Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl resort Henning) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Corruption in Christianity (was Re: How Message-ID: Date: 8 Mar 91 05:47:16 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: SUNY Buffalo Lines: 158 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Ed Lamb writes: >But, you see, if the Bible were a book that was full of errors, >then it would be "just another book." Many books contain errors. Few books which survive the ages are wholly erroneous. The only books which are wholly free from error, are fictitious (that is, if John Updike writes a short story, the question of error is largely irrelevant -- still, we judge the fiction on what it tells us of the world around and inside us). It is beyond my personal knowledge to judge whether the books of the bible are utterly free from "error" (if at one point the LORD tells Noah 2 of every animal, but at a later point says, 2 of every animal, except 7 of these certain other aninmals -- is that an "error"? I think rather it's an editorial seam). The archeological record's illumination of some of the [objective] history /behind/ the /ethnographic/ history of the bible is of interest, certainly -- though personally I find Schliemann's excavation of Troy of rather more interest. >But, if we take the Bible as the Word of God, which it claims for itself, >then we can be assured that these are the Words of God. In my view, I should amend your statement to read "which the bible does not as a self-defining document explicitly claim for the five-dozen-odd books comprising the xian canon, but which xians interpret in such wise, and assure themselves that these are ..." >Also, have you ever read it? I have indeed, and know much of it well, and fondly. But I don't find in the aggregate the "word of god" ... The foreword and postscript to "Rip van Winkle" ascribe the story to an old Dutch inhabitant of New York, named Diedrich Knickerbocker. It would take little imagination (and ignorance of Washington Irving) to take the literal claim [I repeat and capitalize for emphasis LITERAL CLAIM] for the truth ... Most xians approach the bible as "the word of god", and subsequently read into the text all manner of confirmation of this thesis. I don't find that the bible claims this "for itself"; there are authors of the biblical texts who make sanctimonious claims for ... some texts, which common xian belief attributes to these five-dozen-odd books. >... a couple of friends helped me to read it. And do you know >what? It was true! "It", meaning ... the entire bible? True in what way? Also, let me make note of a point relevant to "literal-ness". Unless you are being assisted because of failing eyesight, or are being taught to read, I suspect your friends did not actually "help you read" the bible, but offered assistance in /interpreting/ the bible. It were then an easy matter, to offer "truths". A trifling observation, to point out that most people who claim a literal absolute true-ness for the bible, tend to read -- and speak -- in a metaphoric haze. Not to denigrate the poetical uses of metaphor ... I merely point out its relation to the realm of myth. I have not found (and do not at this point actively seek) any system of interpreting the bible as "the word of god", which I find thoroughly true to the human experience. If others of my fellow citizens on this planet manage to find things useful to them in any of these systems, good for them. Part of what a "relationship with god" is alleged to do for a xian is, to change that person for the better. I find that people (including xians) can and do change their behavior over time -- often for the "better" (howseover defined). If people as individuals evolve, and can even effect change in themselves, then people as a society evolve, and can effect change among themselves. It is counterproductive to deny the changes of the centuries, and to seek to force late 20th-century man into the Procrustean bed of anti-feminist, homophobic, xenophobic, Bronze-age morals. On the other hand, there is the chilling ease with which people even in the late 20th-century subscribe to these anti-feminist, homophobic, xenophobic, Bronze-age morals. What a wonderful world ... >There has NEVER bee one single piece of archeology found which >contradicts the Bible. There is also no evidence astronomical or geological (for instance) in support of the assertion that god stood the earth (actually, the sun according to the text, I think) still while the Israelites fought the Amalekites [or whoever ... I have indeed read the entire bible ... but keeping in absolute touch with all its wondrous trivia is not a priority for me at this stage in my life] >Another thing, the Bible is by far the most prolific book in history. >There were people whose whole lives centered around copying it letter >for letter. NO other book can claim such numbers. Christians were so >persecuted in the 1st century that if errors did creep up, they were >pointed out immediately. This is evidence, not that the bible is god's word, but that it has indeed been so reverenced for centuries. > A lot of times, people do not have trouble believing with their >minds so much as their will. I trust I am not merely dense, in failing to understand what you seek to address by this point. >However, there is evidence in the world that it had a creator, but not >a proof. There is evidence in the world, that there is a world. I am not here by chance; my parents copulated (strictly speaking, I suppose, some pair of people copulated, and I believe these were the people I now address as my parents :-). I observe in the world and society around me that both causality, and [functional] chance, are multifarious factors in what goes on. My morality is built on the premise that I am responsible to myself and those around me for my actions, and that harmonious interaction with other people is sufficient as a desirable good, to serve as a basic principle. Most such basic principles stand a good deal of elaboration in the wondrous richness of the world we live in, but such is the cost of life, I suppose. To wit: Were you to shoot me dead while I type this, this choice of action on your part would not only be deleterious to the fabric of our relationship, but would certainly discourage other members of society from permitting you such irresponsible freedom of action in future. If, on the other hand, I were lying hopelessly maimed on a battlefield, my body torn up beyond hope of surgical repair, yet terribly awake and aware of my plight -- if /then/ you were to shoot me dead, your action would be the soul of mercy itself. >You have no hope. I hope I can finish my doctorate in another 15 months ... and I have reason to believe my hope well-founded. >You cannot talk about meaning, about values, about >right and wrong without some ultimate standard. Pish, not to say tush. Miss Manners says it's rude to belch at a host's dinner-table. Miss Saudi Manners says it's polite to signify appreciation of your host's fare by belching afterwards. In this instance, I have just discussed values, meaning, right & wrong. The burden of demonstrating an ultimate standard here, is yours. kph -- "The shrewder mobs of America, who dislike having two minds upon a subject, both determine and act upon it drunk; by which means a world of cold and tedious speculation is dispensed with." -- Washington Irving