| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jeremy" |
| Date: |
20 Aug 2003 08:27:43 PM |
| Object: |
Evidences of God - Preface |
Evidences of God - Preface
I have recently been involved in discussions that have been crossposted
in several newsgroups. Because, in all of these newsgroups, people have
asked me for my evidence that God exists, I am cross posting this thread
to all of these newsgroups, so that everyone who has been discussing on
the other threads will see and be able to converse in this thread.
Some of the items that I will be posting will be items that I have
posted before. I know this, but everyone may not have read them that
will be in this discussion, so I am reposting it.
Because of the amount of information that I plan on posting for this
discussion, I would like to make a suggestion. If you plan on posting a
reply to a single point made in the discussion, please append a suffix
(or change an existing one) to the subject line of the post. It will
make it easier to follow the threads.
Also please note that, unless I state otherwise, my postings will be
based on my beliefs. I know that there will be other people who have
differing beliefs and opinions, and that is fine.
In summary, I want to be able to have an honest, open minded discussion
on the subject. By open minded I simply mean that we look at each post,
regardless of the author, at face value. We should at least try to
understand what the author is saying before replying. I am not saying
that anyone needs to believe or accept anything that is posted, I would
just ask that we respect each other's views as being valid in their eyes.
Now I know asking Usenet posters to behave can be like asking a dog to
quit chasing cats, but at least I made the attempt.
--- Jeremy
.
|
|
| User: "stephen bayzik" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- BLATANT COPYING |
09 Sep 2003 12:30:54 AM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3F5D40BD.F2BA0DF2@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
stephen bayzik wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3F5BE8F2.766670FD@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
stephen bayzik wrote:
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adff117.0309070226.31a87194@posting.google.com...
Until the Reformation the Latin Vulgate Bible was widely used in
the
West: I don't know what was used in the Greek Eastern Churches.
But
with Protestantism, national versions became more available.
However
it is not correct there were no national versions available before
Luther. There were, but they were limited in number, partly by
church
policy, and partly by the laborious process of writing by hand.
One
of the things the Protestants forget is that the Renaissance,
Reformation and Printing press all happened close together. There
were more factors at work than Martin Luther. The Church in fact
had
quite a lot to do with the Renaissance, since it flowered most in
Italy, home of the Church.
I am not greatly interested in different versions, but some people
are. Generally however, no matter what version one has, they all
say
pretty much teh same thing, and they all point to Christ, without
whom
the Bible makes no sense.
My sincere respect, a breath of fresh air is appreciated.
===>That is pure and blatant Christian bias, claiming that
that all that literature "makes no sense" without "Christ". -- L.
I will modify my comment to "without a triumphant Church in the West".
And I
must admit that indeed I am bias by The Church (Roman and or Orthodox)
Catholic - not the hodgepodge of "christian" denominations known
collectively as Protestantism.
===>It is still wrong.
The Bible makes lots of sense QUA LITERATURE of a people
(TANAKH), and of a religious movement.
True, hence Judaism. As to "The Church" the Bible is a liturgical
instrument, not a book of casuistry or history.
to a lot of people who do not believe in either Jesus or ANY
of the denominational "hodgepodge", INCLUDING
"The Church". -- L.
True.
--
Stephen Bayzik
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron B." |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- BLATANT COPYING |
07 Sep 2003 09:34:17 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 20:26:58 -0600, Libertarius wrote:
stephen bayzik wrote:
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adff117.0309070226.31a87194@posting.google.com...
Until the Reformation the Latin Vulgate Bible was widely used in the
West: I don't know what was used in the Greek Eastern Churches. But
with Protestantism, national versions became more available. However
it is not correct there were no national versions available before
Luther. There were, but they were limited in number, partly by church
policy, and partly by the laborious process of writing by hand. One
of the things the Protestants forget is that the Renaissance,
Reformation and Printing press all happened close together. There
were more factors at work than Martin Luther. The Church in fact had
quite a lot to do with the Renaissance, since it flowered most in
Italy, home of the Church.
I am not greatly interested in different versions, but some people
are. Generally however, no matter what version one has, they all say
pretty much teh same thing, and they all point to Christ, without whom
the Bible makes no sense.
My sincere respect, a breath of fresh air is appreciated.
===>That is pure and blatant Christian bias, claiming that
that all that literature "makes no sense" without "Christ". -- L.
Where does the poster say this?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- BLATANT COPYING |
07 Sep 2003 10:53:01 PM |
|
|
"Ron B." wrote:
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 20:26:58 -0600, Libertarius wrote:
stephen bayzik wrote:
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adff117.0309070226.31a87194@posting.google.com...
Until the Reformation the Latin Vulgate Bible was widely used in the
West: I don't know what was used in the Greek Eastern Churches. But
with Protestantism, national versions became more available. However
it is not correct there were no national versions available before
Luther. There were, but they were limited in number, partly by church
policy, and partly by the laborious process of writing by hand. One
of the things the Protestants forget is that the Renaissance,
Reformation and Printing press all happened close together. There
were more factors at work than Martin Luther. The Church in fact had
quite a lot to do with the Renaissance, since it flowered most in
Italy, home of the Church.
I am not greatly interested in different versions, but some people
are. Generally however, no matter what version one has, they all say
pretty much teh same thing, and they all point to Christ, without whom
the Bible makes no sense.
My sincere respect, a breath of fresh air is appreciated.
===>That is pure and blatant Christian bias, claiming that
that all that literature "makes no sense" without "Christ". -- L.
Where does the poster say this?
===>You can read:
"they all point to Christ, without whom the Bible makes no sense"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron B." |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- BLATANT COPYING |
07 Sep 2003 10:59:45 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 21:53:01 -0600, Libertarius wrote:
===>That is pure and blatant Christian bias, claiming that
that all that literature "makes no sense" without "Christ". -- L.
Where does the poster say this?
===>You can read:
"they all point to Christ, without whom the Bible makes no sense"
Surly you don't think that the Bible is "all literature"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- BLATANT COPYING |
07 Sep 2003 11:21:23 PM |
|
|
"Ron B." wrote:
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 21:53:01 -0600, Libertarius wrote:
===>That is pure and blatant Christian bias, claiming that
that all that literature "makes no sense" without "Christ". -- L.
Where does the poster say this?
===>You can read:
"they all point to Christ, without whom the Bible makes no sense"
Surly you don't think that the Bible is "all literature"?
===>"All that literature" referred to a statement about the Bible.
What else is it if not LITERATURE?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron B." |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- BLATANT COPYING |
07 Sep 2003 11:27:56 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 22:21:23 -0600, Libertarius wrote:
"Ron B." wrote:
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 21:53:01 -0600, Libertarius wrote:
===>That is pure and blatant Christian bias, claiming that
that all that literature "makes no sense" without "Christ". -- L.
Where does the poster say this?
===>You can read:
"they all point to Christ, without whom the Bible makes no sense"
Surly you don't think that the Bible is "all literature"?
===>"All that literature" referred to a statement about the Bible.
What else is it if not LITERATURE?
Oops, my mistake. Missed the word "that". Sorry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- BLATANT COPYING |
07 Sep 2003 11:30:30 PM |
|
|
"Ron B." wrote:
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 22:21:23 -0600, Libertarius wrote:
"Ron B." wrote:
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 21:53:01 -0600, Libertarius wrote:
===>That is pure and blatant Christian bias, claiming that
that all that literature "makes no sense" without "Christ". -- L.
