For Paul, Dave Siemans, Michael Roberts
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Seely [mailto:PHSeely@msn.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:17 PM
>I think the logical failure is yours, not mine. There is no necessary
logical connection between the premise, the science in the
>Bible which God accommodated rather than revealed is false, and the
conclusion therefore the theology revealed is false.
>
>Paul
"The science in the bible which God accommodated" has the assumption
contained in it that God actually accommodated the science (something not
proven) and one could then draw from it that God, being God, is the true
God, therefore his theology is true. And that means your sentence assumes
that which should be proven but isn't.
And I would note that the science in the Book of Mormon which God
accommodated is an equally valid sentence as yours.
Given that you claim that there is no connection between the falsity of the
science and the truth value of the theology, we now have two systems above
(classical christianity) and Mormonism both of which claim to have the true
theology, which theologies are mutually exclusive.
I ask again, how do you tell which is the true theology and which is the
false theology if God can be said to have accommodated both sciences
(remember you said that the mormons could do the accommodation thing)?
It seems amazingly difficult to get a clear answer to how we know which
religion's accommodation is the true accommodation. Both have false science
and both claim to have true theology.
David Siemans wrote:
>Of course the Bible is false. It says, "The Lord is my shepherd." That
means that the writer was a sheep. But he has not an
>/Ovis aries/. He was a /Homo sapiens/. The statement is clearly a
deliberate falsehood. So, to revise Mark Twain's dictum,
>there are lies, damned lies, and poetry.
It is this kind of response that makes me understand how little seriousness
is attached to questions of reality among the true believers. True beleivers
will use sophistical rhetoric to avoid what is a serious question.
Michael Roberts wrote:
>Baa!
Quite disappointing, Michael. You are or were better than this.
Unfortunately, this is consistent with other "deeply intellectual" responses
from you of late with a similar intellectual depth to them. Sorry, Michael,
I have little respect for answers like this or for failing to actually
answer questions. It reminds me of how YECs behave.
Jack wrote:
>I have not heard even the accomodationalists claim that
>the geneologies that count back to Adam, or Paul's
>statement that sin entered the world through one man, is
>poetry.
>
>And that is exactly the problem that was the original
>question of this thread. Non-poetic language is being
>explained through accomodation because what it says
>conflicts with scientific evidence.
But when called on this, they then chose silly examples like that above and
act surprised when someone doesn't find it satisfying. The illogic is
deeply unsatisfying to me and applying such logic at my work would
eventually lead to my dismissal. The approach makes me think that much of
Christianity is a huge self-delusion.
Your comments on the faulty reasoning were right on the mark, even if we do
get little more than bleats from some on this list.
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 19:47:13 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 15 2006 - 19:47:13 EDT