I wrote
>>The point is that the Christian Scriptures make a sufficient number of
>>claims that would be outrageous if not true, that it would be puzzling (to
>>me at least) why people would pay any heed at all if they didn't consider
>>it substantially correct.
>
Russell wrote
>Correct me if I'm wrong, Bill, but I think you believe in evolution.
Correct -- as it can be written about in refereed journals. I don't
subscribe to some of the claims folks like Richard Dawkins make in popular
magazines and after-dinner talks.
>That is, you don't believe that the story of Genesis is a literal
>historical record.
I don't believe it's God's primary purpose to give us a detailed history of
the earth and its inhabitants in Genesis. That means it doesn't have to be
literal history. On the other hand, I wouldn't write it off as fanciful
fable. To me it's God's summary account, or maybe his outline, of the
development of earth and its creatures.
>And, of course, many other Christians also feel
>this way. That is, many Christians believe that many parts of the
>Bible can be interpreted allegorically instead of literally.
Because of the reaction of many evangelicals to the word "allegory" I tend
not to use it. I think that reaction comes from jettisoning what they
learned in high school and college literature courses, but fighting that
battle isn't very profitable. I think there's figurative and poetic
language and yes, there's even allegory. To say there isn't, is to say
that the God in whose image we are made wouldn't use the forms of narration
we ourselves use to communicate with us.
This
>means that many of these stories that, as you point out, would be
>outrageous if not literally true, can instead be seen as sort of
>poetic renderings of the truth.
When I said "outrageous if not literally true" I was thinking more in terms
of the claims Jesus makes in the New Testament. The accounts in Genesis
can be interpreted in a number of ways -- from the YEC's striving to
justify literal interpretation, through my "let's concentrate on what we
can clearly understand" to the liberal's "it's all a big allegory" stance.
And reasonable people who don't believe in God can even accept some of
these interpretations. But Jesus claimed to be God and that got him
killed. Had the disciples -- and of course numerous others who heard about
him after the resurrection -- not believed he was God, I can't imagine
there would have been much incentive to follow him or preserve accounts of
his life.
[snip]
Russell wrote [re going to church with his girlfriend]
>I'm always willing to try new things. I haven't made her any
>promises, and I have been careful to point out that I am not
>looking to change my worldview. But she doesn't have a problem
>with that, because she respects my views, and I respect hers.
>And as far as I'm concerned, that's what really matters.
>
Fair 'nuff and agreed. May you have that personal encounter with the Lord
Jesus Christ that crystallizes (or some other phase change metaphor) what I
am trying to say.
Bill Hamilton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr, Ph.D. | Staff Research Engineer
Chassis and Vehicle Systems | General Motors R&D Center | Warren, MI
William_E._Hamilton@notes.gmr.com
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX) | whamilto@mich.com (home email)