Where does the poster say this?
===>You can read:
"they all point to Christ, without whom the Bible makes no sense"
Surly you don't think that the Bible is "all literature"?
===>"All that literature" referred to a statement about the Bible.
What else is it if not LITERATURE?
Oops, my mistake. Missed the word "that". Sorry.
===>NO PROBLEM. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- BLATANT COPYING |
07 Sep 2003 10:12:47 AM |
|
|
(Bob Crowley) wrote in message news:<adff117.0309070226.31a87194@posting.google.com>...
manutter51@yahoo.com (Mark Nutter) wrote in message news:<fddfde37.0309030344.7dc5deb8@posting.google.com>...
(Bob Crowley) wrote in message news:<adff117.0309020746.78f2d184@posting.google.com>...
manutter51@yahoo.com (Mark Nutter) wrote in message news:<fddfde37.0309011306.570a4ca5@posting.google.com>...
Precisely - it boils down to faith,
Yes, faith in men. The stories men tell are *all* you have to believe
in. You can't put your faith in God, because God is not here telling
the stories. He's just a character *in* the stories. To believe in
God, you have to believe the stories, which means putting your faith
in the men who tell the stories. You may *call* it faith in God, but
it is really faith in men.
When you go to the doctor for a diagnosis, do you put your faith in
that particular man or woman to help you with your illness, whatever
it may be, or do you think the quack is merely a conduit for
previously researched work. He or she might give you a wrong
diagnosis you know, and you could even die if they do.
That's why I want more than just a bunch of unsubstantiated stories to
back up the doctor's claims. ;-)
I'll stick to the stories, with the proviso that I don't have to take
them literally at all times, and that I have been given a brain to
think with.
But the difference is, if I put my faith in my doctor (and in the
scientific research supporting his expertise), I have no problem
admitting that it is faith in man. If you are putting your faith in
the stories of men, and calling it faith in God, you are not being
honest. You are putting your faith in man and in the stories men
tell, and in yourself--a man whose brain you trust to tell you which
stories to believe and what to believe about them. That is faith in
man, not faith in God. God is just a character in the stories men
tell, and until he actually shows up, that's all he's going to be.
I'm familiar with the stories already. I know the predestination
story, and I also know the free-will story. But they are all just
stories told by men, and supported by superstition (interpreting
events as being "signs" of something supernatural, even though the
events themselves are perfectly natural), autosuggestion (having
ooey-gooey feelings just like other believers seem to experience),
fantasy (thinking up plausible, relatively self-consistent, and
relatively realistic possibilities, and then imagining them to be
real), and heresay (hearing about someone who heard about someone who
actually had some real evidence).
Millions of Christians perished in Gulags and concentration camps last
century. There wasn't much of an ooey-gooey feeling in their
theology, just prolonged suffering. If you read the (relatively rare)
accounts of those who endured, some of them found forgiveness of their
enemies extremely hard to accept.
Naturally. But that doesn't mean their faith was anything more than
faith in the stories, superstitions, and subjective feelings of men
(including the power of suggestion and autosuggestion). The fact that
their faith failed to add any notably supernatural element to their
endurance of suffering just shows the limitations of faith that is
based on mere stories, superstition, and subjective feelings of men.
The Bible exists simply to point to Christ - the actual call does not
come from the Bible, but the spiritual reality of the person of Jesus
Christ. Without His continued presence, Christianity would have been
defeated long ago.
And how is Christianity any less "defeated" than Zoroastrianism,
non-messianic Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, animism, Shintoism,
or any other set of beliefs? You have stories men have been telling
for a long time; so do they. You have a "Body of Christ" that has
divided and evolved into something significantly different from its
origins; other beliefs have had more or perhaps less of the same sorts
of division and evolution.
In so far as these other religions still exist, it is not any less
"defeated". It has been more successful than most, yet today Islam is
growing faster than any other. Personally I think the rise of Islam
is actually a judgement of God on a decadent, greedy West, and also on
a divided church (which is one of the main reasons we have made little
headway against other religions which have well developed theologies).
Quite so. You invent your own stories, and add them to the list of
stories you put unquestioning faith in. God hasn't shown up and said,
"Hey everybody, the West is getting too decadent and greedy, and My
Body is too divided, so I'm going to punish you all by helping my
enemies and promoting heresy." All that has happened is that you are
faced with another post hoc reality that doesn't really fit with the
way things should be happening if God were real, and so you imagine a
story that tells you how you should look at the situation in order to
make it fit in to your beliefs some how, and then you put your faith
in this story which you, a man, have made up yourself. That is the
same process by which originated most, if not all, of the stories you
put your faith in.
You pick a certain set of Christian
stories to hold as "the original" stories; other, non-Catholic
Christians pick a different set of stories as the originals. You each
choose whatever stories seem right in your own eyes. You still are
putting your faith in the stories of men, including the story about a
character named "Jesus" giving people an "actual call" that, strangely
enough, only happens subjectively as the person decides to believe the
story. How men react to the stories of men--that's real. But the
stories themselves? Jesus doesn't tell us that he loves us, or even
that he actually exists. The stories of men tell us that, but they
are the stories of men, and the Jesus and the calling and the telling
are all just parts of the story. They don't happen in the real world.
The main differences between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles is the
"Aprocrypha" which goes back to an argument over Greek and Hebrew
origins I believe. There are only about 7 of them. That is the
Catholic Bible has all the Protestant books, plus 7.
That's the difference in the canonical stories, but there are lots
more stories than that. The Catholics also have a "papal supremacy
and infallibility" story which they say was there from the beginning,
but which Protestants say is not original Christianity. The
Protestants have a "sola fide, sola scriptura" story that they say is
original Christianity, but the Catholics say was not. Then there are
the stories of Mary and the saints, and stories about what the proper
liturgy is, and on and on. You used to pick one set of stories, but
now you've switched to a different set of stories, but in both cases
you are putting all your faith in the stories, superstitions and
subjective feelings of men--not in God. God's not here saying or
doing anything for you to believe in, so faith in God is currently not
an available option.
Now that I have read all of them (which I didn't when I was a
Protestant) they do have some value. The 2 Maccabees books give us
some history (a blood thirsty one at that) of the intertestamental
period from Malachi to Matthew (about 400 years). Tobit is nothing
more than a Jewish yarn in my opinion, although there is an oblique
reference to it when the Sadducees asked Christ about whose wife the
woman would be when she died, since she had been married seven times.
Christ pointed out that there is no marriage in heaven.
Sure, the stories have been around a few times, and have fallen in and
out of favor. That's only human. But they're still the stories of
men.
Generally however they don't seem to have quite the same spiritual
"feel" in my opinion, but that may be a hangover from my Protestant
days.
It may indeed. Spirituality is just a fancy name for feelings, and
feelings are notoriously unreliable.
Until the Reformation the Latin Vulgate Bible was widely used in the
West: I don't know what was used in the Greek Eastern Churches.
They used the original Greek texts, of course! Of course, the Russian
churches eventually got their own Slavonic translations, thanks to
Saints Cyril and Methodius. And the Arabic churches like the original
Church of Antioch had Arabic translations as well. But the original
Greek texts were the official version.
But
with Protestantism, national versions became more available. However
it is not correct there were no national versions available before
Luther. There were, but they were limited in number, partly by church
policy, and partly by the laborious process of writing by hand. One
of the things the Protestants forget is that the Renaissance,
Reformation and Printing press all happened close together. There
were more factors at work than Martin Luther. The Church in fact had
quite a lot to do with the Renaissance, since it flowered most in
Italy, home of the Church.
