RE: Glenn's dilemma

>Recorded history--not the presumed inerrancy of a book--provides
Christianity's grounding in actual fact. At all times
>in that history the people of God have had very fuzzy portraits of him, but
God has nevertheless succeeded in
>interacting with them.

What you appear to be saying is that the book (say, the gospels) can be
errant in all sorts of ways, yet the recorded history found in those errant
books, is trustworthy to be a grounding for Christianity, which is
ridiculous.

As to portraits, which seems to be a very popular word here, it depends upon
which fuzzy portrait you are allowing into this argument. If you were to
include the fuzzy portraits of animists, shamanists, islamacists, Parsees,
etc etc etc, it would appear that God has no standards whatsoever for what
one must believe about him. Why is it that so many think God doesn't care
what we beleive? Any ole belief is good enough for God, aye?

If the history has no bearing on reality, then there is no grounding. And
if one can't trust the recorded history in the Scripture, concerning the
resurrection, then there is simply no grounding for Christianity at all.

>Scientists want the high frequencies to resolve fine details; but for
spiritual phenomena the low frequency range
>gives a clearer image.

As a former seismologist, you should know doggone good and well that low
frequencies give poor images. So I find the analogy highly flawed. Low
frequencies can give such bad pictures that one can see in them whatsoever
one wishes to see. Indeed, if you don't even have a 2 octave frequency
range, the reverberations overwhelm the signal. Thus, this line of approach
is not only bad theology, it is bad science.
Received on Thu Oct 21 21:01:11 2004