Re: AIG says it like it is

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon Feb 06 2006 - 17:48:04 EST

Well you wont get any sense from someone who believes anything as nonsensical as "accommodation/allegory/metaphor" Anyway I don't know anyone who accepts such a weird view . It's bizarre, are you sure anyone holds it. Cant think of anyone in ASA or CIS who does

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: glennmorton@entouch.net
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 10:07 PM
  Subject: Re: AIG says it like it is

  Robert Schneider wrote:

>

>And if the Bible is not true, then you can't believe anything its says about
>Jesus Christ. That is the logical conclusion. And that is one very good
>reason why YECism is so wrong-headed, if not heretical.

  I know I am usually odd man out here on this issue, but the reason the ASA-type of response has such a small following in the pews in the US is simply because making it allegorical/metaphorical is viewed by most as equivalent ot making it not true.

  On another list, I asked a guy who believes in accommodation/allegory/metaphor this question:

  "A primitive tribesman who was taught that the innerds of a great green slug formed the earth. He goes to school and learns the scientific view. In order to maintain his belief in the great green slug, he decides that the story must be esconced in a different literary genre. Thus he concludes that his religion is TRUE. Please explain in detail why it is OK for you to say Genesis is a different literary genre and therefore your religion is true (regardless of the scientific mistakes you think it makes) and not ok for the primitive tribesman and great green slug believer to hold that his view is also equally a different genre and his religion is true (regardless of the fact that there was really no Great Green Slug). Both are doing the very same thing. Why is your doing it so much better than when the Great Green Slug believer does it? "

  I would add, to this, why is it ok for us to say our True religion was accommodated to the beliefs of the ancient Hebrew tribesmen but it isn't ok for God to accommodate his message to that of the Great Green slug believer.

  I was told that the question is nonsense and the man refused to answer the question. I don't think the question is nonsense, so I changed the question to a real life example:

  "A mormon goes to school and learns the scientific truths about New World Archaeology. He finds conflict between his beliefs and the science. He decides that the story outlined in the Book of Mormon is an allegory/accommodation and that is how he resolves his conflict. Why is it ok for you to do that and not ok for the mormon?"

  No answer. So I changed the question to this:

  Or put in terms of the Dalai Lama There was this recent news account of a speech given by the Dalai Lama:

  "Ladies and Gentlemen, His Holiness the Dalai Lama:

  As a child in Tibet, I was keenly curious about how things worked. When I got a toy I would play with it a bit, then take it apart to see how it was put together. As I became older, I applied the same scrutiny to a movie projector and an antique automobile.

  At one point I became particularly intrigued by an old telescope, with which I would study the heavens. One night while looking at the moon I realized that there were shadows on its surface. I corralled my two main tutors to show them, because this was contrary to the ancient version of cosmology I had been taught, which held that the moon was a heavenly body that emitted its own light.

  But through my telescope the moon was clearly just a barren rock, pocked with craters. If the author of that fourth-century treatise were writing today, I'm sure he would write the chapter on cosmology differently.

  If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.

  Say "om," somebody!"
  http://annotatedtimes.blogrunner.co...6D97E000130054/
  accessed 1-21-06

  To which I then said:

  "Now, this isn't a great green slug, nor it is Mormonism, but the Dalai Lama realized that his books, which said the moon generated its own light was wrong. Now, he didn't rewrite the text, he believes buddhism is true even though what it taught about nature is wrong. I believe that you too follow such a path. I believe that you believe God accommodated the message to the Hebrews and thus it still teaches truth in theology.

  What is the difference between your position and that of the Dalai Lama?

  Is it right for you to approach the misfit of science and the Christian Bible in the way you do and not right for the Dalai Lama to approach it that way?"

  The entire reason the ASA is ignored in the pews is because the people in the pews see the logic in what I am saying. For some reason the accomodationalists/allegoricalist/metaphoricalists don't and I truly don't understand why they don't see the problem.

  I have argued this point for years to no avail, but I must at least ask the question again. I pretty much stay off this list these days preferring to argue mostly with the YECs on other lists so I probably won't reply. But I will say, until those who believe in accommodation have a really good answer to the questions I ask above, they will remain in the limbo of being ignored by the people in the pews who think this approach DOES make the bible not true.

   
Received on Mon Feb 6 17:50:16 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 06 2006 - 17:50:16 EST