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

From: <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Sun Feb 19 2006 - 08:36:11 EST

Melvin wrote:
>Glenn, Do you think the *parable* of the good Samaritan teaches any
>truth? Or is Jesus only permitted to use non-fiction to make his point?

I have had lots of people try this one. Melvin, what in particular about this story makes it untrue or incapable of being untrue?  What evidence do you have that this is a fiction? Perhaps this actually happened and was news in Jerusalem during Jesus' time.

>You are hung up on why some may look down their noses on Green >slugism  or YEC.

I would just like one of you for once to actually answer a question I ask. Is it or is it not correct for a believer in Mormonism who learns the truth about North American archaeology to save his religion by either saying the Book of mormon is an allegory which teaches true theology.

Please answer the question and don't answer things which are not asked.

>I'll happily take your bait and agree with you. Green slugism,
>if it really existed, or other religions that do exist, must convey
>considerable or at least some -- truth about reality and life. Even a
>YEC gets a lot of things right (not the age of the earth, probably) but
>a good many other things yes. Nobody is brilliant enough to construct
>an entire religion, a substantial volume of literary works or complex
>hermeneutical approach and get it 100% wrong.

But that doesn't answer the question. Is he correct in deciding that he can hold the Book of Mormon, or slugism to be an accommodation by his God to the science of his tribe (or the science of those in Utah)?  You still haven't answered the question. Why is his belief that his religion teaches theological truth in spite of its scientific failings wrong, but your belief about your religion  is right? Please answer this last question. Please don't explain something I didn't ask.

 

>I would remove the issue from its concentration on the purity of literal
>correctness as a criteria for its legitimacy and focus instead on the
>source from which the inspiration comes. I believe the Bible is a divine
>message to us, mistranslated, and misapplied many times to be sure, but
>still set apart from other works because of its ultimate source
>(according to Christian faith).

Why is your belief special? Adherents to other religions also believe they have a special form of belief. Please explain why your belief is special and theirs isn't. Please explain this and not something I didn't ask.

 

>I may not think of any other written
>works as being equal to the Bible in authority, but that doesn't mean I
>have to look down my nose at them either.

Who is looking down their nose at them?  I am merely asking if the method you use to avoid the conclusion that your Bible is wrong is applicable and available for other religions to use with equal efficacy. It always amazes me that those who hold your position seem totally incapable of actually answering such questions.

 

>If the widows and orphans are
>cared for (pause), the tongue restrained (ouch), and sensual
>self-indulgences tempered (ouch again), then the applied system of
>thought (even great green-slugism) as a religion is probably not all
>bad, right? (Notice that salvation is not being discussed here.) But we
>are no more compelled to insist on the literal scientific veracity of
>'slugism' creation accounts than we are from our own Bible. (And a whole
>different issue resides in my coupling of 'scientific' with 'veracity'
>-- I don't really think science is the final judge of truth.)

Then what IS the final judge of truth???? Your belief that you know what is true? Is that the final arbitor of truth?  Don't tell me the H.S. stuff because the Mormons say the very same thing.  Give me something more than a self-referential basis upon which to hold your belief. Please explain this, not something I didn't ask.

 

>If you only eat food with zero impurities, you will starve, Glenn.
>Peanut butter may have x parts per million insect parts in it, but that
>doesn't mean we can't rely on its nourishment or that peanuts were an
>unfit creation. It just means our processing facilities aren't perfect.

Bad analogy to give to a guy like me who has eaten:  dog, scorpion, pigeon, chan yong (silkworm pupae), donkey, cuttlefish, pig ear, 1000 year old eggs, ants, grasshoppers, eel, jellyfish, sea slug, fish stomachs, sea cucumber, clams, oysters, bison, ostrich, haggis(a Scottish form of trype), blood pudding, raw kibba (Arabic lamb or beef dish uncooked), snail, octopus, squid, shark, abalone, scallops, alligator, turtle, rabbit, frog, shrimp(shell and all), crawfish, goat brain (served as a cooked head on a plate on the table), lamb, cow, cow brain, chicken, grouse, quail, quail eggs, goose, gooseberries, lobster, langsteins, scallops, duck feet, chicken feet, rattlesnake, bear, deer, javelina, ginkgo beans, lotus root, lily bulb, bamboo, seaweed, pig stomach, cow intestines among others. And, I have drunk snakewine from a bottle with six dead snakes in it.

Your statement that our processing facilites aren't perfect is analogous to the often used YEC excuse for avoiding the logical consequences when they say that man's reasoning is bad and therefore we can't trust science. Can you please explain why, if our processing facilities are not perfect, we can trust the logic and observations of science, and why the YECs are wrong in claiming that they don't have to accept science because mankind's logic is flawed. Please explain this. don't explain something else, please explain this.

 


Received on Sun Feb 19 08:36:47 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 19 2006 - 08:36:47 EST