| Alistair 2008-01-14, 7:55 am |
| On 11 Jan, 17:59, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Unlike yourself Alistair, I have spent considerable time on both sides of
> this argument.
I, too, have spent considerable time on both sides. I started to
question the dogma of christianity when I was 11 years old but did not
become faithless untill I was at least 18. During that period I spent
some time studying christianity (I was forced to at school and still
despise the system that allows Jews and Muslims to opt out but doesn't
allow the same rights to atheists and agnostics) and other religions
(I rather like Buddhism but just can not bring myself to believe in a
spirit or miniature white elephants). Around the age of 21 I more or
less gave up on religion, seeing it as one of the worlds' forces for
evil but did not declare myself to be an atheist until well after
hitting 40.
> I was 27 years old when I accepted Jesus. I avidly read
> science fiction from a very early age, subscribed to Scientific American
> from the time I was 10, studied physics and math at university, and was
> thoroughly inculcated in the humanism you espouse.
I don't think that I have ever advocated humanism. I consider it an
ugly term. I just think that the world would be a better place if we
ditched superstition (I know people who claim to have seen demons. I
don't know what they had been smoking at the time)
> I had never studied
> the Bible, and like you,
The bible makes perfect sense to me. It contains religious tracts
which detail the perceived history of the world (as seen by people
from around 4000 years ago who could not possibly have been able to
see the world for what it really is). As a historical document it is a
wonderful work; albeit one that is inconsistent (two accounts of
creation, inconsistent genealogies, improper translation (the Red Sea
was the Reed Sea), contradictory accounts of the crucifixion of
Christ, highly selectively edited (see the Agnostic Gospels) and
propaganda). As an historical document it details about three w s
worth of Christ's life leaving questions as to where he was for the
rest of his life. I presume you know of the Kashmiri tradition that
Christ was in fact a wondering Indian scholar?
> it did not make much sense to me when I read any
> of it. It never made sense to me that Christians would connect verses
> from different parts of the Bible and put them together to make a point.
It is called extrapolation. That is how the injunction to farmers to
not cast seed upon stoney ground can be interpreted by narrow-minded
bigots as an injunction against homosexuals. Humans are great at
twisting stories to suit their own ends.
> What I could not see, what I did not know, and could not realize, is that
> the Bible *cannot* be understood *through the intellect alone*,
To believe the bible, verbatim, requires only blind faith. I have
encountered many people who were committed fundamentalist christians
and they had one thing in common: deeply flawed personalities. I'm
sorry if that hurts.
> any more
> than color can be understood through the intellect alone.
As one who is colour blind and has visual impairments to boot, I have
wondered how colour can be accurately described in a meaningful
fashion to people who perceive only grays. Answer: specify the
wavelength of the light. No other description has any meaning.
> Unless a person
> has color sense, you can describe color to them until your tongue falls
> out, and they *will not get it*. You either can see color, in which case
> explanation is unnecessary, or you can't see it,
An object has form (eg a cube). It's properties and form can be
described and so too can the colour property of an object. If one were
blind such a property would have little meaning but would still allow
categorisation of the object according to the colour property.
> I did not come to Christ because I believed the Bible; I hadn't read much
> of it. I asked Jesus into my life because I had a lot of serious problems
> in my life at the time, and was desperate for any help I could get. But,
> once I did ask Jesus into my life, things began to change, a lot. When a
> person accepts Jesus as Savior God, sends His Holy Spirit to live inside
> them.
I have no doubt but that Muslims will say the same about their
religion. Only one of you can be right. As both religions perceive
much the same it is logical to conclude that neither system is right.
> This Presence is real and tangible to the
self-deluding
> Christian. You can clearly
> sense the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Can it be measured or perceived by others? What properties does it
have? Is your experience the same as others of your faith? ....
I don't need nor do I require answers to these questions. I merely
wish to point out that your experience, although real to you, is
subjective and is no more real to another person as the ability to
perceive colour is to a blind man. I can describe colour with
reference to the real world but your experience is not verifiable.
> And as promised in the Bible, the
> Holy Spirit opens your understanding to the Bible, just like having color
> vision opens color to you.
I have already pointed out that my colour vision is imperfect. Perhaps
your interpretation of the bible and acceptance of Christ's spirit is
similarly marred?
> I began to have an enormous appetite for the
> Bible, and read it avidly every day. I began to see that the Bible really
> is one, integrated, completely consistent work.
You are not paying attention to the writings in this newsgroup.
Inconsistencies in the bible have been documented briefly here but
more information is available elsewhere. The bible is not one
integrated consistent work. It is a collection of scriptures that by
omitting other scriptures (see the Agnostic Gospels) have been brought
together to represent the views of the Roman Catholic church of about
400 ad.
> I remember the astonishment
> I felt when I first realized that I could now *see* why various Scriptures
> could be taken from different places in the Bible to make a single point.
Extrapolation to prove any point you care to make.
> It is because the Bible *is* one whole consistent work, and when the Holy
> Spirit gives one the understanding of it, it isn't arbitrary at all.
> Studying the Scriptures, I can see things myself, that are the same things
> Christians in other parts of the world also see.
There is no astonishment in that. Nazis the world over see the same
consistent message in Mein Kampf.
> It is amazing to meet
> Christians from different cultures; it's like meeting family or dear old
> friends you didn't know you had. Some people, particularly non-believers,
> usually only accent the differences; but the commonality of belief and
> worldview is astonishing.
How many different christian groups are there? Let me count the ways:
Roman Catholic
Gr Orthodox
Russian Orthodox
Anglican
Baptist
Methodist
Anabaptist
Seven Day thingummybobs (sorry can't remember their ending)
Calvinist
Lutheran
Christian Scientists
Plymouth Brethren
ad infinitum ad nauseum.
