[net.religion] Religion is Religion, not history

victorf@houca.UUCP (11/07/84)

>>Most of human history is written down in documents.  I guess we can't believe
>>any of those documents either.So we must not know anything about history.  Why
>>study it then? Why try to learn from past mistakes in history?  It could all
>>be a lie.
>>As far as I know,the Bible is the most historicaly acurate,and well documented
>>books on the earth.  If it doesn't have any credibility, then either does any 
>>other historical document.
>>--
>>Ken

I have actively avoided responding to this sort of statement in the past because
I feel that everyone is allowed to their personal delusions without interference
from anyone else. However, after reading this article I found a lump in my
throat. Did it come from intolerance? I don't think so. It came from          
frustration and not a little fear that there are people out there that could
convince themselves of something as illogical as the statement above. Ken
is an intelligent person, but he would have us throw out all of recorded
history because the validity of the Bible has been questioned. There is no 
chance of changing his mind, and I don't really want to. Part of his belief
rests in his accepting as fact the historical, sociallogical, and moral
infallibility of the Bible. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Ken). However, I think
that his belief should be labeled correctly.

I have talked to my share of deeply religious people, many of them in my family.
I think I understand, for the most part why they believe what they believe.
The magic word is FAITH. Not scientific evidence. Not historical proof. They
believe that the Bible is the absolute truth but they don't try to justify
it using hard evidence. The fact is that believing in God, the Bible or
anything of a religious nature requires a leap of faith. I get the feeling
Ken, that you are not willing to admit that. Face it. It's a fact. I can
easily accept anything you say if you are willing to admit that it is
faith that is the deep-down reason for it.
 
It bothers me that you would challenge, nay reject, all of history before you
would question the Bible. You say that the Bible is the most well documented
book in history, and is at least as valid as any other document, in a purely
objective sense. How can you believe this? I can understand your belief 
from a faith viewpoint but from an objective, scientific one?

Going back to what Ken said, I say that we can be pretty sure that say the
last 50 years of history is accurate because we have eye witnesses to it.
MILLIONS of them. That's what I call hard evidence! Now, we know they
came from somewhere, so there must have been stuff going on before then. We
can look at our evidence and be pretty sure that there was a Civil War. We
can go back further and as we do our picture gets more sketchy. Every
historian will admit that. I'm sure many would admit that we're not 100%
sure that Christopher Columbus was the one that discovered America. There
is room for uncertainty in history. There is no such room if one is a staunch
believer in a deity.

Let's take an example from history, I think any one will do. How about the
Revolutionary War? Now, the Revolutionary War was documented by thousands
of people on both sides of the Atlantic without any other detectable 
relationship between them. More important than this is that had no motive
for such an elaborate scheme to convince future generations of a war that
didn't take place.(I dare you, Ken to say that Paul and whoever else had
no possible motive for deception. I'm not saying he did, mind you...) And
to go a step further, if we found out today that there was no Boston Tea
Party, that it was merely an elaborate embellishment by hundreds of people
we could say "So what? We still have reason (read hard facts) to believe
that the rest of the war took place, FROM MORE THAN ONE SOURCE.                 This won't change our lives in the least."
Could you say that if a little thing like the Resurrection were
similarly disproven? It's an academic question because I know nothing
will convince you that the Resurrection didn't take place.

The basic point of all this is that noone should try to put their religious
beliefs on an historical, objective basis without admitting to the leap
of faith necessary. I'm just afraid that an intelligent person like Ken
may sometime use the same sort of "logic" in a situation in real life.
Outside of a religious context the descriptive word is not 'faithful' it
is 'stubborn', which is not a good thing.
-- 

------------------------------------------------------------
From: Scott Thompson
Who is at: ihnp4!hoqam!rst
Who boasts: 1)Fluency in English. 2) Prehensile hands. 
------------------------------------------------------------

yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/07/84)

I suspect Scott's article is doomed for 2 reasons
  1) it relies on logic
  2) it requires that Christians recognize that they must rely on belief
     rather than being 'right' in an absolute sense. They cannot accept
     such a thing. They acknowledge, for example, that Judaism at least
     WAS right. To concede now that Christianity may NOT be right and
     that this is only their belief seems to put Judaism a step up.

Sorry Scott, but being logical doesn't serve very well from what I've
seen. My compliments anyway.

ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (11/08/84)

> I have talked to my share of deeply religious people, many of them in my family.
> I think I understand, for the most part why they believe what they believe.
> The magic word is FAITH. Not scientific evidence. Not historical proof. They
> believe that the Bible is the absolute truth but they don't try to justify
> it using hard evidence. The fact is that believing in God, the Bible or
> anything of a religious nature requires a leap of faith. I get the feeling
> Ken, that you are not willing to admit that. Face it. It's a fact. I can
> easily accept anything you say if you are willing to admit that it is
> faith that is the deep-down reason for it.
>  
> -- 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Scott Thompson
> ------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Scott, it does take faith.  But there is evidence.

Are you trying to say that it's posible that the writers of the Bible got
together and concoted this scheme to decieve millions of people?  The Bible
was written over a period of thousands of years, and yet it all agrees with 
itself.  I know, you say that someone took the Bible and rewrote it to agree
with itself.  Why?  For what purpose?  And, if this is the case, why include
four accounts of the life of Christ?  Wouldn't that be considered a little
redundant?  And how did these scheming writers or rewriters hide the deep
truths about God so well in the epistles?  It must have been pretty difficult.
And to fake all those letters to those churches.  And what about the
geographical accuracy of the Bible?  How did the writers/rewriters get all
these details right?

It just seems to much evidence to me to write it all off as a big hoax.

Faith is necessary to believe the truths in the Bible, that is for sure.  But
it doesn't require tremendous loads of faith in my life to believe in the 
veracity of the Bible.
--
"...holding forth the                           Ken Nichols
 word of life...' Phil. 2:16                    ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken
----------------

rsk@stat-l (Rich Kulawiec) (11/10/84)

> From: ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193)
> 
> Are you trying to say that it's posible that the writers of the Bible got
> together and concoted this scheme to decieve millions of people?

	Sure, why not?  Listen, this is the same planet where millions of
people believe that the configuration of distant stars at their birth influences
their destiny, despite the utter lack of a shred of evidence confirming this;
the same planet where millions of people believe that good luck talismans
preserve them from injury; and so on.

	All in all, a great place to work if you'd like to pull the largest
hoax in history.  I just wish I'd though of it first.
-- 
Rich Kulawiec @ Purdue University Computing Center
{ decvax, ihnp4, uiucdcs } !pur-ee!rsk & { decwrl, hplabs, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk

aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (11/16/84)

>> = Ken Nichols
>  = Rich Kulawiec

>> Are you trying to say that it's possible that the writers of the Bible got
>> together and concocted this scheme to deceive millions of people?

> Sure, why not?

What on earth would it gain them?  If the early Christians had been like some
of the medieval Popes, I might doubt as you do.  But I really doubt that they
would have sacrificed their lives for something they knew to be a lie.  Surely
the persecution of Christians is documented in non-Christian history.

Not only that, it is curious how closely archaeological discoveries in the
Mideast agree with Biblical passages.  Surely you're not going to claim that
this was done by hundreds of people over hundreds of years just to put over
an elaborate hoax?

-- 
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
"I'm not asking for anyone's bleeding charity."
"Then do.  At once.  Ask for the Bleeding Charity."

rsk@stat-l (Rich Kulawiec) (11/17/84)

>>> = Ken Nichols
>>  = Rich Kulawiec
>   = Jeff Sargent

>>> Are you trying to say that it's possible that the writers of the Bible got
>>> together and concocted this scheme to deceive millions of people?

>> Sure, why not?

> What on earth would it gain them?

