Glenn wrote: " I would merely ask here, how you used the scientific method
to determine that a non-historical poem is theologically true? I don't
really think that is possible--i.e. to use science or a scientific mindset
to determine theological truth. Could you explain how this is done?"
I do not think it is possible either, my friend. As george puts it -- start
with the cross. My conviction that Jesus is the Christ comes from the HS
working on me (after I asked). All else flows from that.
"why I can't go with the more liberal approach to the Scripture. It would
mean doing what I did as a YEC--using science from Monday to Friday and
avoiding science and a common methodology on the weekends and after work. I
don't want to go back to that failed methodology, which I think you are
actually using. :-)"
Christ is Lord of all -- or He is not Lord at all.
But in one sense you are quite right. I do not use science (scientific
techniques and mindset) to apprehend God. That does not work. I see you as
trying to use the scientific technique to apprehend God -- this is probably
what I meant when I said you had the "YEC mindset." ANd I think that
technique is doomed to failure. Apprehending God is much more mystical.
William James seems to have a good handle on this in his 1902 lectures later
published as THE VARIETY OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES.
Apprehending God is not the only human activity that cannot (or should not)
be approached with a scientific mindset. Marriage is one that comes to mind.
An artist painting a sunset. The courtship of a man and a woman. The
nurturing of a baby by its mother. Listening to Handel's Messiah. Etc etc.
"I think you miss my point. The theology of salvation to which I refer does
not consist of the set of Christian theologies. Don't limit the
possibilities to merely those within Christianity. I refer to the set of all
religious theologies. If Molech is truly God, then I may be in trouble
because I didn't sacrifice my son, Daniel, to him when Dan was a baby. It is
29 years too late for me."
yes, I miised your point. I see the above as totally irrelevant.
"And if you will dig back in your memory banks you will know that I don't
care if every detail is accurate. What I insist upon is that the story be
essentially true--not a made up just so story."
One always wonders how many points of correspondence might satisfy you.
Suppose we find -- say -- three points of correspondence. Will that be
enough? What do you say to a person who says three are insufficient -- he
needs four? And on and on.
"The first message does have a lot to do with history and science. The
universe came into being either as a result of eternally existing natural
forces alone or as the result of eternally existing divine will."
Or maybe both.
" By universe I mean all that there is. If God came into being with the
universe, then he is part of the Universe and not the creator of it."
But who here (or anywhere) is arguing that? Nobody that I know. Not even the
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 11 2002 - 23:03:44 EDT