palmer@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Grant E. Palmer) (09/27/89)
Why is it that Christians believe the Bible is the word of God? Many Christians lead their lives according to passages of the Bible and formulate opinions on issues by referencing the Scripture as God's will. I mean is this purely a matter of faith, are they taught this from their parents, is there some physical proof that this is so. I am not bashing the Bible or the Christian faith. This question has always puzzled me. The Bible was written by several human, mortal authors in the first few centuries after the death of Christ, was it not? So why are these writings accepted as the word of God? This may be a blasphemous thing to say, but what if John and Luke and the others made the whole thing up? So why do you believe the Bible is literally the word of God? please, no flames, educate me on this grant
hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (09/27/89)
You'll get different answers from different people on this. First, just an issue of fact. The Bible was almost certainly written before 100 A.D. There are fragments of a manuscript of John from around 125, i.e. still existing physical pieces. That is almost certainly one of the later books. Other Gospels were quoted or referred to by non-Biblical writers around 100, as were Paul's letters. Not that this is a big deal: legends can grow quite quickly. But you talk about the "first few centuries", so I thought I'd clear that up. As for how one assesses its truth. First, I don't think anyone believes that it was all simply made up. It's sort of hard to explain the Church in that case. There's no non-Christian verification of the events in the NT, but the fact that the Church suddenly appeared is pretty obvious. You have to have a sort of paranoid view of history to assume that this group of people who claim to follow Jesus made him up out of whole cloth. I don't know of even non-Christian scholars who claim this, nor do I know of any serious doubt about the authorship of at least the core of Paul's letters. Normally the issue isn't whether the whole thing was made up, but whether some basic memories of Jesus got mixed in with legends in such a way that important parts of the story (like the fact that he rose from the dead) can't be relied on. We do after all have other writings from roughly 100 and later. They support the idea that the Bible is consistent with what the Church believed as far back as we can trace it. The Catholics have a slightly different slant on things, so they should probably speak for themselves. But I think for Protestants it comes down to: (1) what kind of impression the NT writers make on you. (2) what kind of impression Jesus himself makes on you. (3) your assessment of the religion itself. The earliest witness is really Paul's letters. Here we have pretty direct testimony -- not that he actually saw Jesus himself (at least not during Jesus' life on earth). But he wasn't much later, and he did talk to the original witnesses. We have enough of his writings to give you a pretty good basis to judge his character and believability. In some sense Peter would be even better, because he worked directly with Jesus. But there isn't quite as much writing from him, so you may find him harder to judge. Also, there are at least some scholars who question authorship of Peter's letters (though I don't see any serious reason to doubt at least I Peter). Second, we have what the NT claims that Jesus said and did. I think Protestants most commonly believe in the Bible because they find Jesus as portrayed in it worthy of being followed. They also find that when they accept the picture of him given in the NT, the resulting religion "works", in some rather ill-defined sense. I.e. it seems to have spiritual (and for some, even physical) power; it helps them make sense of life and deal with problems in their lives, etc. As I've said in the past, in some sense I think the Bible is almost an axiom. I'm not sure this is the best of logical arguments. But in fact people buy into Christianity because it seems to be right, when they look at themselves and the world. The Bible is the axiom on which it is based. Quantum mechanics is kind of wierd. We accept the assumptions on which it is based because the structure built on them works as a scientific theory. That isn't to say that rational assessment is unimportant. If we found good external evidence against it, that would be a serious problem. Similarly, you can try to make various consistency checks on the documents themselves. But ultimately I don't see any way you can prove that they are right. The business about being literally the word of God is something that I think follows later. The first decision to make it seems to me is the basic assessment of Jesus as found in the Bible and Christianty as a whole. For that you don't really need for the Bible to have any status other than that of a historical document that you are investigating. The business about being the word of God isn't something that I think can be proven prior to making the basic decision. For many of us, the Bible as word of God simply means that we hear God speaking through it. Accepting this idea isn't really different from deciding to follow the Christ that is described in it. I belong to a branch of Christianity that is very well aware that the authors of the Bible are fallible. Our own Biblical scholarship is based on that premise. I suggest that you read some basic works of Biblical criticism to see just how hard we are on it ourselves. There are other groups who find grounds for giving the Bible a special status as incapable of any error. I'm not a good one to argue that case, since I don't believe it. But my impression is that it comes after the basic decision to follow Christ, as you begin to consider what that means. I don't see that anybody should expect to convince you from some sort of external evidence that the Bible is inerrant, and only then have you start to look at what it says.
geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) (10/01/89)
In article <Sep.27.04.36.08.1989.1941@athos.rutgers.edu>
palmer@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Grant E. Palmer) asks why we believe that
the Bible is the Word of God.
For me, the most convincing evidence of God's authorship of the Bible is
fulfilled prophecy. In fact, God Himself offers this as a test of any
supposed prophet's words (all quotes in this article are from the New
International Version of the Bible):
You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has
not been spoken by the LORD?" If what a prophet proclaims in
the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a
message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken
presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. (Deut. 18:21-22)
Any true prophet will have 100% accuracy when speaking of the future.
For a detailed account of many fulfilled prophecies, I would refer you
to the book _Evidence_That_Demands_a_Verdict_, by Josh McDowell. It's
pretty dry reading, since it's written in outline form and just presents
the evidence. (But it's very much worth reading.) I'll give just a
couple of examples here.
First, we'll look at the case of Cyrus, King of Persia. In the book of
Isaiah, we find these words about him:
[I am the LORD,] who says of Cyrus, "He is my shepherd
and will accomplish all that I please;
he will say of Jerusalem, `Let it be rebuilt,'
and of the temple, `Let its foundations be laid.'"
(Isaiah 44:28)
Now, when Isaiah wrote this (sometime around 700 B.C.), Jerusalem was a
healthy city and in no need of being rebuilt. The same was true of the
temple. Yet Isaiah said that a man named Cyrus would say that Jerusalem
and the temple should be rebuilt.
So what happened? Around 600 B.C. (100 years later than Isaiah's
prophecy), King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and
carried off the Isrealites into exile. Several generations after that,
the Persians took over Babylonia and King Cyrus of Persia issued the
following decree:
This is what Cyrus king of Persia says:
The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of
the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at
Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you -- may his
God be with him, and let him go up to build the temple of the
LORD, the God of Isreal, the God who is in Jerusalem.
(Ezra 1:2-3)
Isaiah named names and told of events over 100 years into the future.
Coincidence, or the Word of God?
Another example is the many prophecies concerning the Messiah, which are
fulfilled in Jesus. Some people try to argue that the prophecies
concerning the Messiah were actually written *after* Jesus lived, and
that's why they match so well. Well, the Septuagint (the greek version
of the Old Testament) was completed at least 200 years B.C., so anything
in the Old Testament was at least written 200 years before Jesus lived.
Here is a list of a few of the prophecies concerning the Messiah, cross
referenced with New Testament passages documenting their fulfillment.
The Old Testament says that he would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2,
cf. Matthew 2:1 & Luke 2:4-7), that he would be born of a virgin
(Isaiah 7:14, cf. Matthew 1:18 & Luke 1:26-35), that he would come to
Jerusalem amidst rejoicing riding on a donkey (Zech. 9:9, cf. John
12:13-14), that he would be betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9, cf.
Matthew 26:14-16 & Mark 14:10) for 30 pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12-13;
cf. Matthew 26:15), that the money for his betrayal would be used to
buy a potter's field (Zech. 11:13, cf. Matthew 26:6-7). There are
also numerous prophecies concerning his crucifixion (Psalm 22 and Isaiah
53 are two examples) and resurrection.
Coincidence? Not very likely.
There are several other reasons to believe the Bible, but I believe that
fulfilled prophecy is by far the most compelling. Check out
_Evidence_That_Demands_a Verdict for more.
