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

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Sun Feb 19 2006 - 11:39:51 EST

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 f
alse 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? *

Glenn, I used to be a trial lawyer, and this is the kind of unfair question
trial lawyers ask. It's not a "yes or no" question. Period. You haven't
addressed the point I made the first time you brought up the "green slug /
Mormonism" hypo: in the context of the faith tradition in question, is
there a historical theology and a historical tradition of interpretation
that would allow the interpretation that accomodates modern understandings
of science? If so, I would say "yes," a Green Sluggist or Mormon could hold
such views and be consistent with his / her faith tradition.

Whether the Green Sluggist or Mormon or Christian or Atheist faith tradition
is "true" is a different question. First you need to ask whether a
particular understanding of the faith tradition is coherent and consistent
with the tradition. Only then can you begin comparing traditions with each
other and with evidence from history, philosophy and science. For someone
who seems to want to escape fundamentalism, you still think like a
fundamentalist: everything is always either a simple binary "yes" or "no,"
"on" or "off." Reality doesn't work like that.

On 2/19/06, Glenn Morton <glenn_morton@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 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 outdated cosmogony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 thei r 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
> confer ence attendees. It can be accessed at:
> www.wheaton.edu/physics/conferences03 <http:///>
> 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 f alse
> 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<http:///>
>
> 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<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/virusall/*http://communications.yahoo.com/features.php?page=221>helps detect nasty viruses!
>
>
Received on Sun Feb 19 11:40:15 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 19 2006 - 11:40:15 EST