RE: Herodotus' Mice and the need for historical verification

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Tue May 21 2002 - 00:59:06 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Polyphyly and the origin of life"

    Burgy, I have always admired your honesty. You clearly do say that the
    Bible isn't falsifiable and in one sense challenge me to disprove you. I
    like that. For you that works. I am glad for you. For me, everything is
    falsifiable. If it isn't, then how can I have any reason to believe it is
    true. If I went your way, I might as well be a YEC. If my interpretation of
    the Bible is unfalsifiable (as they clearly believe, then it makes no
    difference whether I believe YEC or OEC.

    But as I said, I like your guts in honesty. (besides you keep me honest and
    have many times).


    for lots of creation/evolution information
    personal stories of struggle

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: J Burgeson []
    >Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 9:52 AM
    >Subject: RE: Herodotus' Mice and the need for historical verification
    >I wrote
    >Glenn asked me, some time ago, "Would you beleive Christianity if the
    >>entire OT was false?"
    >I replied: "Probably. Good question though."
    >Glenn then wrote: "Then what would falsify Christianity in your
    >mind? If the
    >only thing is the discrediting of the resurrection, I would say that is
    >equal to nothing as we can't historically prove or disprove that."
    >Another good question, and one I have been thinking about. I agree
    >that the
    >resurrection cannot be proven or disproven. For that matter, the existence
    >of Julius Caesar cannot be, either. Both can, of course, be SUPPORTED to a
    >more or less extent.
    >But to the question you ask. Christianity is not a scientific model. In my
    >case, I perceive my faith in Christ as coming from God to me, not
    >from me to
    >God. IOW, I can think of no falsification situation.
    >Perhaps that is one reason I do not get as upset as you do over
    >the book of
    >Mormon, or even the strange (to me) practices and apparent beliefs of
    >Christian Scientists, JWs, etc. It is, after all, a relationship with God
    >that is important. Presbyterians see this relationship in a particular way
    >-- Lutherans in a way very close to that of Presbyterians, yet with
    >differences, Baptists still differently, Pentecostals even more
    >Some fellowships appear to say "Christ plus" and some say "Christ
    >minus." I
    >see a gradation of belief stuctures, and I am really reluctant to draw a
    >circle, as the folks at Moody Bible Institute do, and say "in this
    >circle --
    >Christian -- outside that -- heretic and not Christian." The last time I
    >looked at their stuff, BTW, my Catholic friends were as much outside the
    >circle as the Mormons, not to mention the Muslims, Hindus, etc.
    >So -- take all away -- show me that the best scholarship indicates
    >that the
    >whole Bible was written by a crazed monk in 500 AD, what remains
    >is that God
    >HAS revealed himself to me and what faith I have comes from Him, not from
    >me. In that sense, falsification is a non-possibility.
    >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 20 2002 - 17:27:37 EDT