The Quadralemma

In Message 37 Glenn Morton presented this: ... in relation to whether events in the Bible should be considered as historical. In particular this was during a discussion of the Flood Account found in Genesis.I do not see either the relevance or significance of the statement. Nor do I see any dilemma or issues where that would even be relevant.In this thread I'd like for us to discuss whether there is any "Quadralemma" and if there is such an issue, whether it is more than trivial to resolve.Suggested for either Comparative Religions or Faith and Belief.Edited by jar, : No reason given.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

As a first step, let me try to point to areas where you and I have basic differences. First, I do not accept the Fall or Original Sin or even that Adam sinned. Reading the account in Genesis I just cannot see any of those.I do not believe that there was an Adam or a Garden of Eden.Yet I have faith and consider myself an active and devout Christian.So we have a difference in basic initial position.Before going much further I think we need to understand at least the initial starting positions each holds.You should also know that I do not believe that a belief in GOD or Jesus are a prerequisite for salvation, and that they are totally unrelated to salvation. I think that far more Atheists will be saved than Christians, and in fact that more Wiccans, Satanists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Taoists, Agnostics and Hindus will be saved than Christians.That said, I do believe that the Bible is a work inspired by GOD, as is the Qur'an, the writings of Mencius, of Confucius, of the Norse Skalds.When I read a morality tale, a fairytale, a myth, I can learn from them and the lessons I learn can help me in my day to day living, both with my fellow man and with GOD. The tales in the Bible are like that. As I pointed out in the other thread, when I read Genesis I see quite different Gods in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2.In Genesis 1 I see an aloof, distant, transcendent God, one who simply wills or speaks things into existence. But that God is truly distant. There is no interaction between that God and creation.The God we find in Genesis 2 is entirely different. There we see a very personal God, one that creates by hand from the dirt of the earth, who shapes and molds and breathes life into Her creation.The God of Genesis 2 is not sure, is uncertain, makes mistakes, is not knowledgeable, is powerful but still something a human can grasp, can understand.The people that compiled and edited these stories still decided to put both in, even though the Gods appear to be mutually exclusive.The question then seems to be why? Why include both tales? We know they were not opposed to merging such tales, they did so in the Flood tale and it appears, throughout out Genesis after Genesis 2:4. Yet the stuck the younger tale intact into the books, and went further, they placed it first before the older tales we find beginning in Genesis 2:5. IIRC.I believe they did so because the purpose of the Bible is to help man towards understanding GOD.GOD is not the God of Genesis 1 or Genesis 2, GOD is not any of the God's we see in the Bible.GOD is.The Bible does not reflect the limits of GOD communicating with man. The Bible, and all other scripture including the scripture you post here and on your website, reflects man's ability to communicate with man.I see the Quadralemma as trivial because something like the Bible does not reflect GOD communicating with man but simply man communicating with man.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes.Religion and religious documents are all the constructs of man. They are like any other thing that we have created.That does not mean that they cannot be inspired by GOD. It does mean though that they will exhibit all of the limitations of man.But they are also not the only testimony available.There is also the universe we live in which is a direct creation not of man but of GOD.The Quadralemma is only a problem if one worships a limited God. It is only a problem if one says that the Bible is something directly created by God, and in fact, that it is the only such work in existence.The Universe exists.The Bible attempts to explain how the Universe came into existence.If we take the premise of the Quadralemma seriously, we are then faced with the job of trying to shoehorn two stories into something like a one to one correspondence.We see the Universe.It is as it is.We did not create the Universe.We read the Bible.The Creation stories in the Bible do not seem to match the reality of the Universe we see.So to resolve the Quadralemma, many folk try to reinterpret the stories.The first thing they throw out is the meaning of Day.Then they say that one of the stories is the planning process and the other is the implementation.Then they say that God said "Let there be light" while Moshe said "And there was light" and that there is no indication of what went on between those two sentences.There is another possible approach, one that is still valid theologically, that avoids many of those conundrums. The Catechism of Creation expresses it this way: The Quadralemma is a major issue if someone approaches the Bible as by necessity being a literal historical and scientific document.The reason I think this needs to be discussed is that I believe your answer to the issue expressed is false.The choices do not resolve to either make the Bible fit reality some way or abandon the Christian Faith.There are other possible resolutions, one being stepping back and asking "What is it that GOD is trying to communicate to us in these stories?"When Jesus spoke of getting his ass in a crack on the sabbath, it is immaterial whether his ass actually fell in the crack on the sabbath or if he was just creating an example. The lesson is independent of the factuality of the example.Once again returning to the Catechism of Creation, it examines the stories of Genesis 1 & 2 this way: The point is that my beliefs are not so far outside classical Christianity.The two tales included in the Bible have valid and unique functions as GOD communicates through man to man. Just as in evolution Natural selection operates as a filter on change, so do the limitation of man filter and restrict our ability to communicate with other man.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion