To my
> But, the real issue you bring up is history. Christianity distinguishes
> itself from other religions as being more solidly based in history.
Glenn replied
>>You forget that historical sciences like geology, paleontology etc tell us
the real history of the planet. If the Bible is contradictory to the real
history of the planet, then Christianity can not possibly be more solidly
based in history than other religions. And if you think that Christianity is
more founded in history, i.e., more documented, then you haven't ever read
anything of the Baha'u'llah of the Bahai faith. Here is an extract from a
web page on him:
>>Bahá'u'lláh was born in Persia (now Iran) in 1817 to a family descended
from royalty. As a young man, He chose to give up the life of luxury, and
the government career SNIP>>
I should have said the _majority_ of other religions. But even if the Bible
is contradictory to the real history of the planet, Christianity can still
be more solidly
based in history than at least the majority of other religions---because they
do not offer a real history of the planet either. So, they do no better on
this count and still fall behind on the other.
to my
> one cannot assume that the history in the Bible, even though inspired, is
> better than its available sources>>
Glenn replied,
>Then there is little reason to believe it is inspired other than a warm
fuzzy feeling in one's gall bladder.<
Only if inspiration is defined as a commitment on God's part to correct the
available historical sources, rather than inspiring the writer to employ
them wisely for God's purpose of making them profitable for making a man of
God. Where does Scripture say that inspiration is to be defined as you have
defined it? Without a clear biblical foundation, there is no basis for your
definition but a warm fuzzy feeling in the gall bladder.
to my
> I see no revelation in Scripture to the
> effect that God adds to or corrects available human sources. From the OT
> history books to Luke's preface, the implication is that the history is
>based on human sources. And, if some of those sources are inadequate, as is
>almost bound to be the case regarding prehistory (Gen 1-11), that does not
>logically imply that all of it is false or even most of it. It is all a
matter of
>available sources>
Glenn replied,
>>This sounds so Clintonesque! It doesn't matter that the history Clinton
presented of l'affaire Lewinsky doesn't make it all false. Jeemenie, surely
we don't want that for the Scripture do we?>>
Even with such an extreme example, Clinton's lie does not logically entail
that everything he has said is false. And, the example is not analogous.
Leaving biblical history to human sources, is not the same thing as lying.
Accommodation is not the same thing as lying. This is the fundamental error
upholding fundamentalism: that God only has two choices: lie or tell the
truth. This is not logically or biblically sound.
Accommodation is a third option; and, Mt 19:8 shows that inspiration can
encompass accommodation. Fundamentalism is based on a definition of
inspiration which is neither logical nor biblical. And, it is this
definition of inspiration which has given us Creation Science on the one hand
and a basketful of conflicting concordistic "solutions" on the other---none
of which, if you press the details, really agree with the Bible. Is this the
definition of inspiration we should be upholding?
I agree with you that there must be (and is) an objective element in our
faith; but, it should conform to reality, not a priori definitions.
Best wishes,
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 14:03:00 EDT