Re: Firmament and the Water above was [asa] Re: Slug

George,
I thought you were deadly serious and in a year or two would join AIG (1
Kings 22.15?)

Michael.

PS do you like a female primate?
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: Firmament and the Water above was [asa] Re: Slug

> Again my replies are in brackets {}.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
> To: "'George Murphy'" <gmurphy@raex.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 9:31 AM
> Subject: RE: Firmament and the Water above was [asa] Re: Slug
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
>> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 7:36 AM
>> To: Glenn Morton; asa@calvin.edu
>> Subject: Re: Firmament and the Water above was [asa] Re: Slug
>
>> Thanks for a textbook example of chutzpah. You think you can
>> get inside my
>> head and tell me what I "want" even though I tell you it
>> isn't what I want.
>> Then you that ask that I "withdraw" my statement with no
>> attention at all to
>> the nuances I've given it. I've never said that your flood
>> speculation is
>> untestable in principle.
>
> Well, I don't know how on earth to take what you said except as I did. If
> this is a correction fine. But you are the one who said:
> "Accepting as evidence pseudo-historical scenarios which in practice can
> never be tested is an even easier way."
>
> What exactly does it mean that it "can never be tested?" How can you now
> say that you 'never said that [my] flood speculation is untestable in
> principle.' ? You said exactly that.
>
> Do you not remember what you write from hour to hour? If you believe my
> views are untestable, then stand firm and defend it, but don't change a
> few
> hours later. This question is different than asking how likely it is that
> my
> views are correct. If you had said it would be unlikely that I would be
> verified, I would have no quarrel with you, but you said, what you said.
>
>> Of course a core in the right place
>> might bring up
>> an artifact like the log from "Noah's" ark if your scenario
>> was correct but
>> the possibility is so remote that your concordism is in
>> practice safe.
>
> Well that is quite a different thing from your erroneous statement that it
> wasn't testable, which you now have denied saying.
>
> {I had said "Accepting as evidence pseudo-historical scenarios which in
> practice can
> never be tested is an even easier way." Did you not see the qualification
> "in practice"?}
>
> & I
>> think it's interesting that you always want to talk about
>> your "Noah" guess
>> instead of your "Adam" one which is even more fantastic.
>
> George, I am only using the conventional definitions of testability. I
> don't care what you want. I do care that my views are testable. If you
> have
> forgotten science since you left it, that isn't my problem.
>
> I would also ask you what is the verse in scriture which tells us what
> Adam
> looked like. It always amazes me that people give lip service to God
> taking
> an ape and inserting a soul in it, but the only acceptable time frame is
> within the past few thousand years (which seems strange given all the
> opposition to YEC) and he better not look like an ape. And y'all call
> yourselves evolutionists!
>
> {If you'll read my recent PSCF article you'll see that I explicitly do not
> commit myself to any particular date at which the 1st humans, in a
> theological sense,
> appeared. In fact, I cite your arguments about Bilzingsleben in note 41.}
>
>>
>> BTW I don't know if you got my extended demonstration that I
>> don't "want the
>> Bible to be false." My spam filter got my copy from the
>> list. If you
>> didn't get it & want to, let me know.
>
> I don't use a spam filter. I think I got it.
>
>> We've gone through this over & over. What frustrates me
>> about the whole
>> thing is your refusal to say anything about your own
>> theological position
>> or, for that matter, why you're a Christian. You wave off
>> references to the
>> cross & resurrection of Jesus & evidence for their
>> historicity in an almost
>> contemptuous way. You berate everyone who thinks he/she
>> can hold an
>> intelligent version of the Christian faith without accepting
>> the historical
>> character of Genesis but you make no attempt to explain how
>> you think one is
>> supposed to get from Genesis to distinctively Christian
>> faith. You expect
>> everyone else to present an argument for Christianity that meets your
>> standards of evidence but you refuse to do that yourself.
>
> My theological position is that religion better be TRUE. It can't be
> false.
> The more falsity we impart to religion the less I believe it. I don't
> believe the Greek Gods because they fornicated like bunny rabbits and I
> don't think of God in that fashion. I wouldn't believe in a God who speaks
> nothing but observational nonsense like many seem to. Why would I want to
> do
> that? Religion better be true or it isn't worth the time we spend on it.
> That is my theological position. I don't have a name for it. I feel
> certain
> that you do. :-)
>
> Why am I a Christian? Because I think it might actually be true. I
> couldn't do as you and others do and be a christian in spite of how
> observationally false you believe the Bible is. I have always felt that
> following the logic was the best approach, and to revel in falsity of the
> scripture (as some have but not you) have done recently seems to reveal a
