On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Glenn Morton wrote:
> Wo de Tongzhi Denis,
Huh????
DL
> >You can't conflate non-reductionistic categories(ontological/theological)
> >with reductionistic categories (historical). It's hockey pucks and
> >footballs . . . it's like Glenn and Denis ;-)
GM
> I agree, partially. But we have to ask ourselves which type of knowledge
> is more certain, non-reductionist or reductionist knowledge.
Well, I disagree fully. They are each completely different "language
games," and as a result can't be compared or conflated--that's my point.
GM
> I am going to tell you about a rather blasphemous thing I once read. It
> was a total re-interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3 to make Lucifer out to be
> the hero of that story and Jehovah the villain. I don't think I kept a
> copy. The reason I tell you this is that that person also was relating an
> ontological/theological message from Genesis 2,3. Unfortunately there is
> no means by which to objectively tell who is correct as long as one
> isolates the story of the fall from the rest of the Bible.
Well, I hope you can find it. But following my hermeneutic remains well
within the tenets of the historic faith.
> Only
> objective, reductionist data is capable deciding truth in a manner that
> allows all to agree. If we say that the story is only designed to tell us
> the ontological/theological truth that man is a sinner, unfortunately,
> that is subjective and non-reductionist. Another non-reductionist can
> come up with a different truth.
No it isn't. That is exactly what revelation through the Holy Spirit is
all about. And support for the OBJECTIVITY of these ontological truth is
that they change lives and are the best principles by which to live and
understand the world.
For example, SIN IS VERY VERY REAL--AND CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING MORE REAL
AND THAT ALLOWS US TO UNDERSTAND OURSELVES AND THE WORLD.
> >Historical events certainly can give impetus for making/extrapolating
> >ontological/theological statements, but the latter do not need a
> >historical context to validate them (eg. the parable of the Good
> > Samaritan functions very well in the Scriptures without there being a
> >historical event supporting it).
> True. But the context of the good Samaritan story is quite different from
> the context of Genesis 1-11. Jesus was giving an illustration. Genesis
> 1-11 is not in that situation.
OK. Try this one:
So the roaming nomads had a cosmogony and a cosomology. We both agree
that the latter has since been superceded. If I were to use the arguments
you having been using to defend that there is historical truth in their
cosmogony would I then be able to defend their cosmology? What would you
do?
Always enjoy exchanging thoughts with the rock man down south.
Tadpole man up north,
Denis
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA
Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
------------------------------------------------------------