Hi Billy, On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:31 AM, [email protected] wrote: > But I admit the flaws. Yes, that is a problem, but it is far less of a problem > than taking the view that the book is error free and then needing to deal with > innumerable questions that, if I am seriously honest, cannot be answered > except through casuistry. I have zero interest in that approach. > > This is how things look to me.
I think I mostly agree with you -- but with one caveat. I don't believe in "inerrancy" -- at least not any way I've seen it defined. That said, I *do* believe in "infallibility" -- that the Bible is still authoritative in matters of faith and practice, within relatively narrow limits of transmission and translation error. There's no rigorous way to define or defend this position, yet I find it critical for maintaining a coherent community of faith (obviously less of an issue for an iconoclast like you :-). In this context, I don't have to argue about most of the miscellany you mentioned, but a few items -- like "contradictory" statements about ecumenical vs. exclusionary attitudes towards other religions -- are in fact still major issues for a position like mine. I think I have a plausible context-based explanation for most of them, but certainly not all. To me, being intellectually honest is acknowledging the existence of problems for which I don't have answers; being spiritually faithful is submitting to God's word to the extent I understand it, trusting that what I need to know will be made clear in time. -- Ernie P. _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
