> > George said: "But let's follow up the physics analogy. Where the
> > Omega-minus? I.e., does your scheme predict any novel theological
> > result? "
> > I had not thought of that angle. Good point.
> Personally I do not think this is a good point at all. If the numerical
> analysis started producing "novel" theology that was different from what we
> understand already, I would regard it as a dangerous practice, leading to
> cult formation, and would distance myself from it as far as possible. It
> has to harmonize with what the text says on the surface, or else it is the
> work of the devil.
Note that I was responding to an analogy that had been posed between
symmetry in physics & that in a classification scheme for the Bible. My
response has to be understaood in that light. Having said that, I would add
that there are senses in which novel theology is desirable & even necessary.
Of "novel" isn't the same as true. There can be novel heresies - though
most are repristinations of tired old ones. & by "novel theological result" I
didn't mean something like "discovering" the 4th Person of the Trinity!
But there can be new ways of seeing old issues - Karl Barth's doctrine
of election is a good example. & there can be new insights into the way the
Bible should be read which may lead to significant changes in Chriatian practice
- e.g., the ordination of women. Of course there will be debate among
Christians about whether or not those insights are correct. (For what it's
worth, I think both basically are.)
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 08 2001 - 17:28:39 EDT