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

Re: inerrancy vs. infallibility (no otr)


>On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, "Peter T. Chattaway" wrote:
>
> > Yep, but those people are fools!  God loves violence?  Wouldn't that
> > make God evil?
>
>Depends how you define "evil".

Damn, language sure is inefficient.  I think we've REALLY established that 
much by now.

>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.

I agree, but you brought up the notion that God can be seen as "blodthirsty, 
not me. :-)

>    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_

That would explain a lot!  From Flamingo knees to Rob Schneider's career...

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

PC:
>Actually, no, the resurrection does *not* prove Jesus's deity.

I misspoke.  Allow a re-phrase:  "...ultimate proof that Christ was who he 
said he was."  (Or implied he was, depending on who or what you believe.)

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

PC:
>Sure, why not.  :)

Yay!!  My track record with the opposite sex shows I'm no irrestistable 
force, but this  shows you are not an immovable object!  We can get along 
after all!  Whoo-hoo!!

Me:
> > 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?

PC:
>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?

Well, I don't view it as "all or nothing", as evidenced by my use of the 
word "almost" above.  However, brother Peter, my heart weeps for you.  I 
don't care about the inerrancy of most of the Bible.  If definitive proof 
that Jonah never escaped from the belly of a whale were to surface, I'd 
remain unfazed.  Stories such as that only concern me for the lessons they 
offer, not their degree of veracity.  However, with regards to the life of 
Christ, I HAVE to believe that everything is, well, gospel.  If Christ came 
to earth and said and did a lifetime's worth of sayings and doings, and then 
suffered the ultimate in pain, and it was not all recorded exactly as it 
happened, what was it for?  If it was within His power to ensure that it was 
accurately preserved, why wouldn't he?  (No sense debating this, it's just 
something I personally need to believe in order to affirm my worldview.)

My point:  I think reading the (NT) Bible without absolute assurance that it 
is true must be a terrible way to read it.  To me, that would render the 
book ALMOST useless, insofar as I'd constantly have to question everything.  
Furthermore, I think you do know who Jesus is/was, not just "something" of 
it, as I think the Bible contains all you need to know; the rest shall be 
revealed in the next world.  (What was that Terry Taylor song, "Will have to 
do for now"?)

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

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

Okay, how about if I arranged your marriage then??  Picked out your 
clothes??  Ordered for you every time we ate out??  There's gotta be 
something...

>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 think absolute freedom is found only in the next world.  The life 
everlasting.

PC:
>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.

Retro, but with annoyingly tasteless sexual overtones.  (Then again, I 
always called the show "Star Trek: the Over-Sexed Generation", though, in 
retrospect, it's got nothin' on "Farscape".)

Speaking of Jean-Luc, don't you think that was the greatest distortion in 
"First Contact"?  He was presented as a bloodthirsty, revenge-crazed zealot. 
  (Kinda like that big meanie the Lord God or sumthin'.)  Borg-schmorg, THAT 
was totally out of character.

BTW, the only Trek I've seen in it's entirety is "Voyager".  Weep for me.  
(That's why I'm no Borg expert.)

beaming out,

Matt

np: The Innocence Mission (self-titled)

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

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