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

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Sat Feb 18 2006 - 10:22:08 EST

*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?*

Of course not. But there's a difference between taking a disputed position
on a disputed issue, or remaining agnostic about a disputed issue, and
"believing that which is untrue." There's also a difference between
holding apparently conflicting beliefs (an antinomy) -- say, "light is both
a particle and a wave," or "God is fully sovereign and humans have free
will" -- and "believing that which is untrue." We are after all only human
and our ability to know what is really true or not often is limited.

On 2/17/06, glennmorton@entouch.net <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
> 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 Sat Feb 18 10:22:39 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 18 2006 - 10:22:39 EST