Re: [asa] Slug

On 6/14/06, Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Carol or
>
> > Glenn asked: " I raised the question
> > of the Great Green Slug religion and
> > asked if a believef in the great green slug who learned science could
> > proclaim his story metaphorical and thus
> > have it still teach true theology. "
> >
> > Of course he could. Whether it did so or not is another question.
>
> So please provide the criterion you would use to tell that the sluggist
> religion isn't true theology and Christian theology is--objective
> criterion
> please.
>
> BTW, Michael Roberts, here is another person is capable of answering this
> question which you find meaningless. Strange how they find meaning where
> you can't. And I would add, they are being logical about it.
>
> >
> > You are looking for "history" in a place most people don't
> > think you can find it. Much like looking for history in the
> > play "Hamlet." Or maybe a better example in Shakespeare's
> > "Julius Caesar." There might be some in the latter, but the
> > writing is a play, not history. The goal of the playwright is
> > to entertain, not teach as a history professor might do.
>
> Well, Hamlet and Julius Caesar don't have pretensions to be God's Word. I
> agree with you that most people don't think there is history there, but
> the
> implications of God being incapable of communicating or not knowing what
> happened at creation seem profound to me. Apparently most people don't
> seem
> to mind that so little of the Biblical story is based on fact.
>

Glenn,

If any sacred writing gives any account of creation, unless it either says
"God made all this", or it gives a perfect revelation of the science that
actually happened, it will be vulnerable to inferences being made (e.g.
about the age of the earth), which might later turn out to be factually
wrong. Suppose it were possible to infer from a sacred text that the
Universe was created around 13 billion years ago with a big explosion from
which everything originated. Then suppose by the 22nd century, things
change radically (as they have before in Physics), and a steady state
infinite age model becomes accepted. Then that sacred text would be
factually wrong according to the most up to date physics. Hence a Big Bang
Bible would only of necessity be accomodated to 21st century physics, which
could in principle be wrong.

Glenn, I know this is a difficult issue for you, but I don't think there can
logically be an answer to it, unless you have a Bible that provides a
complete scientific revelation, and I think we're all agreed that the Bible
isn't supposed to be that.

Iain

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jun 15 02:12:04 2006