RE: Seely's Views 2

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Thu Sep 02 2004 - 22:00:34 EDT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 3:19 PM
> To: glennmorton@entouch.net

> Glenn,
> In response to your first question, we don't know. We're
> finite.

But God isn't finite. Why can't he simply tell a true history. Why does
he have to tell something that we can't count on as being true? How
little power a god like that has.

Even with the kind of proof in math and logic,
> "truth" is at best conditional.

I understand Godel's theorem.

We recognize truth as an
> absolute standard which we hope to approach. But truth is a
> requirement for knowledge. So knowledge can only be to the
> best of our ability (and hope). The only way out of this that
> I have found is the declaration, "I'm right [which implies
> holding only the truth]! And if you don't believe I'm right,
> ask me, and I'll tell you how right I am." Of course, most
> people holding such a view do not state it
> publicly: it's a tacit commitment.

That isn't truth in my opinion. What you have described is subjectivism.
Truth is when you and I look at the grass and agree that it is green.
And then other people come and look at the grass and agree with us.
Truth is when the vast majority of historians agree that there was a
Roman empire. But God can't seem to tell a true story about history
that all would agree with. I am always amazed at how little that
difference bothers some people.

>
> As to what part of revelation is imperfect, all of it with
> the exception of Jesus Christ,

Seems highly ad hoc to me. There simple is no cogent and coherent view
that explains why that part is perfect but all the rest isn't.
Received on Thu Sep 2 22:23:42 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 02 2004 - 22:23:42 EDT