randals (03/18/83)
I've seen lots of stuff come across the net recently (mostly from Tek...
geez!) about the interpretation of the Bible as the literal truth.
I'm now going to put my tail on the line and speak. Here goes...
(my asbestos suit is on, and I *do* respond to mail!)
The printed or spoken word is merely a *concept*. That is, it is a
representation of an actual experience. Concepts are NOT an experience.
To confuse the two is like going into a restaurant and eating the menu.
The Bible is an accurate description of real, true events that happened
some time ago. (Note: this is my belief... even if you don't agree with
me on this point, the meta-argument still applies. Read on.)
However, it is *only* that... A DESCRIPTION. Pure concept. The concept
was *made up* by those who actually wrote down the words. Please!!!
Listen carefully to what I am saying. I didn't say that God did or
didn't say the words that were written down; all I said was that, in the
form that we can hold in our hands, it is pure total concept... not an
experience.
Someone in this group recently pointed out that if you ask five eyewitnesses to
an accident what they saw, they will give you five different stories.
That's real similar to five different menus for the exact same food.
The experience of God really happened (note: my belief again). However,
since you can't write down experience, you can only write down the concepts,
conclusions, and decisions you made, and all sorts of stuff that *you* *made*
*up*!!! There is *no* alternative! The Bible is *useless* when taken
at face value (as a menu)!
Note to fundamentalist christians who defend the literal truth of the
Bible: Stop Eating the Menu! The events happened, yes, but the Bible
is only what it is, a record of those events! If you believe the Bible
is any more than it is, all you can do is make someone wrong who
doesn't agree with you. Live the Bible... your actions will speak much
louder than your arguments! Eat the Meal! Anything else is bullsh*t
and you know it.
[end of real data]
So there. There should be enough data in this message for people on
BOTH sides of the argument to see what's going on. If not, I'll elaborate.
Randal L. ("Wordsmith") Schwartz
Tektronix Engineering Computing Systems (the UNIX folks)
Wilsonville, Oregon, USA
UUCP: ...!XXX!teklabs!tekecs!randals (ignore return address)
(where XXX is one of: aat cbosg chico decvax harpo ihnss
lbl-unix ogcvax pur-ee reed ssc-vax ucbvax zehntel)
CSNET: tekecs!randals @ tektronix
ARPA: tekecs!randals.tektronix @ rand-relay