[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: inerrancy vs. infallibility (no otr)

On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, The Mattrix wrote:
> The mental image of the cross, which is the ultimate symbol of
> sacrificial love, contains absolutely everything a person, or humanity
> as a whole, needs to know within it which is vital to salvation.

Ah, but like all images, it is polyvalent -- it can be interpreted in more
than one direction.  To some, the cross symbolizes God's submission to
violence; to others, it symbolizes God's thirst for violence; and to yet
another group, it symbolizes both.  If pictures are worth a thousand
words, it isn't necessarily because those words are in agreement.

> (And the crucifiction is the book's climax, the very focal point of the
> text.)

Well, no, I'd say the resurrection is the *real* climax.  (To quote a line
from _Braveheart_, every man dies but not every man really lives. :) )  
But we're so used to stories climaxing with the deaths of their
protagonists that we tend to look at the crucifixion in the same light.

> Is the Holy Spirit able to guide us to an understanding of scripture
> despite the innate failings of mere human language/nature?  Yes, but I
> believe that those of us who are "in the spirit" truly enough to be
> given this guidance are fewer than most christians would like to think.

There is also the fact that the Holy Spirit does not *do* everything that
he *can* do.  God *can* cure cancer, but in almost every case that I am
aware of, he has not.  So to say the Holy Spirit *can* ensure the Bible is
"infallible" (whatever that means) does not mean he *will* do that.

> The good ol' BORG managed to circumvent all this.  They embraced true
> perfection by sharing a collective consciousness, renderng the need
> for laguage as less than negligible.  However, the price they paid for
> their perfection was their precious free-will.

True, but because they lost their individuality, not because they lost
their freedom, per se.  (Presumably, as a collective, the Borg are still
free to do whatever they want.)

> A loving God is no Borg Queen.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the introduction of the Borg
Queen in _Star Trek: First Contact_ was a distortion of everything the
Borg were supposedly about.

http://peter.chattaway.com/articles/firstcon.htm

--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
 "I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
      Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
References: