bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) (03/19/85)
>From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) >Subject: Re: what does it mean to talk to God [a brief attempt at an answer] >Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian >Message-ID: <414@cybvax0.UUCP> > >In article <366@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> scott@gargoyle.UUCP ( Deerwester): >> ...There are a lot of reasons why I believe that Jesus >> Christ is really the Son of God, and that He really did die for my >> sins. [Some objective ones are:] >> >> - the resurrection (see "Who Moved The Stone?") >> - fulfilled prophesies in the life of Jesus >> - the testimony and lives of people who were with Him >> - His words and wisdom (C.S. Lewis' "Lord, lunatic or liar" argument) >> - the Earth (the creation implies creator argument) > >These are hardly "objective" reasons to believe in JC or God or whatever. >The first three depend on the unjustified assumption that the Bible is true. >The lunatic/liar argument is a false dilemma: the conclusion that the Bible >is the product of liars resolves the dilemma. As for the creation argument, >try it in net.origins and give us something to laugh at. > >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh > In the case of the first four arguments, that the Bible is true needs to be established only to the extent that the Gospels are reliable as historical documents. This can be done in the same manner as with any ancient document, through textual criticism, archaeology, etc. This sort of work is discussed at length in Josh McDowell's book _Evidence_That_Demands_a_Verdict_ (which has certainly been mentioned in this newsgroup before). His argument is basically that the accuracy of the NT historical books (Gospels and Acts) are much better established in terms of the number of manuscripts, the age of the manuscripts, independent confirmation (Josephus' history for instance), than many classical works of similar age, such a Caesar's writings, so that to throw out the NT as historical work means to throw out most of classical western history. The book is guaranteed to put you to sleep, but that's because it's so careful. The point is that the truth of the Bible (in this context, anyway) is _at_least_ debatable, and may not be simply dismissed. Arguments 1-4 then become quite formidable. The argument from creation, classically, is a lot more than disputing about fossils and dating with radio-isotopes. (I think Christians waste a lot of time on this.) The real issue deals with harder questions such as "Why are there physical laws?" and "If matter has existed for eternity, why hasn't everything run down yet?" -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Bennet @ Univerity of Maryland Comp Sci Dept ..!ihnp4!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!bennet "Do you believe in God, Winston?"
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/21/85)
In article <119@gymble.UUCP> bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) writes: > In the case of the first four arguments, that the Bible is true needs to be > established only to the extent that the Gospels are reliable as historical > documents. This can be done in the same manner as with any ancient > document, through textual criticism, archaeology, etc. This sort of work is > discussed at length in Josh McDowell's book _Evidence_That_Demands_a_Verdict_ > (which has certainly been mentioned in this newsgroup before). His argument > is basically that the accuracy of the NT historical books (Gospels and Acts) > are much better established in terms of the number of manuscripts, the age > of the manuscripts, independent confirmation (Josephus' history for instance), > than many classical works of similar age, such a Caesar's writings, so > that to throw out the NT as historical work means to throw out most of > classical western history. The book is guaranteed to put you to sleep, but > that's because it's so careful. There is no denying that the Bible is historical. The question is how much of its history is true. I don't care how laboriously McDowell details confirmations of common knowledge of the time, like where cities were or who was emperor. He provides ZERO valid evidence of the extraordinary claims of miracles. In a similar manner, I could "prove" to you that "Gone With The Wind" is a "true" historical text, and that Scarlet and Rhett existed. > The point is that the truth of the Bible (in this context, anyway) is > _at_least_ debatable, and