[Magdalen] She's leaving church

[James Oppenheimer-Crawford]

I have found Borg's book on faith ("Convictions") to be very
thought-provoking.  One thing he was good at elucidating is how we believe
scripture without thinking that the text has historicity. It's one of the
strengths of TEC that we believe scripture but not in its historicity.

He even brings up that wonderful comment made prior to telling a sacred
tale:
"I don't if it happened this way, but I know that this story is true."

Genesis is true -- but it is not a history text, not a science tutorial.
Its subject matter is something entirely different and arguably more
important.

The Redactor did not accidentally put the Priestly text on creation right
next to the J strand text on creation; he wanted to dramatize the nature of
God by putting the two sources next to each other.  Yes, God is infinite
and awesome, and yet God is intimate and personal.  Focus on either of
those attributes and you have nothing.  Force yourself to focus as best
your can on both of these simultaneously, and you just might get at a sense
of the God Barth says we cannot imagine.  I do not think anyone anytime
anyplace has done a better job of driving that point home, and without
that, it's hard to do much of anything else, so the Redactor was wise to
put right at the beginning.



James W. Oppenheimer-Crawford
*“A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved,
except in memory. LLAP**”  -- *Leonard Nimoy

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:11 PM, ME Michaud <michaudme at gmail.com> wrote:

> Um, actually, I pretty much do believe it. The timing's way off,
> of course, but you have to ask: what *is* a single day in God's
> time?
>
> Our days are defined quite parochially (sunrise/sunset, a single
> revolution of a small but lovely planet). God's day might be a
> revolution of the milky way. Or something else.
>
> As a teacher once said, "Thoughts arise. Where do they come
> from? They pass away. Where do they go?"
> -M
>
> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015, Cantor03--- via Magdalen <
> magdalen at herberthouse.org> wrote:
> >
> > You're talking Creationism, and I have no problem with that.
> >
> > I doubt anyone on list believes in Genesis literally.
> >
> >
> >
>