Re: penticost (sic) response

Before we get too hasty at accusing authors of childishness or 
improprieties, maybe we should consider our own (childish?) views of God 
and Scripture.   What I am saying is 
this, it seems absurd to me to accuse God of describing himself as 
childish.  In other words, if God's Spirit is behind the 
inspiration/writing of Acts somehow, and if the author of Acts presents 
God in a "demeaning" manner, then God is somehow guilty of presenting 
himself in a demeaning way.  I realize that this argument breaks down if 
you do away with proposition #1 based on belief or value judgments, but if 
you grant some form of #1, then the rest in some sense follow.  Let me say 
it like this, if the source of our knowledge about God can be judged by us 
as "childish" in light of 20th century superior experience/knowledge, then 
why bother with first century documents at all?!  That is, if we learned 
individuals know so much about God, why do we need the Hebrew or Greek 
Scriptures?  This attitude smacks somewhat of 20th century elitism ("we 
know so much more than those poor illiterate peasants and slaves"), and, 
quite honestly, I haven't found much reason to believe that 20th century 
humans know any more about God than first century ones (but we certainly 
are more skeptical than they were!!).  But then again, maybe I'm not one of 
those "thoughtful people" that are so well acclaimed and have such great 
_gnosis_ about the divine.  Boy, I hope I meet one soon!!

Leo Percer

P.S.--Is it "childish" or "demeaning" to think of God as Creator of the 
Universe and the One who could break the rules of logic if he desired, or 
is that box too large for our 20th century minds?  Are humans made in 
God's image or are we attempting to make God in ours (i.e., 20th century 
Western, rationalist, scientific, and materialist)?