RE: [asa] Reply to Glenn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Carol or
> John Burgeson

> Reply to question 1. I'd say just a little bit wrong and the
> A+ is lost. This poses another question: "Are we sure God is
> communicating factual stuff here? Specifically, is He telling
> us that (1) Adam and Eve were real people and (2) the flood
> actually happened?"

I think this is the problem one has. How do we know that God is
communicating factual theology? By that I mean do we just assume that the
theology is right without any evidence for that whatsoever? I would
absolutely agree that it is possible that God is not communicating
historical fact here. But would you agree that it is possible that God is
not communicating any truths about theology either?

If that is a possibility, how on earth do you figure out that God is really
communicating theological truth?

>
> If we are not sure of this, then the grade is without
> meaning, and possibly disrespectful of God.

But you all are the ones who say that God is communicating theological
truth, and I assume that you think he is 1. telling you the truth, 2.
communicating it in a fidelitous manner, and if those are given, then God
must have an A+ for communication.

>
> My own view is that these early stories are like the story of
> Job, which appears to be a fictional morality play, not a
> sober account of history.

Is the story of the star of Bethleham or the dreams given to the people
before Jesus' birth a fictional account? You know that back then astounding
stories accompanied the births of great people. Plutarch tells of
Alexander's birth being preceded by dreams, visions and omens.

>
> Answer to question 2. The Mormon history appears, by every
> account I've read, to be nonfactual. To the extent a Mormon
> claims historical accuracy as a basis for his theology,
> it would seem that his theological claims ought, properly, to
> be discounted. Just as
> when a fundy makes theological claims on the basis of the
> historicity of the flood. Note that the claims may, or may
> not, be true; but the basis for them is not credible.

OK, so what makes a theology credible?

 And that
> simply leads to a lot of well-meaning but ultimately futile
> ruminations.

So why did you feel the need to engage in those futile ruminations at this
particular time? :-)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 14 18:33:28 2006