At 01:12 PM 11/8/98 -0700, Kevin O'Brien wrote:
>But my point was that alot of Genesis that we might try to take as
>historical truth may simply be some writer's misunderstanding of what God
>told him. Under those circumstances we might actually move further away
>from the truth than closer by our attempts to rationalize these errors.
Under those circumstances, we should reject his misunderstandings for the
falsehoods they are. Accepting those misunderstandings certainly doesn't
move us closer to the truth!
>"I hope I never give up the standard of truth I advocate. To do anything
>else would lead me to believing false things. And if Christianity is wrong,
>I would jettison it in a moment."
>
>Wrong in what way? I've thought about this alot, and I've come to the
>conclusion that if someone could prove theologically that Jesus was not the
>Son of God, or if someone could prove scientifically that Jesus did not
>resurrect after death, I would not abandon Christianity; I would simply have
>to find another reason for his death and resurrection.
In this way you can't lose at all. No matter what happens Christianity
can't be wrong. But then, I wouldn't see that you have retained very much
either. What is the point of believing a set of beliefs that one refuses to
allow to be refuted regardless of what reality they contradict?
>"Truth can not be logically contradictory."
>
>It can if different truths are true only in specific contexts. This is true
>even in science. The law of the conservation of mass and energy is true in
>classical physics, over large areas and great lengths of time, but it isn't
>true in quantum mechanics, over infinitessimally tiny areas and
>infinitessimally short periods of time.
True, but both Islam and Christianity claim no separate contexts for their
authority. Neither would recognize Jesus as Son in Christian lands and
Jesus not as son in Moslem lands. Your analogy fails.
>
>A and not-A can not both be true simultaneously. The Koran says that Jesus
>was not the son of God, the Bible says that he was. Judaism says Jesus is
>not the Messiah, Christianity says he was. Somebody is wrong. It can't be
>helped, but somebody is wrong.
>
>The problem is you are trying to apply a methodology to theology that is
>inappropriate. For example, rather than someone being wrong, it may simply
>be that the concept of God expressed by both religions is so different that
>Islam cannot conceive of the possibility of a human being born from God
>whereas Christianity can. This does not, however, invalidate the importance
>Jesus holds as a religious figure in both religions.
Logic is not an inappropriate methodology. Where do you think the -logy
comes from in theology? The claim of sonship is a propositional claim and
subject to the rules of propositional logic.
>"If it is so objective, then why can one religion claim that Jesus is the
>son of God and one claim that is heresy? OBJECTIVE knowledge usually means
>that it has enough force for the vast majority of people to bow to its
>force. If theology is so objective, why is there no power behind its
>demonstrations?"
>
>Because you are trying to force theology to use the rules of science and to
>compare itself against physical reality.
How about forcing theology to use the rules of logic? remember the '-logy?
in theology?'
This renders theology impotent, so
>naturally you consider theology to be worthless. However, if you keep in
>mind that theology was developed to investigate spiritual reality and
>science to investigate physical reality, then the objectivity of theology
>should become more obvious. The one handicap that theology has that science
>does not is that, because we cannot interact directly with the spiritual
>universe like we can the physical universe, we cannot apply theological
>hypotheses directly against the spiritual universe like we can apply
>scientific hypotheses directly against the physical universe. That's why
>theology uses a methodology that is less direct. But as long as we accept
>that the spiritual universe is just as objective as the physical universe,
>then then theological reality is also just as objective as scientific
>reality.
don't confuse real with objective. I believe that the spiritual realm is
real. I don't think it is objective.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm