On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:48:26 -0400, "Raymond E. Griffith"
<rgriffit@ctc.net> wrote:

"Hector" <Melitus@Dithryrambic.net> wrote in message
news:ghrcf0tdoqk3lu4p7qerss6plmeepu9jl0@4ax.com...

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:50:51 -0400, "Raymond E. Griffith"
<rgriffit@ctc.net> wrote:

"Hector" <Melitus@Dithryrambic.net> wrote in message
news:t6caf09anlhqdghpbv1l1as1lkabb0cvla@4ax.com...

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:37:44 -0400, Raymond Griffith
<tiffirgREVERSE@ctc.net> wrote:

-Hector- wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 00:11:04 GMT, W. Syme
<Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:22:19 +0200, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl>

<<minor redaction>>

How so? The Bible says even Christians are unrighteous.

"What the bible says" is immaterial. Christians rarely live

according

to the bible or know what it says, and the bible itself

almost every statement it makes.

Am I able to prove to you that the Bible is legitimate by
presenting examples of scripture from the Bible? If I were to do

would you change your attitude towards it?

Quite curious,
Hector

Hector, I don't know about Syme, but I would be interested in your
examples. But please be advised that declaring the truth of a part

does

not imply the truth of a whole.

I would also be interested in what level of inspiration you

to

the Scriptures.

But it would not be an academic interpretation of Scripture or even

demonstration of the truth of it that will change people's minds

it. What will change people's minds is a demonstration of its

effectiveness.

When we have people who quote Scripture, but are unafraid to lie,

who

are unabashedly vile and hateful, they demonstrate that the

has not changed their hearts! *THAT*, more than anything, is a

for people not to believe it.

Your note is a bit of wisdom, Raymond, and I commend you for
it, if you are not offended by commendation. I phrased my note to
elicit a particular response and concordantly phrased it such that I
am under no obligation to produce examples of the Bible's

If I'm challenged to produce evidence, it is nothing more than a red
herring.

Actually, I don't think that. I see the challenge to produce evidence

demonstrative of the fact that so many people claim to be Christian

without

evidence in the life! And many people who have read the Bible honestly

not see that it can be the divine, inerrant text that is claimed for

There are enough examples of Christian charity and humble
living that goes unnoticed, and I'm certain that many unbelievers will
never regard the same. They're much too interested in ferreting out
hypocrisy where they are able.

Granted. But don't Christians do the same thing? We revile unbelievers

nonbelievers as almost totally wicked, and yet there are examples of

and humble living among those groups that we do not notice. Blindness

not appear to be on the atheist's side alone, sir. We have an abundance

it ourselves.

And while I'm in the mood, I'll
express my humble opinion that the intellectual prowess of most of the
atheists I have encountered is less than formidable, and many are sub
par.

Hmmm. At least you express this as your opinion. But again, the same

could be said about many Christians and probably most fundamentalists.

Do you really want to go there? A spitting match? Who can insult their
adversaries the most effectively? Or who can revile others (in direct
opposition to Christ's own commands, yet!).

The claim that most atheists know the Scriptures better than a
learned Christian or theologian is unadulterated arrogance and pure
bunk.

Well, I would not say "most", but definitely "some". And if it is

for a person who is an unbeliever to claim knowledge of things he does

in the Scripture (and I agree that it most definitely is arrogant), it is
equally arrogant for a person who is a Christian to claim knowledge of
things he does not, as say in the sciences.

Again, unbelievers do not have a lock on sins. Christians sin, and
grievously at times.

And if a person does not see the Bible as divine, then so be
it. I know it to be the inspired Word of God, discrepancies et al.

I believe it to be inspired. "Inerrant in every point it touches upon,

physical and spiritual"? -- no.

Further, to insinuate that the servant of the Lord needs to
accommodate the inordinate skepticism and angst of the impudent,
bellicose atheist is a foolish gesture at best.

Ahhh, but then the inordinate skepticism and angst of the impudent,
bellicose believer is to be accommodated in the realms of science, then?

would say that is a foolish gesture.

With that tirade out of the way, I'll state once more for the
sake of posterity, that my endeavor is to illuminate that the agents
of impiety in these discussions want it both ways. Many have the
unmitigated gall to challenge the legitimacy of the Scriptures by
pointing to nothing more than alleged internal discrepancies, all the
while decrying the use of internal evidences of Scripture to
demonstrate its legitimacy, dismissing it as logical fallacy.

Your tirade is understandable -- but entirely one-sided, and therefore

of balance. You might wish to remember that "judgment must first begin at
the house of God." Furthermore, we are told to clean up our own act,

our own beams out of our eyes, to be obedient *ourselves* to the Lord so
that we can be an effective witness to those who do not believe.

the lost for wallowing in their sins is like condemning a pig for loving

pen. But when Christians love the pig pen, it is a shameful thing.

I don't doubt your sincerity, Raymond, however it seems to me
that you are imputing upon me behavior of certain others.

You appear
to be translating my attempt to illuminate what I believe to be a
frequently employed double-standard by members of the atheist
community involved in these debates as an act of unwarranted
condemnation of sinful behavior.

Personally, I don't see that I have
been unwarrantably or excessively judgmental in this, if that is your
perspective.

On the whole, the majority of my notes are relatively benign,
and I seldom, if ever, engage in epithet-hurling slugfests.

As a
caveat, I have never threatened to kill-file any poster, nor have I
ostracized anyone in kind. At times, I have questioned professed
Christians when they have referred to others as "fools" or "idiots," a
behavior the Scriptures expressly rejects. (I wonder if persons who
rely on the invective have a genuine fear and love of God.)

I make no
pretense of being "perfect" or entirely above the fray and am just as
capable of erroneous thinking as others. Though, I think it a mistake
to cast my criticism of pretense, condescension, and questionable
tactics as prejudicial and improper.

If a Christian may be
justifiably criticized for his hypocrisy, judgements, and behavior, so
may the obstreperous antagonist.

Alternately, if Scripture is to be
the guide as the Word of God, then these things should be done
infrequently and without malice.
Ultimately I think, too, that you are preaching to the choir
on this one.

Perhaps, anyone with some degree of perspicacity can explain why this
is a credible practice. I'll listen.

As a mathematician, I recognize that it only takes one false statement in

completely connected group of statements of which it is contested that

are true to make the collection false. This is logic.

As long as Christians try to make the ancient writers of Scripture speak
with a modern voice, there will be those who will demonstrate that this

untenable.

Perhaps our own viewpoints on "inspiration" have become warped in a
reactionary adversion to the sins of the world around us? That the

is inspired I freely grant. But when you go beyond that you must begin to
define your terms and prove your point. The doctrines of inspiration and
inerrancy have become fused in modern fundamentalist thought, and this
produces a host of problems -- not the least of which is that the

themselves do not assert such things of themselves! At least, not if

in context.

So before we harp too much on the unbelievers' inadequacies, shall we
proceed to address our own?

Though, these conversations are taking tangential paths away
from the original proposition, I know that many individual Believers
continuously examine their lives, introspectively and collectively.
But this examination must involve the Word of God. If it were not an
inspired work designed to communicate to the Body of Christ, across
the expanse of time and across its breadth, unassailable precepts and
tenets as a foundational platform for behavior then Christians would
be unable to address personal or corporate inadequacies. If the Bible
were not designed to communicate to the Bride of Christ, along the
continuum of time, these fundamental and absolute truths then perhaps
the Bible code miners would be legitimate in their avocation, weeding
out the enigmatic, encoded will of God from the morass of antiquated
platitudes, bromides, and irrelevant anecdotes. The Bible either has
meaning for the Servants of God in this day and age or it doesn't.
I'm convinced that it does.

Peeling a tangential,
Hector