--
Geoff Allen \ Test everything. Hold on to the good.
{uunet,bigtex}!pmafire!geoff \ -- I Thess. 5:21 (NIV)
ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff \davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (10/03/89)
In article <Sep.27.04.36.08.1989.1941@athos.rutgers.edu> palmer@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Grant E. Palmer) writes: > So why do you believe the Bible is literally the word of God? Do not worry about having asked a blasphemous question. Also do not worry about getting anyone upset with such a question. The Scriptures say of themselves that they can only be understood and believed by those whom God has enabled. 1 Corinthians 2:14 says "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know {them}, because they are spiritually discerned.". As you read through the four books of the Bible known as the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) you will come across numerous historical events involving Jesus restoring sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, speech to the dumb, etc. While these Scriptures are historically accurate and do serve to give us crystal clear evidence that Jesus was God Himself, the only one who possesses truly life giving power, they also serve as historical parables which teach us a very important truth. We all start out life spiritually blind, spiritually deaf, and spiritually dumb. We are initially unable to see the truths in the Bible, unable to hear the truths in the Bible, and unable to discuss the truths in the Bible in a rational way. It is only when God Himself opens our spiritual eyes, spiritual ears, and spiritual mouths that we can begin to do all these things. Until we can do all these things it is irrational to suppose that we would be able to exercise a true faith. If you really believe that you want to believe then there are a couple of things which you should do in order to demonstrate to yourself that you are truly sincere about this desire. The Scriptures teach that if your desire is sincere then God is already drawing you to Himself and that He will most definitely finish the good work in you which He has already begun. God declares Himself to be both the author and the finisher of our faith. The first thing you should do is begin to ask God to open your spiritual eyes, ears and mouth. Make it clear by means of sincere prayer that you realize that you want to believe, but that you know that you cannot believe without His assistance. You must not make this request to God by merely speaking a series of well-chosen and impressive phrases; it must come right from your heart. The second thing that you should do is begin to read the Bible without schepticism, just simply believing that it really is the Word of God. God has written the Bible in such a way that those who read it with the intent of finding fault will find nothing but uhbelievable claims and apparent logical contradictions. He has, however, written it in such a way that those who read it with the understanding that it is the Word of God and, therefore, cannot contain any contradictions whatsoever, will find a harmony throughout the Scriptures that is so remarkably pure and perfect that it can be nothing other than the work of someone with infinitely more wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and organizational capabilities than any man (except Jesus) has ever had. This harmony is even more remarkable when we realize that the actual words were penned by more than forty different people, most of whom did not even know each other, in at least three different languages, over a period of about a couple of thousand years, in a time when there was no world-wide media service to promote the wide spread acceptance of concepts. Something else which you may wish to consider when reading the Bible is the accuracy of the prophesies which it contains. We are fortunate enough to be living at a time when we can look back at the fulfillments of many of them. Read, for example, Isaiah 53 with the understanding that it is one of the marvelous prophesies about the earthly life of Jesus. The Dead Sea scrolls are a historical proof that these words were written well before His conception. Then read the accounts of His life written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You will discover that the prophesy in Isaiah 53 is completely flawless, even though it contains a remarkable amount of detail. Which single man, other than Jesus Himself, do you know who can predict the future so flawlessly and with such accuracy. Yet another thing you may wish to consider when reading the Bible is that it does not contain a single piece of bad advice for how we ought to live our lives. Much of its advice may be hard to implement, but it is nevertheless easy to see that the advice itself is still perfect. Even those scheptics who refer to Jesus as merely a great moral teacher have, by this very statement, acknowledged this truth. This world is full of all sorts of diverse political systems, is populated by all sorts of psychiatrists and psychologists and philosophers who have all offered their very learned opinions on how people ought