Re: God is not a cat in Schroedinger's box!

Really? Hmmmm. The only difference is that we call them mathematical or
conceptual models - a different medium than visualization or paint, but
a medium and "portrait" just the same.. JimA

Alexanian, Moorad wrote:

>Pictures are not even of value when attempting to know nature--witness quantum mechanics. The real issue is to confront Christ, 'He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" ' Matt. 16:15.
>
>Moorad
>
>________________________________
>
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Howard J. Van Till
>Sent: Sun 10/17/2004 3:02 PM
>To: ed babinski
>Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: God is not a cat in Schroedinger's box!
>
>
>
>On 10/17/04 3:42 AM, "ed babinski" <ed.babinski@furman.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>> What is the picture of God that you, Howard, and you, Glenn, see,
>>when you gaze at
>>
>>1) The Bible
>>
>>2) The cosmos or nature.
>>
>>
>
>ED,
>
>Fair question. But consider what would be the result if both Glenn and I
>gave our answers: 2 differing portraits of God based on our differing
>readings the Bible, and 2 differing portraits of God based on our differing
>readings of the human experience of the cosmos -- 4 portraits in all.
>
>Natural theology (or empirical theology, or experiential theology) does not
>yield one uniform portrait of God. And, in spite of many claims to the
>contrary, neither does well-intended reading of the Bible or other sacred
>religious texts yield one uniform portrait of God.
>
>Why are there so many -- THOUSANDS -- of Christian denominations? Because
>the Christian "community" (a bit of ironical terminology) cannot come to
>agreement on the correct portrait of God. Each denomination sees a portion
>of the other's portrait as unacceptable; denominational splits continue to
>occur at an amazing pace.
>
>But that's been my point all along. As I recall, this particular thread
>began with Glenn's contesting of my statement that we all operate with a
>humanly crafted portrait of God. Glenn wishes to defend the idea that his
>portrait is an exception to this judgment. I suggest that the "observational
>data" regarding the diversity of existing God-portraits defeats that theory.
>
>Howard
>
>PS: I will be off line for the next week. When I get back I will make a
>decision about whether or not to stay on this list. It's clear that
>questioning the basics is not generally welcomed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sun Oct 17 17:43:54 2004