Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gymble.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!bennet
From: bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ... talk to God ... (Really apologetics)
Message-ID: <119@gymble.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Mar-85 03:24:05 EST
Article-I.D.: gymble.119
Posted: Tue Mar 19 03:24:05 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Mar-85 02:49:29 EST
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Laboratory for Parallel Computation, C.P., MD
Lines: 55

>From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
>Subject: Re: what does it mean to talk to God [a brief attempt at an answer]
>Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
>Message-ID: <414@cybvax0.UUCP>
>
>In article <366@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> scott@gargoyle.UUCP ( Deerwester):
>> ...There are a lot of reasons why I believe that Jesus
>> Christ is really the Son of God, and that He really did die for my
>> sins.  [Some objective ones are:]
>> 
>> 	- the resurrection (see "Who Moved The Stone?")
>> 	- fulfilled prophesies in the life of Jesus
>> 	- the testimony and lives of people who were with Him
>> 	- His words and wisdom (C.S. Lewis' "Lord, lunatic or liar" argument)
>> 	- the Earth (the creation implies creator argument)
>
>These are hardly "objective" reasons to believe in JC or God or whatever.
>The first three depend on the unjustified assumption that the Bible is true.
>The lunatic/liar argument is a false dilemma: the conclusion that the Bible
>is the product of liars resolves the dilemma.  As for the creation argument,
>try it in net.origins and give us something to laugh at.
>
>Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
>

In the case of the first four arguments, that the Bible is true needs to be
established only to the extent that the Gospels are reliable as historical
documents.  This can be done in the same manner as with any ancient
document, through textual criticism, archaeology, etc.  This sort of work is
discussed at length in Josh McDowell's book _Evidence_That_Demands_a_Verdict_
(which has certainly been mentioned in this newsgroup before).  His argument
is basically that the accuracy of the NT historical books (Gospels and Acts)
are much better established in terms of the number of manuscripts, the age
of the manuscripts, independent confirmation (Josephus' history for instance),
than many classical works of similar age, such a Caesar's writings, so
that to throw out the NT as historical work means to throw out most of
classical western history.  The book is guaranteed to put you to sleep, but 
that's because it's so careful.

The point is that the truth of the Bible (in this context, anyway) is 
_at_least_ debatable, and may not be simply dismissed.  Arguments 1-4
then become quite formidable.

The argument from creation, classically, is a lot more than disputing about
fossils and dating with radio-isotopes.  (I think Christians waste a lot
of time on this.)  The real issue deals with harder questions such as
"Why are there physical laws?" and "If matter has existed for eternity,
why hasn't everything run down yet?"

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
			Tom Bennet @ Univerity of Maryland Comp Sci Dept
			..!ihnp4!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!bennet

	"Do you believe in God, Winston?"