to conduct their lives, and is even full of bilions of people like you and me who never run out of suggestions for the same. All this combined human intelligence has never come up with a method by which any one of us can realize that he can be guaranteed to have a truly fulfilling life, yet a book so small that you can put it in your pocket contains exactly that. Who other than the very designer of us all would be able to accomplish this magnifiscent feat? Have you ever been fully satisfied with anything that you have ever done in your life? Do you know of anyone else who has ever been truly satisfied by even one thing which he has ever done? We all get some satisfaction out of those things which we do, but we are much more often let down by ourselves and by others, and invariably come to the conclusion that there must be something else that we have just not yet found. You may be interested to know that the book of Ecclesiastes contains exactly these sorts of declarations. It was written by King Solomon, a man to whom God had imparted tremendous wisdom, as well as earthly riches and honour. He was a man who could fulfill any of his heart's desires whenever he wanted to, yet even he, with all that, came to the same conclusions as lowly and impoverished us. He finishes up by declaring in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this {is} the whole {duty} of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether {it be} good, or whether {it be} evil.". God has designed us to serve Him. None of us can ever be fully satisfied with his life until he realizes this and does accordingly. Failing to do what we were designed to do will always leave our hearts feeling empty because we know that, even though we may have expended a lot of effort, it has all been of absolutely no lasting value. I am one who was not taught these things by my parents, i.e. one who God led to these truths in my adult life, and can therefore tell you first hand that this statement is true. I tried lots of things in an attempt to make my life more enjoyable, and none of them had any lasting impact. Now that God has filled me with His love I am so much more satisfied than ever before and I don't even have to work for that satisfaction. There is nothing so eternally satisfying as a gift from God Himself. In a way this is the ultimate answer to your question. You can look at all the historical evidence that you can find, and it will never really convince you of the Bible's divine authorship, because even that historical evidence is tainted with all the imperfections that you are used to encountering when looking at other historical evidence. The irreversable transformation of a person's life when he begins to have a true faith and trust in God, however, is irrefutable, spiritual evidence of this same fact. The force of God's drawing power of people to Himself is infinitely greater than any other force with which we are familiar. It is irresistable, i.e. it is the one force which man will never be able to subdue. Mark 9:24 says "And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
palosaari@oxy.edu (Jedidiah Jon Palosaari) (10/03/89)
I've heard that there are a couple contemporary historians living during the time of Jesus who did not believe in Him as the Son of God (ie Romans) but who documented his miracles and that He was seen after the resurrection. Does anyone know anything more about this? [There are of course plenty of historians who knew about Christians and reported what Christians believed. But this is from later, when Christianity became better known. I know of no contemporary reports (i.e. around the time when the events occured) of Jesus' life, whether Christian or non-Christian. The earliest reports I know of are in Paul's letters. As for non-Christians, as far as I know there aren't even good second-hand reports, i.e. reports based on interviews of Christians who claimed to be first-hand witnesses. Nor are there any historical records of the Roman or Jewish participation, e.g. Roman records of Jesus' trial. This question has been asked before and nobody has come up with anything. If anybody does know of anything, please be sure to tell us. This is one of the most commonly asked questions in this group. --clh]
conan@wish-bone.berkeley.edu (10/05/89)
In article <Oct.2.20.46.24.1989.10429@athos.rutgers.edu> palosaari@oxy.edu (Jedidiah Jon Palosaari) writes: >I've heard that there are a couple contemporary historians living during the >time of Jesus who did not believe in Him as the Son of God (ie Romans) but >who documented his miracles and that He was seen after the resurrection. >Does anyone know anything more about this? > [ Stuff from clh deleted....] I studied this question thoroughly some years ago in a course on Roman history. All of the following should be correct, though some of the details may be garbled. (Oh, the years like grains of sand.....) Mentions of Christ and Christianity are exceedingly rare from the first century. Our moderator is problably correct in pointing out that the earliest documents are the letters of St. Paul. Christ is mentioned directly by two (possibly three) non-christian