>>But as I have pointed out numerous times (and those citing this example
>>continue to ignore), this was in the midst of an intellectual argument. It
>>is clearly an hypothetical example to make Jesus' point. Genesis isn't in
>>that category. <SNIP>
>
>Glenn, I apologize if you have offered this explanation before on the ASA
>list and I missed it. All I remember you offering when this was brought
>up before was saying you didn't want to deal with it, or in one case
>hypothesizing that maybe the Good Samaritan story was a real historical
>happening (presumably freeing Jesus from being a liar).
Admittedly, I have toyed with a couple of different answers to this idea.
(One must use rousing debates to hone one's arguments and search for better
ones). So, I probably owe you an apology because I know that I have offered
the other view in the past.
>
>Glenn has a fair point; the two cases are not completely the same. But
>the Good Samaritan is not irrelevant, either. It at least establishes
>that God uses means other than simple history to make a point under some
>circumstances. This at least should allow one to consider that it
>*might* be OK for God to use such means under some other circumstances,
>like in telling the Hebrews the important theological points about their
>origins.
>
>I snipped the rest of Glenn's message, but the fundamental disagreement
>here is about what would make God a liar. Is it a "lie" for God to
>accommodate his revelation of truth (where the message God is trying to
>convey is not one of science or detailed history) to the limited (and
>maybe even mistaken) understanding of his audience on such peripheral issues?
Honest people will have honest disagreements about where the boundary lines
are to be drawn on this issue (and the debate is usually fun). I would have
no problem with God accomodating his message to the lesser education of the
peoples of the past. That is why I have always maintained that it would be
ok for God to tell a simplified but basically true version of the history.
Something like 'Life came from the sea' or some such. I do not find it
comforting for God to tell us that each species was specially created when
in fact it was actually evolved. That would be a lie. And that is why I
disagree with Paul Seeley. I think his level of accomodation goes way
beyond what is simplifying things into a region where God can't be trusted.
In fact when I read Paul's excellent book, Inerrant Wisdom (plugged your
book, Paul), it deepened the spiritual crisis I was already in concerning
the issue of whether Christians are to be believed at all given my
observation that they don't give much of a rip about
factual/historical/scientific data (see
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199804/0104.html. This was posted
to the asa but apparently the archives didn't pick it up). I have not been
the same since reading that book so in that regard, Paul's book did change
my life a bit, but I am not sure it was for the better. I can't go to
church much anymore and hear a sermon without wondering how badly the
preacher has mangled the facts of his sermon. And when they bring up
science, I simply want to walk out. I am still a christian because I have
faith in Christ, and think that there is some way to confirm the scritpure
historically (even though many on this list don't share that view).
>And perhaps the problem is judging these things by "our standards" --
>maybe instead of forcing God to abide by human standards about how we
>think his revelation should be, we should embrace his revelation as it
>actually is (to whatever incomplete extent we can put our human
>prejudices aside in looking at it) and let God set the standards for how
>he is allowed to communicate.
If Clinton were God, would it be ok for him to say he didn't have sex with
Lewinsky? IN other words, it is ok for god to set standards by which we
are deceived by his communication? That is my conundrum.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution