Re: Inconsistency on Shroud vs. Genesis.
Wed, 11 Aug 1999 20:08:47 +0000

At 08:52 AM 08/11/1999 -0600, Allan Harvey wrote:
>If some group of Christians wanted to bow to golden calves, would you
>want to "preserve" that too? If people's theology is based not on Jesus
>Christ but on some human-generated idea of how they think the Bible
>should have been written, we do them a disservice if we reinforce that

THis is an interesting objection given George's position in which God chose
to use a wrong science, indeed a false science, with which to communicate
the truth of creation. If that view is true (and if you also hold that
view), then it is also inconsisstent for you to say I can't do the same
thing to the YECs that God did to the Shepherds 3000 years ago! If God can
use a false science to communicate truth, why can't I use a false theology
to communicate truth?

I want to be clear, that I do not think it is false to explect God to know
and communicate the truth. But I do think it entirely inconsistent to
believe that God can use a false science to communicate truth but to
disallow me the use of falsehood to communicate truth that I want to

Yes, we must be sensitive to people's prejudices and
>wants, but we should also gently and lovingly try to steer such people
>toward healthier theology, trusting the Bible God actually gave us rather
>than subjecting it to our wants and demanding that it be a "perfect book"
>under some image of perfection invented by fallen humans.

I agree that we should not worship the Bible as perfect. That is not what I
am arguing for. What I am arguing for is that it is perfectly reasonable
for God to tell the truth. Otherwise, like God, I am allowed to use
falsehood to teach the truth--a position similar to the Moonies position as
I understand their theology.

>To start by accepting the flawed proposition that God is only allowed to
>communicate his truth in certain ways or else the whole faith collapses
>(therefore requiring one to force more "historicity" into Genesis than
>God may have put there) is as much of a mistake as when Phil Johnson
>starts by accepting the Sagan-ish proposition that "natural" explanations
>rule out God (therefore requiring one to argue against natural
>explanations in order to defend theism). In both cases, the real need is
>to straighten out the bad theology at the root rather than implicitly
>accepting it and being forced to go in unfruitful directions.

You found it objectionable that I might use what you view as a false
theology to teach truth( that YEC is wrong). Why is it less objectionable
that God would use false science to teach His truth. You have a double
standard, one for me and a lower standard for God.

>>Secondly, I find theological problems with a God who either can't or won't
>>tell us the unadulterated truth!
>So if a father tells his 3-year-old there is a "baby in Mommy's tummy" he
>should be condemned as a liar for not telling the unadulterated truth?

This falls into my 'kindergarden truth'. It is true. The 'tummy' doesn't
mean 'the stomach, i.e. the bag that holds the food, but the tummy refers
to the abdomen area. It is quite true.

>think we have to recognize (especially given the way Jesus taught) that
>God can and sometimes does (as a loving father who knows what is best for
>his children) choose to tell us his truth in ways that Glenn would not
>consider "unadulterated."

So why is it best for God to tell us a false story which gets so much
derision in today's educated society. What is the purpose behind that?
REmember God wasn't just talking to the ancient shepherds He was also
talking to us.

Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology

Lots of information on creation/evolution