Thank you for these observations. However, I am completely at a loss to
understand why you should think I regard others on this list as 'morons'
and 'gross hypocrites'.
When you challenge my claim that 'I deal only in self-evident truths',
you appear to be forgetting the nature of the truths to which I refer.
Do I understand you to challenge simple numerical facts? - as for
example the precise relationships between symmetrical form and number
that represent a substantial portion of my findings?; or these recent
discoveries relating to 'pi' and 'e'? It would help if you were to
explain yourself a little more clearly here. Regarding my considering
the possibility that I might be wrong, I have not - simply because facts
Clearly, it would appear that my recent posting has uncovered a
psychological barrier (perhaps better known as 'cognitive dissonance')
that some find hard to overcome. Thus, for no good reason (as far as I
am aware), Michael and yourself regard my writings as 'offensive'. This,
of course, implies that certain potentially interesting and important
areas of investigation should be considered 'out of bounds' for the
Christian. But is this really what Christ meant when he said, "... when
he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth..."
george murphy wrote:
> Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> > M.B.Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > Vernon
> > >
> > > I am sorry but I find your treatment of the Bible misguided and
> > > offensive. I did once refer your work to the unrude and not unlearned
> > > and got a ribald response.
> > Bearing in mind that I deal only in self-evident truths, I am at a loss
> > to know why any 'lover of truth' (the Lord's definition of any committed
> > follower of his) should regard my efforts as 'misguided' and
> > 'offensive'.
> Unless you think everybody else on this list is literally a moron you
> cannot seriously mean that the claims you make are "self-evident". & unless you
> think we're all gross hypocrites, you can't attribute our uniform rejection of
> your claims to lack of commitment to the gospel. If you do think that we're
> morons & hypocrites, your time would be better spend trying to persuade others.
> If you don't think that, you might consider a basic criterion for both
> scientific and theological study enunciated, I think, by Snoopy: "Have you ever
> considered the possibility that you might be wrong?"
> George L. Murphy
> "The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 22 2001 - 17:46:52 EDT