Re: The forgotten verses

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (
Date: Sun Jun 01 2003 - 14:49:39 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: "partisan liberal pieces""

    On Sat, 31 May 2003 19:19:49 +0100 "Iain Strachan"
    <> writes:
    > Debbie writes a lot of sense here; it is the closing out of love
    > that
    > concerns me, particularly in the bitterness and sarcasm with which
    > Vernon's
    > observations are received.
    > I for one don't insist you have to believe all that or agree on all
    > the
    > details to be a Christian. But when Michael writes something like:
    > > I get fed up with the superspirituality and offensiveness of
    > people like
    > you
    > > who assume that those who dont support your silly myths of
    > numerology and
    > > YEC have rejected the Bible.
    > >
    > .. then I seriously wonder how in the world you can call someone
    > "offensive"
    > and then reply by being equally offensive yourself. Michael has
    > frequently
    > on the list stated that he does not understand the maths behind
    > Vernon's
    > theories. Therefore surely that position of ignorance does not
    > qualify him
    > to state that the "numerology" is a "silly myth", and even if he
    > was
    > qualified to suggest it was all wrong, then a reasoned argument is
    > far more
    > persuasive than using perjorative language like that.
    > > I have tried to answer your questions but you simply have a
    > closed mind
    > and
    > > heart
    > >
    > .. and the same is true for you, I'm afraid; I've repeatedly tried
    > to reason
    > with you that this is something that it's reasonable to look into;
    > that it's
    > part of my own personal journey etc. I have never suggested that
    > you should
    > go along with it or that it or anything else was necessary for your
    > salvation. Not the slightest acknowledgement have I received from
    > you on
    > this, nor any convincing argument why I should not pursue this, or
    > indeed
    > seek to discuss it with a group of intelligent scientifically
    > oriented
    > fellow Christians. But everytime the subject comes up, when there
    > are
    > individuals on the group who have responded in an intelligent manner
    > that
    > aids discussion, we don't get very far before you come out with one
    > of your
    > nasty sarcastic statements, like the triangular olive leaves. I've
    > tried
    > very hard not to close out the love aspect here, but it's all I can
    > do at
    > the moment to close out the rising anger.
    > Iain
    How many sermons have you heard preached on Matthew 23? Is this because
    Jesus was wrong, or because we are too "nice"? I contend that we have
    changed _agape_ from a rational giving (see TDNT) to a sloppy
    sentimentality. The Golden Rule expresses its biblical essence as clearly
    as "Love your neighbor ..." Part of an honest concern is calling a shovel
    a shovel. This is not necessarily "nice" in an age that insists that
    every idea is equally deserving of a hearing and that no one is to be

    Michael has, among other activities, checked the quotations presented in
    support of YEC ideas and found them gross misrepresentations of the
    research. He has solid grounds to call them lies. When the falsehoods
    have been repeated after the perpetrators have been notified of their
    error, he has grounds for denunciation as solid as those our Lord had in
    the sermon recorded in Matthew 23.

    As to the numerology, how does it clarify the message of scripture? How
    does counting letters make anyone a better follower of Christ? a better
    person whatever the standards? It seems rather to encourage pride like
    that of Gnostics and Kabbalists. For a specific instance, how does
    extracting an inexact value for pi from numerological data do more than
    the "inspired" value of 3 given in II Chronicles 4:2? Is either
    representative of an omniscient deity, who must know the transcendental
    nature of pi? I have to concur with Michael's judgment. As I see it, you
    are being suckered into wasting your time with numerological drivel.

    So, does Michael have grounds for being testy? Definitely. Could he be
    sweeter? Of course. Could Jesus have gentled his denunciation of the
    scribes and Pharisees, and not whipped the dealers and money-changers out
    of the Temple? Surely. Should Christ and Michael have approached matters
    differently? Hm-mm.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jun 01 2003 - 14:54:10 EDT