| roger.pearse@googlemail.com 2008-01-26, 7:55 am |
| On Jan 25, 12:26=A0am, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Again, does the Bible itself claim to be the true Word of God? =A0
Um, something very like it, as I think you know.
Phrasing a statement as a question is an old debating trick, which you
employ here in order to reach your desired conclusion, that the bible
is not inspired by God. Now I have no opinion on that, but I am
somewhat nervous that you are simply playing with your correspondant
here, by starting any hares that are around in order to obscure
whatever the issue is. I didn't pay any attention to *that*, so have
no view on it; but I recognise the tricks of the trade.
> Didn't the people who wrote it and the Council of Nicaea decide that?
Decide what?
The idea that the Council of Nicaea determined the canon of scripture
-- which is what I think you are saying here -- is actually a myth.
No such events took place.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
Your other insinuation (no offence, but what else do I call a
statement which you don't actually make explicit but is clearly
there?) -- that if human beings wrote down a book then it cannot be
divinely inspired, well, that appears to be a theological proposition
about God. Unless you can find an authority for it, you need to
demonstrate holiness of life and ability to work miracles in order for
your claim to authority to be taken seriously, surely?
At least, that was the medieval requirement, for such claims on behalf
of God, and if it was more widely applied today it would certainly cut
down on the number of L. Ron Hubbards around!
> However, there are just as many ancient texts that were EXCLUDED from the
> Bible (and had the same credentials as what was INCLUDED)
This is not correct. All texts with any respectable credentials made
it into the NT.
> "So, WHO decided what was the "reliable and true Word of God"?"
A reasonable question. I would only ask whether you have gone and
found out, or whether you are merely in "propellor mode" trying to
divert the question? I think we know which is the case.... <grin>
Sorry, but you're playing a very traditional game here, raising any
objections or problems that you can find on the basis that you can
then get your opponent to buy into the idea that he can't win unless
he can rebut every one of your objections, while you win unless he
does.
> Is it unreasonable to suppose that if it WERE "the reliable and true Word =
of
> God", God would have put His imprimatur on it somewhere?... maybe it would=
> light up every time you opened it :-)...
Still waiting for that evidence of holiness of life and ability to
work miracles from you so we can evaluate your theological
assertions... <evil grin>
Man that asceticism hurts...
> No, it is a work of Men. Written by Men across centuries, in answer to the=
> needs of Men.
Interesting theological assertion (see above for required evidence
prior to evaluation), but if this is supposed to be a conclusion from
what you wrote (or worse, insinuated) above, it is not. It is merely
an assertion, and a rather tired one.
What you need to make clear is what your alternative is, surely. I
think we would find that it was some form of conformity to societal
values, and that really won't do. Surely?
> Again, too black and white. It isn't necessarily a lie in the sense of a
> deliberate deceit. The nature of Truth changes. What might be an acceptabl=
e
> explanation to a primitive people 3500 years ago, may not be seen as "trut=
h"
> today.
I'm afraid that this sounds like the sort of evasion that that French
banker who lost $7bn might be trying on his employers at the
moment... It isn't true, anyway.
> I believe there is much of value in the Scriptures of most of the World's
> great religions. It isn't about a two-valued Logic system: True or False,
> Black or White, it is about what is useful and helpful relative to other
> alternatives; a many-valued Logic system.
I would agree that there is little of value in the scriptures of the
religion of most people, including yourself, since these 'scriptures'
consist mainly of whatever the people who control the media agenda of
the time in which we live happen to want to make orthodoxy. We need
to think for ourselves, and evaluate what we are told. Nice to see
their tired old cliche about "the World's great religions" -- to
suggest fake equivalence -- as a distraction from a straight debate,
tho. That's what they made it for. But we should ask instead just
why our masters are trustworthy. If we have money in the stockmarket,
doubly so!
I only popped in because I saw the ref. to Nicaea, but I hope this
helps. I'm not attacking *you* -- you may not even realise how the
polemic you are repeating is structured -- but it *is* bogus polemic,
is put out by the Great and the Good of our day, and involves a fraud
being practised on us all.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
|