may not be simply dismissed. Arguments 1-4 > then become quite formidable. Some claims in the bible should be given a great deal of credence. Others, such as miracles, we have no reason to believe in, because they are unsupported. Thus your arguments 1-4 remain unimpressive. > The argument from creation, classically, is a lot more than disputing about > fossils and dating with radio-isotopes. (I think Christians waste a lot > of time on this.) The real issue deals with harder questions such as > "Why are there physical laws?" and "If matter has existed for eternity, > why hasn't everything run down yet?" If an argument is purported to explain a great many things, it may be attacked for ANY where reality contradicts it. Evolution is a major contradiction of literal interpretations of genesis. So is most of modern day astronomy. An simple analogy would be a snake oil gaurenteed to cure cancer and cleanse your soul. When you take the snake oil, and your cancer kills you, the relatives go to the salesman. "It didn't cure him", they yell. Should they believe his claim that your soul was cleansed? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (03/21/85)
In article <119@gymble.UUCP> bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) writes: > >In the case of the first four arguments, that the Bible is true needs to be >established only to the extent that the Gospels are reliable as historical >documents. This can be done in the same manner as with any ancient >document, through textual criticism, archaeology, etc. This sort of work is >discussed at length in Josh McDowell's book _Evidence_That_Demands_a_Verdict_ >(which has certainly been mentioned in this newsgroup before). His argument >is basically that the accuracy of the NT historical books (Gospels and Acts) >are much better established in terms of the number of manuscripts, the age >of the manuscripts, independent confirmation (Josephus' history for instance), >than many classical works of similar age, such a Caesar's writings, so >that to throw out the NT as historical work means to throw out most of >classical western history. The book is guaranteed to put you to sleep, but >that's because it's so careful. There's a fallacy of argumentation here that has been discussed in this newsgroup before, but perhaps needs reiterating for the new folks. That there are many copies of the New Testament is not in dispute (there are some significant variations but that's another issue.) Similar copies, however, do not prove accuracy but rather reliability. That is the copies attest to the fact that the NT said what we think it said, not to the accuracy of what it said. To show the fallacy in a more trivial light: There are probably more copies of "Alice In Wonderland" than there are early NT documents. Should future historians believe Alice in Wonderland is true? Despite Josephus Histories which are based on Biblical lore we don't have independant confirmation of any but the barest facts. (Josephus History confirms the Biblical Story in the same way that Bullfinch's Mythology confirms the Greek and Roman legends.) If anything, extra-Biblical writings confound some of the finer theological points of the Bible -- which is often the reason they were not included in the Bible. >The point is that the truth of the Bible (in this context, anyway) is >_at_least_ debatable, and may not be simply dismissed. Arguments 1-4 >then become quite formidable. It is certainly debateable, but Josh MacDowell is a shaky foundation for such a debate. >The argument from creation, classically, is a lot more than disputing about >fossils and dating with radio-isotopes. (I think Christians waste a lot >of time on this.) The real issue deals with harder questions such as >"Why are there physical laws?" and "If matter has existed for eternity, >why hasn't everything run down yet?" Cosmologists have spend a great deal of time on precisely this question, without need for postulating sentient entities. There are many perfectly good theories running around that are far more parsimonious that those of the creationists. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) (03/22/85)
