Well, I think that your approach, Glenn, should not be seen
as the only or
even the referred approach to Gen 1-11.But if you want a historical
reconstruction of Gen 1-11, go ahead. May the Force be with you.I think that
your historical interpretation ends up being as subjective and symbolic as
my "Mythopoetic" interpretation, but you want to portray yourself as the
"objective scientist standing up for history & truth versus mythmaking
liberals like John, George, and myself, knock yourself out, Saint Glenn...
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
Behalf Of Glenn Morton
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 10:46 PM
Subject: RE: The Problem of Liberal Theology
>From: JW Burgeson [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 7:29 AM
>Glenn wrote, in part: "one of the problems is that when one tries to prove
>it [Gen 1-11] COULD be accurate, everyone chides that person for trying to
>PROVE it or chides them for wanting to have historical proof, or
>for having a YEC mindset, or chides them for not seeing it for the myths
>that it is, or chides them for not understanding that the true message has
>to do with a proclamation that there is only one God as opposed to the
>polytheistic religions of the day or they chide them for not
>seeing that it
>is a poem or they chide them for...... on and on ... ."
>You have a long list there. Let me try to respond.
>"... everyone chides that person... ."
>1. Not everyone.
>2. To the extent that any post of mine here is perceived by you as a
>"chide," apologies. I do not mean any of them that way.
Burgy, my friend, you are taking my words a bit too literally. Have you
become a literalist? :-) I would be shocked! :-)
Of course not everyone, ever and I hope you know by now that people can say
almost anything to me or about me and don't get too bothered by it. Often I
find it a bit amusing. But their is (ok I will say it correctly) almost
always a stream of notes telling me that this isn't the way one should do
it. Indeed, Shuan was quick to tell me that AFTER I posted the above note!
>"... for trying to PROVE it..."
>For the record, I am pleased that you take this task on, and, as I've
>mentioned before, the thesis you argue in your two books still
>appears to me
>to be the soundest explanation GIVEN THAT ONE ASSUMES THE
>COINCIDENCE OF GEN
>1-11 HISTORY WITH REALITY.
>I am particularly impressed with the observation that your thesis is a
>scientific one; it can be falsified; it can be supported by possible new
>evidence yet to be uncovered.
>"... or chides them for wanting to have historical proof,"
>Speaking only for myself, I would be delighted to see "historical
>just do not see it as a foundational need; I think you do.
>"... or chides them for having a YEC mindset, ... ."
>That was me. Let me unpack that statement. A "YEC mindset" does
>not mean one
>is a YEC, or a "bad guy," or simple minded, or anything like that. It does
>mean, as I used it, that one sees the Xtian faith as primarily
>rather than CONFESSIONAL.
I know that one was you--I chose it because it was you. And indeed, in some
sense, Burgy, you are correct, I do have a YEC mindset but I would argue
that the YEC mindset, of looking for concordance with reality, IS the
scientific mindset. The problem with the YECs is that they don't incorporate
the other part of a scientific mindset--correctability. They are constantly
and incorrigibly incorrectable.
>Suppose if in Acts 1 Jesus had said "And you shalll be my apologists,
>bringing everyone into compliance with correct doctrine about me, ... ."
>Then a prescriptive approach to Xtianity would clearly be
>understood. He did
>not, of course, but instead said "You shall be my witnesses ... ."
>"...or chides them for not seeing it for the myths that it is,..."
>My argument to you on this is that I don't see you understanding that
>position as a possibly valid one. You poke fun at it, and that's OK except
>that sarcasm and irony on this LISTSERV is often not understood as
>is seldom productive. I think I can fairly argue your position,
>Glenn. I do
>not think you can argue mine.
Believe it or not, I might be able to argue it, but on this list I have seen
no reason to try. And, no, I probably don't see a reason to hold that it is
ok to have so little historical content as you. But even you fall to my
position if I ask the question would you believe the OT if none of it was
>"... or chides them for not understanding that the true message has to do
>with a proclamation that there is only one God as opposed to the
>polytheistic religions of the day ... ."
>I think you understand that message, Glenn. I think that all on this
>LISTSERV probably do. You are looking for more -- to bolster or make more
>credible the faith; I applaud that effort without seeing it as
>useful for ME. It may well be useful for others, of a more
Actually, I am glad it isn't useful to you. You probably have less trouble
in these issues than I.
>"...or they chide them for not seeing that it is a poem or... "
>Not quite, But I would encourage people to EXAMINE THE ARGUMENTS why some
>folks think it is a poem.
I know the arguments but I think it actually makes no difference. It is the
truth or falsity of the poem that makes a difference and of course, as usual
I am not speaking of internalized spiritual truth.
>My daughter is a lawyer. She tells me that if she does not know her
>opponent's arguments as well as he does, she is likely to lose in the
>courtroom. She is a smart cookie.
I won't claim to know every persons argument as well as they, but I do know
it and actually could do a credible imitation of it. I really think you
underestimate me here. I am arguing against a position which spiritualizes
early Genesis, because of the necessity for God to be the creator. That
doesn't mean I don't know the arguments. For goodness sake, George has
excellently propounded them enough. And I have (boringly) replied often
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 09 2002 - 16:28:10 EDT