Re: The Tower of Babel - Less Confusing

From: PASAlist@aol.com
Date: Sun May 25 2003 - 15:19:02 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: Response to Howard on Tillich & Bultmann"

    JIM: > A work credited to an omnipotent being of truth doesn't misrepresent
    > reality
    >
    > PAUL: 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?>
    >
    > JIM: 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.
    >

    If you have no objective basis for your major premise, you have no objective
    basis for your conclusion that Genesis was not inspired by God, and hence you
    have no objective basis for your decision to turn to atheism.

    Consider this:
    There really was a missionary once who went to a primitive tribe in New
    Guinea. He knew that in fact (in truth, in reality) the text of John 1:29 referring
    to Jesus says, "Behold the _lamb_ of God." The Greek word cannot be correctly
    translated any other way. But, this tribe had no knowledge of lambs, and pigs
    were the basis of its social and economic existence. Pigs were very highly
    esteemed. So, the missionary translated the verse and presented to this tribe as
    the word of God, "Behold the pig of God."

    When the tribe grows up intellectually and finds out that the missionary knew
    better and still misrepresented the actual facts (what the text really says),
    will what the missionary did be a good reason for no longer trusting him with
    regard to the religion he set before them?

    Or, given the original primitive state of the tribe, was this
    misrepresentation of the facts a testimony to the missionary's wisdom and love?

    Paul



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun May 25 2003 - 15:20:12 EDT