Ernie:
Well said.   OK, maybe I still have some  problems with your position,
but it isn't exactly anything I  get bent out of  shape  about.
 
Your views are coherent and intelligent. And yes, when speaking of a 
faith community there are considerations which really matter that
are outside of any academic approach, like how to keep people  together
and focused on higher things, or simply on morality It really would  be
a stretch to insist on philosophical dialogue as some sort of  precondition.
Simply being together, sharing experiences, and expressing love 
and friendship are very important with no need for justification.
 
 
But there is one thing. Not that it will ever happen, but I wonder  what 
you'd say
after teaching at a university after a year or so. Just a thought  :-)
 
Billy
 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
In a message dated 12/12/2009 5:11:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
[email protected] writes:

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/




_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/

Reply via email to