John S. wrote:
>David, what does your comment have to do
>with open dynamic theology? Do you oppose
>such wording?
I don't necessarily oppose such wording, but I do see the spiritual
connection that Izzy does. The same spiritual forces at work in theologians
in high places are at work in Justices in high places.
In theology, the Dynamic is the Spirit. It is not at work in the interpretation of the Constitution and I care nothing for a discussion otherwise. Such a claim seems extremely uninformed. I must be misundersanding what you are trying to say here.
The point is that the written law, whether Biblical or in our Constitution,
needs to be stable and true. If we think we can reinterpret the law when
times change, making it open and dynamic, then the baseline no longer
exists. Truth becomes relative. It is the classic Plato versus Aristotle
debate.
I do not view the biblical message as law. The Spirit teaches us many lessons. And that is the "dynamic" to which I have referenced.
John S. wrote:
>Are you aware that Iz threw in the "Supreme Court"
>when, in fact, we were talking about biblical studies?
Yes, that was pretty smart of her, wasn't it. She is very perceptive and
able to connect ideas from various disciplines.
She changed the subject for no logical reason. Not a good example of perceptiveness.
Maybe she will be the one
to unlock the Theory of Everything. :-)
Ahhhhhh, now I see, A little uncomfortable that I am on the verge of a TOE for philosophical truth and purpose -- there is a TOE but it is not a mathmatical equation.
