Lucy,
I have to be very careful here so as not to be misunderstood. What I find
inconsistent is your apparent reluctance to apply the bible as a guide for
moral decisions, and yet at the same time arguing that your view is not
unChristian, and perhaps also implying that it is more Christian. I don't
mean to imply that you are not a Christian and I have no reason to doubt
that you are, but I do think that there is a fundamental inconsistency in
your thought process. Both Christian tradition and Scriptures are agreed on
the evil of human death and the necessity to protect the weakest among us,
but you deny both. Perhaps one could make a case as you do, that the notion
of the sanctity of life cannot be derive solely from the Bible, but the
major councils of Christianity have always taught that, or at least, have
never denied that life is an absolutely precious gift from God. Sure,
Christians historically have acted in ways contrary to this understanding,
but then Christians are susceptible to sin just like any one else. I am not
a biblical literalist as well, but neither do I reject the authority of the
bible.
Perhaps you wish to enlighten all of us about your basis for making moral
decisions?
Blessings,
Adrian.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lucy Masters [mailto:masters@cox-internet.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 8:41 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [Fwd: RE: [Fwd: RE: [Fwd: RE: Darwinism/Compassion]]]
Adrian:
I'm not sure what you find incoherent or inconsistent. It is merely the
application of reason. As far as morals are concerned, the Bible is
absolutely scandalous. I'm not sure how you derive a morality of "life over
death" by reading the Bible. ??? Thank heavens I'm not a biblical
literalist, or I'd be endorsing the slaughtering of babes for tribal
purposes.
Lucy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 25 2002 - 13:30:58 EST