>From mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Wed Mar 20 22:40:29 1985 >Message-ID: <422@cybvax0.UUCP> > >In article <119@gymble.UUCP> bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) writes: >> [That] the Bible is true needs to be >> established only to the extent that the Gospels are reliable as historical >> documents... This sort of work is discussed >> at length in Josh McDowell's book _Evidence_That_Demands_a_Verdict_ ... >> His argument >> is basically that the accuracy of the NT historical books (Gospels and Acts) >> are much better established ... >> than many classical works of similar age, such a Caesar's writings, so >> that to throw out the NT as historical work means to throw out most of >> classical western history. > >There is no denying that the Bible is historical.... I don't care how >laboriously McDowell details >confirmations of common knowledge of the time, like where cities were or who >was emperor. He provides ZERO valid evidence of the extraordinary claims >of miracles... > >Some claims in the bible should be given a great deal of credence. Others, >such as miracles, we have no reason to believe in, because they are >unsupported. Thus your arguments 1-4 remain unimpressive. > By way of reminder, we were discussing the validity of 5 arguments for Christianity which came from Scott Deerwester (scott@gargoyle) as follows: - the resurrection (see "Who Moved The Stone?") - fulfilled prophesies in the life of Jesus - the testimony and lives of people who were with Him - His words and wisdom (C.S. Lewis' "Lord, lunatic or liar" argument) - the Earth (the creation implies creator argument) These first 4 arguments do not require the truth of any biblical accounts of miraculous events: The argument based on the resurrection is basically this: 1. The rapid rise of Christianity was assisted by the early christians' claims of Christ's resurrection. (Book of Acts; claiming things is not miraculous.) 2. There were people who would have preferred that Christianity not rise so fast, the Jewish establishment for one. 3. It would have been useful for such people to produce Jesus' body in order to throw some cold water on St. Peter & Co. 4. This apparently did not happen. (Josephus does not record it, though he does record the resurrection as fact. Josephus was not a Christian. I'm not sure how strong our general knowlege of Christ's time is, but both the Romans and the Jews generally were good keepers of records.) So what became of it? 5. No one would have likely stolen the body since it was guarded by Roman soldiers, who were not people to be messed with. 6. The Romans themselves would have had no reason to hide to body. If they cared enough to take any action at all, it would have been in opposition to the Christians. 7. It is unlikely that the early Christian fathers were deliberate liars since they had a funny habit of being martyred for what they said. That's a little far to take a joke... 8. So where's the body? The fufilments of prophcy often refer to non-miraculous events in Christ's life that were predicted in prophetic writing in the OT. One example is that Christ would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. Selling someone out for money is not a miracle. Testimony of witnesses is pretty much what history is about. The trilemma argument requires only information about Christs words. Speaking is not miraculous. I'm sorry for all the vebiage (I'd never read an article that was this long), but I think the objection that these arguments require acceptance of miraculous accounts is false; they do try to establish the truth of such. Of course, if you assume at first that any miraculous story is false, I suppose it would be hard to convince you otherwise by arguments. >> The argument from creation, classically, is a lot more than disputing about >> fossils and dating with radio-isotopes. (I think Christians waste a lot >> of time on this.) The real issue deals with harder questions such as >> "Why are there physical laws?" and "If matter has existed for eternity, >> why hasn't everything run down yet?" > >If an argument is purported to explain a great many things, it may be >attacked for ANY where reality contradicts it. Evolution is a major >contradiction of literal interpretations of genesis. So is most of modern >day astronomy. I agree. But there is no fundimental conflict between belief in God and belief in evolution; God is capable of creating the world in any way he pleases. I do not see that there is any real conflict between Genesis and the theory of evolution; I think you can show from the text that a "day" is not 24 hours, etc., etc. By the way, why _are_ there physical laws? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Bennet @ Univerity of Maryland Comp Sci Dept ..!ihnp4!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!bennet "Do you believe in God, Winston?"