Yes, the Church had a lot to do with the Renaissance, but much of the
time it "encouraged" humanism and free thinking the way the pagan
Roman Empire "encouraged" Christianity.
I am not greatly interested in different versions, but some people
are. Generally however, no matter what version one has, they all say
pretty much teh same thing, and they all point to Christ, without whom
the Bible makes no sense.
The Bible makes lots of sense, and in fact if you survey what all the
different Bible-believers believe, you might find it more accurate to
say the Bible makes lots of senses. Everybody seems to see the Bible
saying whatever happens to agree with him/her. It's such a genial and
agreeable book that some say it ought to be named the Wholly Pliable,
because it is so easily shaped to fit whatever doctrines one wants it
to preach.
But written or oral, the stories men put their faith in are, in the
final analysis, just the stories of men. God is not here telling us
anything we could put our trust in. Only men do that, and the men who
do that are themselves putting all their faith in the stories,
superstitions, and subjective feelings of themselves and other
ordinary mortals. Which needn't be such a bad thing, but
unfortunately they refer to it as "faith in God and God's Word," and
that's not honest or helpful.
m
aa#2115
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- BLATANT COPYING |
08 Sep 2003 05:03:06 AM |
|
|
(Mark Nutter) wrote in message news:<fddfde37.0309070712.28438d3a@posting.google.com>...
That's why I want more than just a bunch of unsubstantiated stories
to
back up the doctor's claims. ;-)
(Mark Nutter) wrote in message news:<fddfde37.0309070712.28438d3a@posting.google.com>...
That's why I want more than just a bunch of unsubstantiated stories to
back up the doctor's claims. ;-)
If, given the ravages of time, we find that elements of the Gospels
match with historic figures such as Tiberius, Herod the Great and his
sons, references to the Herods by Roman sources and geographical
locations still extant today, such as Straight Street in Damascus (in
Acts), and if thousands of scholars have researched the earliest
texts, backing them up if possible by bits and pieces of Dead Sea
Scrolls and whatever other information comes to hand, then we have
what might be called quasi-historical stories, not just imaginary
stories.
Now I read and re-read William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the
Third Reich" several times, till my paperback copy fell apart. It was
well written by an American journalist who lived in Germany before, in
the early stages of and after World War II. Now the book is a story,
albeit an historical one.
I have not read any Soviet books about the same period of time, but I
should imagine that the bare outlines of the history would be similar
(dates and so on), operation names, personalities etc. However there
would be considerable difference in the interpretation of the war,
Hitler's regime and so on. The allies would have been seen as tardy
suppliers, who bled the Russians dry etc. etc., Uncle Joe would have
won the war by himself, unlike in Hollywood films where it is Uncle
Sam who won the war by himself.
The point is that the Nazi regime and World War II were real
historical events. So were the Napoleonic Wars, the Reformation Wars,
the Crusades, the Wars of Charlemagne, and so on. In each case we
have only the records and stories of men to tell us what happened and
the further back we go in any era of history, the more sketchy our
knowledge and details become.
Therefore apart from modern history, where there are some filmed and
photographed images available (and they are as much a propaganda tool
as the written word), all our knowledge of history is dependent on the
"stories of men".
There is in fact more extant evidence of Bible records than there is
of Julius Caesar. The difference is that Julius Caesar made no
supernatural claims to be the Son of God, nor did He institute a
church to keep his message afresh for 2 millennia. Therefore it is
not a case of believing in "stories of men", since to accept any
history at all we have to do that, but of believing in Christ's
claims.
Either you do or you don't. But very few people come to Christ as a
result of searching the evidence. It is a spiritual call. In fact
atheists like yourself often know more about the Bible and related
topics than a lot of Christians. This is because you are in the
position of an intelligence service looking for flaws in teh Enemy's
battle plan.
If a battle plan falls into enemy hands, the chances are that the
enemy will probably know it better than any legitimate officer who is
privy to the plan. For him it is just the instructions for the next
stage of the war. For the opposing intelligence service, it is
priceless information with which to shaft the battle plans of the
enemy. And so they will study and criticise it with more rigid
scrutiny than the originators ever did.
Bob Crowley.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- BLATANT COPYING |
08 Sep 2003 03:53:54 PM |
|
|
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote
If, given the ravages of time, we find that elements of the
Gospels
match with historic figures such as Tiberius, Herod the Great
and his
sons, references to the Herods by Roman sources and
geographical
locations still extant today, such as Straight Street in
Damascus (in
Acts), and if thousands of scholars have researched the
earliest
texts, backing them up if possible by bits and pieces of Dead
Sea
Scrolls and whatever other information comes to hand, then we
have
what might be called quasi-historical stories, not just
imaginary
stories.
That is interesting because the story of the Trojan war fits your
criteria. We know that the elements of the Illiad match with
historic figures such as Agamennon and Menaleaus. Geographical
locations are still extant today, and there is clear evidence of
the city being attacked and burned. Thousands of scholars have
researched the site and earliest test. Just recently scientist
have shown that the ocean used to come in much closer to the city
of Troy than it does now, thus matching the topography described
in the Illiad at the time that war took place.
Now I read and re-read William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of
the
Third Reich" several times, till my paperback copy fell apart.
It was
well written by an American journalist who lived in Germany
before,
in the early stages of and after World War II. Now the book is
a
story, albeit an historical one.
As you say, William Shirer was an eye witness to much of what he
wrote. And he used the best souces available. It is interesting
that none of the gospels can be attributed to an eye witness with
any certainty. A close examination of "Matthew" indicates that
it could not have been written by the disciple of that name. In
fact it is attributed to him only by later tradition. Mark and
Luke were obviously not written by eye witnesses. Parts of John
are internally attributed to an eye witness, but there is a
question as to how much, and there is evidence that the book has
been heavily edited. The most probable theory is that it was
written by followers of John.
In the rest of the New Testament, there is not one writer who
claims to have witnessed the resurrection himself. It is only
stories about other people having seen it. Paul's claim is only
to have seen a vision while he was traveling in the desert.
I have not read any Soviet books about the same period of time,
but I should imagine that the bare outlines of the history
would be
similar (dates and so on), operation names, personalities etc.
However there would be considerable difference in the
interpretation of the war, Hitler's regime and so on. The
allies
would have been seen as tardy suppliers, who bled the Russians
dry etc. etc., Uncle Joe would have won the war by himself,
unlike
in Hollywood films where it is Uncle Sam who won the war by
himself.
The point is that the Nazi regime and World War II were real
historical events. So were the Napoleonic Wars, the
Reformation
Wars, the Crusades, the Wars of Charlemagne, and so on. In
each case we have only the records and stories of men to tell
us
what happened and the further back we go in any era of history,
the more sketchy our knowledge and details become.
Therefore apart from modern history, where there are some
filmed and photographed images available (and they are as much
a propaganda tool as the written word), all our knowledge of
history is dependent on the "stories of men".
I recall that doing the 1950's and 60's one of the most common
"stories of men" was that Hitler was still alive. Numerous
people had reported seeing him. There were even photographs.
Later we were flooded with stories of Elvis Presley being alive.
Thousands of eye witnesses.
There is in fact more extant evidence of Bible records than
there is
of Julius Caesar. The difference is that Julius Caesar made no
supernatural claims to be the Son of God, nor did He institute
a
church to keep his message afresh for 2 millennia. Therefore
it is
not a case of believing in "stories of men", since to accept
any
history at all we have to do that, but of believing in Christ's
claims.
