>> "Everyone is
entitled to their private interpretation of the data, but no one is
entitled to their own private set of facts.">>
Sounds good, but nobody has "all the facts," Glenn. Otherwise, if
you & I are looking at one particular data set, I guess I'd have to
agree. Yet it is certainly not
that simple. Most real facts are raw data; much of what we call "fact"
is, indeed, an interpretation of that data.
But you knew that.
>> But because of my view of facts
and interpretations, I simply find it very difficult to see how a
historical religion can be true, when it isn't true historically. >>
Have you ever read Phillip's YOUR GOD ID TOO SMALL? Published quite a few
years ago. Possibly pertinent. Maybe not. I see your point; I just don't
perceive it as terribly pertinent to the Christian faith.
>> God is
supposed to have caused a flood, in history, and this flood is supposed
to
have wiped out nearly all of mankind. If what His word says is not what
actually happened, how can one be sure that it is God's word?>>
Two comments. One, the flood story MAY be mythical. Or maybe not. Either
way, it is a story of beginnings, told around innumerable campfires
through many many generations. Its THEOLOGICAL message is important; its
history is not.
Second, suppose totally convincing evidence (I mean OVERWHELMING
EVIDENCE) was suddenly found which validated your particular model 100%.
Would that make a non-Christian, Ed Brayton for instance (pardon the
reference, Ed), decide to become a Christian? Were I Ed, or were I in the
same mindset as I was at age 26 or so, it would be a tremendously
INTERESTING story; it would have little, if any, effect on a decision
that I should regard Jesus the Christ as my Lord. It just would not be
particularly pertinent.
Sure -- you could use it (and probably would) to argue logically that
since the flood was now proven to be accurate history, that one must
logically take the next step and accept Jesus as Lord. But Glenn, such
"logic" is, in the end, futile. Generations of people have believed
completely in that "logic," and have yet rejected your Lord and my Lord.
It did not work then; it will not work ever.
>>The importance of it lies in the difficulties that people like Ed and I
have when we are asked to believe that what is true has no historical
content. Our views of truth require that history be real. >>
OK, what history? All of Scripture? Some? On what basis?
Glenn -- it takes two things for one to become a Christian (I think).
1. A willingness to believe.
2. The action of God's Holy Spirit working with that willingness.
Point 1 can't be a lethargic "OK, show me" position, of course. It does
require
some action on our part -- Scripture reading, meditation, active inquiry,
church attendance, etc. The search is ours, and it must be a real search.
The finding is the Lord's. He finds us (and verifies that finding) when
we actively and sincerely seek him. But "logic" is not part of the
equation.
People fall in love and marry (or not) much on the same basis, although
the comparison is, I grant you, a pale one!
Burgy
May you fear the Lord so much, that you fear nothing else.
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]