texts. Tacitus, a Roman historian of the late first century, mentions him briefly (I can't remember the details). Josephus, the Jewish historian (writing about 80 AD) mentions Jesus twice. Once is a one line reference; the other is a long passage which is clearly an inter- polation by a christian scribe. However scholars believe that the gloss is an expansion of a brief reference similar to the first one. A third passage which needs to be mentioned is contained in the Roman "historian" Suetonius (sp?). In a passage discussing riots in Rome, he says they were provoked by a Jewish sect whose leader was "Chrestus". Scholars argue endlessly if "Chrestus" == "Christus" or not. The reliability of the passage is reduced further when you realize that Suetonius was the Roman equivalent of People Magazine. The sum total of these passages is that there was a man named Jesus, who lived in Judea in the period 20-30 AD, and who apparently was executed during the reign of the Procurator Pontius Pilate. One other passage deserves a mention for its historical value. Pliny the Younger, while serving as a high Roman official (governor?) somewhere in Asia Minor, used to continually pester the emperor Trajan (circa 100-110 AD) with letters detailing his problems. One of these letters mentions Christians. The letter is worth reading because it preserves a few interesting details of paleochristian practices (for example: if I recall correctly, they gathered together on Sundays) and the response this new sect evoked from Roman officials. These passages are, to my knowledge, every non-christian source from the first century which mentions Christ or christianity. Arhceological and other historial sources provide some additional background information. (The following facts are jumbled together without respect to sources.) Herod the Great ruled until 4 BC--our calenders are clearly off. Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judea until 36 AD. In that year he was relieved of his post by the Proconsul of Syria for excessive violence against the natives. (Sort of poetic justice....) There appears to be little evidence for the world-wide census Luke mentions, though scholars have linked it to a regional tax assessment sometime between 10 and 1 BC. (This I believe, comes from an inscription.) Thats about it for the evidence--the overwhelming majority of our knowledge comes from the NT. Skeptics often throw this up as a reason for doubt-- however, most of our knowledge about any event from antiquity comes from a similarly small set of sources which are often even more "contradictory" (no flames, please!) than the NT. For further information, there are several books on the subject. One that comes to mind has a title along the lines of _Christ Outside the New Testa- ment_. Also, any good text on Roman history should give you more exact references to the texts I mentioned above. (As usual, be wary of the bias, pro or con, of the authors. In classical studies, it is very easy to twist the limited evidence to mean what you want it to.) If you have any further questions, post them or email them (conan@math.berkeley.edu) to me--I'd love an excuse to read up on this again. Your brother in Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
drezac@dcsc.dla.mil (Duane L. Rezac) (10/05/89)
> > Why is it that Christians believe the Bible is the word of God? > .......... > grant Christians believe the Bible is the Word of God for several reasons. One reason is because of Jesus's view of the Scriptures. He Quoted Scripture as final authority. For example, in Matt 4 during his encounter with Satan in the wilderness saying, "It is written..." He spoke of Himself and events in his life as being fulfillments of the Scripture (Matt 26:56). And mostly when he said "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). If we accept Jesus as who he is - Savior and Lord, it would be contradictory if we rejected the above statements. Another indication that the Bible is the Word of God is the number of fulfilled prophecies it contains. Many Bible prophecies are very specific in their details. There are a variety of kinds of prophecies. There are prophecies of a coming Messiah, Specific historical events and those dealing with the Jews. The most outstanding example of prophecy concerning Christ is Isaiah 52:13-58:12. These verses involve his life, his rejection in ministry, his death and burial. In Deut. 18:21-22 it is stated that if a prophecy is unfulfilled it is evidence of a false prophet. Would Isaiah be considered a false Prophet? As far as your statement concerning "God's will" and is it "purely a matter of faith...is there some physical proof that this is so?", it becomes a very involved process to explain. The Bible (as you said) was written by several human beings. This brings into play the word "inspiration". In II Tim 3:16 it says that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.. ." the word "inspiration", translated from the Greek, theopneustos, means "divinely breathed in:-given by inspiration of God" It refers to the **words** that have been written, not to the writers. God used the different human personalities of