Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion Message-ID: <1019@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Fri, 31-May-85 19:52:18 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1019 Posted: Fri May 31 19:52:18 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 1-Jun-85 03:40:06 EDT References: <2006@decwrl.UUCP> <749@rayssd.UUCP> <323@scgvaxd.UUCP> <324@scgvaxd.UUCP> <325@scgvaxd.UUCP> <326@scgvaxd.UUCP> Organization: The Chartered Accountants Who Want to Be Lion Tamers Association Lines: 126 > The Uniqueness of The Bible Though many major religions and belief systems throughout the world have their own sets of "holy" documents, Boskovich claims the Bible to be unique. A good look at each and every other document shows them all to be "just as" unique as the Bible. Each holding a different perspective, each offering different wisdom in a different way based on the culture that developed it. To say that the Bible is unique is to say nothing with regard to its supposed veracity. Boskovich states AS EVIDENCE supporting the Bible's veracity that it was written as no other book in history: by different people, at different times, in different places, in different languages! Impressive, but hardly evidence. > Its subject matter includes hundreds of controversial subjects which > would normally create oppossing opinions when discussed, yet biblical > writers spoke on these issues with harmony and continuity. To this day, it still creates opposing opinions when discussed. Normally. Of course, if those who follow the early authors accept their notions when writing later portions, continuity will seem to appear. Maybe they left out the non-continuous, non-agreeing portions that others wrote? Maybe they only included what fit? As those who would seek to prove the book's deific origin do? > Such a work, encompassing the lives of generations of individuals, > can only be accounted for by a common author, the Spirit of God. It can "only" be accounted for in this manner if you already assume it to be so. > Teaches contrary to human thought. > > Records the sins and failures of its own characters and own country. > > Even the greatest of the Heroes are shown at their worst. King David > commits adultry, Moses loses his temper and disobeys God, Elijah > falls into self-pity, Jonah disobeys God out of prejudice, Peter > denies Christ, Paul condemns himself for persecuting the church, > Jacob deceives his brother out of his birth right. Greek mythology doesn't show similar things? Why, in fact, they even show GODS behaving in those ways! Does this mean that (thus?) Greek mythology bears the real truth? Of course not. > The great prophets of Isreal and the Apostles accuse their country > of disobedience, wickedness, and apostasy. Ironic how the "Christians" of today despise those who point out the same things in their own society and (so-called) morality. > Who would paint such a picture of man as we find in scripture. Man's > tendency is to either exalt himself above what he is or reduce himself > below his true nature. As seen, in fact, in the Bible, which clearly does both at the same time! "Man (sic) was made in the image of god, the flower of his (sic) creation, destined to have dominion over the earth." If that's not overexalting, what is? The very basis of this sort of religious thinking is to impose upon oneself a feeling of self-importance: in a natural world of natural events, it's nice to think that a god is controlling things and watching over YOU. Ironically, at the same time, the image of a vengeful god telling humans what to do and punishing those who "disobey" is prevalent. Such an image is clearly a self-imposed one involving a negative self-worth regarding one's species: man is evil, he must be controlled and told what to do by an external judgin entity. Who would paint such a picture? People with a very cockeyed sense of what humanity and the universe are all about. > Man also has a tendency to avoid responsibility > for his own actions. This attribute of secular humanism, blaming our > environment, genes, and other people for our behaviour is nothing new. > It all began when God questioned Adam, "Did you eat of the fruit that > I told you not to eat?" Adam's irresponsible reply, "The WOMAN that YOU > GAVE ME gave me the fruit and I ate it!" Aesop's fables also provide good stories with good morals, but I don't see anyone today worshipping Greek gods because of it. Furthermore, you're right, it's nothing new. But it's nothing wrong, either. We ARE the products of our physical makeup, our environment, our sum and total experiences in life. Those who talk of responsibility seem more interested in pinning blame on others than actually taking responsibility themselves or encouraging it in others. More buzzwords with negative connotations like the dreaded "secular humanism". When you can actually point out something logically and ethically wrong with secular humanism beyond the fact that you don't like its point of view, let us all know. > The writer's of scripture could only have portrayed such an accurate > picture of man, writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit. ONLY, if you assume that in advance. What about all the other great writers throughout history and throughout the world. Very culturally centrist of you. > The bible is unique in its teaching about salvation. All religions of > the world have one thing in common. They all portray salvation as > attainable through human effort. The natural desire of man to earn > merit is completely absent in the writers of scripture as they, one > by one, from Genesis to Revelation, illustrate the inadequecy of man > and the Gracious gift of God: Salvation! So? The Bible has a different "line". Does that make it right? Only if you already believe in it. > The bible has survived various attacks and attempts to destroy it. Because so many people cling to what they wish for and hope for regardless of reason, evidence, and thinking, because they want it that way, and because they've been conditioned to think in that way. > Some powerful men in history have tried to rid the world of the holy > Scriptures, as others have predicted its demise. The French humanist, > Voltaire, boastfully proclaimed, "Fifty years from now the world will > hear no more of the Bible." That's what happens when you have too much faith in something. Too much faith, in this case, in the ability of reasoned people to educate masses of people in reasoned thought and analysis. > The Bible, is the only religious book in which there has never been > found a legitimate error. The Koran, the Book of Mormon, and many other > "sacred" books contain gross errors and inconsistencies. What's a legitimate error? Any error uncovered (like the chronology of the whole story of creation) is plastered over with new "interpretation" to make it still fit, or (worse) the real world evidence is simply denied in favor of the original text. In such an atmosphere, how could you ever find an error? -- "Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr