half full/half empty

From: Debbie Mann (deborahjmann@insightbb.com)
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 08:18:36 EDT

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: Liberals & Science"

    Jim

    Let's look at this from the other direction. Someone hands a panel of
    experts this book and says, "This talks about God and truth."

    An archeologist says, "Philistines? This book is full of Philistines and
    there's no record of them. And besides, they're to advanced for the era."
    But then she schedules a dig and finds a city with the weapons just as
    described in this book, and then she finds another city, and another. She
    has now made her mark on the world by discovering a whole civilization
    previously unknown.

    A historian easily discovers multiple records of the crucifixion of Jesus,
    but then states that he wouldn't be buried. His body would have been dumped.
    But,then, a body of a crucified victim shows up in a crypt.

    No one has heard of David, archeologically, one of the pivotal people in
    this book, but then 'House of David' and then 'House of 'one of his
    descendents'' begins showing up in archeological finds.

    A few movie makers decide some of the 'stories' have pretty good crowd
    appeal... hey, a lighter note once in a while is a good thing.

    If you had started off as a skeptic, believing that the Bible was just a
    piece of literature a few hundred years old - you'd be very impressed about
    now.

    And, for the panel of expert, what about Exodus? Is there any Egyptian or
    other record of frogs and pillars of smoke?

    -----Original Message-----
    From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
    Behalf Of Jim Eisele
    Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 7:35 PM
    To: PASAlist@aol.com
    Cc: asa@calvin.edu
    Subject: Re: The Tower of Babel - Less Confusing

    Paul writes

    >Of course I have other reasons for believing. I make no apology for that.

    Nor do I expect you to. And I generally just try to post
    here "within a Christian framework." You guys just need
    to surrender Genesis. It's a thorough embarrassment for
    Christians.

    >I have met Jesus Christ. He by his Spirit changed my life. He by his Spirit
    moves in my life. But, this is not purely subjective. If I have to give a
    reason for the hope that is within me, I >can point to the acts of God in
    history--both in my life and in the lives of others who have met >him, seen
    most definitively in his resurrection which rests upon the testimony of eye
    witnesses. >There is an objective as well as a subjective basis for my
    faith. He is there and he is there for those who surrender their lives to
    him----including you. This includes surrending your rationalism, not your
    reason, but your rationalism, your FAITH that you can know about God by
    reason alone.

    I like to respect people's experience. But your experience
    would be vastly different if you were born in a different
    culture. How do you explain that?

    >>You want to be resonable? OK. Let's take your reasoning above. God spoke
    words shown to be (scientifically) inaccurate. From this premise you draw
    the conclusion that therefore these were merely human words. OK. Put this in
    a logical syllagism. You have only given us the Major premise and the
    conclusion. What is the minor premise? The validity of the conclusion is
    contingent upon the minor premise. Without a sound minor premise, you do not
    have a logical conclusion, you do not have a truly reasonable conclusion.>>

    Major premise: The Bible/church says God doesn't lie, God is truth, etc.
    Minor premise: Genesis misrepresents reality to humans (a lie if God were
    real).
    Conclusion: Therefore, Genesis is merely human work.

    >Since your statements imply that your current religion demands that you not
    rest your faith on subjectivity, along with giving us the minor premise,
    give the proof that the minor premise is not just special pleading, is not
    just based upon subjectivity. Give the objective scientific basis that the
    minor premise is resting on.>

    People used to take Genesis factually (objective enough?) Science
    supplanted Genesis. Not only that, but Genesis is just silly/primitive.
    It blames humanity's problems on a single action from a single couple
    that didn't even have knowledge of good and evil.

    >You've come a long ways, from YEC to atheism,

    So how do you really feel about YEC, Paul ;-)
    Of course, I wholeheartedly agree :-)

    >I applaud your growth. But, so far all of your religions have rested upon
    the same minor premise. Now let's see what that minor premise is resting on,
    especially as found in atheism. I'm >not after winning an argument. I'm
    after you. You want to be ABSOLUTELY honest? I want you to be absolutely
    honest too, and I have no doubt that God wants this too. He is light and in
    him is >no darkness at all.

    Whoops, you just caught me at a bad moment. Another list
    just censored a thread that shows how the Bible supports
    Christianity is a false eschatological movement. Sorry,
    Paul, those "light" words ring very hollow at the moment.

    Jim



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 19 2003 - 08:12:59 EDT