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

From: Glenn Morton <glenn_morton@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun Feb 19 2006 - 08:47:01 EST

Michael Roberts wrote:
>Yes, I did try to answer all your questions but you seem unable to see that at times biblical language is poetic and full of >metaphor and that it is in terms of its culture of 2 to 4000 years ago with its inaccurate and outdated cosmogony
>
>As you didn't listen I gave up.
   
  No Michael, you answered questions I didn't ask. Indeed in this post you once again answer questions not asked. And others tried to tell you the questions were not nonsense as you declared them to be. But you still didn't answer them.
   
>I suggest that instead of ploughing your own furrow you learn a little about biblical interpretation and the context of the >Bible.
   
  I didn't ask that question. See what I mean??? Tell me if it is ok for a Mormon or animist to play the accomodation game that you do, only for them to do it with their religion. Can they too say that their God accommodated the message to the science of their day and that therefore their religion teaches true theology? That is what I want an answer for and you still haven't answered it.
   
  When itcomes to understanding Genesis 1-2 in its historical
and socioloical context, I also suggest reading these
Christian scholars:

>***John Walton, prof. at Wheaton College, and author
>of the NIV APPLICATION commentary on Genesis (an
>interesting read concerning the primeval history
>portions of Genesis), sent me this email:
   
  Interesting. My views are actually mentioned in that book.
   
  ****
  Dear xxx, One
>URL that might be of interest to you is the audio of
my keynote address at Wheaton's Cosmology Conference
in 2003 where I presented my view of Genesis 1 to the
conference attendees. It can be accessed at:
www.wheaton.edu/physics/conferences03
I am doing a lot of work these days on ANE ontology
which supports very strongly the theory that I have
presented in the NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY on GENESIS
that I wrote in 2002. The ontology of ancient Israel
construed in similar terms helps unpack Genesis 1
since, obviously, the understanding of what is
understood by bringing something into existence
depends considerably on how one defines existence. I
have contracted with Eisenbrauns to do a monograph on
Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology which will get much
more into the ontology side of the issue as well as
develop Genesis 1 in relationship to the Sumerian
concepts of ME and NAM (the control attributes of the
cosmos and the "destinies"). There are many
intriguing implications to this study. Best Wishes,
John [John H. Walton, Department of Biblical Studies,
Wheaton College and Graduate School]
****
   
  Michael, none of this actually answers my question. Here you go again answering things which were not asked. Can you tell me yes or no, if it is ok for a mormon to do what you do with accommodation? Why is this so difficult for you to answer with a simple answer rather than answering things not asked?
  
***Conrad Hyers (retired chair of religion at Gustavus
Adolphus College), author of The Meaning of Creation,
and, the article, "Genesis Knows Nothing of Scientific
Creationism" [google it] ****
   
  Michael, once again, I am not asking about scientific creationism. I am asking if your methodology of God accommodating theology to the science of the day is applicable to other religions. For some reason you go off answering things not asked. Please answer yes or no. Can an Mormon beleive that his God accommodated the true theology (mormon theology to a false science and therefore we are all going to rule our own planet someday in the afterlife? Why won't you answer this simple little question?

***Frederick Greenspahn's article, "Biblical Views of
Creation" [google it]

***R. Christopher Heard (Pepperdine University
Religion Prof.) on "Why I Am Not A Creationist"
http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/2005/11/why-i-am-not-creationist.html

this I pinched from someone but you ought to read Heard.
   
  Meanwhile there is nothing further to say
  ***
   
  This is what you did elsewhere. You answered things not asked and then huffed off acting like you had actually answered the question when you hadn't. Please answer what is asked and don't give me a bunch of red herrings for lunch.
   
  No doubt after having posted this you will once again erroneously say you tried to answer the questions, which you didn't.

glenn
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
                
---------------------------------
Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
Received on Sun Feb 19 08:47:44 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 19 2006 - 08:47:44 EST