each writer and guided what they wrote. In the old Testament many prophets used the phrase, "the word of the Lord came unto me". David says in II Sam 23:2 "The Spirit of the Lord spoke through me; his word was on my tongue." Human authors wrote the texts, but the words are an action of God. II Peter 1:21 tells how God used the human writers to produce the Bible "for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit". On the subject of physical proof there are several but one that comes to mind first are the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were found in caves in 1947 in the valley of the Dead Sea. The Scrolls prove that a group of Jews lived about 150 BC to AD 70 in a type of monastery. They spent time studying and copying the Scriptures. When the Romans were about to invade they put the Scrolls in jars and hid them. The find included the earliest copy of the complete book of Isaiah and parts of almost every book in the Old Testament. In comparing the manuscript of Isaiah 38-66 with the one we have, scholars found that "a comparison of Isaiah 53 shows that only 17 letters differ from our text. ten of those are mere differences of spelling, like our 'honor' or 'honour' and produce no change in the meaning at all. Four more are minor differences which relate to style. The other 3 letters are the hebrew word for 'light';out of 166 words in the chapter, only this one word is really in question, and it does not at all change the sense of the passage. This is typical of the whole manuscript." To quote Keith Schoville, "It is important to realize that archaeological excavations have produced ample evidence to prove unequivocally that the Bible is not a pious forgery. Thus far, no historical statement in the Bible has been proven false on the basis of evidence retrieved through archaeological research" Yes, it also involves faith. The more reading and praying you do the more you will discover that the Bible truly is the "Word of God", without error. Duane and Melodie Rezac -- Verse of the Hour: So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall 1 Cor. 10:12 -- +-----------------------+---------------------------------------------------+ | Duane L. Rezac |These views are my own, and NOT representitive of my place| | dsacg1!dcscg1!drezac drezac@dcscg1.dcsc.dla.mil of Employment. | +-----------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
BAE101@psuvm.psu.edu (Lemming) (10/11/89)
In article <Oct.2.17.06.08.1989.8103@athos.rutgers.edu>, bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) says: > >apparent logical contradictions. He has, however, written it in such a >way that those who read it with the understanding that it is the Word >of God and, therefore, cannot contain any contradictions whatsoever, >will find a harmony throughout the Scriptures that is so remarkably >pure and perfect that it can be nothing other than the work of someone >with infinitely more wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and >organizational capabilities than any man (except Jesus) has ever had. > I find it amazing that so many of the people who do read the Bible with the assumption that it is the word of God can come up with vastly different interpretations. If all of these people had the God-given ability to understand the Bible, all religions would be the same. We can draw two possible conclusions from this: 1. Only one religion is right. (My, how bigoted!) 2. These people do NOT have a God-given understanding of the Bible. If you read something and expect to find no faults, you will of course overlook and faults that there might be. I, personally, find 2 to be more probable. But go ahead and be self-deluded. You seem to be happy. Just don't try to force your ideas on me. ------- ======================================================================== | Alex Elliott (The Lemming) | A circle is a line which meets | | BAE101@PSUVM.BITNET | its other end without ending. | ========================================================================
hassell@ncar.ucar.edu (Christopher Hassell) (10/16/89)
In article <Oct.11.04.25.54.1989.15329@athos.rutgers.edu> BAE101@psuvm.psu.edu (Lemming) writes:
# In article <Oct.2.17.06.08.1989.8103@athos.rutgers.edu>,
# bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) says:
# >
# >apparent logical contradictions. He has, however, written it in such a
# >way that those who read it with the understanding that it is the Word
# >of God and, therefore, cannot contain any contradictions whatsoever,
# >will find a harmony throughout the Scriptures that is so remarkably
# >pure and perfect that it can be nothing other than the work of someone
# >with infinitely more wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and
# >organizational capabilities than any man (except Jesus) has ever had.
The above is an interesting theory. I have seen many things in the Bible and
now even some statistical "miracles" that come only from the Bible's text. I
could repost if anyone wants to see their evidence (they are words that appear
in the old testament by taking every nth character... rather unlikely in the
volume of words and names that appear there).
