lab@qubix.UUCP (07/11/83)
***** Reposting of 6/30 article that was apparently black-holed. This was *****
*** before I saw the stats that I was tied for 58th in Usenet contributions ***
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
I am dismayed to read that Tim will no longer respond to me on the grounds
"he always ignores the substances of my (and everyone else's)replies,
preferring to pick out a tiny bit here and there." If someone has already
replied to the substance, I fail to see why I should overload the net
merely to repeat what has already been said. On the other hand, I often
find that points that some would overlook would settle as seeds in the
minds of others. I consider these worth replying to - rationally.
Because of either hardware or uucp problems, I do not always get all the
discussion - or else it arrives at a later date. (I have just read Tim's
reply to Silvio; Silvio's article hasn't arrived.) This may cause others to
think that I am ignoring many things. Honestly, I do read all that comes in.
Summary of what appears below:
Responses merited by Byron Howes and David Sher on the Resurrection
More discussion on "what is {good,evil,right,wrong}?"
Chuck's questions on Adam and Eve dying
For Bruce Fowler, a large metal-cased object I found while kayaking
Rational Discussions with Tim
(The completion of Mr. Mincemeat's anecdote will have to wait)
Byron summarizes his own points: "...the oldest documents available omit
discussion of some of the most doctrinally crucial points of Christianity.
It is not unreasonable that later copyists of these versions would add and
embellish on the original to fit their own beliefs or to meet some standard
of doctrinal purity of the time."
1. Why are many crucial doctrines missing? Mark presents the Suffering
Servant in a gospel of action. The Roman culture would be bored stiff with
fulfillment of prophecy, but would pay attention to mighty deeds. Matthew,
Luke, and John (whom I strongly doubt relied at all on Mark) address
different facets of Jesus's ministry, and thus would need the details.
Still, Mark provides many of the crucial doctrines, including Jesus's claim
that he would rise from the dead, that Jesus indeed died, and that the tomb
he was laid in was empty three days later. In 16:7 Mark notes that Jesus
would indeed be seen "as He said unto you."
2. Did later copyists embellish (for their own or others' beliefs)? If they
did, they could have done a lot better job. The probability of a "political
document" would be essentially zero - the Christians had no chance of
establishing their own political entity by any means.
3. Do the "oldest documents available omit discussion of some of the most
doctrinally crucial points of Christianity"? The letters to the Thessalonians
are considered older and very definitely mention the Resurrection. Further,
the crucial doctrines were already out in verbal form long before Mark's
gospel - the early church's constant sermon was "Jesus risen from the dead."
A couple of sidelights: Frank Morison ("Who Moved the Stone?") did his work
using only the "Marcan fragment," i.e., ending at Mark 16:8. An interesting
study is "The Last Twelve Verses of Mark" by John Burgon, one of the
indefatigable Bible scholars of the last century; he presents a very strong
case that Mark 16:9-20 are indeed authentic.
David Sher's approach presumes the supernatural - a bit difficult to show
in court. But I would still need one answer from him: if Jesus was an
antichrist ("in the place of Christ"), how would the REAL Messiah be known?
The Hebrew Scriptures promise a Redeemer; how will we know Him? That which
is false must be measured by that which is true. What is the standard?
The above are both open-ended; I probably have not answered all of Byron's
questions (and there are probably several unasked). During a slower time, I
may be able to devote more of an article to them. I welcome any mail (candles
from Rome would probably be extinguished by drops of melting mailbox frost).
While David and I might disagree on Jesus, I really appreciated his article
on prayer. Every point was good, yet there is another that I often find:
"Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?" ("To obey is better than sacrifice.")
I'd like to see more of the "What is {good,evil,right,wrong}" discussion.
To avoid eruptions, perhaps we should dig a little deeper - what are the
basic statements upon which our definitions of the above would be based?
One could say A is good and B is bad, but what are the criteria? What are
the criteria for the criteria...? Get to the root of a belief system. Alex
Wexelblat suggests "it is EVIL ... to hurt someone unnecessarily" The
question then becomes, what is "necessary"? I don't think it goes far enough.
