George, I really have to admire your chutzpah. Anything that I have to
say about the Bible is called a "testimony" and comments about the Bible
are ignored because they did "not touch upon your issues". What I
believe about the Bible is just Wally Hicks' faith but what you believe
about the Bible is theology of _the_ faith. WOW!
I do know what theology is, George. I also know when I will not accept a
particular theological viewpoint. They include YEC and those which
incorporates what the rest of the world would call a "myth". By your
definition Enuma Elish, the Creation of man by Prometheus plus various
India, Mayan, etc. stories of creation are not myths; they the theology
of that corresponding faith.
I've been involved in my long life in Roman Catholic, Nazarene,
Presbyterian, Methodist and Non-Denominational churches. It was
dominantly as a layman but I see no way that _your_ faith could be
described as _the_ faith in those churches.
I give to you the following: "a usually told story of ostensibly
historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a
people or explain a practice a belief or a natural phenomena." That is
what you have described Genesis 1-11 as being and you called it
"theology". That is also the Merriam Webster Dictionary's definition of
george murphy wrote:
> Thank you for your personal testimony which, however, does not
> really touch upon the issue that I raised. In fact, your closing sentence
> makes me wonder if you even realize what that issue was.
> & your penultimate paragraph makes it clear that you still see no difference
> between "theology" (which includes but is not limited to refelection upon
> historical events) & "myth."
> Theology is thinking about the faith - note that I say "the" faith,
> not simply "your" faith because it is not simply a personal exercise. The
> writers of Genesis were thinking about & writing down, under the Spirit's
> guidance, the faith of Israel. Our task is to think about the Christian
> faith, making use of the heritage of >3500 years of refelection of people
> like them but not being limited to their categories. We are called, among
> other things, to take very seriously what they wrote but also to be aware of
> the quite different setting in which they wrote.
> If we're using our brains at all we don't really have a choice about
> whether or not be do theology, only of the quality & integrity of that
> theology. Considering theology as an activity of pointy headed perfessers &
> dismissing it as "foo" in favor of the ideas of just us simple will not
> enhance the quality of one's theological reflection.
> George L. Murphy
> "The Science-Theology Interface"
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 05 2002 - 19:11:29 EDT