# I find it amazing that so many of the people who do read the Bible with
# the assumption that it is the word of God can come up with vastly different
# interpretations. If all of these people had the God-given ability to
I wish everyone who so easily considers this a valid sentence would note first
the adjectives that exist in it... and thus note it provides an interpretation
about interpretations. <"so many","vastly different">
Secondly, I wish everyone would note that the ability of people to generate
arcane interpretations has never in history been restrained in any manner
whatsoever. The ability of people to see things in texts that have been
translated from another time and another language exists and is not disputed,
what is considered is that rigorous analysis and contextual consideration make
the interpretation-varieties much much smaller... (unless you believe it's all
a Christian and/or Power Structure plot of Domination, but that is a fun theory
to prove on its own :-)
Marveling at how much and in what manner this happens would tell me more about
the whole problems in Quickly and Easily acquiring an interpretation of any
text than it would give me Quick and Easy conclusions about the Bible itself.
# understand the Bible, all religions would be the same. We can draw two
# possible conclusions from this:
This includes an unwarranted assumption that the complete structure of a
"religion" <denomination> is percievable in the Bible.. letter for letter.
It is not... much with our Thanks to God Himself. :-D yay
# 1. Only one religion is right. (My, how bigoted!)
Let's do a textual substitution here... for the sake of expanding our minds
with logic. The substituted text becomes (this must be either a step of logic
or a leap into falsehood. I think the semantics are still the same as they
were in the above text)
1. <Precisely> one <cohesive belief set of generally nonprovable
assertions about Truth>
is <correct in accuracy>.
(My, how <discriminatory against other belief sets>!)
Yes... I have stripped the slightly indignant bias from the words..
in order to leave the real assertion provided by the author.
Given the above ... let us assume further things about truth:
A. Truth is the precise and eternally repeatible qualities of the
Universe.
B. It can be further considered to mean (if the Universe continues to
show itself as it has always up to now) that, out of our
comprehensive reach, these qualities define the entire Universe
and all its actions.
C. Without Truth in an aspect of the Universe, we are powerless to
comprehend or act upon it (it being totally random... in theory)
Okidokey. Given the above as groundwork, we have a problem with the
worries over "discriminating against other belief systems".
We can ditch the assumption "B", (that there is a whole Truth at all)
and we are left with a "Partial Truth" (the rest is random inherently)
or "No Truth At All".
Partial Truth is probably what the poster had in mind: that the world's
science and stuff can work under a common Universal Truth, but that
Spiritual Things cannot be constrained to repeatibility. My only
argument is that our world's Spritual Concerns change in scope violently
at times and that we ourselves as a species are electing more in
general to work to find a common set of held beliefs... because we have
them inherently. This blows a hole in a Spiritual World's Lack Of
Universal Truth, because it don't fit empirical evidence.
That leaves the only exit of "Partial Truth" to mean that some
Spiritual Aspects of people are somehow related to a Truth, and some
are not.
The possible attack on this is that we have a hard time perceiving our
own needs and even what is Good and Bad. We DO sense things like
"That is Bad" and "That is Good", emotionally, but our problems start
when we try, by ourselves, to put everything into the natural global
sense of Good and Bad, because we have some wants that predictably have
Bad reprecussions... and yet we want them sometimes... but other times
we don't... because of their Bad effects.
From that, we can judge that a Full Truth could exist, and we wouldn't
even know it... which makes it a better choice <in terms of wholeness>
that arguing about Partial Truth. If the two might be very complex to
Distinguish, why not work with the one that has less divisions.
Lastly...
No Truth is simply difficult to make into sense because we use the
concept of Truth in walking with gravity on our bodies, in picking
things up, in putting them down, in driving a car... and none of that
is to speak of building a Space Shuttle or making a program work :->.