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/24/85)
In article <123@gymble.UUCP> bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) writes: > By way of reminder, we were discussing the validity of 5 arguments for > Christianity which came from Scott Deerwester (scott@gargoyle) as follows: > > - the resurrection (see "Who Moved The Stone?") > - fulfilled prophesies in the life of Jesus > - the testimony and lives of people who were with Him > - His words and wisdom (C.S. Lewis' "Lord, lunatic or liar" argument) > - the Earth (the creation implies creator argument) > > These first 4 arguments do not require the truth of any biblical accounts > of miraculous events: > > The argument based on the resurrection is basically this: The resurrection claim is either a miracle or a lie. Unless you want to choose another possibility. Support one. > 1. The rapid rise of Christianity was assisted by the early christians' > claims of Christ's resurrection. (Book of Acts; claiming things is > not miraculous.) The rapid rise of Hitler was boosted by early Nazis' claims of racial superiority. That's not miraculous, but why do you think that sort of argument proves something? > 2. There were people who would have preferred that Christianity not rise > so fast, the Jewish establishment for one. The same could be said of Nazis. So? > 3. It would have been useful for such people to produce Jesus' body in > order to throw some cold water on St. Peter & Co. Evidently you're rather ignorant of conditions around 30 AD. Forensics, which would allow reliable identification, were undeveloped. After a few days, one corpse looks very much like another. And since it is simple to doctor a corpse to produce the wounds and other criteria for identification, who would believe that a presented body was JC? And in an era without mass communications, you'd have to set up a travelling road show with the corpse to go to all the places where the rumors were. Assuming of course that the body wasn't simply stolen, or the burial story wasn't just made up (and the body thrown away in whatever manner the Romans disposed of corpses of political opponents.) > 4. This apparently did not happen. (Josephus does not record it, though > he does record the resurrection as fact. Josephus was not a Christian. > I'm not sure how strong our general knowlege of Christ's time is, but > both the Romans and the Jews generally were good keepers of records.) > So what became of it? It did not happen because the Romans were not as ignorant of their time period as you are. > 5. No one would have likely stolen the body since it was guarded by > Roman soldiers, who were not people to be messed with. Hey, if I'm going to construct a story about a resurrection, I'm going to make it as dramatic and satisfying as possible. Sure, let's add some Roman guards to the story. People who will believe in angels rolling rocks and JC coming back to life are surely not going to scoff at nasty Roman guards wetting their pants in fright. They'll eat it up.... > 6. The Romans themselves would have had no reason to hide to body. If > they cared enough to take any action at all, it would have been in > opposition to the Christians. They did oppose the Christians. As I recall, they did nasty things to a fair number of them. That's much more practical than trying to produce a corpse and claiming "see, this is JC and he's dead" to crowds of people who don't believe your claims of your emporer's godhood in the first place. > 7. It is unlikely that the early Christian fathers were deliberate liars > since they had a funny habit of being martyred for what they said. > That's a little far to take a joke... Every religion has martyrs. That doesn't make them all correct. Gee, look at all the Nazis who died for their beliefs. They couldn't have been liars, now could they? :-( > 8. So where's the body? Rotted with the bodies of other billions, I suppose. > The fufilments of prophcy often refer to non-miraculous events in Christ's > life that were predicted in prophetic writing in the OT. One example is > that Christ would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. Selling someone > out for money is not a miracle. Every religious leader in the world claims to be fulfilling prophecies. If I'm telling stories about JC fulfilling prophecies, I might as well embroider them to make him fulfill as many and as accurately as possible. After all, how is anyone going to unconvince the thousands I'm telling the stories to? All I have to do is call them a liar. > Testimony of witnesses is pretty much what history is about. That does not mean we should believe everything witnesses say. Hey, other religions have witnesses too. Why do you believe only Christian witnesses? > The trilemma argument requires only information about Christs words. > Speaking is not miraculous. The trilemma argument applies equally well to the words of Buddha, Zoroaster, and a host of others. Why dop you believe only in JC's? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (04/01/85)
<The fact that netnews works is a miracle> Found in article <123@gymble.UUCP> by bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet): >...Of course, if you assume at first that any miraculous story is false, I >suppose it would be hard to convince you otherwise by arguments. Gee, you mean we should assume that a miraculous story is TRUE until proved otherwise!? If it is hard to convince people of something (anything) by arguments, on what basis do YOU believe in it? Sheesh! Just yesterday I exploded, and one of my shoes landed on top of a passing freight train. By the time the train reached its destination (St. Louis), I had totally re-grown from a small toenail clipping in my left sock. This feat registered 4.2 on the Miracle Scale. Unfortunately, only a couple of people witnessed this, but I KNOW you will assume this miraculous story is true, so why worry about proof? Merlyn Leroy "...a dimension between stupidity and substance, between science and superficiality, a place we call...The Usenet Zone"