Legion,
You said:
"But certainly the Bible gives us some level of moral certainty? I hope so."
I think the Bible gives us a whole lot less moral certainty than most people think or would want. Way less. This is largely because when read literally, it contradicts itself over and over and over again. It transmits very few consistent moral directives even on matters such as homicide/infanticide, the use of prostitutes/concubines, the possession of wealth, ritual purity, marriage/divorce/polygamy, rape, war etc etc ... In addition to whatever else it might be, it is a collection of writings by people and cultures that have widely divergent and inconsistent views on these subjects and can therefore not be considered literally instructive on them, if taken as a whole.
For me, the living Christ revealed in the Gospel (lived, proclaimed, written) is the center of faith and of ethics. Christ is myth, living reality, and mystery. The Bible is but one of the means by which I know Christ. Its authority, inerrancy or anything else about it are of rather little concern to me.
How about you? Why is it so important to defend the consistency and inerrancy of the Bible? Or do I misread you? Are you in fact not a literalist? In that case Legion, how do you read the Bible?
Perhaps an answer to this question will enlighten us on the origin of many of the views you are expressing.
Also -- I can see your point to a certain degree on the question of whether insisting on the authority of a moral law indicates that one is insecure in some way. Perhaps not always. Your reference ot GK Chesterton is interesting. However, I do tend to believe that moral absolutes are extremely dangerous in most cases because they close us off from the reality of the world and of our own minds and hearts and the hearts of others. Whenever there is a conflict between the application of a moral maxim and the call of a real human soul, I know where my hope lies.
|