Do you realize that there is more evidence for the historical
existence of Hercules, than there is for Jesus? They have
actually found inscriptions about him which were made at the time
he lived.
Julius Caesar himself was declared to be a God. Thus his
stepson, Augustus, called himself "The Son of God."
Incidendly, in the Bible the expression, "Son of God", could
refer to somebody who did the work of God, and not necessarily
designate literal decent. Even King David was referred to as
the "Son of God."
Although there is no dispute about what Paul meant when he used
the term expression "Son of God," there is dispute about what
Jesus meant by that expression. We can see from Luke 8:39-40
that although somebody may be descended from Abraham, he would
not be a son of Abraham unless he was doing Abraham's work. And
then in 41-42 we see that "God's son" would be doing God's work.
Jesus himself didn't set up any church. That was mainly the work
of Paul who reinterpreted the resurrection to fit his own
beliefs. Paul never met Jesus and Paul completely disassociated
his teachings from the teachings of the disciples in Jerusalem.
(Galatians 1:11-2:14.)
Either you do or you don't. But very few people come to Christ
as a
result of searching the evidence. It is a spiritual call. In
fact
atheists like yourself often know more about the Bible and
related
topics than a lot of Christians. This is because you are in
the
position of an intelligence service looking for flaws in teh
Enemy's
battle plan.
Actually, most people come to Christ because that is what they
had been taught while they were children. It is probably merely
an attempt to return to the security they knew in their
childhood.
The reason so many atheists are familiar with the Bible is
because it was reading the Bible which made many of them become
atheists. When you read the account of Judas' death in Matthew
27:3-9 and then contrast that with Acts 1:18 a thinking person
has to either conclude that something is wrong with the story, or
come up with a convoluted explanation of how both passages can be
true. Most Christians just ignore it, and thus remain
Christians.
If a battle plan falls into enemy hands, the chances are that
the
enemy will probably know it better than any legitimate officer
who is
privy to the plan. For him it is just the instructions for the
next
stage of the war. For the opposing intelligence service, it is
priceless information with which to shaft the battle plans of
the
enemy. And so they will study and criticise it with more rigid
scrutiny than the originators ever did.
You seem to like war stories. Has it occured to you that most of
those old war movies which you see on television are fiction?
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- BLATANT COPYING |
08 Sep 2003 12:43:21 PM |
|
|
(Bob Crowley) wrote in message news:<adff117.0309080203.212f1dd0@posting.google.com>...
manutter51@yahoo.com (Mark Nutter) wrote in message news:<fddfde37.0309070712.28438d3a@posting.google.com>...
That's why I want more than just a bunch of unsubstantiated stories
to
back up the doctor's claims. ;-)
manutter51@yahoo.com (Mark Nutter) wrote in message news:<fddfde37.0309070712.28438d3a@posting.google.com>...
That's why I want more than just a bunch of unsubstantiated stories to
back up the doctor's claims. ;-)
If, given the ravages of time, we find that elements of the Gospels
match with historic figures such as Tiberius, Herod the Great and his
sons, references to the Herods by Roman sources and geographical
locations still extant today, such as Straight Street in Damascus (in
Acts), and if thousands of scholars have researched the earliest
texts, backing them up if possible by bits and pieces of Dead Sea
Scrolls and whatever other information comes to hand, then we have
what might be called quasi-historical stories, not just imaginary
stories.
More precisely, we have stories that are unsubstantiated and that
mention certain background locations and personages that can be
substantiated. The situation is parallel to the fact that we have
historical references to the existence of Joseph Smith, Nauvoo, and
Utah, but we do not have any evidence substantiating the supernatural
aspects of the Mormon stories.
Now I read and re-read William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the
Third Reich" several times, till my paperback copy fell apart. It was
well written by an American journalist who lived in Germany before, in
the early stages of and after World War II. Now the book is a story,
albeit an historical one.
I have not read any Soviet books about the same period of time, but I
should imagine that the bare outlines of the history would be similar
(dates and so on), operation names, personalities etc. However there
would be considerable difference in the interpretation of the war,
Hitler's regime and so on. The allies would have been seen as tardy
suppliers, who bled the Russians dry etc. etc., Uncle Joe would have
won the war by himself, unlike in Hollywood films where it is Uncle
Sam who won the war by himself.
The point is that the Nazi regime and World War II were real
historical events. So were the Napoleonic Wars, the Reformation Wars,
the Crusades, the Wars of Charlemagne, and so on. In each case we
have only the records and stories of men to tell us what happened and
the further back we go in any era of history, the more sketchy our
knowledge and details become.
Which is precisely why it would be unwise for God to leave us with
only ancient stories if he wants us to come to salvation through a
knowledge of and obedience to the truth.
Therefore apart from modern history, where there are some filmed and
photographed images available (and they are as much a propaganda tool
as the written word), all our knowledge of history is dependent on the
"stories of men".
There is in fact more extant evidence of Bible records than there is
of Julius Caesar. The difference is that Julius Caesar made no
supernatural claims to be the Son of God, nor did He institute a
church to keep his message afresh for 2 millennia. Therefore it is
not a case of believing in "stories of men", since to accept any
history at all we have to do that, but of believing in Christ's
claims.
Christ isn't here making any claims. Your only option is to believe
the stories men tell about what claims they say Christ made. You are
putting as much or more faith in men when you believe what they say
Christ claimed as I am when I believe that Julius Caesar existed. The
only difference is, I admit I am putting all my trust in men, whereas
you try to claim you are trusting Christ himself. But Christ isn't
here. Your trust is in the men whose stories you believe.
Either you do or you don't. But very few people come to Christ as a
result of searching the evidence.
Yeah, do tell. ;-)
It is a spiritual call.
Statistically, it's more of a psycho-social call. Your friends,
family, peers, co-workers--whoever it is that tells you the story,
it's been shown that their influence over you is the number one
statistical factor in determining whether or not you will accept their
beliefs and join their church. Personal psychological factors, such
as fear of death, superstition and/or autosuggestion, may also play a
role. The one thing that never plays a role, however, is God actually
showing up and telling everybody something they can respond to, either
in faith or in rebellion. He doesn't show up outside of the stories,
superstitions, and feelings of men, period.
In fact
atheists like yourself often know more about the Bible and related
topics than a lot of Christians. This is because you are in the
position of an intelligence service looking for flaws in teh Enemy's
battle plan.
No, that is because I was a devout and determined Christian for
thirty-some years. You're just trying to paint me as some kind of
dishonest spy because I'm giving away all your dirty little secrets.
;-)
If a battle plan falls into enemy hands, the chances are that the
enemy will probably know it better than any legitimate officer who is
privy to the plan. For him it is just the instructions for the next
stage of the war. For the opposing intelligence service, it is
priceless information with which to shaft the battle plans of the
enemy. And so they will study and criticise it with more rigid
scrutiny than the originators ever did.
So that's why unbelievers understand the Scriptures better than
believers do, eh? That's interesting, considering the believer's
understanding is supposed to be "enlightened" by the Holy Spirit, and
the unbeliever's is supposed to be darkened by sin. But then again,
all that is just a story men tell. You don't put your faith in that
story, do you?
m
aa#2115
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- BLATANT COPYING |
09 Sep 2003 06:55:24 AM |
|
|
(Mark Nutter) wrote in message news:<fddfde37.0309080943.6eebb521@posting.google.com>...
More precisely, we have stories that are unsubstantiated and that
mention certain background locations and personages that can be
substantiated. The situation is parallel to the fact that we have
historical references to the existence of Joseph Smith, Nauvoo, and
Utah, but we do not have any evidence substantiating the supernatural
aspects of the Mormon stories.
Which is precisely why it would be unwise for God to leave us with
only ancient stories if he wants us to come to salvation through a
knowledge of and obedience to the truth.
At least we agree on something, regarding the Mormon books.
It would indeed be unwise for God to leave us with only ancient
stories, so that is why He instituted the Church. GK Chesterton, the
Catholic journalist / apologist of the early 20th century, was a bit
scathing about Queen Victoria presenting a Bible to an Afghan chieftan
as the "Secret of England's Greatness".
Apart from teh well known historical fact that England is not quite so
"great" as she was, Chesterton said he could hardly think of anything
more puzzling to an Afghan chieftan that to receive a collection of
ancient Semitic folklore.
Left by itself that is what it is. Now even if it did point to
Christ, then the discovery of a Bible by itself on a dusty road
somewhere, or even in a cave, a la the Book of Mormon, it would be
meaningless, since there would be no tradition going right back to the
original Apostles. This is the value of the Apostolic succession,
since the Church can trace its ancestry right back to Roman occupied
Jerusalem, having personal contact via Peter, Paul and those they
taught and spoke to, dictated to, and even those who killed them eg.
Nero.
Without the Apostolic succession, the Bible would just be a collection
of quaint stories.
This is the mistake the Protestants make, in that they almost seem to
think the Bible reappeared in the 16th century, despite the fact that
the wars of the Reformation were fought precisely because the Catholic
Church had already spread Christianity right through Western Europe.
So when they fought over Sola Scriptura, they could only do so because
the Catholic Church had already brought Christ and the Scriptures to
the knowledge of the Western European peoples.
So it is more than just the stories of men. Again there is a living
tradition allied with the stories, and this tradition has been handed
down through centuries.
Thus salvation belongs to the church, not a bunch of stories.
Christ isn't here making any claims. Your only option is to believe
the stories men tell about what claims they say Christ made. You are
putting as much or more faith in men when you believe what they say
Christ claimed as I am when I believe that Julius Caesar existed. The
only difference is, I admit I am putting all my trust in men, whereas
you try to claim you are trusting Christ himself. But Christ isn't
here. Your trust is in the men whose stories you believe.
You're right there. Even Christ said "so that others will know that I
live". In short He was bluntly declaring that the faith of Christians
themselves is the real witness, not the Bible.
Statistically, it's more of a psycho-social call. Your friends,
family, peers, co-workers--whoever it is that tells you the story,
it's been shown that their influence over you is the number one
statistical factor in determining whether or not you will accept their
beliefs and join their church. Personal psychological factors, such
as fear of death, superstition and/or autosuggestion, may also play a
role. The one thing that never plays a role, however, is God actually
showing up and telling everybody something they can respond to, either
in faith or in rebellion. He doesn't show up outside of the stories,
superstitions, and feelings of men, period.
No doubt this is part of the truth, just as belief in science is a
psycho-social call. It is part of the education system, the
technological society we have is loaded with it, and it would be a
rare and foolish bird who tried to stand alone and insist the science
is anathema. He would be howled down by almost everyone.
But here and there is the case of the person who has no reason to
believe in Christ, yet does. There is an evangelist named Steve Ryder
in Australia who was converted in prison. At the turn of the
millenium, if you saw the Sydney fireworks display, you may have seen
the word "Eternity" on the Harbour Bridge written in fireworks. The
story behind that is that in Sydney a certain illiterate man, who had
a drunken brute of a father, and little hope of any future, became a
Christian against all the odds. During a sermon later he heard the
word "Eternity" and it seemed to stick. I think this was in the
1930's or 1940's, but I am not sure.
Despite being illiterate, he found a simple ministry. He would get up
very early before work, and go around the city of Sydney chalking
"Eternity" in beautiful copperplate handwriting. For people who saw
it on their way to work, it was quite eerie, seeming to loom up at
them from the pavement or wall, despite being plain chalk. It was
quite some years before the man was identified.
ON the 31 December 2000, well after his death, the word was beamed
around the world. I suppose you could say that God honoured that
simple man's simple ministry, and made it reach around the world.
No, that is because I was a devout and determined Christian for
thirty-some years. You're just trying to paint me as some kind of
dishonest spy because I'm giving away all your dirty little secrets.
;-)
I wondered how you knew so much. Did you go to Bible College as well,
since your knowledge is considerably greater than that of the average
Christian?
What was the incident or incidents which contributed to destroying
your faith? I am sure there would be an interesting story there.
So that's why unbelievers understand the Scriptures better than
believers do, eh? That's interesting, considering the believer's
understanding is supposed to be "enlightened" by the Holy Spirit, and
the unbeliever's is supposed to be darkened by sin. But then again,
all that is just a story men tell. You don't put your faith in that
story, do you?
Whether they understand it, or simply are acquainted with it, needs to
be clarified. They may well have a clear understanding of official
church doctrine, but not believe. There were probably specialists in
MI5 and the CIA who knew Marxist theory back to front, and did not
believe a word of it, just as every school student in the USSR would
have been more aware of the frailties of capitalism than the
capitalists themselves.
There are con-men who could make a very convincing case for the
Christian faith, and I know of a couple of cases where Christians have
been taken for a ride simply because the deceiver seemed so genuine.
I know this - no one believes the story of Christ without the
imprimatur of the Holy Spirit. The key word is "believe".
Bob Crowley.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- BLATANT COPYING |
09 Sep 2003 03:46:04 PM |
|
|
(Bob Crowley) wrote in message news:<adff117.0309090355.66b444aa@posting.google.com>...
manutter51@yahoo.com (Mark Nutter) wrote in message news:<fddfde37.0309080943.6eebb521@posting.google.com>...
More precisely, we have stories that are unsubstantiated and that
mention certain background locations and personages that can be
substantiated. The situation is parallel to the fact that we have
historical references to the existence of Joseph Smith, Nauvoo, and
Utah, but we do not have any evidence substantiating the supernatural
aspects of the Mormon stories.
Which is precisely why it would be unwise for God to leave us with
only ancient stories if he wants us to come to salvation through a
knowledge of and obedience to the truth.
At least we agree on something, regarding the Mormon books.
It would indeed be unwise for God to leave us with only ancient
stories, so that is why He instituted the Church.
So men say. But then he left it there to rot, apparently.
GK Chesterton, the
Catholic journalist / apologist of the early 20th century, was a bit
scathing about Queen Victoria presenting a Bible to an Afghan chieftan
as the "Secret of England's Greatness".
Apart from teh well known historical fact that England is not quite so
"great" as she was, Chesterton said he could hardly think of anything
more puzzling to an Afghan chieftan that to receive a collection of
ancient Semitic folklore.
And the same might be said of the history of the Church itself.
Saints persecuting and exiling other saints--I mean official capital-S
Saints, not just believers--"retroactive" dogmas, manifest corruption
at all levels of governance...it just goes on an on.
Left by itself that is what it is. Now even if it did point to
Christ, then the discovery of a Bible by itself on a dusty road
somewhere, or even in a cave, a la the Book of Mormon, it would be
meaningless, since there would be no tradition going right back to the
original Apostles. This is the value of the Apostolic succession,
since the Church can trace its ancestry right back to Roman occupied
Jerusalem, having personal contact via Peter, Paul and those they
taught and spoke to, dictated to, and even those who killed them eg.
Nero.
Without the Apostolic succession, the Bible would just be a collection
of quaint stories.
Which apostolic succession do you mean, the Roman or the Antiochian?
;-)
How do you know the "true" succession wasn't the Nestorian branch, or
the Arian, or even plain old Orthodox? What you have is men, and the
stories they tell, including the story about how "*we* are the true
successors to the Apostles--no really, we are!" You put your faith in
the stories of one group of Christians, but not in the stories of
others. You are even believing the stories of men when you insist
that God established the Church to preserve the "truth."
I'll admit, the "apostolic succession/tradition" story *sounds* more
appealing, especially to anyone who realizes the fatal flaw in
"Bible-based" religion. But just because it's better than some other
stories men tell, doesn't mean it's necessarily a true story. And it
isn't God that's telling the "apostolic succession" story--it's men,
and putting your faith in that story is putting your faith in man, not
in God.
This is the mistake the Protestants make, in that they almost seem to
think the Bible reappeared in the 16th century, despite the fact that
the wars of the Reformation were fought precisely because the Catholic
Church had already spread Christianity right through Western Europe.
So when they fought over Sola Scriptura, they could only do so because
the Catholic Church had already brought Christ and the Scriptures to
the knowledge of the Western European peoples.
And interestingly enough, Martin Luther went to the Patriarch of
Constantinople, on the theory that the Orthodox Church ought to be
closer to original Christianity than Rome was. But the Patriarch's
reaction to Luther's teachings can be succinctly summarized by just
two words: "What's this?" That's not literally what he said, of
course, but it sums up the gist of his response.
So it is more than just the stories of men.
Right. It's also the subjective feelings and superstitions of men.
But those who called themselves the successors of the apostles are no
more gods than the apostles were. You believe their stories, and they
are men. You are putting your faith in the stories, superstitions,
and feelings of men.
Again there is a living
tradition allied with the stories, and this tradition has been handed
down through centuries.
By men. And it hasn't been just "handed down" either--any book could
do that. Each generation adapted the traditions to fit the needs of
the times, and in no few cases made "retroactive" modifications to
dogmas like the procession of the Spirit, and papal supremacy and
infallibility, and purgatory, and celibacy and so on. And yes, as a
former student of Orthodox theology, I know the stories the
traditional churches use to defend the modifications that have been
made, and to deny that they are modifications--or, well, they are, but
I mean they're not *changes* in the sense of disproving the story
about how the Tradition was handed down "unchanged..." Or so the
stories go.
Thus salvation belongs to the church, not a bunch of stories.
That itself is one of the stories told by men in the Catholic Church.
When you put your faith in the words "salvation belongs to the
Church," these words are being spoken by men, not by God, and your
faith in these words is faith in the words of men, and in the men
themselves, not in God or God's words.
Christ isn't here making any claims. Your only option is to believe
the stories men tell about what claims they say Christ made. You are
putting as much or more faith in men when you believe what they say
Christ claimed as I am when I believe that Julius Caesar existed. The
only difference is, I admit I am putting all my trust in men, whereas
you try to claim you are trusting Christ himself. But Christ isn't
here. Your trust is in the men whose stories you believe.
You're right there. Even Christ said "so that others will know that I
live". In short He was bluntly declaring that the faith of Christians
themselves is the real witness, not the Bible.
Right, and the faith of Mormons is the witness that their Church is
true, and the faith of Muslims--when was the last time you saw a
Christian voluntarily sacrifice his life for his faith?--the faith of
Muslims is their witness. You see? It's all men. Men are the ones
who are here, living and speaking and acting. When you believe the
witness, whichever witness you choose to believe, you are believing in
*men*, not in God, because God isn't here bearing witness to anything.
And neither is Jesus. Faith in man, and based on man, and defined by
the stories, superstitions and feelings of men--that is the only
option available to us.
Statistically, it's more of a psycho-social call. Your friends,
family, peers, co-workers--whoever it is that tells you the story,
it's been shown that their influence over you is the number one
statistical factor in determining whether or not you will accept their
beliefs and join their church. Personal psychological factors, such
as fear of death, superstition and/or autosuggestion, may also play a
role. The one thing that never plays a role, however, is God actually
showing up and telling everybody something they can respond to, either
in faith or in rebellion. He doesn't show up outside of the stories,
superstitions, and feelings of men, period.
No doubt this is part of the truth, just as belief in science is a
psycho-social call.
But when science says NaOH and HCl combine to form H2O and NaCl, you
can combine NaOH and HCl and get H2O and NaCl. You don't have to just
believe in stories that are about things that don't actually happen in
the real world--science's "stories" are about things that *do* happen
in the real world. If Catholicism could prove its claims as
objectively, repeatably, and demonstrably as science does,
non-Catholics would be as rare as flat-earthers. If you don't
believe, science can show you so you do believe. But with faith, if
you don't believe it already, you can't expect to see it.
It is part of the education system, the
technological society we have is loaded with it, and it would be a
rare and foolish bird who tried to stand alone and insist the science
is anathema. He would be howled down by almost everyone.
And it's a good thing, too! Would you want to treat your headaches by
having literal holes drilled into your head to let the "bad spirits"
out, as pre-scientific, superstitious physicians did?
But here and there is the case of the person who has no reason to
believe in Christ, yet does. There is an evangelist named Steve Ryder
in Australia who was converted in prison. At the turn of the
millenium, if you saw the Sydney fireworks display, you may have seen
the word "Eternity" on the Harbour Bridge written in fireworks. The
story behind that is that in Sydney a certain illiterate man, who had
a drunken brute of a father, and little hope of any future, became a
Christian against all the odds. During a sermon later he heard the
word "Eternity" and it seemed to stick. I think this was in the
1930's or 1940's, but I am not sure.
You know, that's a wonderful little story, and I'm sure you believe it
absolutely. But do you honestly believe that Catholics, or even
Christians, are the only ones who have amazing conversion anecdotes?
People who become famous, after their conversion, for having converted
"for no reason," and who are telling their story at evangelistic
crusades in front of Christian audiences, are under *tremendous*
social pressure to "spin" their story to support the idea that God was
behind it all. Mormon testimonies have a very similar pattern, and in
fact so do most religions with any kind of emphasis on making
converts.
What you write above is exactly what I am speaking about when I point
out how much your faith is based on the stories of men. I don't think
you really even realize the extent to which these stories are the
reason you believe. Because the stories are presented as representing
God's Word (or Apostolic Teaching, or God's leading, or whatever), you
aren't used to recognizing them for what they actually are. They are,
in fact, the stories of men, and that's what you are putting your
faith in. None of your faith is in God, because God doesn't make
himself available to you, for you to put your faith in him. You can
put your faith in the feelings you have about God, and which you
attribute to God, but even then, it's not God you're trusting, it's
just your own, human feelings.
Despite being illiterate, he found a simple ministry. He would get up
very early before work, and go around the city of Sydney chalking
"Eternity" in beautiful copperplate handwriting. For people who saw
it on their way to work, it was quite eerie, seeming to loom up at
them from the pavement or wall, despite being plain chalk. It was
quite some years before the man was identified.
ON the 31 December 2000, well after his death, the word was beamed
around the world. I suppose you could say that God honoured that
simple man's simple ministry, and made it reach around the world.
