Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: I AM DISGUSTED! Message-ID: Date: 14 May 91 07:37:45 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 31 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , tom@salzo.cary.nc.us (Tom Salzmann) writes: > Well, Michael, you have now disgusted me as well... and the moderator notes: > The committee (and mls) are of course well aware that their position > is not acceptable to those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I think the Michael Tom is objecting to is not me, but the *Presbyterian* gay Michael (we're everwhere!) What I want to note, however, is this odd word "inerrancy" -- what it seems to imply is not anything about scripture, but rather a very specific collection of HUMAN interpretations of scripture. I would, myself, have been inclined to call scripture "inerrant" except that some people have taken the term and associated it with a very specific set of *readings* of scripture that are locatable in late 19th century American religious dispute. I am fully willing to grant the TOTAL and absolute authority of scripture. It is just the very strange presumption of one minor sect of Christianity that THEY are the determining standard of interpretation of this authority which I find impossible to accept. Late 19th century America is not, for me, a rational standard for ANYTHING. -- Michael L. Siemon "O stand, stand at the window, m.siemon@ATT.COM As the tears scald and start; ...!att!attunix!mls You shall love your crooked neighbor standard disclaimer With your crooked heart."