> Like different paintings by the same painter.
>
> Over time, as I studied the Bible and some Christian history, I learned
> that there are fewer things in the Bible that are criticized as error by
> non-believers today, than in the past.
You mean that archaeologists are able to confirm some of the
historical context of the writings. Confirming a few points (such as
the Battle of Khadesh) does not make much in-road into the host of
inaccuracies found within the bible.
Could you tell me one thing: why do christians go to the wrong
Bethlehem to visit the "manger" wherein christ was allegedly born?
> Over time the Bible is increasingly
> attested by other sources to be correct, not the reverse.
No, some references are confirmed. Other archaeological evidence is
deliberately hidden because it would deny the bible (see the Naked
Archaeologist series).
> No purely human
> book would exhibit this characteristic.
Try the Koran. Try the hieroglyphics on the temple of Karnakh. Try the
Hindu scriptures. Try the Sikh scriptures. If your faith is the only
true faith then these others must be purely human books and yet they
too are being proven correct.
> If the Bible were purely human,
> therefore fallible, then in such a large work, over time the number of
> known fallacies would increase, not decrease.
If the bible were purely the word of god then it would have been
written with one voice/hand and would be consistent in manner
throughout. Bible scholars (better christians than yourself)
acknowledge that the individual books are the written works of a
number of scholars with some books exhibiting the hand of more than
one person in their texts.
> For example, until (IIRC)
> circa 1930, the only known reference to Sargon II, king of Assyria, was
> Isaiah 20:1 "In the year that Tartan came to Ashdod, when Sargon the king
> of Assyria sent him, and he fought against Ashdod and took it...". But
> about 1930 they dug up Sargon II's palace, along with his 100,000 volume
> library, and now it's thought that Sargon II may have been the greatest
> king Assyria ever had. Oh, and in that 100,000 volume library they found
> in greater detail the same account as in Isaiah 20:1. Again and again the
> Bible has been shown historically correct through further archeological
> discoveries. It was once thought that the Gospels presented contradictory
> chronologies of Jesus life, but that has been shown to be false, since
> chronologies have been developed that are consistent with the Gospel
> accounts.
Really? You have already shown how christians are prepared to take
unrelated texts within the bible and extrapolate them to prove/
disprove/form the basis of.. some other belief. My recollection of the
gospels is that they are contradictory and most certainly not
contemporary.
>
> Are there passages in the Bible that are difficult to reconcile? Yes,
> there are. There are several reasonable explanations for this. For one
> thing, we do not have the original manuscripts, and scribal errors
Surely the word of god can not be mistranslated? And remember, the
bible is a consistent whole but now you are saying that it is
difficult to reconcile passages (or in other words inconsistent).
> and
> changes have definitely been introduced. For another, as shown in the
> apparent Gospel chronology problems, our knowledge is incomplete. As we
> continue to study the Bible, more and more of the seeming contradictions
> are resolved, as one would expect in a genuine divinely inspired book.
Or perhaps, science is able to show us the small kernel of truth
underlying some of the bible's historical base.
> In addition, there have been a lot of "jewels" uncovered in the digging
> done to resolve the apparent contradictions. So many that theologians
> have suggested God may have intentionally permitted those problems just
> to promote deeper digging in some areas.
Just as god planted dinosaur skeletons in the rocks to encourage
palaeontology?
>
> It is also true that the documentary evidence for Biblical events is
> vastly greater than for any other events of comparable antiquity.
The Hindu scriptures document events that pre-date the biblical events
by millennia.
> For
> example, there is more evidence of Jesus crucifixion
To whit:
1. The bible;
2. A (singular) reference to Jesus in Roman documents;
3. References in Jewish documentation to christ.
Three ws worth of a man's life. Not much to show for 33 years on
the earth.
> and resurrection
No evidence at all. Unless you mean the footprints in Kashmir
(complete with misplaced nail holes).
> than that Julius Caesar ever existed.
Codswallop.
> There are vastly more manuscripts,
> and they date from much closer to the actual events, than any other
> historical events of comparable antiquity.
I wouldn't count multiple copies of the same document. As for the
vastly more manuscripts: which ones?
> For example, there are only
> (IIRC) nine extant copies of Caesar's "Gallic Wars", and the oldest
> dates over 900 years after the events.
Don't we count the contemporary sculptures of Caesar? His conquests?
> There are literally tens of
> thousands of ancient Biblical manuscripts, and some of the New Testament
> manuscripts date from about 30 years after the events.
40 years at least. Unusually long-lived these apostles for a
persecuted sect. And I do not recall reading that any of the gospels
had been written by the idividuals whose names they bear.
>
> (Aside: anyone interested in a legal defense of Jesus crucifixion and
> resurrection should read a little book "The Testimony of the Evangelists"
> by Simon Greenleaf. Check out Greenleaf's credentials while your at it.)
Testimony of the Evangelists? That is like giving a thief the right to
re-write all witness statements bearing evidence against himself.
>
> So, the only thing I, or any other Christian, can do to answer critics
> such as yourself is tell you what we know from experience.
One man's subjective experience is another man's hallucination.
> What you do
> with that information is up to you. You can either believe it, accept
> Christ as your Savior, and you will see and experience what we see
> and experience. Millions have chosen that road. Or you can continue to
> reject our testimony, and you won't ever see it, or experience what we
> do. Many more millions have chosen that road. The choice is yours, and
> that's the bottom line. :-)
No contest. Rejection it is then.
|