To say that we could know "what God is" if we knew the flower in the
crannied wall thoroughly enough is the worst type of natural theology. It is an
assertion that a natural knowledge of God can take the place of revelation. The
flower - or anything else in creation - can tell us something about the true God
only if it is viewed in the light of the cross and resurrection of Christ.
Theologia naturalis delenda est!
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
"Moorad Alexanian" wrote:
> What is the minimum you have to know to concluded that God is? It is clear
> that as a human being one already knows who man is and through that may know
> who Christ is? Physicists would say that a theory of everything would explain
> the whole of the physical world. Wouldn't that imply than knowing part of the
> physical world would imply knowledge of the whole? Moorad
> >===== Original Message From Michael Roberts <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Yes and Tennyson would have used this to reject an orthodox Christian view .
> >Sorry to disappoint you
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <email@example.com>
> >To: "asa" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 5:46 PM
> >Subject: "Flower in the Crannied Wall"
> >> My wife has a USA post office poster with a quote from the poem "Crannied
> >> Wall" by Alfred, Lord Tennyson. This poem summarizes how I believe the
> >> of reality hangs together. Moorad
> >> "Flower in the Crannied Wall"
> >> Flower in the crannied wall,
> >> I pluck you out of the crannies,
> >> I hold you here, root and all, in my hand,
> >> Little flower -- but if I could understand
> >> What you are, root and all, and all in all,
> >> I should know what God and man is.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 01 2002 - 19:40:27 EST