> profound lack of logic. I mean after all, celebrating that the Bible is
> observationally false but believing it anyway. What illogic.
>
> And I know you don't like me saying that you want the Bible to be
> observationally false, but I keep coming back to the point that someone
> who
> really doesn't want that tries to concord things. You don't. Logic tells
> me
> that people fight for what they truly believe. If they don't care, they
> don't fight. Clearly you care about your views, cause you fight for them,
> but your views include that the Bible is observationally false and that
> makes you appear to be fighting for that position. I simply don't know how
> to run the logic chain in any other direction.
>
> Of course, I have indicated that for about 10 years, but you want me to be
> like you--hold to a Bible which has more factual holes than swiss cheese
> but
> admiringly tell everyone how the holes don't matter. I can't do that. I
> can't see why I should strive for observational truth in my small area of
> scientific expertise and then on Sundays say observational truth doesn't
> really matter. I have been there and done that as a YEC, living one way
> Monday through Friday and then on weekends and evenings believing
> different
> things.. I won't return to that kind of behavior. IF that is what is
> required to be a Christian, then I don't want to be one.
>
> As to your comment about the historical Genesis, I bet in your heart of
> hearts you think the Mormons are poor deluded folk who can't see the fact
> that their religion is hopelessly historically false, telling us of a
> history that didn't happen. I bet you also think that the Scientologists
> are a bit wacky because they have been taken in by a modern science
> fiction
> writer. If you think these religons are true, please correct my
> misperception. If you do think they are false because of their poor
> observational concordism, isn't that nothing more than standing in a glass
> house and throwing stones? (by the way a concordist can interpret Glass
> Houses in a non-literal way).
>
> {Sorry but this doesn't tell me anything. Your "theological position is
> that religion better be TRUE"? Any Muslim, Hindu &c would say the same.
> That's at best a meta-statement of your philosophy of religion. You're a
> Christian "because [you] think it might actually be true"? What is "it"?
> I don't know what you think it means to be a Christian other than that the
> Bible is "true" & a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon would endorse that
> statement.
>
> Let me show you where I'm trying to go with this. A person who holds
> anything like traditional Christian faith believes that because of the
> life, death & resurrection he is freed from fear of death, his guilt is
> taken away, or his life is given meaning - or some combination of the 3.
> (I'm following Tillich's analysis.) Christians even claim to have some
> "knowledge" that such things are the case. Why? There is historical
> evidence related to those claims - about Jesus & the history in which he's
> embedded - but not historical evidence for the faith claims made about the
> meaning of Jesus for the person who believes in him. & if a person holds
> to your criteria, he/she can never accept those faith claims!
>
> What you seem to do is to focus singlemindedly in public on historical
> evidence for Genesis, rejecting any reference to the meaning conveyed by
> distinctively Christian claims. Then, having convinced yourself that
> you're the only one holding to a tough & objective religious position you
> privately believe things that you simply can't get to in your tough &
> objective way. Or maybe not. Maybe you really do think that Christianity
> is a collection of true historical facts & that's it, though I hope that's
> not the case.}
>
>> Is it really possible? Yes, I guess maybe it is. Perhaps I
>> have to explain
>> the joke. I was parodying your "Adam" pseudo-concordism. I
>> guess it was
>> too much to hope that you would see how absurd it was rather
>> than going off
>> on a solemn argument about the Rahab texts.
>
> Given that that post was about Rahab, and I didn't see a mention of Adam,
> it
> is hard to see how it is a parody of Adam. Maybe I am congenitally dumb,
> but Rahab as a proxy for Adam seems a wee bit of a post hoc stretch. Maybe
> it went over my head; maybe you didn't communicate worth a bucket of warm
> spit.
>
> {Or maybe you're tone deaf when it comes to literature. You've said
> before that you don't appreciate fiction - I recall long ago you
> mentioning The Lord of the Rings in particular. You're smart, you
> understand the words, but you just don't get the music. (I know that
> "literature" is a grandious term for my little joke but it's technically
> correct.) It would be interesting to know how many others who read my
> "converting" post did or didn't realize that it was a parody. (Others,
> email me privately if you wish.)
>
> Did you actually believe that I thought that stuff was true? A mutant
> intelligent dinosaur?
>
> & I think that's part of your problem in reading the Bible. All the signs
> of hyperbole, humor, &c in Jonah go right past you. It can't be "true" if
> it's "just" fiction
>
> The parody was of your _method_. & BTW, I don't think that the Rahab
> passages are "accomodation" in the sense in which we've been using the
> term. That was part of the setup for the parody.}
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 19 09:58:34 2006