Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!njin!paul.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: tja@mungunni.cs.mu.oz.au (Tim ARNOLD) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: "Grail Message" (was Re: Creation) Message-ID: Date: 26 Nov 90 02:18:21 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 70 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) writes: >deleted stuff about objectivity >On the other hand, it may be just as difficult for someone who has >chosen to adhere to a particular "Christian" teaching to examine the >new knowledge of the Grail Message objectively. I find that many are >quite strongly attached to their interpretation of the Mission and >Message of Jesus, and in that case, I would not recommend that they >bother to examine the Grail Message, since there is no possibility >for them to be objective about it. That argument just doesn't wash. If we should not examine evidence because we cannot approach it objectively and, as you have just argued, we cannot be perfectly objective then the logical conclusion is that we do not examine any evidence for fear of reaching mistaken conclusions. >And I say that GOD's WORD was that spoken by Jesus, Himself! Do you think a perfect God would be negligent enough to give out His Word and then not provide some mechanism for reliably passing it on to subsequent generations? The account at the beginning of Acts and the equiping of the apostles to begin this process just makes sense, arguments of "inspiration" aside. >If people choose to believe that the WORD of Jesus was recorded by men >exactly and in its entirety, then that is an assertation with which I >myself cannot agree whatsoever. How do you know that Jesus was in fact God if it wasn't for these men and women who faithfully taught in the church's embryonic state. I agree that they did not record all of His exact words (the Gospels are not long enough for a start). What is a more important question is: Did they record what God wanted them to record? 2 Tim 3:16 and other like verses claim this. We can only examine the documents and allow God to lead us to a correct conclusion. But claims like that one tend to make it an all or nothing proposition. >stuff deleted about Holy Spirit's subsequent work, God's perfection, >reincarnation and other things >Regards, >Mark Sandrock >-- >BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign >Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services >Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801 You choose to allow the Bible to be authoritative where it supports your viewpoint but question its validity where it brings your views under scrutiny. Is this reasonable? If so why? Do you approach the Bible wanting to be changed to more reflect God in your own thoughts and actions or hoping and expecting to find support for your views and ideas? What does the Bible say about that? Humour me for a while and try and find if the Bible says anything about free- will. I am inclined to think that this is a human construction which is useful for explaining some aspects of God's plan but it is not an argument explicitly found in the Bible (I make this a little inflamatory in order to provoke you all to prove me wrong!). Tim. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Arnold Law/Science (Computer Science Hons) Undergrad tja@munnari.cs.mu.oz.AU The University of Melbourne