IOW, the idea that nags at me is that the fact that God is Three and God is One is not some minor data point to stick into our creeds because it happens to be true in some abstract and not terribly relevant sense — or at least, it only seems to matter so that explain why up is not down. Something tells me that has to be more important than that — that it does in some sense explain why up is not down and that if you’re going to do apologetics, it’s going to have to be in light of who God really is, not who He might be in some alternate cosmos. Somehow I think that any system we construct — whether apologetic approaches, political systems or you name it — has to be consciously influenced by that fact. How it works out, I don’t know, but I think it somehow does matter.

Keep up the old-skoo stuff when it comes to aiming your apologetic in light of anthropology, by all means. Any apologetic that doesn’t offer redemption to those who can’t embrace it on their own isn’t going to get you all the way to the One Who is.

Clearly, this does not make any sense:

“or at least, it only seems to matter so that explain why up is not down”

Perhaps this does not either, but it is what I meant to say:

“or at least, it only seems to matter so that we get our soteriology right. But I also think it should matter in the sense that it will explain why up is not down”

Sure, I don’t think we have to go top down from innerrancy. Doesn’t seem to me like the apostles did. I do think you’ll inevitably get there, though, given modern (evangelical *and* non-Christian) assumptions about how people only believe Christiainty because it’s in some old book — but I don’t think I’m saying anything you’ll disagree with there.

Moving on to the second paper…

Regarding Capra, you don’t really need to understand physics to grasp his premise. He makes that case that the parallels between Buddhism and quantum physics are striking, and, uh, sort of reciprocally validating. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is illustrated by the story of Schoedinger’s cat, in which a cat is inside a box, and we can’t know the state of the cat without openning the box and observing it. I think there’s a vial of poison in the box — might have to re-read that. And there’s something in there about how the act of observation affects the thing being observed, thus, in effect, creating at least a part of the observed reality.

This is congruent to a Buddhist worldview, which has been embraced by many neo-mystics, pagans, et. al., who argue that we can create our own realities.

Well, there’s an extent to which this is true, else there would be no free will. But the mystical application goes deeper than that.

OK, I’m going away now, because I’m getting in deeper than I can really relate properly. You might have to remind to come back to this. I do want to get into a bit more, but I often find that such intentions get lost in the clutter.