Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> George,
>
> Herewith my responses to your latest:
> >
> > Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Thank you for these observations. However, I am completely at a loss
> > > to understand why you should think I regard others on this list as
> > > 'morons' and 'gross hypocrites'.
> >
> > It isn't that difficult. If your claims are "self-evident" (which I
> > take to mean something like "obvious" rather than "analytic") then the
> > only explanations for the refusal of professed Christians to accept
> > them would be that they are
> > a) stupid, or
> > b) blinded by sin to an extent incompatible with genuine
> > Christian faith.
>
> You must know that I am completely ignorant of the views of the silent
> majority on this list, so what possible reason would I have for
> expressing such an all-embracing view. My specific comment was directed
> to Michael. However, since you have taken it upon yourself to respond on
> his behalf, let me put the same points to you: (a) our Lord's words to
> Pontius Pilate make it clear that one important attribute of a Christian
> is that he/she loves truth; (b) the matters I have recently drawn
> attention to are a subset of 'all truth'; (c) something is clearly amiss
> if a person claiming allegiance to Christ rubbishes that which is
> manifestly true. I invited Michael to follow this train of reasoning,
> and explain his position. To date he has failed to do so. However, you
> may see some flaw in the foregoing logic. If so, please advise.
>
> >
> > > When you challenge my claim that 'I deal only in self-evident
> > > truths', you appear to be forgetting the nature of the truths to
> > > which I refer. Do I understand you to challenge simple numerical
> > > facts? - as for example the precise relationships between
> > > symmetrical form and number that represent a substantial portion of
> > > my findings?; or these recent discoveries relating to 'pi' and 'e'?
> > > It would help if you were to explain yourself a little more clearly
> > > here. Regarding my considering the possibility that I might be
> > > wrong, I have not - simply because facts are facts!
> >
> > I.e., "I know I can't be wrong because I'm right." This attitude
> > makes it clear that there's nothing to be gained from further
> > discussion.
>
> It's hardly a matter of attitude! Surely, in the world of number things
> are, very clearly, right of wrong. It is highly possible, I suppose,
> that you have not bothered to examine the facts - in which case, it is
> your imagination that leads you to believe I must be wrong; on the other
> hand, if you have indeed examined the evidence, please do me the
> courtesy of indicating where you have detected error.
>
> I see no reason to close down this discussion. It's important that we
> iron out the truth of these matter together, and proceed to talk about
> their wider implications. But first, do please examine the facts
> minutely.
>
> >
> > > Clearly, it would appear that my recent posting has uncovered a
> > > psychological barrier (perhaps better known as 'cognitive
> > > dissonance') that some find hard to overcome. Thus, for no good
> > > reason (as far as I am aware), Michael and yourself regard my
> > > writings as 'offensive'. This, of course, implies that certain
> > > potentially interesting and important areas of investigation should
> > > be considered 'out of bounds' for the Christian. But is this really
> > > what Christ meant when he said, "... when he, the Spirit of truth,
> > > is come, he will guide you into all truth..." (John 16:13)?
> >
> > If your claims had any validity - which they don't - they would be at
> > most a way of calling attention to Scripture so that people could hear
> > its central message, which is Christ crucified. The fact that you
> > think that the Spirit of Christ is to lead us into truths about pi and
> > e being encoded in Bible verses shows that you have things precisely
> > backwards, & it's the consequent diminishment of the gospel which is
> > offensive.
>
> I suggest the Gospel is hardly diminished by tangible evidences of God's
> Being, Sovereignty and Providence. You appear to be missing the
> significance of these findings. The numbers, in themselves, are of
> little consequence; what really matters is that they carry evidence of
> purposeful supernatural design (ie ID of a non-biological nature). The
> words from which the numbers derive are thereby elevated - the truths
> they convey, underlined and confirmed. What should follow an acceptance
> of these facts (and what self-respecting scientist would deny empirical
> truths?) is a reasoned debate concerning their wider implications.
>
> George, I am interested to know what really worries you about such
> potential developments. I would have thought it more appropriate that
> the Lord's people rejoice over news of this prospect. However, please
> understand that I am sympathetic to your concerns, and anxious to allay
> them - if that be possible.
Vernon -
I have not responded on behalf of Michael or anyone else. My point
was to show the conclusions to which your claim of "self-evident" truth
must lead. I'm sorry that you don't follow the argument. I don't get the
impression that you've tried to very hard.
The logical flaw in your arguments is obvious. Scripture is
inspired but the numerical values which people assigned to the letters of
the Hebrew and Greek alphabets isn't. Much less is there any reason to
consider the formula you use, X = [(product of letters x) # (of
letters)]/[(product of words) x (# of words)], to have any significance.
It's mildly interesting that you can find pi and e from it but if you
couldn't, you could hunt for another formula which would give them or some
other distinctive number. That's the downfall of most numerology. The
difficulty is not anything wrong with your arithmetic but the arbitrary
character of the expressions you're plugging the numbers into.
The theological error is more serious. I'm sure you don't intend
this, but the type of argument you present obscures the Christian message by
implying that there is a higher type of knowledge than that of the gospel.
I am not "worried" by your claims. I would be if I thought that
anyone would take them seriously but that's unlikely. I do think it's
unfortunate that you wasting so much time pursuing these illusions.
I will not have anything further to say on this. You may have the
last word if you wish.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology
Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 23 2001 - 21:51:45 EDT