You could say that, but if you did, you'd just be another man
spreading another story about God. God himself never showed up and
said, "I would like to honor this man." No, all you've got is a story
about a man who responded to the stories of men (which he heard in a
sermon) by getting a piece of chalk and doing something to attract
attention to what he was doing, because of a personal feeling he had
about one of the words in the sermon. And that story is part of the
basis for your faith precisely because of the faith you put in the
story. And even if every word that can be verified turns out to be
literally true, it's still just a story told by men and about men.
God himself never shows up in the story except by inference and
attribution. And of such things is your faith made.
No, that is because I was a devout and determined Christian for
thirty-some years. You're just trying to paint me as some kind of
dishonest spy because I'm giving away all your dirty little secrets.
;-)
I wondered how you knew so much. Did you go to Bible College as well,
since your knowledge is considerably greater than that of the average
Christian?
Yes, I did, and I also spent considerable time in personal study of
the Scriptures. I was enrolled in an extension program (read: study
by correspondence) through an Orthodox seminary, which would have
prepared me to be ordained a deacon in the Orthodox church, at the
time I regretfully realized that, apart from what men do on God's
behalf, there was nothing to God.
What was the incident or incidents which contributed to destroying
your faith? I am sure there would be an interesting story there.
There were no incidents, per se. I just learned too much Church
History and Theology to be able to avoid seeing the "man behind the
curtain," to use the words of the Great Oz.
So that's why unbelievers understand the Scriptures better than
believers do, eh? That's interesting, considering the believer's
understanding is supposed to be "enlightened" by the Holy Spirit, and
the unbeliever's is supposed to be darkened by sin. But then again,
all that is just a story men tell. You don't put your faith in that
story, do you?
Whether they understand it, or simply are acquainted with it, needs to
be clarified. They may well have a clear understanding of official
church doctrine, but not believe. There were probably specialists in
MI5 and the CIA who knew Marxist theory back to front, and did not
believe a word of it, just as every school student in the USSR would
have been more aware of the frailties of capitalism than the
capitalists themselves.
Yes, but neither capitalism nor communism is supposed to have powers
of spiritual enlightment or spiritual blindness. My understanding of
Christianity, however, was acquired while I was a devout believer.
Not that I haven't learned the answers to a lot of questions I
couldn't quite fathom before, since I learned to seriously challenge
the stories, superstitions, and feelings of men.
There are con-men who could make a very convincing case for the
Christian faith, and I know of a couple of cases where Christians have
been taken for a ride simply because the deceiver seemed so genuine.
I know this - no one believes the story of Christ without the
imprimatur of the Holy Spirit. The key word is "believe".
That's often the "weasel" word, too. Whenever somebody falls away,
the story they tell is, "Well, he never *really* believed in the first
place." That's the story you have to believe in order to maintain
your faith in the story that says no one can believe in Christ without
the imprimatur of the Holy Spirit. Men aren't such fools that they
forget to make their stories back each other up (and yet it's
surprising how often they *do* get tripped up in their stories). But
ultimately, whether you are believing stories about Christ or about
the Holy Spirit, it is men who are telling the stories, and you are
putting your faith in these men and in the stories of men. Faith in
God is not an available option.
m
aa#2115
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- BLATANT COPYING |
08 Sep 2003 05:34:54 PM |
|
|
Bob Crowley wrote:
manutter51@yahoo.com (Mark Nutter) wrote in message news:<fddfde37.0309070712.28438d3a@posting.google.com>...
That's why I want more than just a bunch of unsubstantiated stories
to
back up the doctor's claims. ;-)
manutter51@yahoo.com (Mark Nutter) wrote in message news:<fddfde37.0309070712.28438d3a@posting.google.com>...
That's why I want more than just a bunch of unsubstantiated stories to
back up the doctor's claims. ;-)
If, given the ravages of time, we find that elements of the Gospels
match with historic figures such as Tiberius, Herod the Great and his
sons, references to the Herods by Roman sources and geographical
locations still extant today, such as Straight Street in Damascus (in
Acts), and if thousands of scholars have researched the earliest
texts, backing them up if possible by bits and pieces of Dead Sea
Scrolls and whatever other information comes to hand, then we have
what might be called quasi-historical stories, not just imaginary
stories.
===>Have you never read histroical fiction?
Is GONE WITH THE WIND history?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- BLATANT COPYING |
03 Sep 2003 07:17:21 AM |
|
|
(Bob Crowley) wrote in message news:<adff117.0309020746.78f2d184@posting.google.com>...
manutter51@yahoo.com (Mark Nutter) wrote in message news:<fddfde37.0309011306.570a4ca5@posting.google.com>...
The other author(s) of the Christian stories can easily be identified.
It's just that they're mere humans, not gods. There is no great
mystery surrounding the source of the Christian stories. Even the
most conservative Christians admit that a lot of the Jesus legends
were mythical and untrue. That's why we have a Gospel of John, but
not a Gospel of Thomas or a Gospel of Peter. In a primitive time,
when men were superstitious and gullible, word-of-mouth stories about
a popular preacher grew and spread unchecked until a bunch of guys got
together and canonized some of them. Just like the "telephone" game,
only you write down the end result and call it "Scripture."
Unless God is going to reveal Himself directly, then He has to use
human agents, with all their fallibility. Had He directly written the
Bible Himself, in some indestructible font, on indestructible paper,
with indestructible logic, with indestructible power, we would hardly
be in a position to chose for or against Him.
Why not? Why would having a letter from God be any greater constraint
on our free will than becoming incarnate and living among us, working
great miracles? Did God give the scribes and Pharisees free will, and
were they able to exercise that free will in the presence of the
direct, tangible, in-person ministry of the so-called Son of God? Did
Paul exercise genuine free will on the road to Damascus? Did Thomas
exercise free will when he believed that Jesus was truly "risen" (as
the story goes) from the dead?
In short He allows us
to do these things slowly and rather badly, when He could do the whole
thing Himself. But if He did, what would be the point of giving the
human race free will?
The problem with the "God can't reveal himself without violating human
free will" is that virtually all of the Bible stories about God are
*about* God revealing himself. To say that free will means God
*can't* appear is to admit that the Bible is in error when it says God
*did* reveal himself. This is one of the problems with the stories
men tell about God--they not only are inconsistent with reality (God
does not actually appear outside of the stories), but they actually
contradict themselves (God cannot appear without violating free will,
but he did appear, in ways that go far beyond the minimum needed to
satisfy skeptics of his existence, without, men say, violating
anyone's free will).
m
aa#2115
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- BLATANT COPYING |
09 Sep 2003 07:20:13 AM |
|
|
(Mark Nutter) wrote in message news:<fddfde37.0309030417.78b69eaf@posting.google.com>...
In one of your other letters you noted I snipped my post. I do this
for reasons of size, generally leaving your quote as is, although
occasionally I cut it a bit too. Otherwise we are going to end up
with an encyclopaedia by the time we get to the last post.
Why not? Why would having a letter from God be any greater constraint
on our free will than becoming incarnate and living among us, working
great miracles? Did God give the scribes and Pharisees free will, and
were they able to exercise that free will in the presence of the
direct, tangible, in-person ministry of the so-called Son of God? Did
Paul exercise genuine free will on the road to Damascus? Did Thomas
exercise free will when he believed that Jesus was truly "risen" (as
the story goes) from the dead?
