Re: The Tower of Babel - Less Confusing

From: Jim Eisele (
Date: Sat May 17 2003 - 08:43:37 EDT

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: The Tower of Babel - Less Confusing"

    Paul writes

    >If I write anymore I will have a book here. So, I hope you can see my
    >approach to Genesis is perfectly reasonable but at the same time perfectly
    >honest. I don't have to distort the Bible or the sciences, and the
    >recognition that the science in Gen is ancient is based on the empirical
    >evidence showing that it is found in the ancient Near Eastern writings. The
    >recognition that the theology is indeed a divine revelation is based on the
    >witness of the Holy Spirit , yes, but also on the fact that the theology
    >stands in strong contrast, indeed in some places apparently purposeful
    >contrast to the theology of the times; and it is superior to that ancient
    >Think about this. It is a different paradigm, just as reasonable as the old
    >rationalistic one, but it flows from the data, not lording it over the

    Well, Paul, I face a couple of issues when discussing matters
    with you.

    You are shedding light in an area that desperately needs it.
    Not only that, but you have access to religious people who
    need education to improve their lives.

    Your approach works for you. And you can write a lot of
    words about it. As a human, I cannot overlook all the harm
    that false religion causes people. I can't help but determine
    that you are engaging in special pleading.

    Words attributed to a deity are shown to be inaccurate.
    Instead of concluding these were merely human words, you
    determine the deity was being compassionate (accommodating,
    in your words).

    Personally, I think you have other reasons for believing.
    The sad state of religion today is that religious people
    rely on highly subjective personal experience. That's
    not scholarship.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 17 2003 - 08:44:13 EDT