Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houca.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!hogpc!houca!victorf From: victorf@houca.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Religion is Religion, not history Message-ID: <512@houca.UUCP> Date: Tue, 6-Nov-84 17:08:04 EST Article-I.D.: houca.512 Posted: Tue Nov 6 17:08:04 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 00:32:35 EST Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Holmdel NJ Lines: 79 >>Most of human history is written down in documents. I guess we can't believe >>any of those documents either.So we must not know anything about history. Why >>study it then? Why try to learn from past mistakes in history? It could all >>be a lie. >>As far as I know,the Bible is the most historicaly acurate,and well documented >>books on the earth. If it doesn't have any credibility, then either does any >>other historical document. >>-- >>Ken I have actively avoided responding to this sort of statement in the past because I feel that everyone is allowed to their personal delusions without interference from anyone else. However, after reading this article I found a lump in my throat. Did it come from intolerance? I don't think so. It came from frustration and not a little fear that there are people out there that could convince themselves of something as illogical as the statement above. Ken is an intelligent person, but he would have us throw out all of recorded history because the validity of the Bible has been questioned. There is no chance of changing his mind, and I don't really want to. Part of his belief rests in his accepting as fact the historical, sociallogical, and moral infallibility of the Bible. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Ken). However, I think that his belief should be labeled correctly. I have talked to my share of deeply religious people, many of them in my family. I think I understand, for the most part why they believe what they believe. The magic word is FAITH. Not scientific evidence. Not historical proof. They believe that the Bible is the absolute truth but they don't try to justify it using hard evidence. The fact is that believing in God, the Bible or anything of a religious nature requires a leap of faith. I get the feeling Ken, that you are not willing to admit that. Face it. It's a fact. I can easily accept anything you say if you are willing to admit that it is faith that is the deep-down reason for it. It bothers me that you would challenge, nay reject, all of history before you would question the Bible. You say that the Bible is the most well documented book in history, and is at least as valid as any other document, in a purely objective sense. How can you believe this? I can understand your belief from a faith viewpoint but from an objective, scientific one? Going back to what Ken said, I say that we can be pretty sure that say the last 50 years of history is accurate because we have eye witnesses to it. MILLIONS of them. That's what I call hard evidence! Now, we know they came from somewhere, so there must have been stuff going on before then. We can look at our evidence and be pretty sure that there was a Civil War. We can go back further and as we do our picture gets more sketchy. Every historian will admit that. I'm sure many would admit that we're not 100% sure that Christopher Columbus was the one that discovered America. There is room for uncertainty in history. There is no such room if one is a staunch believer in a deity. Let's take an example from history, I think any one will do. How about the Revolutionary War? Now, the Revolutionary War was documented by thousands of people on both sides of the Atlantic without any other detectable relationship between them. More important than this is that had no motive for such an elaborate scheme to convince future generations of a war that didn't take place.(I dare you, Ken to say that Paul and whoever else had no possible motive for deception. I'm not saying he did, mind you...) And to go a step further, if we found out today that there was no Boston Tea Party, that it was merely an elaborate embellishment by hundreds of people we could say "So what? We still have reason (read hard facts) to believe that the rest of the war took place, FROM MORE THAN ONE SOURCE. This won't change our lives in the least." Could you say that if a little thing like the Resurrection were similarly disproven? It's an academic question because I know nothing will convince you that the Resurrection didn't take place. The basic point of all this is that noone should try to put their religious beliefs on an historical, objective basis without admitting to the leap of faith necessary. I'm just afraid that an intelligent person like Ken may sometime use the same sort of "logic" in a situation in real life. Outside of a religious context the descriptive word is not 'faithful' it is 'stubborn', which is not a good thing. -- ------------------------------------------------------------ From: Scott Thompson Who is at: ihnp4!hoqam!rst Who boasts: 1)Fluency in English. 2) Prehensile hands. ------------------------------------------------------------