Re: Seely's Views 2

From: <PASAlist@aol.com>
Date: Thu Sep 02 2004 - 22:37:59 EDT

Gordon wrote,

> Accommodation to hardness of heart is not sufficiently close to
> accommodation to popular stories to necessitate acceptance of one
> requiring acceptance of the other. The one concerns whether something is
> right or wrong morally and the other whether some story is true or false.
> It seems to me better to separate the two even if we use the same word,
> accommodation, in reference to both.

They are clearly in two different categories as you say; and I agree with you
that the acceptance of the one does not logically require acceptance of the
other, but what it does require is the acceptance of the possibility of the
other. My argument (presented too tersely in the previous post) is a fortiori to
the effect that if the moral standards of God, the truth as it were about
morals, is sometimes accommodated in inspired Scripture (and I don't think divorce
is the only instance), then one cannot insist that God cannot accommodate
inspired Scripture to popular stories or ancient science, particularly since the
primary purpose of Scripture is the teaching of faith and morals. If Scripture
can deviate from God's absolute truth in the area of its primary purpose,
then it can deviate from his absolute truth in a secondary area.

When then we find Scripture representing, for example, the ocean as being
made by splitting in two a primeval sea and placing the bottom half of that sea
around the earth; and we can see that this idea is both falsified by science
and quite probably derived from the Babylonian creation epic, we have every
right to conclude that it was divinely accommodated.

I also think there is some overlap between hardness of heart (pre-ingrained
cultural mores) and the mentality that comes to exist as a result of a
culture's pre-ingraining certain ideas about nature and history.

Paul
Received on Thu Sep 2 22:52:15 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 02 2004 - 22:52:15 EDT