[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
proofs and people
hey peter and list!,
>Well, I happen to think the Bible *does* violate the
>law of
>non-contradiction on occasion (e.g. the Synoptic
>gospels say Jesus was
>crucified the day *after* Passover, and John says he
>was crucified the day
>*of* Passover), so I'm happy to say that it contains
>some "errors".
yeah, but the less linear-logic-reliant folks are
still going to say, "but what's really contradictory
in terms of the event and its significance given the
context of the entire metanarrative?"
the point that peter raised that i'd love to think
more about is the possibly polyvalence of an image.
sociolinguistically, i see the possibilities with
words. and that's kinda what i go back to with regard
to the chronological hairs of dates and times. some
systems of story-telling are different than our
"first..., then..., and finally..." and in
translation and transmission, mabye we have a mixing
of systems.
>But this just begs the question, *especially* if
>these terms are supposed
>to be different from inerrancy -- what *is*
>perfection? what *is*
>infallibility?
god communicating with me via himself? through jesus,
through his word. me coming into contact with jesus
via the word and having it change my life--en vivo?
>Well, I think it's clear that God is ultimately in
>charge -- the question
>is, Is the Bible a conduit for this control of his,
>and if so, how?
i think we often point to logistical aspects of codes
and law, but morality has a spirit as well as a
letter--combining the old and new testaments. i think
there is practical, this-is-what-you-do stuff in
there, but sometimes it comes down to the essentially
spiritual process that takes place when it's burried
in your heart, when you meditate on it, feed on it
(reverse that order please :) ) and when it brings
life.
it's such a mixture. there's faith and works. grace
and truth. theory and practice.
in the middle of the stories are not only principles
but more specifically patterns. via language (a human
device) we get an approximation to god and his ways,
his patterns--by approaching the text.
--hey, fred, where are you?--
and getting to know god via a relationship with the
text. am i getting too postmodern here????
>so, how? My point here is not to pick individual
>passages apart -- my
>point is simply to underscore the fact that the Bible
>is not inherently
>different from any other text when it comes to
>textual transmission.
i know it's much easier to say, "i only trust god and
maybe myself sometimes;" but that's not the way of our
existence.
authority (while often abused) is what it is. i'm not
sayin' everybody who had a hand in those decisions was
perfectly led by god, but i think he can make up for
where we lack in the ways he works all things for good
for those who love him, according to his purposes.
and anyhow, in the bible, god spoke to people via
other people about 90% of the time. he even became a
man. my goodness, humanity given precious gifts and
responsibility (like preaching the gospel even) is
amazing considering these prerequesits for our belief.
how many proofs will elicit my belief anyway? and
which methods are accepted by everyone so i can say,
"it's true for everyone?"
we can't according to our pluralistic humanism, but
ironically this message or truth comes to and through
a bunch of humans. we have to work with and trust
people to an extent--we're a community. no man is an
island. even hermits when they run away are running
away from a community. they respond to others and as
such aren't truly apart.
so maybe i don't have complete faith in every man or
woman who's made a "leave it in" or "cut it out"
regarding scripture, but i do respect scripturally
described authority and position. i believe god's
communication can still come via that scripture.
next to "why?" and "is it really possible," "why not?"
might be an equally valid question.
>Ah, but like all images, it is polyvalent -- it can
>be interpreted in
>more
>than one direction.
even though i wanna think a lot more about this--a
very interesting point (go peter!), i'd hunker down
with some context right about now. what's the
metaphor mean in its period (socially, geographically,
chronologically) and in its own textual context: the
shadow of the old testament, with the light of the new
testament and what else was being preached in it?
i don't think one reads the entire christian bible and
can legitimately claim that god's redemptive story is
moving towards more violence. i think i could see
what you mentioned about it possibly symbolizing both
(since he's not limited by space and time)--but in
general if you look at death and destruction, even in
our limited world of if/then, we're looking at
disobedience and evil. they're the fruit of sin. he
may allow these things, but he doesn't go, "yep,
that's what we add to those other nine fruit of the
spirit. you know, b/w 'peace' and 'patience'."
>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.
good point, but it doesn't mean that he didn't.
there's not enough evidence that suggests that he
didn't. i don't know that there's any.
my plausibility structure lined with faith in jesus
and that the christian bible is infallible is just as
viable as one that has faith in something else (which
includes those who claim to have faith in
nothing--each negation is indeed an affirmation and
vice versa). every belief presupposes a host of
others. so when i say "viable," i'm referencing the
criteria we humans use as reference points for
discussion and logic etc.
here's an extreme example and one often presented: to
say there are no absolute truths is hypocritical--b/c
that's asserting an absolute right there. see what i
mean? the wheels on the bus go round and round...
where the rubber often meets the road regarding issues
of truth and faith is the experiential realm. where
are the ideas confirmed, made flesh, lived out?
where's the beef?
i see biblical principles proven in my own life and in
others'. and i see the various fruits of various
ideas etc. in my life and in others'. that i'm alive
with peace and a productive, healthy life is a miracle
given our crummy, messy world. i _know_ he's doing
what he's promised b/c i'm growing, healthy and still
very human in my qualities. i'm not saying i'm always
happy or without pain. not at all. but i'm living,
progressing and not dying instead. it's a miracle,
and i'm so thanksful! it's beyond me...it's
SUPER-natural. 'cause i'm quite natural :)
peter, thanks for writing all the stuff that you write
here. i'd love to think about these things more. if
i come to any better or more interesting points in my
sleepy dreams between my own dear studies, i'll post
'em. you're great. thank god you think. i don't do
it enough.
even though i believe we're limited in our cognition
with regard to the divine, i still think we're
supposed to pursue with ferver and passion--with as
much thought as we can muster.
thumbs up,
j. marie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Follow-Ups: