| James J. Gavan 2008-02-18, 9:56 pm |
| William M. Klein wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
> news:yhpuj.86159$N67.49473@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> A quick use of the internet shows at least one response how Roman Catholics
> handle this verse.
> See:
> http://www.catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
>
> I can't tell you how "official"
> catholic.com
> is, but this page passes a "reasonablity" test (for their views).
>
>
That imprimaturs at the bottom of the page from a Bishop - It's official.
Mind you, I did get caught once. Richard pointed me at a site which he
said Judson probably wouldn't look at - so I took a looksee. (Sorry
reference is on my old machine which is as dead as a duck).
Forgotten name of author and title - but it did have a quote immediately
after from a Catholic subdeacon in Idaho; guess the catholic reference
is legit methinks.
Started reading, quite interesting, then realize I'm getting sucked
in by atheist-propaganda. The style is good, but the objective is to set
up queries as you work your way through OT and NT - and then presumably
at the end, "Whammo ! See the Bible has so many inaccuracies etc.,
etc......".
Two of the early examples as I recall :
(1) - Abraham or thereabouts didn't use a camel for journeys, can't
remember one hump or two humps. OK, so the scribe didn't know how to
spell 'donkey' and put in 'camel'
(2) - An industrious Israelite was transporting herbs/scents across the
desert. But he couldn't have been selling frankincense, it wasn't yet
invented. So the sample product list sold to him by Microsoft along with
his laptop had a boo-boo in the sample Excel spreadsheet (Version 3,000 BCE)
(3) - Initially I thought this one had great significance. The author
pointed out there were no specific Egyptian references,
writings/wall-art etc, to the Jewish period in Egypt. Hmm I initially
thought; then worked it out for myself. Which empires through history
have set up monuments to people who defeated them, or even admit to them
in texts. Strangely enough a Reader's Digest book I've just read backs
what I worked out for myself.
Not all the points were as insignificant as (1) and (2), and initially I
found (3) problematic; bear in mind I stopped reading when I realized I
had been 'had', but the summation was 'With so many glaring examples of
errors in biblical text, how can people possibly declare a god exists ?'.
As to the sub-deacon above, googling turned up he had been quoted
without permission and that further led to a bunch of sites which took
shots at the atheist site.
One intriguing thought I've had over over the years. I can understand
'religionists' having explanatory web sites - I'm less happy if they are
prosletising; it's OK if the site clearly indicates its purpose - then
you don't have to read. But what is so important that some atheists set
up sites to attack what they don't believe in ? (I don't believe in
Dubya but it's pointless setting up a site or blogg attacking him).
Jimmy
|