Glenn,
I knew you would not be able to resist making a response. But it seems that
in a number of instances you have extrapolated what I actually said into
absurd extremes that I would never propose. For example, I did *not* say:
1. that the expectation "that there is some objective information in the
Scriptures" constitutes bibliolatry.
2. that "everything in the OT was wrong or without evidence."
3. that the Bible is "only a book of morality tales."
I would suggest, however, that to treat every bit of the biblical text as
the direct "communication of an omnipotent God" that functions to give us
privileged information does invite bibliolatry and does encourage
disrespect for other religious traditions.
I would also suggest that we need to be less exclusivist and triumphalist in
our attitude toward other human communities and their attempts to articulate
their experience/concept of deity and to live a life consistent with that
experience/concept.
Cordially,
Howard
----------
> Hi Howard,
>
> I simply don't agree that it is 'bibliolatry' to expect that there is some
> objective information in the Scripture. I have asked this sequence of
> questions before but will do it again.
>
> 1. If there was no evidence for ancient Egypt, Sumer, the Hebrews, King
> David, Babylon, the exile etc. would one really see the Bible as being worth
> anything?
>
> I don't think so. If everything in the OT was wrong or without evidence, no
> one would pay attention to it. I don't pay attention to the book of Mormon
> because almost everything in it is objectively wrong--but it has great moral
> teachings.
>
> If we decide to change the interpretation of the Bible away from objective
> reality and make it only a book of morality tales, let's read Aesop's
> fables.
>
> 2. How much of the Bible can be objectively false and still believe that it
> really is the communication of an omnipotent God?
>
> Can we be told that the mating of two salamanders created the world and
> understand it as a beautiful story of creation showing God's love and
> concern?
>
> 3. If we move away from objective data, what, other than our personal
> prejudices from our own culture, makes Christianity any different than
> Bhuddism, sikkism or animism?
>
> All of the above religions yield "valuable religious insights " just
> different ones from Judeo-Christianity. Why should we try to tell them our
> religion is the true one when all playing fields have been leveled by this
> flight from objective data?
>
> glenn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 02 2000 - 16:23:30 EST