crf@ginger.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) (02/08/91)
Our moderator writes: >[Saying that Christianity is morally corrupt does not necessarily say >that God is. Perhaps God didn't really order all those crusades, >inquisitions, and pogroms? --clh] A thought along these lines: one of the fundamental assertions of Christianity is: Proposition 1: All of humanity is fallen and rebellious against God. Or, to put it another way: Proposition 1a: Humans by nature tend to abuse anything God gives them using it for their own purposes rather than God's. I follow this with my own observation: Proposition 2: The Christian religion is a part of the "anything" in 1a. So, not only can we say that "Christianity" has been abused by people through much of its history; but in fact, according to what Christianity asserts to be true, that's exactly what we should EXPECT to happen. Grace and peace, Charles Ferenbaugh
tbvanbel@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Terry Van Belle) (02/12/91)
In article <Feb.8.02.44.18.1991.15391@athos.rutgers.edu> crf@ginger.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) writes: >A thought along these lines: one of the fundamental assertions of >Christianity is: > >Proposition 1: All of humanity is fallen and rebellious against God. > >Or, to put it another way: > >Proposition 1a: Humans by nature tend to abuse anything God gives them >using it for their own purposes rather than God's. > >Proposition 2: The Christian religion is a part of the "anything" in 1a. > >So, not only can we say that "Christianity" has been abused by people >through much of its history; but in fact, according to what Christianity >asserts to be true, that's exactly what we should EXPECT to happen. Let me play devil's advocate a second: Barring personal experiences, all of our knowledge of God stems from Christianity and the Bible. 1) The reliability of Christianity as an effective tool for knowing God has been discounted by Proposition 2. 2) Similar arguments can be used for discounting the reliability of the Bible. 3) Even if one rejects argument 2), the selection of which books should go into the New Testament was determined by the Church Fathers, whom I would place under the heading of 'Christianity', and are thus discounted. 4) Even if one rejects argument 3), it is Christianity which tells us that the Bible is significant. Since the reliability of Christianity has been discounted, we do not know whether the Bible should be our guide. Conclusion: The only thing we have to go on is faith. It is by faith that the medieval Christians believed their Church leaders and went on the Crusades. It is by faith that the Spanish Inquisitors believed that what they were doing was right. It is by faith that 15th century Christians believed that in buying indulgences they were helping the souls of loved ones get to heaven. It is by faith that the puritans believed that sex is evil. It is by faith that many Moslems the world over believe that Saddam's war is a holy war. Cheers, Terry Van Belle tbvanbelle@cgl.uWaterloo.ca [I should note that Puritans seem to have gotten a bum rap. At least according to one study I've read, many of them believed in enjoyment of the world, as long as it was in moderation. They opposed total abstinence from alcohol as a cop-out. --clh]
BINDNER@auvm.auvm.edu (02/16/91)
Terry cites faith as the reason for the crusades, inquisition, indulgences and Sadam. I beg to differ. Faith involves one's personal relationship with the deity. The above cited instances are an example of politics, which is why theocracies (governments by God or his (self) appointed leaders are such a bad idea. Don't let the actions of xenophobic idiots lure you away from something that can only be good for you. Arriba, abajo, a centro, al dentro (Spanish for Cheers), Michael
EFL0@ns.cc.lehigh.edu (Ed Lamb) (02/18/91)
RE: 12 Feb posting... One small point: If the Bible were just another book, I would agree that it would have to be contaminated by the world by now. But if we see that it is the Word of God, why would He allow it to be corrupted? The Bible is God's relevation of himself to man -- he knew we would mess it up ________________________________________________________________________ Ed Lamb .387 average Catcher 53 home runs Philadelphia Phillies 157 runs batted in National League MVP 67 stolen bases World Series MVP ________________________________________________________________________ --Hey, I can dream, can't I ??????
wcsa@iwsgw.att.com (Willard Smith) (02/19/91)
In article <Feb.17.22.48.13.1991.21112@athos.rutgers.edu>, EFL0@ns.cc.lehigh.edu (Ed Lamb) writes: | If the Bible were just another book, I would agree that it would have |to be contaminated by the world by now. But if we see that it is the |Word of God, why would He allow it to be corrupted? The Bible is God's |relevation of himself to man -- he knew we would mess it up I suppose that the "corruption" (?) of the Bible would be a theme that would generate more heat among advocates of Bible inerrancy. If indeed the Bible was corrupted then the possibility of deriving exactly one and only one accurate theological structure from the Bible would be extremely reduced. I am curious though, after reading a discussion on the various attempts to recapture the original New Testament Text via the "received text" or the "neutral text," which text is assumed by the inerrants to be the "inerrant text?" The evidence of ancient "corrections" and additions in the text by early scribes appears to be irrefutable. For a few examples, compare the English Revised Version (or American Standard Version) which are based on the "neutral text" with the Authorized Version (KJV) which is based on the "received text": Mark 1:2 AV: As it is written in the prophets, ERV: Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, The later manuscripts (received text) "corrected" an error; the quotation being introduced actually is a combination of Malachi and Isaiah. In other words, the AV represents the "corrupted" text. Acts 8:37 AV: And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The "neutral text" omits the above verse. Some ancient scribe had inserted into the account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch this dialogue which probably reflected the baptismal practice of the church of his own day. I John 5: 7,8 AV: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one. ERV: For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one. An ancient scribe, in the West, added a reference to the Trinity which is not found in the early texts. I John 4:19 AV: We love him because he first loved us. ERV: We love, because he first loved us. The omission of the pronoun makes a considerable difference to the teaching in this passage. The above passages and their analysis is taken from the second appendix of _The New Testament; An Introduction_ by Norman Perrin and Dennis Duling, Published by Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich. Perrin and Duling also state: "Since the work of Westcott and Hort it has been shown that their Neutral Text, although ancient, had in fact been subjected to considerable editing. It could not be, therefore, as near to the original as Westcott and Hort claimed. Today, thanks to renewed study of the text represented by the various groups of manuscripts, to extensive investigation of the texts represented by the ancient versions, and above all to the discovery of the papyrus codices, WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS A PERIOD OF SUCH SIGNIFICANT DISTRUBANCE OF THE TEXT IN THE EARLIEST TIMES THAT IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WILL LIE FOREVER BEYOND OUR GRASP. [Emphasis Mine] But we are constantly making new discoveries and textual critics are constantly refining their tools, and the various revisions of the Greek New Testament text published by the Bible societies do represent better and better texts." (p. 454) While they do end on an upbeat, nevertheless, the evidence clearly points to a "corrupted" New Testament text, otherwise there would be no need to try to recreate the "original text." -- Willard C. Smith att!cbnewsc!iwsgw!wcsa wcsa@iwsgw.att.com "It's life, Captain, but not as we know it."
EFL0@ns.cc.lehigh.edu (Ed Lamb) (02/28/91)
Karl,
But, you see, if the Bible were a book that was full of errors,
then it would be "just another book." But, if we take the Bible as the
Word of God, which it claims for itself, then we can be assured that
these are the Words of God. Also, have you ever read it? I was not a
christian, nor did I want to be one three years ago. But for whatever
reason, a couple of friends helped me to read it. And do you know
what? It was true! Sure, there are things I can't explain. But if it
really is a revelation from God, I wouldn't want it to be any other
way. There has NEVER bee one single piece of archeology found which
contradicts the Bible. Besides, it is true about the things which CAN
be verified, so why should I doubt other things, just because *I* don't
know if it is true. This is a pretty arrogant position to take.
Another thing, the Bible is by far the most prolific book in history.
There were people whose whole lives centered around copying it letter
for letter. NO other book can claim such numbers. Christians were so
persecuted in the 1st century that if errors did creep up, they were
pointed out immediately.
A lot of times, people do not have trouble believing with their
minds so much as their will.
One last point. A lot of people I know say that unless you can
prove that God exists, they will not believe. Since God is the
creator, why should we be able to prove his existence be the created
thing. An anology: I challenge you to prove to me, by only what is in
the house, that a certain brand-new house had an architect (or
builder). You cannot do it without bringing in outside knowledge, or
asking people outside of the house. So why, if God made the universe,
would we be able to prove his existence by the laws he created?
However, there is evidence in the world that it had a creator, but not
a proof. Can you honestly say that we are here by chance? I guarantee
you that you do not live accordingly. For if we are all chance beings,
what is morality - why can't I live the way I want? It doesn't matter
in the end whether I kill you or not. We are all going to pass away
to nothingness. Why do you work? What is satisfaction? Why go to
school? What is money? All are ultimately meaningless. And if you
still say we are here by chance, how come this table doesn't somehow
dissappear? And where, oh where, did the material for the big bang
come from. Matter does not just poof into existence. It need a cause.
What is the ultimate cause? None of this makes sense without a god.
You have no hope. You cannot talk about meaning, about values, about
right and wrong without some ultimate standard. And it doesn't come
from society.
I do not mean this next statement for anyone in particular, but
please do not resort to name-calling or insulting christianity, or
likewise. That is what people do here at Lehigh, and it just proves
that they are either being childish, or that a nerve was hit and they
try to cover up.
Thank you for taking time to read this memo.
