RE: [asa] Reply to Glenn

Burgy wrote:

I appreciate this answer. It doesn't squirm and doesn't try to be illogical.
While I do think that you have the self-levitation issue you, like Paul are
not denying it. You are trusting your experience. Let me ask what would be
wrong about trusting supportive observational evidence instead of internal
subjective evidence? People here seem totally convinced that searching for
any evidence apart from the subjective is wrong. (Clearly I am in a tiny
minority)

Why is subjective data better than evidentiary support?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carol or John Burgeson [mailto:burgytwo@juno.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 10:35 PM

>
> Although we've hashed this out before, I'll take another stab at it.
>
> 1. We don't know. At least I don't know.
> 2. I started with the assumption that he MAY be speaking to
> me through the scriptures.
> 3. I recognize that I'm not going to approach Him on my own.
> 4. I then allow myself to listen to Him (should he exist and
> should he speak).
> 5. What happened to me is that he did speak. Not audibly, but
> convincingly.

> What God communicates and what I am capable of receiving are
> two quite different things. In this respect, I quote Nat
> Hawthorne: "So long as an unlettered soul can attain to
> saving grace, there would seem to be no deadly error in
> holding theological libraries to be accumulations of, for the
> most part, stupendous impertinence."

I agree with you. The same thing should apply to the Hebrews. What they were
capable of receiving/understanding which is why it should not be a deal
killer for them to have received some revelation or information about nature
which would not be understood for a long time.

> Glenn: "Is the story of the star of Bethleham or the dreams
> given to the people before Jesus' birth a fictional account?"
>
> Perhaps. Those appear to be secondary. I would hardly deny
> them; I find no reason to defend them.

What would you defend?

>
> Glenn: "OK, so what makes a theology credible?"
>
> Jesus said he would send "an advocate." The advocate, the
> Holy Spirit, is responsible for leading us. But not leading
> us "to a right theology," but leading us to a relationship
> with Christ.

I would define knowing about a relationship with Christ as the right
theology. It is the message that that is what is required which must be
fidelitously communicated from God to man. Failure here means that we won't
know the right thing to do. Given that God can't communicate science,
history or many other things, what assurance other than the internal
subjective do we have? As I have told you, I have already proven to myself
how easily it is for me to fool myself. I frankly don't think it is that
difficult for all of us to do it.

>
> The YEC has an "untrue theology," as far as origins are
> concerned. That has no bearing on his relationship to Christ.

Well, if God actually did it the way the YECs say, they would have the right
theology. A God capable of miracles could have done it that way
miraculously. And that then raises he question of why would it matter if
God runs an illusion?

> It is not that theology doesn't matter; it is simply that it
> is not the focus.

Would that include Buddhists, Shinto's and others? Does the theology doesn't
matter extend that far?

>
> Glenn: "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."
>
> I would contend that "inference to the best explanation"
> works for me.

Ok, but is it based upon your experience with the HS alone
>
> Glenn: "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."
>
> I see no reason to question the capability of God. I
> understand that to be basic to your argument, but it does not
> resonate with me. If the parent speaks a truth, and the child
> is too immature to understand, it does not reflect on the
> parent, We all have much growing up to do yet.

So, when God tells the the child that the sun was created after the plants,
we have lots of growing to do? That doesn't resonate with me. But thank
you for your answer.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 17 22:10:04 2006