Re: Reply to Glenn's 9/11 post

----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>; <jwburgeson@juno.com>;
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: Reply to Glenn's 9/11 post

> On 9/30/04 3:20 PM, "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
>> Maybe this is an argument from personal incredulity, but having sat next
>> to
>> some Palestinian guerillas at dinner one night, I find it difficult to
>> see
>> any logic in the above. I mean if someone can come to god by believing
>> that
>> God wants you to kill the infidels via beheadings, what kind of god are
>> we
>> dealing with?
>>
>
> Each of us deals, I believe, with our own _concept_ or portrait of God.
> Some
> portraits of God are life-enriching; some are astoundingly ugly and
> destructive of life and joy.
>
> Designating some set of religious writings to be Sacred Scripture -- the
> TRUTH -- does not seem to improve the picture much. Persons with ugly and
> destructive portraits of God make just as strong an appeal to the sacred
> texts as those with more fruitful portraits. Both the text and the
> interpretation of the text are thoroughly human products.

The word "thoroughly" here assumes the reductionist role usually played by
words like "just" and "only."

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Fri Oct 1 09:52:06 2004