(An interesting analogy arose recently with the dioxin scare, with the
statement "there are no dangerous substances - only dangerous QUANTITIES.")
The basis for Chuck's questions is "They ..., as we all know, did not die."
Oh? They did not die "symbolically." Death entered the world by sin (Romans 5).
They died SPIRITUALLY (Ephesians 2:1 portrays all men), and, as noted by
others, organic decay began. But there is another side to the question:
what is "death"? From what I read, the Bible says that death is not
CESSATION; it is SEPARATION: soul from body, man from God - and Adam and
Eve from the presence of God, which indeed happened that day.
Found something for Bruce when I went out kayaking the other day. Not the
best day - a lot of ice floes, some friendly seals, and - huh? A large,
metal-cased object! This thing could explode in normal temperatures!
(Better keep it in chill, in case someone tries to melt the igloo...)
Taken from an address given at a childhood education seminar in
1973 by a professor of educational psychiatry at Harvard
(Reaffirmed in a phone conversation (not by me), March 1983):
"Every child in America entering school at the age of five is
mentally ill, because he comes to school with certain allegiances
toward our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his
parents, toward a belief in a supernatural Being, toward the
sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity.
"It's up to you teachers to make all of these sick children
well by creating the international children of the future."
And from "A Religion for a New Age" in "The Humanist" magazine
January/February 1983, p. 26:
"...The battle for humankind's future must be waged and
won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly
perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith...
"The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict
between the old and the new -- the rotting corpse of Christianity
... and the new faith of Humanism."
Charles Francis Potter (signer of Humanist Manifesto I and
honorary president of National Education Association),
"Humanism: A New Religion" (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1930) p. 128:
"Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and
every American public school is a school of Humanism."
The humanists have already stated their position, Bruce. And they are
definitely "attack[ing] specific religious groups" - and with public funds.
Finally (this is longer than I wish) on to net.religion's #1 contributor.
(Even if I'm #2, I'm not going to push for #1.)
"There is no god but man." OK, claimant - please prove. Remember Saumya's
statement "atheists need at least as much faith as theists."
When confronted with the problem of conflicting wills, Tim simply defined
it out of existence. I find such unacceptable, for he and I conflict.
Tim wonders why God doesn't put an autograph on things if He wants us to know
His existence. The Bible gives good and bad news. The good news is: He has;
the bad news is: because He has, man has no excuse for not knowing Him, and
will be judged for what he turned to do. (Romans 1:18-32, especially v.20)
Also see Psalm 19. "All that I have seen allows me to trust Him for all I
have not seen."
Tim's article that just arrived emphasized his "rationality" as being what
turned him away from God. The seminar I attended a couple of weeks ago
addressed this. When the physical drive gets stronger than the spiritual
and psychological, a person finds himself at odds with the Bible. The
choice has to be made - for the Bible, to rebuild the spiritual, or concede
and let the physical run its course. It could be nice to get back to the
original balance of the drives, but an unfortunate aspect of the physical
is that when it goes up, it never gets back down to where it was before.
On the entire subject of people believing in God (which Tim attributes to
"culture," I have an open question - has there yet been found a culture
whose language did not already contain a word for "God"? Who introduced
such a concept to them?
"My implication is ... that [C.S.Lewis's] conversion did not in fact come
from those silly arguments." Mr. Lewis gave us his testimony; would the
opposing barrister kindly present his evidence? And would he care to
comment on Lewis's famous declaration about "Jesus - God or madman"?
"Such arguments could only convert someone who already (from some other
source) had decided that he or she wanted to be converted." The counter
cases are too numerous to cite, but perhaps an associate of the noted
atheist Bob Ingersoll will do for now. He and Bob had decided together to
write the book that would forever destroy Christianity. Lew Wallace did not
want to be converted, but didn't get far in the second chapter before he
found himself confessing "My Lord and my God."
Also apologizingly long,
Larry Bickford, {ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!qubix!lab {amd70,ittvax}!qubix!lab