Re: The Tower of Babel - Less Confusing

From: Jim Eisele (
Date: Sat May 24 2003 - 08:46:51 EDT

  • Next message: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: On Tillich"

    Paul writes

    >>A work credited to an omnipotent being of truth doesn't misrepresent

    >I would like to go back now to the major premise. I deny its validity
    because it ignores the issue of intention or purpose, as well as the state
    of mind of the person(s) to whom the writing is directed. It assumes that
    under no circumstances whatsoever would an omnipotent being of truth
    misrepresent any aspect of reality. This makes God into a wooden and
    rationalistic being, and I deny that he is such. So, your conclusion is
    still false because the major premise is false.
    If you care to defend the major premise, tell me What evidence you have that
    this premise is true?>

    I'm not going to do that, Paul. And I'll tell you why:
    You are entirely free to tell all of us what was "really
    going on" in Genesis. It is my position that Christianity
    (for its own sake) needs to surrender Genesis.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 24 2003 - 08:47:22 EDT