[lit-ideas] Re: Faith
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 16:07:02 -0400
Eric Yost wrote:
"So how can [Christian fundamentalism] even start with a literal reading if
there is nothing that it can literally begin to read? The Bible is not "one
thing" that can be taken as an initial premise, and therefore "literal
reading" implies additional premises, such as which scribal versions are
most accurate, which midrashes inspired or unsanctioned."
Eric is right in the some of the problems for the claim of a literal reading
of the Bible and he has in fact missed some far more significant problems,
perhaps none more than the very idea of a literal reading. I wasn't
defending the position, only arguing that it is rationalistic and so hardly
open to the charge of rejecting reason.
On the idea of the Bible being 'one thing', a similar move with a similar
response can be found in those scientists who talk of the universe as 'one
thing' and search for a TOE. It is naive to think that the character of
Christian fundamentalism is somehow unique to religion. This particular
modern move pervades all aspects of Western life.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Toronto, ON
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
