Re: Something must change
Glenn R. Morton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 24 Aug 1998 21:10:29 -0500
At 02:31 PM 8/24/98 -0600, Keith B Miller wrote:
>I have avoided contributing to this thread, but I would like to respond to
>this statement. I do think of _The Lord of the Rings_ as "true but
>fictional". The reason it resonates so well with so many is that it
>embodies truths about the nature of reality. It makes them accessible to
>those who would be little impacted by a pure theological argument. His
>work _Perelandra_, part of the space trilogy, has been especially helpful
>to me in understanding the nature of sin. By probing the nature of sin
>within a fictional setting it brings sharper focus on the theological
>issue. Jesus' parables function in much the same way. They challenge the
>listener to discover truth in a personal way through a fictional story.
The difference between The Lord of the Rings and the Bible, is that no one
passes off the Rimgs as the Word of God. They honestly tell you that it is
a work of fiction.
I know a better example. Dianetics. Is it true? It contains many truths
about human nature, but was written by a science fiction writer and founded
Scientology. And they advertise it all the time as the answer to our
problems. If early Genesis is fiction, then is it on par with Dianetics?
You have the last word.
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information