Assuming spiritual beings exist, they don't need written revelation
since they can see God direct. A general in his office can talk
directly to the staff in the same room, but must use other means for
soldiers in the field. The devil knows God exists better than any of
us. He is still condemned.
If they exist, then being able to "see God" still did not stop some of
them from rebelling. Their rebellion is irrevocable, since they
rebelled in plain view. Our rebellion is revocable, since we rebel
almost in ignorance. If He appeared, then from that time on every
single rebellion or disobedience would immediately require banishment.
To have any hope of salvation then there must be a way out. Thus we
are called by faith, not by sight, or we would be in the same position
as the angels and demons.
The problem with the "God can't reveal himself without violating human
free will" is that virtually all of the Bible stories about God are
*about* God revealing himself. To say that free will means God
*can't* appear is to admit that the Bible is in error when it says God
*did* reveal himself. This is one of the problems with the stories
men tell about God--they not only are inconsistent with reality (God
does not actually appear outside of the stories), but they actually
contradict themselves (God cannot appear without violating free will,
but he did appear, in ways that go far beyond the minimum needed to
satisfy skeptics of his existence, without, men say, violating
anyone's free will).
The Bible stories are about God revealing aspects of Himself. As I
read the record He seems to send angels if He has a specific message
to give to certain people. I don't know how many times angels appear,
but if the Bible recorded all occurrences, then there haven't been
very many over a 4000 year period. It is a bit like Catholic Church
general meetings. Once every couple of hundred years seems to be
ample.
It would be more accurate to say God has "revealed" His workings
through the history of the Jewish people in the Old Testament times,
from the call, to the various victories and disastrous defeats they
had. As time went on they began to realise that God was using them to
show the world what He was like. Even their suffering had a purpose.
Eventually He turned up Himself in the form of Christ, and in
Christian teaching that is the closest resemblance we are going to get
this side of death or the Second Coming.
Now if God allows us to then crucify Him, we can hardly expect the
Church to have plain sailing.
Now why did we crucify Him?
And was there another power behind the urge to do so?
From time to time certain individuals may have received more than the
usual contact if you like. But by and large most of us depend on
faith, and that includes, for lack of a better term, an element of
free will. I also suspect it includes, for lack of a better term, an
element of predestination. But don't ask me to work out how God
contrives to balance both, because I don't know.
Bob Crowley
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- BLATANT COPYING |
09 Sep 2003 09:03:46 AM |
|
|
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adff117.0309090420.74374079@posting.google.com...
manutter51@yahoo.com (Mark Nutter) wrote in message
news:<fddfde37.0309030417.78b69eaf@posting.google.com>...
In one of your other letters you noted I snipped my post. I do this
for reasons of size, generally leaving your quote as is, although
occasionally I cut it a bit too. Otherwise we are going to end up
with an encyclopaedia by the time we get to the last post.
Why not? Why would having a letter from God be any greater constraint
on our free will than becoming incarnate and living among us, working
great miracles? Did God give the scribes and Pharisees free will, and
were they able to exercise that free will in the presence of the
direct, tangible, in-person ministry of the so-called Son of God? Did
Paul exercise genuine free will on the road to Damascus? Did Thomas
exercise free will when he believed that Jesus was truly "risen" (as
the story goes) from the dead?
Assuming spiritual beings exist, they don't need written revelation
since they can see God direct. A general in his office can talk
directly to the staff in the same room, but must use other means for
soldiers in the field. The devil knows God exists better than any of
us. He is still condemned.
If they exist, then being able to "see God" still did not stop some of
them from rebelling. Their rebellion is irrevocable, since they
rebelled in plain view. Our rebellion is revocable, since we rebel
almost in ignorance. If He appeared, then from that time on every
single rebellion or disobedience would immediately require banishment.
To have any hope of salvation then there must be a way out. Thus we
are called by faith, not by sight, or we would be in the same position
as the angels and demons.
The problem with the "God can't reveal himself without violating human
free will" is that virtually all of the Bible stories about God are
*about* God revealing himself. To say that free will means God
*can't* appear is to admit that the Bible is in error when it says God
*did* reveal himself. This is one of the problems with the stories
men tell about God--they not only are inconsistent with reality (God
does not actually appear outside of the stories), but they actually
contradict themselves (God cannot appear without violating free will,
but he did appear, in ways that go far beyond the minimum needed to
satisfy skeptics of his existence, without, men say, violating
anyone's free will).
The Bible stories are about God revealing aspects of Himself. As I
read the record He seems to send angels if He has a specific message
to give to certain people. I don't know how many times angels appear,
but if the Bible recorded all occurrences, then there haven't been
very many over a 4000 year period. It is a bit like Catholic Church
general meetings. Once every couple of hundred years seems to be
ample.
It would be more accurate to say God has "revealed" His workings
through the history of the Jewish people in the Old Testament times,
from the call, to the various victories and disastrous defeats they
had. As time went on they began to realise that God was using them to
show the world what He was like. Even their suffering had a purpose.
Eventually He turned up Himself in the form of Christ, and in
Christian teaching that is the closest resemblance we are going to get
this side of death or the Second Coming.
Now if God allows us to then crucify Him, we can hardly expect the
Church to have plain sailing.
Now why did we crucify Him?
And was there another power behind the urge to do so?
From time to time certain individuals may have received more than the
usual contact if you like. But by and large most of us depend on
faith, and that includes, for lack of a better term, an element of
free will. I also suspect it includes, for lack of a better term, an
element of predestination. But don't ask me to work out how God
contrives to balance both, because I don't know.
Bob Crowley
Wow! great theology! The devil works in mysterious ways. He helped some
people get up the moxie to crucify God.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story -- BLATANT COPYING |
09 Sep 2003 07:30:59 PM |
|
|
(Bob Crowley) wrote in message news:<adff117.0309090420.74374079@posting.google.com>...
manutter51@yahoo.com (Mark Nutter) wrote in message news:<fddfde37.0309030417.78b69eaf@posting.google.com>...
In one of your other letters you noted I snipped my post. I do this
for reasons of size, generally leaving your quote as is, although
occasionally I cut it a bit too. Otherwise we are going to end up
with an encyclopaedia by the time we get to the last post.
That's ok, I'll restore the snipped parts where needed. ;-)
---begin restored section---
Unless God is going to reveal Himself directly, then He has to use
human agents, with all their fallibility. Had He directly written
the
Bible Himself, in some indestructible font, on indestructible
paper,
with indestructible logic, with indestructible power, we would
hardly
be in a position to chose for or against Him.
---end restored section
Why not? Why would having a letter from God be any greater constraint
on our free will than becoming incarnate and living among us, working
great miracles? Did God give the scribes and Pharisees free will, and
were they able to exercise that free will in the presence of the
direct, tangible, in-person ministry of the so-called Son of God? Did
Paul exercise genuine free will on the road to Damascus? Did Thomas
exercise free will when he believed that Jesus was truly "risen" (as
the story goes) from the dead?
Assuming spiritual beings exist, they don't need written revelation
since they can see God direct. A general in his office can talk
directly to the staff in the same room, but must use other means for
soldiers in the field. The devil knows God exists better than any of
us. He is still condemned.
If they exist, then being able to "see God" still did not stop some of
them from rebelling. Their rebellion is irrevocable, since they
rebelled in plain view. Our rebellion is revocable, since we rebel
almost in ignorance. If He appeared, then from that time on every
single rebellion or disobedience would immediately require banishment.
| | | |
