Re: Believe it even if it isn't true theology

From: <>
Date: Fri Feb 17 2006 - 21:52:03 EST
David wrote:
>But Rich's statement about Jesus not necessarily being the actual Son of God was rather strongly rebutted here, and Rich >himself later said he doesn't actually think along those lines, so I don't think your observation is correct.  Regardless,
>there's obviously a huge difference between harmonizing general and special revelation on non-essential matters such
>as the means of creation and rejecting for no apparent reason a basic and central doctrine such as the divinity of Christ.
You didn't actually answer the fundamental question. Is it ok for us to believe that which is untrue while at the same time telling the YEC that he must cease believing that which is untrue? That is a question which is separate from whether or not Rich recanted from what he wrote.  I see the fundamental questions in life revolving around what is TRUE, not around what we can ignore and still believe.
Is it really grand and glorious to believe that which is utterly false? If all the Bible teaches us about is feelings and unverifiable ditties, I would ask the question of whether or not it is really worth much. After all there are lots of books teaching unverifiable ditties, like Dianetics, the Book of Mormon, the Lord of the Rings, etc ad nauseum And that brings back the question of whether it is ok for the great green slug believer to say his religion is true because it too teaches unverifiable ditties.

Received on Fri Feb 17 21:53:10 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 17 2006 - 21:53:10 EST