Hey Bill, does this read a little like a preemptive strike to you.Pursue it, man. I concur totally (almost)
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: December 15, 2004 14:48 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Right Way To Get To The Truth > Bill Taylor wrote: > > I will be posting on my understanding > > of truth sometime soon. > > I am looking forward to reading your perspective, Bill. To help you address > areas of interest to me, I offer you a few comments below. > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > For far too long, far too many Christians have believed > > the lie: that truth is more important than relationships. > > This is wrong -- dead wrong. > > >From my perspective, truth sometimes helps define relationships. For > example, if it is a truth that marriage is ordained of God to establish a > relationship between a man and a woman, then anybody who tries to establish > a marriage relationship between two men, or between two women, or between a > dog and a cat, or between a man and his dog, would be in gross error and > unable to do it. > > Another example would be exactly what John Smithson taught us in a past > post. Suppose a person comes to understand that sometimes ministering to a > person's emotional state is more important than ministering to their > intellect state by trying to get them to see that he is right about a > particular viewpoint. So at certain times, he uses this understanding to > lay aside his desire to argue a particular viewpoint in order to hold and > comfort his wife or child at a time when they need that. In such a case, > what we basically have is an axiom of truth that itself exists outside of > relationships and independently from it. This axiom of truth serves as a > guiding principle that actually enhances relationships. > > Therefore, while I agree with your effort to temper the idea that "truth is > more important than relationships," I think proclaiming this statement to be > "dead wrong" is a bit of an overstatement. There exists the other extreme > whereby somebody thinks that godly relationships can exist without truth, or > that truth is defined only by relationships and in the context of > relationships. > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > Friends, it is impossible to pursue truth in an > > Enlightenment, scientific (and by that I mean > > an impersonal, non-relational) manner. > > Truth cannot fit in a beaker. > > It's not some inanimate object. > > I think the scientific revolution proves this idea false. Truth can fit in > a beaker, so-to-speak. It does exist as both an inanimate object and an > animate object (Jesus Christ). What you express here is exactly why many > revolted against the church and Christianity, and why Christianity is no > longer the pillar of truth, the pillar of education, that it once once. > While I think the scientists go too far to reject revelation entirely, they > did make a strong historical case that truth can be found in nature by > studying it using only the physical senses and the God given gift of > intellect. They proved that at least some understanding of truth does "fit > in a beaker." > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > You can't boil it or dissect it, without destroying > > it in the process. Nor is it a vaulted concept. > > You can't dog it out like a bloodhound on the > > scent of a trail, without destroying the very relationships > > that it embodies. You can't roll over people in pursuit > > of "truth," without truth always eluding you. > > What you say here does not apply for those of us who do not hold tightly to > their viewpoints, who perceive that our understanding can change in an > instant with one piece of hidden knowledge being revealed. > > The only time dogging it out like a bloodhound on the scent of a trail would > destroy relationships is if there are some people involved in the process > who perceive their relationship to others is based upon philosophical > agreement. The concept that we are related through the blood of Christ is > exactly what destroys barriers like this. What groups are more distant from > one another ideologically and culturally than the Jew and the Gentile? Yet > in Christ Jesus, there exists a relational agreement despite the ideological > and cultural disagreements. The Judaizers are an example of some who in > words (in theology, if you will) saw that they could be united in > relationship with the Gentiles, but only if those Gentiles accepted their > ideological and cultural traditions. This is a common problem among human > beings. We invariably want everyone else to be in our own image, and if > they don't conform, we get bent out of shape about it. We start declaring > them "enemies" or if not enemies, then aquaintances instead of friends, etc. > > It seems to me that you are attempting to define all truth only in terms of > "relationship," and I think this is a gross mistake. It is part of the > problem that I had with Torrance's philosophy. While there is a basis of > truth to it that I would not want to see you set aside, there is an > exclusive nature to the idea that actually fractures relationships with > others who do not buy into your personal ideology and understanding of this > topic. In other words, the divisiveness that you seek to avoid by defining > truth as relationship is the very thing that you continue to aggravate by > demanding everyone else agree with your ideology or relationships will > suffer. You theology is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy if you will. > > I hope you don't take my statements as argumentative or as something meant > to "one-up" you. I truly am simply sharing my thoughts as one who is fond > of the sciences and its methods of pursuing truth and not so found of the > approach of many theologians. I value your viewpoint as someone who has > been trained in fields far away from my area of expertise. I share my > thoughts only so you might know how to address me as part of your audience > as you prepare to share your understanding of truth. I look forward to your > future article on truth. > > Shalom, shalom. > David Miller. > > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
