Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!david From: david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: reply to Lord Frith Message-ID: <301@cvl.UUCP> Date: Sun, 14-Apr-85 18:06:54 EST Article-I.D.: cvl.301 Posted: Sun Apr 14 18:06:54 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 21-Apr-85 03:00:39 EST Distribution: net Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland, College Park Lines: 252 Reply to a reply: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: reply to Mike Huybensz, concerning miracles Message-ID: <857@trwatf.UUCP> Subject: reply to Mike Huybensz, concerning miracles > [David Harwood replys to Mike Huybensz] > (You, who can't even spell "charlatan" correctly, -- has someone said > that you are a "hack" since you don't know what you are spelling, > nevermind talking about? [Lord Frith jumps into the fray] You shouldn't criticize David. Your own grammer and sentence constructs leave much to be desired. Have I accused you of having "hack" your concepts or beliefs because you are unable to articulate them in a way that is easily understood by other people? Of course not. Then don't accuse people of having invalid beliefs simply because they spell one word incorrectly. Seriously. Your articles are very difficult to slog through. Go take English composition 101. You really need to work on this. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The word is "grammar" -- I know because my undergraduate education is in the psychology of language, with good background in formal linguistics. Besides this, your first sentence is missing a comma, and your usage of "constructs" is not standard; you mean "constructions", possibly. Please, let us stop this sort of thing. I am very sorry I slightingly referred to Mike Huybensz as a "hack". (I was making an analogy, however imperfect, as the missing context shows; nevertheless, I was wrong to jump on him about his spelling.) Despite the fact that I write long replies, I do not carefully edit them, but write them extemporaneously as you do, because there is no time. Religious arguments are more difficult than others anyway, since we are not talking about material phenomena at all. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > [David Harwood] > You confuse "vague" with "ambiguous"; the Gospels are written by > perhaps the greatest literary geniuses of all time Perhaps. Perhaps not. Why do you bother making claims like this without any proof to substantiate them? Have you studied ALL the literary greats throughout time and compared their works to the bible? Why haven't all of the other literary scholars concluded this as well? Now as I recall Paul DID go to one of the better schools at the time and was quite a scholar and debater in his time, but that hardly makes him a "literary genius" as you describe him. Looks to me like you're embellishing the scriptures with your own triumphalistic notions. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am giving my own opinion; but not simply my own. The primary purposes of religious writing are perhaps to be informative and persuasive: they have succeeded at this. And they abound with meaningful religious figures of speech, many borrowed from Jewish tradition. There simply is no literary form like the Gospels anywhere. It is true that Paul was a student of Gamaliel, but his genius is not so much in the form of his Greek writing, but the persuasiveness of his religious intuition. In the end, intuition and imagination are more important than style, but his literary style is very good also, according to experts. I've read quite a lot; and this is my opinion. I admit that I did not realize this until after I became a Christian, since largely I had not read the Bible, and I did not understand or appreciate its qualities. It is hard to appreciate their literary genius if you are unsympathetic to the subject. But if you come to believe that their subject is the most important in history, then you come to love the scriptures. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> [Mike Huybensz] >> A friendly word of net advice: it doesn't pay to speculate about what I >> do or don't know: instead, stick to discussing my points. > [David Harwood] > Let me give you a friendly word of advice: I will say what I want. And you'll still be wrong. You prove yourself even more stubborn and liable by not listening to the valid criticisms of your bretheren. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I get impatient too, but I give fuller, more respectful replies than most. Mike should worry about himself; he's the one full of accusations about "charlatans", "fraudualent miracle-workers", "shills", and "cabals" of fraudulent apostles. Also, he doesn't stick to his own points, and simply dismisses my replies with notions about "conspiracy theories". I believe Mike is intelligent, but very unreasonably prejudiced, a programmatic "agnostic". In my opinion, Mike does not know much of anything about the scriptures, and this was what he was ostensibly commenting on by his accusations. I was pursuing the point at hand. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > [David Harwood] > Why do they even have him misquote the Jewish scriptures at one point? I think I might have missed *this* one. Which one? Why DID he misquote it (specifically within the context of the record)? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Gospel writer has him misquote a scripture, unintentionally I'm sure. My point was that the Gospels are not inerrant histories; they have mistakes and inconsistencies, which are jumped on by skeptics and rationalized by fundementalists, both because they take these writings much too literally. I don't know whether Jesus simply misquoted, or whether the author did not check his own reference. Anyway, Jesus is said to mistakenly identify a scriptural reference to the High Priest during the time of David (Ablmelech? I can't remember either.) I can't recall exactly where this mistake occurs (I don't have a Bible handy), but I remember the passage: Jesus is citing scripture about David who violated the Law by giving bread to his starving companions, bread which was reserved in the sanctuary for feeding the Priests. Jesus is justifying by precedent his own example, but you may consider for yourself what is the significance of Jesus permission of his followers, to receive sustenance from what is reserved. (I don't think this should be understood too literally either: figuratively, almost everywhere in the Bible food = spiritual knowledge. Of course, this is simply my opinion.