On 12/04/2006, at 1:57 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
I have discussed religion with a
number of Lutherans other than Nick (mainly Germanic Europeans,
either in Cyprus or in Australia), and all bar one of those still
practicing that I have met in the flesh (so 6 or 7) are biblical
literalists.
Are you sure? That's not a typical Lutheran belief, not at all.
At the
core of Lutheranism are scripture, faith and grace... the inclusion
of faith
and grace means that scripture does not stand alone, leaving no
room for
literalism.
It may be that creationism has taken hold in the churches of those
with whom I have spoken - I was really quite surprised. But I had an
otherwise very nice Austrian immigrant in Australia telling me that
there was no way the earth was created in more than 6 days and
couldn't be more than 6000 years old. Her husband was a little
embarrassed. It may also be that American Lutheranism is more
moderate than its European branch. Or that I'm just unlucky (not
unlikely).
They'd regard themselves as Good Christians. I don't
know whether anyone still active on this list is a literalist, but if
one isn't a literalist, then that's a different measure for what
Christianity is or what a good follower means than for those that
are. How do we decide what is right?
Perhaps that the wrong question. Perhaps the challenge is how to
live with
uncertainty, as Harris challenges us.
To that question I think a quote of Feynman's is appropriate: "I can
live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much
more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might
be wrong."
To me, this is why the traditional teaching of the major religions
fails, because frankly if one can just make it up as one goes along,
But that's not it at all.
Then what is it? Many Christians or theists have this idea of the
Bible's teachings as a moral guide, but much of the moral precept
they take from it (or imagine that's in there) is simply what they
want to take from it. There are good people who are living good
"Christian Lives", but they're behaving differently to the code as
laid out in the NT. Again, how does one decide?
Faith in a deity/deities/force/whatever is one thing. It's highly
personal. But faith in a book is something else, and that's where the
argument starts - if the book says one thing, but a follower
disagrees and does something else, where's the value in the book?
Plenty of Christians go astray by worshiping the Bible.
Right. So the Bible is not to be worshipped. It is a guide. But
again, which bits are relevant today, without massive editorial?
Which gospel do we take as, er, gospel? The 4 plus Acts? Any of the
others that have been rediscovered, like the recent Gospels of Judas,
or Thomas, or the other Apocrypha? Do we trust that the motives of
the NT editors were pure in selecting which Gospels and Epistles to
include, and which not?
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