So... (I wanted to do all this at one time or another, so I posted now)
if Complete Truth is considerably likely and it explains the above
problems... let it be granted as an assumption that Complete Truth
exists.
Beyond that... one can assume (as we know viscerally) that we want to
use it and from that we want to know it, The Truth, by whatever means.
When we finally get to this... it is interesting to look at the above
statement again:
That it is Not Preferable to discriminate against other
belief-sets in one's own belief.
If you can't see it yet... just consider that if One Truth exists
completely and utterly, why would one attempt to consider many
belief-sets if they contridict <which is an actual possiblity> and also
if others contridict known Truth as it is?
Therefore again... we are left with the fact that it is preferable to
in fact consider only one Truth to exist... and that it is whole.
So... one could retake the statement (paring it down a lot) and read it:
That it is Not Preferable to discriminate against other
belief-sets in one's own belief... if they are not
contridictory, and moreso, of known Truth.
This is something I can agree with in more likely terms.... though
its original emphasis is left totally denied:
That Espousing a Single Truth is Arrogant and Bigoted
We are left with this statement as driven by something other than
consideration of Truth, and it seems likely that it comes more from
worries about violent conflict than of any sort of belief-system.
That, me friends.. are another story...
Onward.. and ending...
# 2. These people do NOT have a God-given understanding of the Bible.
^^^^^^^^^
Here is a problem already... the original alternative was that There is Single
Religion (assumed to be Bible-ordained), and this alternative considers only
that people must recieve God-given understanding, and not any more likely and
freer contexts like contemplative thinking and historical research etc...
# If you read something and expect to find no faults, you will of
# course overlook any faults that there might be.
How well someone can self-delude becomes a means of slamming and bashing other
people's intelligence, instead of a measure of someone's accurate perception.
The assumptions above are of the COMPLETE context of the word "faults" (notibly
that of whether or not "faults" are partial truths without their final pieces)
and that under this definition of "faults", the supposed faults `missed' are
inherently damning and render a piece of literature incapable of delivering
meaning at the "faulty" areas... as well as, under assumption, the whole.
# I, personally, find 2 to be more probable. But go ahead and be self-deluded.
# You seem to be happy. Just don't try to force your ideas on me.
BEEP.....BEEP.....BEEP.....BEEP.....BEEP.....BEEP.....BEEP.....BEEP.....BEEP....
The obscurity detector just noticed Zillions of assumptions. :->
(darn near broke the thing!)
Beyond those,
I've always wondered why the more adamant and quick-jabbing naysayers to
Christianity (as a <sigh> Religion <yuk>) can never travel far enough to claim
that we have intruded upon their ideological shell, giving Them the disturbing
and new ideas in a "forceful" manner.... (which can be taken in the context of
the message above this last passage from the author).
<warning> <warning> <warning> <warning> <warning> <warning>
Doctrine Laden Stuff about to Approach.. put on some blinder-protection.
But... then again... us Single Truthers sure are a bit happy and fanatical
about how well this Single Truth stuff works... and we just apparently don't
like being the cautious and/or apathetically Cool people and Citizens Of The
World we are quite supposedly to be.... I guess. We even have these
stranger-still Dictates about loving even your Enemies.. and those not made
clean yet in God's sight.
Call that Compassion stuff a bad habit if you will.
# -------
# ========================================================================
# | Alex Elliott (The Lemming) | A circle is a line which meets |
# | BAE101@PSUVM.BITNET | its other end without ending. |
# ========================================================================
nananananananananaahhh. A circle is a line.. without an end at all.
(or beginning for that matter)
Humans look a lot more incomplete and yet more full of potential than a circle
can ever represent or have associated with it.
At least, that's to me, a Human, and at least One Other Human who was something
else beyond Human.
### C>H> ### { uunet!rutgers!sunybcs , ncar , nbires } !boulder!tramp!hassell