Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re:

On Jan 26, 1:40=A0pm, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:506de0df-d205-4c06-ba1a-37a08770bfa2@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 25, 12:26 am, "Pete Dashwood"
>
> <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: 
> 
>
> 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.
>
>  [Pete:]=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D
>
> Not at all. I have no desired conclusion whatsoever.

Would that were true.

> I don't personally believe the Bible was inspired by God, because
> I don't believe in God,

Seems reasonable.

> but that wasn't the reason for my question. Having done some quite extensi=[/color
]
ve
> research on the subject, I don't recall at any time seeing where the Bible=[/color
]

> itself (meaning the writings of which it is composed) carries the imprimat=[/color
]
ur
> of the Almighty. It is a fair question and not intended as a "debating
> trick".

Well I'm sure people with bibles at the ready will tell you.  But if
it did, wouldn't the question be begged anyway?  It seems a bit of a
bogus issue to me.
 
>
> Decide what?
>
>  [Pete:]=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Decide what would be the contents of the Bible, as approved by the Christi=[/color
]
an
> Church.

Ah.  Thanks.  No they didn't, is the answer.

The apostolic circle made no pronouncement on a canon of a NT, not
least because the issue was probably simply irrelevant in their time
-- who needs a book when you have a living voice.

> 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
>
>  [Pete:]=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> I accessed your page and found it very interesting. However, you cannot
> definitively state that "No such events took place".

I think that we can.  If there is no evidence of it whatever, and the
other evidence indicates a process occurring rather differently, then
surely that is final.

Anyone can make up stories about antiquity.  But we ignore them unless
something in the data calls for it, surely?

> While I agree there is
> evidence to suggest that canonization of Scripture may not have been a maj=[/color
]
or
> item on the agenda, I'm not persuaded that there was no discussion of it a=[/color
]
t
> all. I believe it is "arguable"...

Based on what piece of data?

> 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.
>
>  [Pete:]=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> No such implication was intended, there is no such insinuation, and you ha=[/color
]
ve
> simply inferred incorrectly.

Would that were true.

> I can accept that people inspired by God may well have wrtten scripture.
> (Given that I could accept the existence of God). My problem with it is th=[/color
]
at
> had that been the case, there would be some evidence of divine inspiration=[/color
]
,
> and the work would not be as flawed as it is. If God wrote it (directly or=[/color
]

> indirectly) why isn't His mark on it?

I wonder how you would test for divine inspiration?  <chuckle>

And you deny making 'theological statements'??
 
e 
>
> This is not correct. =A0All texts with any respectable credentials made
> it into the NT.
>
>  [Pete:]=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> OH no they didn't... OH yes they did.... Look out behind you...!

I wonder why you didn't simply either back up your claim or withdraw
it.  Instead you choose to mock my comment.  Do you have problems with
honest debate?
 
>
> A reasonable question. =A0I would only ask whether you have gone and
> found out, or whether you are merely in "propellor mode" trying to
> divert the question? =A0I think we know which is the case.... =A0<grin>
>
>  [Pete:]=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> [snip] As for "Going and finding out" I spent 30
> years doing exactly that... I still ask the question in the hope that
> someone else may have an aswer that is definitive.

??? Anyone who chooses to know the history of the NT canon may do so
in an afternoon in any research library.  If you spent 30 years, why
on earth didn't you look at Metzger on the canon of the NT?  The
standard, undergraduate text?  Who did you ask, what did you read, if
you never got that far?

I am having great difficulty with believing in your sincerity, when
you write stuff like this, containing no data, assertions of "it's all
too difficult" followed by the conclusion "Christianity can't be
true".

>  =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> 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.
>
>  [Pete:]=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> I'm (evasion snipped)

Be honest.
 
he 
>
> 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. =A0It is merely
> an assertion, and a rather tired one.
>
>  [Pete:]=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
>
> It is indeed an assertion. I never said otherwise

Where did you label it an assertion?

> and the rest of it was all in your head.

Would that were true.

> Whether it is tired or not, I really can't say...(etc)

I think you've been caught red-handed, buster.  But if bashing the
bible requires these sorts of tricks and evasions, then I infer that
you must be rather afraid that it might all be true!  Quite why that
possibility should make you quake I do not know -- the idea doesn't
make me tremble one bit.

>  =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
> What you need to make clear is what your alternative is, surely. =A0I
> think we would find that it was some form of conformity to societal
> values, and that really won't do. =A0Surely?
>
>  [Pete:]=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
> (evasion snipped)

Hum.
 
 
>
> 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... =A0It isn't true, anyway.
>
>  [Pete:]=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
> You certainly (snip) ...

The more he talked about integrity, the faster we counted our spoons.
 
s 
, 
 
>
> 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.
>
>  {Pete:]=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
>
> Ah, now THAT I understand. I reference the Scriptures of most of the World=[/color
]
's
> great religions and you decide I am referring to the Media of the time, wh=[/color
]
o
> have an agenda that becomes "orthodoxy". =A0If you read such scriptures, y=[/color
]
ou
> might change your opinion (or not).

No answer?  I thought not.

It's terribly easy to throw the rocks that the establishment proffer
at their selected targets, if we are dumb and gullible.  But it should
be a clue to us all, when we can't even discuss our alternative view.

>  =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
> Nice to see their tired old cliche about "the World's great religions"
> -- to suggest fake equivalence -- as a distraction from a straight debate,=[/color
]

> tho. =A0That's what they made it for. =A0But we should ask instead just
> why our masters are trustworthy. =A0If we have money in the stockmarket,
> doubly so!
>
>  [Pete:]=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
>
> "fake equivalence" to what? =A0You lost me again...
>  =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Fake equivalence between...

> I only popped in because I saw the ref. to Nicaea, but I hope this
> helps. =A0I'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.
>
>  [Pete:]=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Just as well ...[jeering snipped]

Oh dear.  Funny how failures of integrity seem to be all part and
parcel of bashing the bible.  I can never see why they should be, but
they are.

All the best,

Roger Pearse