Chuck wrote:
"...this puts the ENTIRE contents of the Bible on a very shaky
foundation, including the cross and the resurrection. Your solution
would, then, include the possibility that the disciples "imagined" the
resurrection, that Jesus did not really
die, that his followers stole the body and covered up the crime, that
they "imagined" Jesus walking on the water, that He didn't really healed
the blind or threw out demons, or turned water into wine."
Lucy responds:
Well...from my perspective, I don't think it matters if the whole Bible
is put on very shaky foundations. What matters to me is if my **faith**
is on a shaky foundation. If the Bible is one's foundation of faith,
then naturally one would not want that foundation shaken. But my faith
has no foundation in the Bible. Don't get me wrong - it's a great book
- the finest ever written. However, if every Bible on the planet were
systematically burned to ashes through some demonic plot, I can assure
you my faith would not be altered one bit. Nor would that of my
children who, at that point, would have no way of reading the Bible.
Again, I see the Bible as an instruction booklet for life - and
certainly not as my foundation in faith. This is a classic problem, of
course. I remember when taking New Testament Greek (I was in my forties
by then) that many of the very young seminary students were aghast to
discover how much interpretation goes into translation of the original
text (did Jesus walk ON the water, or NEAR the water, or IN the
water???). By having the Bible as an anchor to their faith rather than
using it as an instruction book, they began "floating away" from their
faith when the anchor was tampered with. "Thou shalt have no other gods
before me." I don't think the Bible should be a "God." It's a book.
Chuck wrote:
"...making their acceptance an entrance requirement into a denomination
and/or eternal life?"
Lucy responds:
Heavens! I think it's terribly naughty to make someone accept as an
entrance requirement into a church or denomination a rigid set of
beliefs. It's bad planning, too. I mean, the whole purpose of the
church is to teach. How can one teach if one shuts out the ignorant at
the threshold? Not only that, how can one teach if one refuses to learn
himself? I believe that flexibility, the sharing of different thoughts,
and so on is the truest nature of religious education. Of all places on
earth, the church should surely be the most accepting and open for just
those reasons.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 14 2001 - 17:00:31 EDT