Ed Lamb
________________________________________________________________________
Ed Lamb .387 average
Catcher 53 home runs
Philadelphia Phillies 157 runs batted in
National League MVP 67 stolen bases
World Series MVP
________________________________________________________________________
--Hey, I can dream, can't I ??????henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl resort Henning) (03/08/91)
Ed Lamb writes: >But, you see, if the Bible were a book that was full of errors, >then it would be "just another book." Many books contain errors. Few books which survive the ages are wholly erroneous. The only books which are wholly free from error, are fictitious (that is, if John Updike writes a short story, the question of error is largely irrelevant -- still, we judge the fiction on what it tells us of the world around and inside us). It is beyond my personal knowledge to judge whether the books of the bible are utterly free from "error" (if at one point the LORD tells Noah 2 of every animal, but at a later point says, 2 of every animal, except 7 of these certain other aninmals -- is that an "error"? I think rather it's an editorial seam). The archeological record's illumination of some of the [objective] history /behind/ the /ethnographic/ history of the bible is of interest, certainly -- though personally I find Schliemann's excavation of Troy of rather more interest. >But, if we take the Bible as the Word of God, which it claims for itself, >then we can be assured that these are the Words of God. In my view, I should amend your statement to read "which the bible does not as a self-defining document explicitly claim for the five-dozen-odd books comprising the xian canon, but which xians interpret in such wise, and assure themselves that these are ..." >Also, have you ever read it? I have indeed, and know much of it well, and fondly. But I don't find in the aggregate the "word of god" ... The foreword and postscript to "Rip van Winkle" ascribe the story to an old Dutch inhabitant of New York, named Diedrich Knickerbocker. It would take little imagination (and ignorance of Washington Irving) to take the literal claim [I repeat and capitalize for emphasis LITERAL CLAIM] for the truth ... Most xians approach the bible as "the word of god", and subsequently read into the text all manner of confirmation of this thesis. I don't find that the bible claims this "for itself"; there are authors of the biblical texts who make sanctimonious claims for ... some texts, which common xian belief attributes to these five-dozen-odd books. >... a couple of friends helped me to read it. And do you know >what? It was true! "It", meaning ... the entire bible? True in what way? Also, let me make note of a point relevant to "literal-ness". Unless you are being assisted because of failing eyesight, or are being taught to read, I suspect your friends did not actually "help you read" the bible, but offered assistance in /interpreting/ the bible. It were then an easy matter, to offer "truths". A trifling observation, to point out that most people who claim a literal absolute true-ness for the bible, tend to read -- and speak -- in a metaphoric haze. Not to denigrate the poetical uses of metaphor ... I merely point out its relation to the realm of myth. I have not found (and do not at this point actively seek) any system of interpreting the bible as "the word of god", which I find thoroughly true to the human experience. If others of my fellow citizens on this planet manage to find things useful to them in any of these systems, good for them. Part of what a "relationship with god" is alleged to do for a xian is, to change that person for the better. I find that people (including xians) can and do change their behavior over time -- often for the "better" (howseover defined). If people as individuals evolve, and can even effect change in themselves, then people as a society evolve, and can effect change among themselves. It is counterproductive to deny the changes of the centuries, and to seek to force late 20th-century man into the Procrustean bed of anti-feminist, homophobic, xenophobic, Bronze-age morals. On the other hand, there is the chilling ease with which people even in the late 20th-century subscribe to these anti-feminist, homophobic, xenophobic, Bronze-age morals. What a wonderful world ... >There has NEVER bee one single piece of archeology found which >contradicts the Bible. There is also no evidence astronomical or geological (for instance) in support of the assertion that god stood the earth (actually, the sun according to the text, I think) still while the Israelites fought the Amalekites [or whoever ... I have indeed read the entire bible ... but keeping in absolute touch with all its wondrous trivia is not a priority for me at this stage in my life] >Another thing, the Bible is by far the most prolific book in history. >There were people whose whole lives centered around copying it letter >for letter. NO other book can claim such numbers. Christians were so >persecuted in the 1st century that if errors did creep up, they were >pointed out immediately. This is evidence, not that the bible is god's word, but that it has indeed been so reverenced for centuries. > A lot of times, people do not have trouble believing with their >minds so much as their will. I trust I am not merely dense, in failing to understand what you seek to address by this point. >However, there is evidence in the world that it had a creator, but not >a proof. There is evidence in the world, that there is a world. I am not here by chance; my parents copulated (strictly speaking, I suppose, some pair of people copulated, and I believe these were the people I now address as my parents :-). I observe in the world and society around me that both causality, and [functional] chance, are multifarious factors in what goes on. My morality is built on the premise that I am responsible to myself and those around me for my actions, and that harmonious interaction with other people is sufficient as a desirable good, to serve as a basic principle. Most such basic principles stand a good deal of elaboration in the wondrous richness of the world we live in, but such is the cost of life, I suppose. To wit: Were you to shoot me dead while I type this, this choice of action on your part would not only be deleterious to the fabric of our relationship, but would certainly discourage other members of society from permitting you such irresponsible freedom of action in future. If, on the other hand, I were lying hopelessly maimed on a battlefield, my body torn up beyond hope of surgical repair, yet terribly awake and aware of my plight -- if /then/ you were to shoot me dead, your action would be the soul of mercy itself. >You have no hope. I hope I can finish my doctorate in another 15 months ... and I have reason to believe my hope well-founded. >You cannot talk about meaning, about values, about >right and wrong without some ultimate standard. Pish, not to say tush. Miss Manners says it's rude to belch at a host's dinner-table. Miss Saudi Manners says it's polite to signify appreciation of your host's fare by belching afterwards. In this instance, I have just discussed values, meaning, right & wrong. The burden of demonstrating an ultimate standard here, is yours. kph -- "The shrewder mobs of America, who dislike having two minds upon a subject, both determine and act upon it drunk; by which means a world of cold and tedious speculation is dispensed with." -- Washington Irving