Re: Seely's Views 2

From: <Dawsonzhu@aol.com>
Date: Mon Sep 06 2004 - 10:24:45 EDT

Hi Glenn,

> I know it is unusual to reply to myself but no one pushed to see if my
> claim was real history or not.
>
>

Well, that proves it must be false. ... . :-)

But frankly, it seems like everyone here is using some
additional criteria to judge the validity of the bible. I've seen
atheists use similar information theory models and their
own opinions about god (their god) to supposedly
"debunk" the bible and rationalize ignoring the most
important message of the bible. I don't think the bible
stands a (prayer of a) chance without faith.

Moreover, the bible reflects a growing process. Exodus
is the "butt kicking God" but the NT seems to reflect a
very different God. The people's image of God grew with
time, and I think it is important that it should continue to grow.
One of the reasons creationism doesn't work well is because it
is not growing with our understanding of the world and therefore
what God is likely to be. So clearly, even in the long history of
the scripture itself, there was (gasp!) ..evolution.. of our picture of
God. Even at the NT transition, our picture of God was still too
small. Our picture today will also be too small for a future generation.

by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Mon Sep 6 10:39:49 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 06 2004 - 10:39:49 EDT