From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 23:42:11 EDT
Hi Howard,
>That being the case, then I think we are obligated to do so as
>thoughtfully and self-consciously as possible, and using all of
>the resources available to us. It is at this point that I ask, why
>impose any artificial limitation on these resources, like
>designating one particular collection of ancient religious texts
>(the Hebrew and Christian canons, for example) as the sole source
>of material to use in crafting our portrait of God? Furthermore,
>by so designating one text as the sole source/authority, a person
>or community is in danger of idolizing that one text. As I have
>said on numerous occasions, I see biblicism bordering on
>bibliolatry as a real and present danger in conservative Christian
>communities today.
I agree that we can't worship the Bible, and that that is as bad as being an idolator or like the Israelites who believed that the Ark of the Covenant would save them from the Philistines. However, without some limitations one can run the gamut from atheism, to deism to pantheism and any other flavor one wants. Everyone here knows how much I have struggled here even coming close several times to dropping the faith altogether. But one thing I have come to know is that every position one can take is based upon faith. And the faith is based upon what things in our epistemology we place highest weight on. For the atheist, he places most weight on what he can observe, or in science or whatever. Often it is faith that God wouldn't cause the pain seen in the world. For the other religious positions, weight is placed upon the explanatory power that which is unseen offers for explaining that which is seen. Or it might be faith that there will be a final justice. But in each of!
those positions, any of which we could take, there are limitations placed upon the view, all of which are artificial. The scientific atheist never wants to know what caused the original vacuum from which all universes flow. In other words, they don't seek an answer to why is there something rather than nothing?
>
>Agreed. But we must thoughtfully distinguish between God and
>portraits of God, especially those portraits inherited from
>portrait artists of the past, portraits cast not in stone, but in
>words that have been elevated, by human decision, to the status of canon.
I would draw from this the logical conclusion that if the words are elevated by human decision alone, then there really is no way to get any portrait of God from any writings at all. The reason for this is that if human decision is what determines canon in all religions, and given that various religions are inconsistent with each other, it leaves us with no basis upon which to judge the value of the 'portrait'. I would suspect that this view would cut us adrift. Would you agree?
>
>As I said above, God is what God is, independent of how we
>portray God. However, I believe we must recognize that we -- as
>individuals and as communities -- do indeed craft our own
>portraits of God. We do not "create God," but we do craft
>portraits of God, and I see no reason to pretend otherwise.
>Perhaps our atheist friends would even respect us for that honesty
>and candor.
Of course we do that. Maybe we shouldn't but we do. YECs see a magician god who can only poof people and animals into existence. In their view, God can't be a statistician who uses randomness. On the other side of the Christian pole are those who think God is so terrible at communicating that he can't really communicate any true thing to a primitive tribe. I find both portraits alarming. But then, my view is also probably as flawed.
That being said though, what is the point of holding to a religion which has no roots from which we are adrift in a sea of solipcism? Can you provide a reason? At least the atheist has science to hold on to. For me, the limitations upon our information sources at least give a framework from which to work. Without those limitations, I see nothing.
>
>> So would it be fair to say that you follow what I understand to be the
>> pattern of the Eastern Orthodox Church which places tradition (an
>> extrabiblical source) on par with the Bible, with the exception that
>> instead of tradition, it is experience?
>
>In constructing our portraits of God, I think we are obligated to
>use all of the resources available to us -- portraits inherited
>from the past (canon, tradition), our own human experience, the
>experience of other humans, history, science, ......... In some
>circles this list is 4-fold: Scripture, tradition, reason and
>experience. Not a bad way to go.
OK, so why Scripture? Isn't this inconsistent with the man-made cannon idea? I am just trying to explore your views. and why not Islamic or Hindu traditions? Leaving them out is a limitation isn't it?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 10 2003 - 23:42:22 EDT