Thank you for writing. Of course, I accept your clarification of the
As you will have observed, no one is willing - or able - to challenge my
OBC thesis from the Scriptures; but neither is anyone prepared to
discuss the possible meaning and significance of the facts uncovered. A
body of empirical data thus goes begging - a situation that must be
unique in the annals of science: man's natural curiosity stifled; a body
of Christians (by definition, 'seekers after truth') wanting nothing to
do with tangible evidence of the supernatural and of God's abilities.
Unbelievable! - but worse, the said body preferring to busy themselves
with softer, more entertaining, more rewarding even, options like
dismantling the Scriptures!
Allan, have you an answer to this enigma? Perhaps you and/or others on
the list would oblige.
> In a message dated 8/14/01 6:30:06 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> However, having commented on my work (and his) in your
> original posting
> to Richard McGough, and said, "...(it is) probably worth
> discussing in
> a graceful, rational, theologically informed way.", I am
> surprised to find in your more recent "Is Jonah..." posting
> "I suppose there is some (lesser) harm if Christians are
> seen as
> believing something silly, even if they make clear that the
> belief is
> not essential. Just as we should be willing to suffer for
> Christ but
> not suffer as wrongdoers, we should embrace the 'foolishness
> of the
> gospel' but eschew other, unrelated foolishness as a poor
> Geocentrism and 144-hour creationism would be in that
> category; from
> some perspectives some other things under discussion here
> (like not
> seeing Jonah as a story, opposition to the theory of
> Biblical numerology) might also qualify."
> So much for a "graceful, rational, theologically informed"
> approach! It
> would appear that you have already decided the matter - and
> given it a
> 'thumbs down'. I am disappointed. I was expecting some
> cogent argument -
> based on sound scriptural principles and simple logic - that
> would force
> me to dig deeper and/or seriously consider the wisdom of
> what I was
> doing. Instead, you appear to lean on blind prejudice and
> imply some
> link with the occult!
> Vernon, I'm sorry if what I said came across wrong, but I think you
> what I wrote. I did not personally put your work in the "silly"
> category; I
> said it was thus classified "from some perspectives" without
> agreeing with those perspectives. And you must agree that, as
> evidenced by
> various postings, "some perspectives" on this list view your work as
> foolishness (some people say that in a "graceful, rational,
> informed" way and some in less edifying ways).
> My point was about the possible harm of things advocated by Christians
> come across as "foolishness" (even if they don't go to the much more
> extent of claiming that the foolishness is essential). I named a few
> that *some* view as foolishness to illustrate the point, but it was
> not my
> intention in this post to specifically disparage any of those items.
> if I wasn't clear enough about that.
> Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
> "Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
> attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 15 2001 - 17:51:24 EDT