Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: About Literalism: in what sense is God ... (correction)
Message-ID: <1250@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 08:24:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1250
Posted: Fri Jul 19 08:24:23 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 12:11:21 EDT
References: <184@gymble.UUCP>, <626@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 22

>>In any case, still sounds like plain old wash-it-away rationalization of
>>contradiction to me.

> Now, Rich, if we're going to be objective (and *you* are even if I'm not,
> right?), then we won't just *assume* immediately that it *is* a
> contradiction, but will instead investigate the hypotheses that are easily
> conceived of.
> 
> But no, not you.  You just *know* it's a contradiction, so any attempt
> to explain it (even wrong ones, like mine) are "wash-it-away
> rationalizations".  Wishful thinking.  Preconceived conclusions buttressed
> by augmented wishful thinking.  Presuppositions. [DUBOIS]

Not "any".  Just the ones that have been offered.  If a contradiction exists,
it exists.  If there exists a real explanation for it, fine.  If one has
to be contortedly constructed, well, that speaks for itself.  Of course,
a contradiction in the Bible would make god (the "real" author) into a liar,
and we can't have that.  One of the assumptions behind it all has got to give.
That's all.
-- 
"There!  I've run rings 'round you logically!"
"Oh, intercourse the penguin!"			Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr