question: What about all the human history that precedes
> Genesis? No, history is the third rail of conservative doctrine, touch it
> and die. So, the historical underpinnings of Genesis go unreported in
> theological circles - both liberal and conservative.
>
> >I suppose you would call Tillich a liberal. Have your read him? Do you
> >know him at all?
>
> Since you among others are accustomed to theological double speak I have
> included just a bit for flavor. (If boredom or incomprehension overtakes
> anybody just skip to my response.
>
> "Reason is not the source of theology, yet it plays a significant role in
> the theology. Tillich distinguishes two categories of reason, namely, an
> ontological reason and a technical reason. The former is the "structure of
> the mind which enables the mind to grasp and to shape reality," and the
> latter "is reduced to the capacity for "reasoning" (71-75). For Tillich,
> the fundamental idea of reason is the ontological reason. The technical
> reason is adequate only as an adopted instrument for revealing the
> ontological reason. The ontological reason, in which subjective and
> objective are rooted, can be related to logos. The subjective reason can be
> defined as the rational structure of the mind, and that is able to catch
> and to form the reality. Relatively, the objective reason can be defined as
> the rational structure of reality, and that is caught and formed by the
> mind. Consequently, Logos is "the word which grasps and shapes reality"
> (74), and therefore is the ontological reason. Tillich takes the term, the
> depth of reason, to relate the transcendental power of which to the meaning
> of being-itself. However, reason subjects to our actual existence, and
> therefore reason experiences the limitations, conflicts, and ambiguities of
> our existence. Accordingly, a quest for revelation is inevitable to resolve
> the finitude of our reason."
>
> Or as that great Chinese philosopher said: "He who, hoo hee."
>
> Labels are at the same time necessary and over simplistic. I wish I didn't
> have to use them at all. Of course, not everybody can be pigeon holed
> neatly into just two camps, conservative and liberal.
>
> I argue against both sides because, in my honest opinion, both sides are
> wrong in roughly equal and opposite directions. Liberals write off the
> historicity of Genesis because they fall into the same interpretation traps
> the conservatives do. Whereas conservatives need to ignore history and
> turn science on its head to try and make it work, liberals take the poor,
> linguistically-challenged Bible writer off the hook by finding methods of
> accommodation.
>
> Since the Genesis narrative lacks historical integrity in the minds of
> liberals it becomes a "polemic against false gods." Because the order of
> presentation in Genesis 1 is not clearly comprehended, the days of creation
> are not in a chronological order, but according to Conrad Hyers, a
> "cosmogonic order," or Roy Clouser's "teleological order." Well, thank
> goodness that is cleared up. Otherwise we might have thought Moses was
> just wrong.
>
> Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Burgy wrote:
>
> Dick wrote: "Liberals pay lip service only. They are
> scholarly enough to
> know the similarities are there, but lack the guts to go
> beyond what the
> establishment will allow. After all, there is peer
> pressure, tenure, and
> other important considerations.>>
>
> Interacting with "liberals" as much as I do, I find your
> characterization
> of them as "paying lip service" and "lack the guts to" and
> yout judgement
> of their motivations as relating to "peer pressure, tenure,
> etc." to be
> so far off base as to be unreasonable to hold in any more
> than a
> fundamentalist sense. maybe not even in that sense.
>
> Oops, I must have stepped on a liberal toe. To spread the blame a
> bit, conservatives don't fare any better. Any historical
> documentation of Genesis, begs the question: What about all the human
> history that precedes Genesis? No, history is the third rail of
> conservative doctrine, touch it and die. So, the historical
> underpinnings of Genesis go unreported in theological circles - both
> liberal and conservative.
>
> I suppose you would call Tillich a liberal. Have your read
> him? Do you know him at all?
>
> Since you among others are accustomed to theological double speak I
> have included just a bit for flavor. (If boredom or incomprehension
> overtakes anybody just skip to my response.
>
> "Reason is not the source of theology, yet it plays a significant role
> in the theology. Tillich distinguishes two categories of reason,
> namely, an ontological reason and a technical reason. The former is
> the "structure of the mind which enables the mind to grasp and to
> shape reality," and the latter "is reduced to the capacity for
> "reasoning" (71-75). For Tillich, the fundamental idea of reason is
> the ontological reason. The technical reason is adequate only as an
> adopted instrument for revealing the ontological reason. The
> ontological reason, in which subjective and objective are rooted, can
> be related to logos. The subjective reason can be defined as the
> rational structure of the mind, and that is able to catch and to form
> the reality. Relatively, the objective reason can be defined as the
> rational structure of reality, and that is caught and formed by the
> mind. Consequently, Logos is "the word which grasps and shapes
> reality" (74), and therefore is the ontological reason. Tillich takes
> the term, the depth of reason, to relate the transcendental power of
> which to the meaning of being-itself. However, reason subjects to our
> actual existence, and therefore reason experiences the limitations,
> conflicts, and ambiguities of our existence. Accordingly, a quest for
> revelation is inevitable to resolve the finitude of our reason."
>
> Or as that great Chinese philosopher said: "He who, hoo hee."
>
> Labels are at the same time necessary and over simplistic. I wish I
> didn't have to use them at all. Of course, not everybody can be
> pigeon holed neatly into just two camps, conservative and liberal.
>
> I argue against both sides because, in my honest opinion, both sides
> are wrong in roughly equal and opposite directions. Liberals write
> off the historicity of Genesis because they fall into the same
> interpretation traps the conservatives do. Whereas conservatives need
> to ignore history and turn science on its head to try and make it
> work, liberals take the poor, linguistically-challenged Bible writer
> off the hook by finding methods of accommodation.
>
> Since the Genesis narrative lacks historical integrity in the minds of
> liberals it becomes a "polemic against false gods." Because the order
> of presentation in Genesis 1 is not clearly comprehended, the days of
> creation are not in a chronological order, but according to Conrad
> Hyers, a "cosmogonic order," or Roy Clouser's "teleological order."
> Well, thank goodness that is cleared up. Otherwise we might have
> thought Moses was just wrong.
Thank you for putting all these pointy-headed perfessers in their place! If you
hadn't done so we might have thought that you just didn't understand them.
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun May 18 2003 - 18:37:56 EDT