From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Liberal vs. Conservative (was Re: Into the highways and hedges)
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:29:18 GMT
Organization: Fermi Lab

In article <Aug.25.01.29.56.1992.18575@athos.rutgers.edu> masimo@netcom.com
(Michael Maas) writes:
>And the bible is just a collection of theological attempts by our
>Jewish and Christian predecessors and is therefore also only relatively
>true.

     Did you really say that Mike?  Come on, you're pulling my leg aren't you? 
I hate to say this, but I'd like to refer you to my post "Limits of
Criticism/4."  I just don't think your position is logical.
     Also, this falls into the arena of two men I've been reading lately,
namely Rousseau (Discourse on Inequality) and John Stuart Mill (On Liberty).  I
wouldn't put you down as to being as reductionary as they were, but I think
your conclusions stem from theirs.  There are area's the Bible calls immoral
and yet you somewhat fall into Stuarts camp of moral nonconformity.  Also, I
don't think you would agree with Rousseau in saying that man's problems stem
from civilization, not his nature, yet again, I think your conclusions, or that
which you're position reduces to, is one and the same.  Though these to men can
be viewed as night and day, their philosophies lead to the same end -moral
pride.  "Rousseau exhibited the pride of the man of reason while Mill, the
pride of the man of passion."  Yet that being said, they were united in the end
by an individualism that put man, uninhibited by tradition or anything else, at
the center of the universe. Robert Bellah calls this "ontological
individualism" by which he means the belief that the individual is the only
source of meaning.  He divides these into 1) expressive individualist and 2)
utilitarian individualist. While they both may disagree about the details, they
have both accepted the same basic orientation dating back to Mill and Rousseau:
*ME*.
    Was it Sartre that said that the particular (you and me, your ideas and my
ideas) become absurd without an infinite reference point?  I say that when you
allow the Bible to become errant, you remove the only objective infinite
reference point that we have today.  Again, Schaeffer: If you have no absolute
by which to judge society, then society is absolute.  In your relativism of
truth (tell me now, how can it be anything else but) you remove the only moral
guide/judge of the individual/society.  I would take Schaeffers statement and
bring it a little closer by saying, If you have no absolute by which to judge
yourself, then you yourself becomes absolute.  You have effectively set
yourself up as judge and jury of what is true and what is not true in the OT
and NT.  Don't tell me otherwise.  I know that you're a "greased pig" and would
have me think otherwise, but when everything is thrown in the kettle and boiled
down, that is what you're left with.


>Rex, please allow me to point out that when you decide to assert that the
>scriptures are a "picture of Christ...revealed by God unto salvation..."
>You are both allowing your presuppositions and making or taking a great 
>leap of faith.  There is no objective external evidence that leads you
>to take this step, it is purely subjective.  I don't claim that this is
>inappropriate, in fact I believe it is unavoidable.  But you appear to be
>either claiming or assuming otherwise.  

No, that not what I believe, so I hope that isn't what is coming across.  Lets
face it, we all, either consciously or subconsciously, have a set of
presuppositions (assumptions) about the basic makeup of our world.  I guess
that is why they call it a "world view" eh! The 1st assumption everyone makes
before he even begins to think at all is that something exists.  Most of us
don't even realize that this is an assumption because it is too obvious to
mention.  Of course, there's something.  That's just the point.  If we do not
recognize that, we get nowhere. [this is why I have illustrated some of our
discussions as "bobbing for apples" or now "greased pig"] Still with many other
simple "facts" that stare us in the face, the significance may be just as
tremendous.  In this case the apprehension that something is there is the
beginning of conscious life -as well as of the 2 branches of philosophy :
metaphysics & epistemology.  
     Once we recognize *that* something is there, we have yet to recognized
*what* that something is.  And it is here where world views begin to diverge. 
Now few people have anything approaching an articulate philosophy (at least
compared to, say, Plato, Aristotle....).  Even fewer, I suspect, have a
carefully constructed theology.  But everyone has a world view.  It is obvious
from the postings on this BB that we live in a very pluralistic world.  What
may be an obvious truth to me, may be a "lie from hell" to you.  If we do not
recognize this as be so, we are certainly naive and provincial.  We would have
much to learn about man in today's society.  On the other side of the coin
however, if we feel that none of the questions can be answered without cheating
or committing intellectual suicide, we have already adopted a sort of world
view, a form of skepticism which in its extreme form leads to nihilism.  The
fact is it is unavoidable in assuming some answers to such questions as 1) What
is prime reality? 2) Who is man? 3) What happens to man at death? 4) What is
the basis of morality? 5) What is the meaning of human history?  We will adopt
either one stance or another.  Refusing to adopt an explicit world view will
turn out to be itself a world view or at least a philosophic position. 
Actually, we are caught here.  So long as we live, we will live either the
examined or the unexamined life.  It is my the assumption the former is
preferred and yet "in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge
{results in} increasing pain" as the "Preacher" claims.

>A stance of scriptural inerrancy basically requires you to assert that God
>did so without even investigating the alternative.  

No, that's not true.  What is true is that I don't have to CONTINUALLY
investigate it.  

>>>The fundamental difference between you and I is that I don't need a certain
>>>unchangeable or immutable authority on which to lean.  God, Godself, and 
>>>God's relationship to me are enough.  

You may say this intellectually, but experientially I would hold that this is
an impossibility.  Heck, intellectually I'd say this is an impossibility.  We
were not created that way.  We were created with an affinity for the absolute
and we live our lives with absolutes whether they really are as such or not. 
You're the one that mention subjectivity.  If you say "God, Godself, and God's
relationship to me are enough" you're left with nothing but subjectivity.  God?
 Which God?  God's relationship to me!  What is more subjective.  This whole
thing could hinge on the fact of whether or not you're feeling good about
yourself on this particular day.  This is where Xianity is NOT existential.
You're saying X is true.  What gives you the authority to say absolutely, that
I am wrong for saying -X is true? Here is where eastern philosophy and Xian
theology part their own separate ways.

Case in point, lets say I say, "Christ was "a" god."  How are you going to base
your argument to the contrary?  

All is ephemeral... (Marcus Aurelius)

Rex

rexlex@fnal.fnal.gov