<<This is cowardly. Either I am or I am not un-orthodox.
There is no skirting about it! Make your choice clear, Mr. Bell.>>
Ouch! A Texan calling a Californian a coward! You get your six guns, I'll get
my surf board, and we'll settle this.
But I won't respond in kind. This is not personal. This is not a matter of
whether you are sincere or not. I always assume that you are. It is a matter
of being what I consider "dangerously close" to an unorthodox viewpoint.
That's all.
[Here I want to thank Kevin Wirth for his latest posts. He understands. This
is not some heresy trial where the stake is waiting to make Glenn the latest
in Tyler Texas barbecue. This about one view of revelation I found troubling,
and a discussion of the problems. Isn't that what this reflector is all
about?]
Glenn says:
<< In the book I say nothing
about revelation to other cultures! Oral transmission might work but you
don't think so. So for the time being I will agree with you. God gave the
story to Moses and he wrote it in the Pentateuch period the end. I am NOT
required to explain the flood stories throughout the world as they are not
divinely inspired nor necessarily due at all to the flood of Noah. So, I
will strip this down further. The flood stories of various cultures are just
that -- stories with no particular source.
Thus I renounce the view that God talks to the heathen under any
circumstances.>>
This I can accept! This is fine. This is clear. At first, you fought back to
justify the view. Now, however, you "renounce" the view that God "talks to the
heathen." So we have come to agree. Isn't that a good thing?
But it brings us back to the central problem. When you say the various flood
stories are stories "with no particular source," I can't buy it. All myths
have a source, and when they are so closely parallel it leads one to wonder
how this can be explained vis-a-vis a 5.5 million year flood. Your initial
attempt to address this problem led you to posit some sort of divine, special
"revelation" as a possibility. I called that into question for reasons we've
been over. I brought it up because it seems a substantial problem for your
dating.
<<I DEMAND a response to each issue above. You owe me that much. If you are
going to throw such charges around at least be courageous enough to provide
a point by point substantiation to the charge. Making charges like you are
doing should only be done when the issue is clearly unorthodox. I do not see
anything unorthodox in the above.>>
You are decidedly orthodox in most of what you say [but see Kevin's response].
But those are different issues. Is it possible to be orthodox in many things,
but not in some others? Of course.
You, Glenn, hold some controversial views, and do so knowingly. So you must
expect on occasion be held up to tough scrutiny. Lapsing into invective and
demanding apologies is not helpful. The issues won't go away simply because
you get offended at being questioned. If I think you hold a view that is
un-orthodox, I'll say so. You'll have to live with that. If you clarify your
view, as above, I'll accept that and we can move on.
This doesn't have to turn "ugly." I'm not the one being personal here (I have
not called you "cowardly" or anything else). It's your views I want to
explore.
Shall we get back to that? Can I still drop by when I get to Austin?
Jim