Which is why, for instance, I've called "The Jesus Seminar" cutting-edge eighteenth-century radical liberal scholarship (cf. related thoughts in How to Make Your Very Own Jesus).
So anyway, my crazy archaeological thought is
that it would be cool to move absolutely everybody out of the Middle East, and give it over to the best representatives of modern archaeology. For, oh, fifty years. Raze the modern structures, and dig down about 100 feet over the whole topography.After that, the inhabitants can move back in.
Wouldn't that be cool?
Then, after I did that by fiat, I'd make ice cream, pizza, and crispy fried chicken — heck, everything fried — into health foods. And I'd get all my hair back. And I'd restore sanity to American politics. Heck, to America. To American professing evangelicalism! Not in that order.
Yeah, that'd be....
Um, what were we talking about?
Sorry.
Posts
14 comments:
Don't try to bend the spoon, that is impossible...
Just try to understand...there is no spoon...
You need more sleep.
Did you ever want them to find Solomon's library? Now, that would cool!
Clearly, at least one of us needs more sleep, Morbius.
(c;
This subject would make a good post. Specifically, why some need to find evidence to have confidence in the faith. Recently a friend e-mailed me an article on a discovery of Egyptian chariots and other artifacts that are found on a submersed land bridge across the Red Sea, I think it was. The "evidence" proved Moses' crossing. Then there are the expeditions to Mt Ararat, et cetera.
I am all for the archeology, as you stated, to say the Bible is false always makes fool out the the the accuser. But, we as Christian seem to find it necessary to have the "physical evidence" in hand, when in reality, there is enough around us that evinces the existence of God, even if we couldn't find the Middle East at all.
I love that quote from Boice.
There is nothing wrong with using evidence as an apologetic. It's always bugged me that there is such a divide between presuppositionalists and evidentialists. I believe the best approach is a combination of both. They need not be mutually exclusive. The main thing for both sides to remember is that it's ultimately the Holy Spirit who does the drawing.
I am not arguing that we shouldn't use evidentialist arguments, especially in evengelism, they are good points of ponderance and conversation catalysts. What I was questioning was signs in the Christian framework of assurance. So the question becomes, why is a Christian looking for signs?
Spin it for us Sola, "Signs Signs everywhere are signs, blocking out Jesus with all of those signs. It its messing with the Faith...if you just read those signs...
Dan,
I'm probably missing something, but what is that you have a picture of on this post?
It is a investigative committee's work on the subsurface beliefs of Al Mohler as the non-Calvists try to find out where his conservative positions really came from.
Just an archaeological dig, Carlo.
Ah, Tel no tell!
Keep that up, Strong Tower...and I'll link you to The Fifth Dimension singing "The Age of Aquarius."
Or, I could send you a copy of "White Rabbit," but that's increasingly an Emergent anthem. I think we've all had enough of hookah-smoking McLarens.
OK, I'm not the sharpest needle on the cactus, but let me see here:
1. Dan is advocating razing the Middle East, and
2. Turning his "Merciless Pizza" into health food.
3. Therefore, his thinly-veiled presidential aspirations have been sealed: no one can dare find fault in any of that. He's got my vote!
Wait. What was the point of this post?
Thank you for the best and badly-needed laugh of the day.
Ah! I didn't see that. He wants to turn the entire ME into a giant pizza parlor, thereby ending the conflict, and feeding the world. Daring presidential platform and at least as good as any othe the other candidates.
"Calvidispiebaptogelical for America"
Phillips '08
Post a Comment