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> [Mike Huybensz] >> The choice is not JC or nothing: it is JC, Buddha, Mohammed, Zoroaster, >> Moses, Krishna, etc. or nothing. They all have testimony in their >> favor by believers who have "no obvious reason to deceive anyone". > The only thing I would say about these others is: first, unlike > Christianity, they are not widely accepted throughout the world in every > culture. Popular acceptance is NOT a valid test of how "right" or accurate a religion is. Is Christianity REALLY the number one religion in the world? With over a quarter of the world's population in China I would have expected the dominant religion to be found there, but as I say, popular support is not a causal gauge of which religion is the right one. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I wasn't talking about "popular acceptance", as such, but cross- cultural, international "acceptance". Please be fair to us, and simply read what I say. I am talking about universal appeal, not numbers. The Gospels are persuasive of the truth to people from all cultures. Of course, I do not believe that "popularity" makes right -- I am not a moral relativist. As for China, as you may know, the state discourages religion, and replaces it with religious "socialism". But despite this repression, Christianity has not died there, and has recently increased during the present, more liberal government. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I also think that you'll have a hard time really figuring out just how many REAL Christians there really are out there. A lot of evangelical and charasmatic organizations love to trumpet their claims as to how many people they baptised and saved from damnation last night at the prayer rally in some remote country. Remember, many are called. Indeed many will claim they have been called. But few are actually chosen. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Again, I am not talking about "popularity", but universal appeal across nations. The Gospel is about a Jew, written by Jews and a Greek physician. But it is so psychologically convincing in the way it portrays our sins, our arrogance and deception, which imprison us, and in the way it portrays how we should live, that we want to accept that it may be true about other things. Almost all my Christian friends reject warfare, and would like to see our nation try to be genuinely charitable to the others, rather than try to maximize economic or political advantage. Those who are starving have just as much right to live as you do. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > [David Harwood] > This is because of missionaries, but also because the simple Gospel > message of charitable love is compellingly universal, and untainted by > either violence or escape from reality: it is about good will in the real > world; second, if we are to survive as a human race, we shall someday have > to live as Jesus did, securing justice and peace with steadfast charitableness > and truth. There is the "beatitude": "Happy shall be the gentle; for they > shall inherit the earth." But this is from a Psalm, where it essentially > says that the wicked shall have someday destroyed themselves. Finally, if > this is so, and if there is God, then from the point of view of racial > survival, Christianity is morally axiomatic; and not only this, if there > is God, then surely Jesus was His Son who revealed the way of life. I agree with this. Indeed this fits somewhat into Laura's "if it works, it's right" philopsophy. Remember of course that the above consitutes an informal rationale. Not a proof, but compelling reason. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ But you understand that I am not talking about popularity. I am simply observing, that if there is a God, then the created universe has a moral structure (a karma if you wish), and only the peaceful will survive. I can imagine many worlds, beautiful worlds full of life, like our own Earth. But among these are stillborn worlds, where theories of just warfare combined inevitably with amoral technolgy, and arrived quite naturally at a final uncharitable conclusion. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > [David Harwood] > As I say, there are miracles all the time, but not as you imagine, and > not for you, unless you will someday want to get down on your knees. Now you're being unreasonable Dave. Only God knows our hearts. Who and what are you to dare usurp his position and authority? By the above you are essentially denying someone what God may decide to provide out of the goodness of his heart. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am saying, according to scripture, God uplifts the humble and down-trodden, and casts down the arrogant. What I mean is that you must desire to have faith. Figuratively, this is what I mean by "getting down on your knees"-- there must be sincere religious intention. I agree that only God knows our hearts, and that God is gracious. I am simply speaking from my experience -- I could not even begin to find God until I wanted to repent. If I sound officious to you, I'm sorry, but I don't actually feel this way, except that sometimes I am annoyed with "agnostic" accusations about things they don't try to understand. Please consider how you would feel if someone made such remarks about your brother or father or sister they've never met, nor desire to know. Obviously, the only reason I write to this Net is to reply as a matter of religious obligation; there is no reward for me, except to say what I believe is true about Christianity, when it has been badly represented by many people, in my opinion, and has been criticized by those who prefer to have their prejudices no matter what is said to straighten out the path. (Yes, I prefer my own view to that of "fundement- alists", although I believe there are very many people of good will among them.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > I've already speculated about these things at length in other replies; > as for you, are you prepared to get on your knees before God, or would > you rather not? He will simply give you what you would sincerely > desire. God acts as he sees fit and not upon your word. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Agreed. I believe what I said is true. But its truth has nothing to do with me. Do you remember what were Jesus last words to unbelievers? He said they would never see him again until they said (in their hearts) "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." The second coming of Christ, so-called, on the Day of the Lord, coming on the clouds of heaven, is said to be "like the lightning which goes from East to West." Popularly, this is thought to be at the end of the age, which ends in catastrophe. But actually it is not an historical event, to be located in place and time; it is eternal. The "coming" of the Lord does often follow personal catastrophe, as well as global catastrophe. It is not so much a matter of the coming of the Lord, as when we are willing to recieve Him. And this is often very late. Hence, we shall not see Him again until we do say "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." Very probably on our knees.