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

Re: inerrancy vs. infallibility (no otr)




>The esteemed Mr. "Peter T. Chattaway" wrote about the image of the 
>crucified Christ:

>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.

Yep, but those people are fools!  God loves violence?  Wouldn't that make 
God evil?  If God is evil, wouldn't we be screwed?  Wouldn't the devil be 
out of work?  (He would, which is probably why the cross just symbolizes 
weakness to Satanists.)  Heck, who cares what they think?!?

I submit that if a normal, reasonable person were to look upon the 
crucifixion image with an honest understanding of the nature of love, the 
true meaning would be made manifest.  That is, "Love is about 
self-sacrifice".  Even a non-believer could reach this conclusion, as Christ 
to them could viewed as a man who died to become the first martyr for his 
cause; the beliefs he cherished above all else.

Did the Lord command Abraham to SACRIFICE his son Isaac because He is 
bloodthirsty?  Did He demand His faithful to slaughter livestock at His 
altar because He loves violence?  People are welcome to think that if they 
want, but I think we are simply meant to learn from the Biblical depictions 
of ritual SACRIFICEs by taking them in the proper context.  That is, they 
actually demonstrate that true love of God entails a total submission to His 
will, and a requisite amount of self-SACRIFICE: giving up things you need 
(food) or love (offspring) to glorify Him, even at great personal expense.

And I also think Christ was making the same reciprocal type of total denial 
of self on that cross.  He showed us through His actions, and by becoming 
one of us, that what He demands of us is not impossible.  For true love, 
nothing is impossible.  No pain is too much to bear, nor is any burden too 
great.  No sacrifice is too much.

My statement- "Actions speak louder than words, and a picture is worth a 
thousand of them."  You counter with- "these words aren't necessarily in 
agreement" above.  Sure, which is why they are taken in conjunction with the 
accompanying actions. Then, the meaning crystallizes beyond the capability 
of mere words alone to convey.  Christ had to become a man, do these things, 
and show us His love. (Evoking the resultant imagery.) There was no other 
way.

> > (And the crucifixion 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.

Well, being Catholic I've been trained to focus on suffering!  :-)  
Actually, I guess the resurrection is climatic if you need it as ultimate 
proof of Christ's Godhood.  Still, I regard the death of Christ as being 
otherwise of greater significance for the lessons it teaches.  Then again, I 
wouldn't label the resurrection as mere "falling action" leading to the 
gospel's "resolution" either.  How about this Peter, let's compromise- the 
whole death AND resurrection are the climax when taken together.(?)  As they 
are usually told together, since you can't have one without the other, I 
think that's a reasonable statement to make.

>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.

Sure, I agree completely.  If the Holy Spirit did everything within it's 
power for everyone at all times Earth would effectively become Heaven.  But 
at the same time I'd like to point out that the Sprit must have, at some 
point, done something to insure infallibility.  Otherwise, the Bible is 
kinda, sorta almost useless, don't you think? I also believe that the Spirit 
will indeed guide those of us who have been chosen to a true understanding 
of the text, even to this day.  Saints still walk the Earth, though few and 
far between.  (Which is not to say that only saints can truly understand the 
Bible, just to offer an example.)  Likewise, cancer patients do experience 
miraculous recoveries, though also few and far between.

I wrote:
> > 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.

Peter:
>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.)

Can you have real freedom without individuality?  (New thread?)  Weren't the 
Borg referred to as "drones"?  Can drones really do whatever they want?  If 
I assigned you a career, would you feel free?

>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.

Yeah, kinda shifted the concept from  "collective" to a "hive".  I guess the 
writers figured the BORG needed to have SOME form of centralized 
intelligence, which was a reasonable notion.  I don't know how I would have 
dealt with that issue myself, were I Berman and Braga.  (If I were 
Paramount, on the other hand, I know what I'd do- fire Berman and Braga!)

Oh, Peter, last week sometime you asked how I felt about my Orthodox 
brothers and sisters.  I must confess, I have no use for snobbery.  By 
calling yourselves "Orthodox" you are somehow implying that everyone else is 
somehow "Unorthodox" in their methodology.  How rude is that?  I can't stand 
people who wear Dockers, implying that everyone else is just wearing pants, 
and I can't stand Orthodox Christians for the same reason.

Okay...that was a joke! ;-)  Protestant, Orthodox, etcetera, whatever- we 
are family!

Everybody dance,

Matt

np- Daniel Lanois "For the Beauty of Wynona"

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

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