Perfection

From: Debbie Mann (deborahjmann@insightbb.com)
Date: Mon May 26 2003 - 13:18:33 EDT

  • Next message: Jay Willingham: "Re: The Tower of Babel - Less Confusing"

    People aren't pure. People aren't perfect. I haven't had a day where I
    performed ideally, yet. I really don't think that people ever agree on a
    smorgasbord of ideas unless they are afraid. I work for two customers. They
    have the same professions. It is amazing how diverse (and definite) they are
    in their requirements. Their outlooks are different, their methods extremely
    unsimilar. Why do you think Windows and AutoCad have so many ways of doing
    the same thing? Wehave different preferences. Sameness is a function of
    dictatorial societies.

    I don't expect to agree with my church. I found a church where I am
    respected for myself as a whole. I got kicked out of a protestant church -
    for being an educated, questioning woman. I was in good company. I've also
    been the subject of a Priest's wrath in a Catholic church. I wasn't told
    that I shouldn't take communion. I never blamed God for these events. They
    were from people.

    People are sloppy. Have any kids?

    I have always detested self-righteous authority. In the days of 'The rule
    says...' (Everybody remember that time? Still active in the mid-seventies.)
    I got very good at figuring out the way to circumvent it. Someone always had
    the authority to override the peons who let the rules think for them. People
    should think, and be allowed to think. I rejoice when I hear of peacable
    marches in the streets. I don't care if I agree or disagree with the issue.
    People who think, and disagree and march in the street are likely to retain
    their freedom.

    I don't like hanging around with people who accept my opinion without
    question. I feel much more solid after hearing opposing views and modifying
    my stand accordingly (Modifying - not changing). I believe God is frequently
    quite intentionally obtuse. We aren't supposed to perceive things the same.
    Different vessels have different functions. If all of us were eyes in the
    Body of Christ, where would the hearing be? And that is really quite
    interesting in this context. Sound and light are both waves, and yet our
    technology for each of them is completely different. Transmission,
    reception -- not at all the same. The content may have the same function,
    but the mediums do not function similarly.

    If everyone agreed with me and everything made sense, I'd be bored to tears.
    Boredom is not a current issue.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
    Behalf Of Jim Eisele
    Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 10:35 AM
    To: PASAlist@aol.com
    Cc: asa@calvin.edu
    Subject: Re: The Tower of Babel - Less Confusing

    Paul writes

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

    >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.>

    Paul, I just don't know how much more objective it gets
    than this. My next response may be off-list as I don't
    feel like being seen as a trouble maker. As I've said
    before, this doesn't seem like a "friendly" environment
    to discuss atheism-Christianity.

    >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?>

    Considered. Unfortunately this just points up the
    "sloppiness" of Christianity. Christians disagree with
    each other about just about everything, including Bible
    translation.

    Your heart is in the right place, but you are making a
    large stretch that I couldn't make in good faith (pardon
    the pun :-)

    Jim



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 26 2003 - 13:15:57 EDT