Re: God is not a cat in Schroedinger's box!

On 10/17/04 3:42 AM, "ed babinski" <ed.babinski@furman.edu> wrote:

>
> What is the picture of God that you, Howard, and you, Glenn, see,
> when you gaze at
>
> 1) The Bible
>
> 2) The cosmos or nature.

ED,

Fair question. But consider what would be the result if both Glenn and I
gave our answers: 2 differing portraits of God based on our differing
readings the Bible, and 2 differing portraits of God based on our differing
readings of the human experience of the cosmos -- 4 portraits in all.

Natural theology (or empirical theology, or experiential theology) does not
yield one uniform portrait of God. And, in spite of many claims to the
contrary, neither does well-intended reading of the Bible or other sacred
religious texts yield one uniform portrait of God.

Why are there so many -- THOUSANDS -- of Christian denominations? Because
the Christian "community" (a bit of ironical terminology) cannot come to
agreement on the correct portrait of God. Each denomination sees a portion
of the other's portrait as unacceptable; denominational splits continue to
occur at an amazing pace.

But that's been my point all along. As I recall, this particular thread
began with Glenn's contesting of my statement that we all operate with a
humanly crafted portrait of God. Glenn wishes to defend the idea that his
portrait is an exception to this judgment. I suggest that the "observational
data" regarding the diversity of existing God-portraits defeats that theory.

Howard

PS: I will be off line for the next week. When I get back I will make a
decision about whether or not to stay on this list. It's clear that
questioning the basics is not generally welcomed.
Received on Sun Oct 17 15:03:12 2004