Re: The Tower of Babel - Less Confusing

From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Sun May 18 2003 - 18:35:26 EDT

  • Next message: PASAlist@aol.com: "(no subject)"

    Dick Fischer wrote:
    >
    > Burgy wrote:
    >
    > >Dick wrote: "Liberals pay lip service only. They are scholarly enough to
    > >know the similarities are there, but lack the guts to go beyond what the
    > >establishment will allow. After all, there is peer pressure, tenure, and
    > >other important considerations.>>
    > >
    > >Interacting with "liberals" as much as I do, I find your characterization
    > >of them as "paying lip service" and "lack the guts to" and yout judgement
    > >of their motivations as relating to "peer pressure, tenure, etc." to be
    > >so far off base as to be unreasonable to hold in any more than a
    > >fundamentalist sense. maybe not even in that sense.
    >
    > Oops, I must have stepped on a liberal toe. To spread the blame a bit,
    > conservatives don't fare any better. Any historical documentation of
    > Genesis, begs the question: What about all the human history that precedes
    > Genesis? No, history is the third rail of conservative doctrine, touch it
    > and die. So, the historical underpinnings of Genesis go unreported in
    > theological circles - both liberal and conservative.
    >
    > >I suppose you would call Tillich a liberal. Have your read him? Do you
    > >know him at all?
    >
    > Since you among others are accustomed to theological double speak I have
    > included just a bit for flavor. (If boredom or incomprehension overtakes
    > anybody just skip to my response.
    >
    > "Reason is not the source of theology, yet it plays a significant role in
    > the theology. Tillich distinguishes two categories of reason, namely, an
    > ontological reason and a technical reason. The former is the "structure of
    > the mind which enables the mind to grasp and to shape reality," and the
    > latter "is reduced to the capacity for "reasoning" (71-75). For Tillich,
    > the fundamental idea of reason is the ontological reason. The technical
    > reason is adequate only as an adopted instrument for revealing the
    > ontological reason. The ontological reason, in which subjective and
    > objective are rooted, can be related to logos. The subjective reason can be
    > defined as the rational structure of the mind, and that is able to catch
    > and to form the reality. Relatively, the objective reason can be defined as
    > the rational structure of reality, and that is caught and formed by the
    > mind. Consequently, Logos is "the word which grasps and shapes reality"
    > (74), and therefore is the ontological reason. Tillich takes the term, the
    > depth of reason, to relate the transcendental power of which to the meaning
    > of being-itself. However, reason subjects to our actual existence, and
    > therefore reason experiences the limitations, conflicts, and ambiguities of
    > our existence. Accordingly, a quest for revelation is inevitable to resolve
    > the finitude of our reason."
    >
    > Or as that great Chinese philosopher said: "He who, hoo hee."
    >
    > Labels are at the same time necessary and over simplistic. I wish I didn't
    > have to use them at all. Of course, not everybody can be pigeon holed
    > neatly into just two camps, conservative and liberal.
    >
    > I argue against both sides because, in my honest opinion, both sides are
    > wrong in roughly equal and opposite directions. Liberals write off the
    > historicity of Genesis because they fall into the same interpretation traps
    > the conservatives do. Whereas conservatives need to ignore history and
    > turn science on its head to try and make it work, liberals take the poor,
    > linguistically-challenged Bible writer off the hook by finding methods of
    > accommodation.
    >
    > Since the Genesis narrative lacks historical integrity in the minds of
    > liberals it becomes a "polemic against false gods." Because the order of
    > presentation in Genesis 1 is not clearly comprehended, the days of creation
    > are not in a chronological order, but according to Conrad Hyers, a
    > "cosmogonic order," or Roy Clouser's "teleological order." Well, thank
    > goodness that is cleared up. Otherwise we might have thought Moses was
    > just wrong.
    >
    > Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
    > Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
    > www.genesisproclaimed.org
    >
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------
    > Burgy wrote:
    >
    > Dick wrote: "Liberals pay lip service only. They are
    > scholarly enough to
    > know the similarities are there, but lack the guts to go
    > beyond what the
    > establishment will allow. After all, there is peer
    > pressure, tenure, and
    > other important considerations.>>
    >
    > Interacting with "liberals" as much as I do, I find your
    > characterization
    > of them as "paying lip service" and "lack the guts to" and
    > yout judgement
    > of their motivations as relating to "peer pressure, tenure,
    > etc." to be
    > so far off base as to be unreasonable to hold in any more
    > than a
    > fundamentalist sense. maybe not even in that sense.
    >
    > Oops, I must have stepped on a liberal toe. To spread the blame a
    > bit, conservatives don't fare any better. Any historical
    > documentation of Genesis, begs the question: What about all the human
    > history that precedes Genesis? No, history is the third rail of
    > conservative doctrine, touch it and die. So, the historical
    > underpinnings of Genesis go unreported in theological circles - both
    > liberal and conservative.
    >
    > I suppose you would call Tillich a liberal. Have your read
    > him? Do you know him at all?
    >
    > Since you among others are accustomed to theological double speak I
    > have included just a bit for flavor. (If boredom or incomprehension
    > overtakes anybody just skip to my response.
    >
    > "Reason is not the source of theology, yet it plays a significant role
    > in the theology. Tillich distinguishes two categories of reason,
    > namely, an ontological reason and a technical reason. The former is
    > the "structure of the mind which enables the mind to grasp and to
    > shape reality," and the latter "is reduced to the capacity for
    > "reasoning" (71-75). For Tillich, the fundamental idea of reason is
    > the ontological reason. The technical reason is adequate only as an
    > adopted instrument for revealing the ontological reason. The
    > ontological reason, in which subjective and objective are rooted, can
    > be related to logos. The subjective reason can be defined as the
    > rational structure of the mind, and that is able to catch and to form
    > the reality. Relatively, the objective reason can be defined as the
    > rational structure of reality, and that is caught and formed by the
    > mind. Consequently, Logos is "the word which grasps and shapes
    > reality" (74), and therefore is the ontological reason. Tillich takes
    > the term, the depth of reason, to relate the transcendental power of
    > which to the meaning of being-itself. However, reason subjects to our
    > actual existence, and therefore reason experiences the limitations,
    > conflicts, and ambiguities of our existence. Accordingly, a quest for
    > revelation is inevitable to resolve the finitude of our reason."
    >
    > Or as that great Chinese philosopher said: "He who, hoo hee."
    >
    > Labels are at the same time necessary and over simplistic. I wish I
    > didn't have to use them at all. Of course, not everybody can be
    > pigeon holed neatly into just two camps, conservative and liberal.
    >
    > I argue against both sides because, in my honest opinion, both sides
    > are wrong in roughly equal and opposite directions. Liberals write
    > off the historicity of Genesis because they fall into the same
    > interpretation traps the conservatives do. Whereas conservatives need
    > to ignore history and turn science on its head to try and make it
    > work, liberals take the poor, linguistically-challenged Bible writer
    > off the hook by finding methods of accommodation.
    >
    > Since the Genesis narrative lacks historical integrity in the minds of
    > liberals it becomes a "polemic against false gods." Because the order
    > of presentation in Genesis 1 is not clearly comprehended, the days of
    > creation are not in a chronological order, but according to Conrad
    > Hyers, a "cosmogonic order," or Roy Clouser's "teleological order."
    > Well, thank goodness that is cleared up. Otherwise we might have
    > thought Moses was just wrong.

            Thank you for putting all these pointy-headed perfessers in their place! If you
    hadn't done so we might have thought that you just didn't understand them.

                                            

    George L. Murphy
    gmurphy@raex.com
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun May 18 2003 - 18:37:56 EDT