	It would be a great joke on all the millions of idiots down through
the years silly enough to believe them.  Hell, I'd do it if I thought I could
pull it off.
-- 
Rich Kulawiec @ Purdue University Computing Center
{ decvax, ihnp4, uiucdcs } !pur-ee!rsk & { decwrl, hplabs, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk

aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (11/20/84)

This is getting a bit funny:

>>>> = Ken Nichols
>>>  = Rich Kulawiec
>>   = Jeff Sargent
>    = Rich Kulawiec

>>>> Are you trying to say that it's possible that the writers of the Bible got
>>>> together and concocted this scheme to deceive millions of people?

>>> Sure, why not?

>> What on earth would it gain them?

>	It would be a great joke on all the millions of idiots down through
> the years silly enough to believe them.  Hell, I'd do it if I thought I
> could pull it off.

Why is it that you consider people whose lives have been and are being
changed infinitely for the better through belief in Christ "idiots" and
"silly"?  Just because such belief involves giving yourself to a higher
Power, giving up all the baggage of self-importance and all the grief that
comes from trying to run your life entirely under your own power, losing your
life that you may find it (one of the many paradoxes of Christianity whose
truth I am beginning to learn)?

Also, what do you have against people that you would even want to deceive them?

-- 
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
"I'm not asking for anyone's bleeding charity."
"Then do.  At once.  Ask for the Bleeding Charity."

rsk@stat-l (Rich Kulawiec) (11/20/84)

This is getting really funny:

>>>>> = Ken Nichols
>>>>  = Rich Kulawiec
>>>   = Jeff Sargent
>>    = Rich Kulawiec
>     = Jeff Sargent

>>>>> Are you trying to say that it's possible that the writers of the Bible got
>>>>> together and concocted this scheme to deceive millions of people?

>>>> Sure, why not?

>>> What on earth would it gain them?

>>	It would* be a great joke on all the millions of idiots down through
>> the years silly enough to believe them.  Hell, I'd do it if I thought I
>> could pull it off.

> Why is it that you consider people whose lives have been and are being
> changed infinitely for the better through belief in Christ "idiots" and
> "silly"? 

	Time for lessons in reading again.  Note the presence of the word
"would" in the above statement.  (I even flagged it with a "*" for you.)

	Before you ask *why* I feel some way, you'd best be certain that
I *do* feel that way.

> Just because such belief involves giving yourself to a higher
> Power, giving up all the baggage of self-importance and all the grief that
> comes from trying to run your life entirely under your own power, losing your
> life that you may find it (one of the many paradoxes of Christianity whose
> truth I am beginning to learn)?

	This is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

> Also, what do you have against people that you would even want to deceive them?

	Amazing.  You've leapt to the conclusion that I have something
"against people" without a shred of evidence.  9 out of 10 for leaping
ability; minus several million for logical thinking.

	I don't have anything "against people", with certain exceptions,
both in the way of "things" and "people".  I just think it'd be a great joke.
-- 
Rich Kulawiec @ Purdue University Computing Center
{ decvax, ihnp4, uiucdcs } !pur-ee!rsk & { decwrl, hplabs, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/26/84)

>>> = Ken Nichols
>>  = Rich Kulawiec
>   = Jeff Sargent

>>> Are you trying to say that it's possible that the writers of the Bible got
>>> together and concocted this scheme to deceive millions of people?

>> Sure, why not?

>What on earth would it gain them?  If the early Christians had been like some
>of the medieval Popes, I might doubt as you do.  But I really doubt that they
>would have sacrificed their lives for something they knew to be a lie.  Surely
>the persecution of Christians is documented in non-Christian history.

Why did Jim Jones make the claims he did?  He died "for" them too.  Perhaps
if people were able to see the future, your argument might make sense.  I
guess that you "sheep" don't understand the motivations of your leaders.

>Not only that, it is curious how closely archaeological discoveries in the
>Mideast agree with Biblical passages.  Surely you're not going to claim that
>this was done by hundreds of people over hundreds of years just to put over
>an elaborate hoax?

It is curious how closely knowledge of the Civil War agrees with passages in
"Gone With The Wind".  Obviously "Gone With The Wind" was written and
transmitted by those inspired to inerrancy by God.  Otherwise we'd have to
claim that the evidence of the civil war is an elaborate hoax, right?
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh