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

Re: inerrancy vs. infallibility (no otr)

On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, The Mattrix wrote:
> "Peter T. Chattaway" wrote:

> > 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?

Depends how you define "evil".

   I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I
   the LORD do all these things. -- Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)

Certainly, if one were to look at some passages in the Old Testament (and
even a few in the New, I guess), one could justifiably say that God, at
times, *endorses* and *requires* violence (which may or may not be evil).  
Whether he happens to "love" it or not is kind of beside the point.

> 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?!?

Heh.

   What if there is no Devil? What if it's just God when he's drunk?
   -- Tom Waits, as quoted by Robin Williams in _Live at the Met_

> 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.

But if you insist on looking at the crucifixion as a "sacrifice", then you
have to ask what "sacrifice" *is*, who demands it, etc.  Many Christians
will say that God demands bloodshed because, for who knows what reason, he
cannot forgive sins otherwise.  And when some people look at the Cross,
they may see Jesus submitting all right, but they see him submitting to a
bloodthirsty Father.  *I* don't see it that way, but many do.

> > > (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!  :-)

Heh.

> Actually, I guess the resurrection is climatic if you need it as
> ultimate proof of Christ's Godhood.

Actually, no, the resurrection does *not* prove Jesus's deity.  The whole
point of the resurrection is that *all* people will be resurrected, and in
this, Jesus just happens to be the first of us.  When we are resurrected,
we will finally become fully human, just as Jesus is fully human.

> Still, I regard the death of Christ as being otherwise of greater
> significance for the lessons it teaches.

Sure, I guess it may be of more significance in that temporal sense, in
that it shows us how to live here and now.

> How about this Peter, let's compromise- the whole death AND resurrection
> are the climax when taken together.(?)

Sure, why not.  :)

> 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?

Um, no, I don't think.  I don't think it's an all-or-nothing proposition
like that.  Without the Bible, I would know virtually *nothing* about
Jesus.  Thanks to the Bible, I know *something* of him.  Whether or not
the Bible turns out to be infallible, isn't *that* useful, sorta?

> > > 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.)
>
> Can you have real freedom without individuality?  (New thread?)

Well, the Borg are an individual collective, distinct from other
collectives, or something.  As a collective, they are free.  :)

> Weren't the Borg referred to as "drones"?

In the movie, yes.  I don't know whether they were ever called that during
the original series, nor am I sure whether it would matter.

> If I assigned you a career, would you feel free?

If it was the right career for me, sure, why wouldn't I?

I am told that the ancient Greeks believed freedom was found not in doing
whatever the hell you wanted, but in doing what you were truly meant to
do.  And I think there's some sense to that.

> > 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.

Well, no, it wasn't, because the whole *point* of the Borg was that they
posed a threat because there *wasn't* any centralized intelligence.

Just think how much nastier the droids in _The Phantom Menace_ could have
been if it hadn't been possible to shut them down all at once, just by
blowing up the command ship that happened to control them all.

I figure they created the Borg Queen partly to give Picard and Data an
actual *personal* villain that they could deal with, and partly so they
could turn the film into a more-retro-than-retro sci-fi horror flick.

> 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 dunno, it's about as rude as calling yourselves "Catholic" (defined by
Merriam-Webster as "of, relating to, or forming the church universal")
when you're excluding all non-capital-C Catholics.  :)

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

... I've got all my sisters with me!  Whee!  :)

--- 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: