Xref: utzoo soc.singles:12917 talk.religion.misc:4121 alt.flame:1301
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdahl!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!husc6!uwvax!uwmcsd1!ig!jade!garnet.berkeley.edu!markxx
From: markxx@garnet.berkeley.edu (,,,,MG59)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,talk.religion.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Christmas parties
Summary: Nose Punching???
Keywords: Jesus, history, blindness
Message-ID: <6565@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 14 Jan 88 21:57:33 GMT
References: <8712231623.AA24882@decwrl.dec.com> <1340@vaxwaller.UUCP> <6442@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <212@sp7040.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 95

In article <212@sp7040.UUCP> dale@sp7040.UUCP (Dale Clark) writes:
>
>Oh, I can't wait to respond to Mr. Mark Ritchie's allegations and aspirsions.
>You wan't to call me names Bubba?  Rather than try to have a intellectual
>discussion - fine.  One can just use that in retrospective to the type of
>person who originates it.  Dull-minded, trapped animals always start looking 
>for spelling errors or picky points when they find nothing else.  If you 
>continue, I won't bother to reply to your jibberish.  In the interest of your
>well spoken refutation I will now endeavor to "punch you in the nose" the same
>way you attempted, in vain, to punch mine.

I am not going to bother to qoute my original article (If anyone is interested
they can go back and look it up), but WHERE did you get that I was trying
to "punch you in the nose"???  You seem to have totally ignored the majority
of my posting, which WAS "trying to have an intellectual discussion" which
you seem convinced I was trying to ignore.  Spelling errors or pickey points?
I certainly was not bringing up pickey points by raising issues related to
linguistic accuracy, cultural context etc. of Biblical manuscripts.  It seems
that YOU are the one avioiding the intellectual discussion.

>
>	>But don't just take my word on it... I was able to hear a lecture
>	>by a historian from Oxford (England)  on just this subject, and he 
>
>Who?  Who did you hear?  Who, where and when?  What are his credentials?
>Have you a transcript of his speech?  That kind of evidence dosen't even
>get past 1st base.  I wont even dignify that claim with a response.  

The disclaimer that I put at the end of that statement was that just because
I say someone says it doesn't make it true, you ommitted.  Fine.  That "kind
of evidence" was not suppossed to go past first base.  The other many points 
that I raised were, and you have mentioned none of them.

>
>I would really invite a discussion from you.  Let's get some preliminary
>things out of the way and then we can focus in on some real points OK?  Are
>you listening?  Are you willing to give it a try?  
>
>Mr. Ritchie, is the Bible fact?  Did God create the Universe in 6 days, or
>stop the sun in the sky to aid Joshua?  Did Jesus feed 5,000 people with
>a few loaves of bread and a few fish?  Did a man actually talk to a donkey or
>live inside a whale?  Facts Mr. Ritchie?  How about Moses - did he part the Red
>sea?  And tell me, just how old is the Universe according to the Bible?  More
>facts?  Do you believe in Darwin's theories?  Do you believe that God can be
>blood-thursty, jealous, or sanction stupidity, slavery, bigamy or murder?
>Where was the mighty Jehova when millions of people were being slaughtered
>during the 1940s?  Where is the historical evidence of the resurrection of
>the alleged Jesus?
>
>When I quote some contradictions to you in the Bible that's all I'm
>pointing out - contradictions.  I'm not trying to say "I'm right - you're
>wrong."  I'm only showing you points that don't back up each other.  I believe
>that the majority of people belonging to a church really have no idea of what
>the core of the beliefs are.  Most shut off their brain, open their wallets
>and purses, and follow without ever studying their religion in depth.  Let's
>begin with the few preliminary questions I posed to you above and then see
>where we go.  But if you want to present evidence in the future, lets make
>it authoritative.  I've heard many people say many things - and as you so
>aply put it "that don't make it so."
>

From the above questions that you raise (Genesis account of creation etc.) it
is quite clear to me that you were more than willing to ignore the rest 
of my posting which was trying to discuss, intellectually, these issues. 
For instance, in my last posting I had raised the question, in regard to 
the alleged contradictions, what translation you were using, had you 
investigated the cultural and literary context etc.  You apparently have not.
Take for instance the Genesis account of creation in 6 days.  IF you go back
to the original language, and compare that passage to other secular texts
written at the same time, it becomes clear that the passage is written as
allegorical poetry.  In addition,if you analize the cultural/historical context
out of which this passage comes, you discover that each of the days mentioned
correspondes to a diety or pantheon of a rival cultural/ethnic group.  The
whole point of the passage is not to assert that Jehovah had created the
world in 6 literal days, but that He was a) the origin of life for the
Jews, and b) was more powerful than the gods of rival groups surrounding 
them.  Taken in its proper context, the contradictions that you assert 
exist disappear.  The fact that some people (notably the so-called
"scientific" creationists) choose to ignore both historical, linguistic 
and literary evidence in understanding the cited passage does not 
change that.  As to the origins of the universe, personally
I do  believe in evolution, that the earth is billions of years old etc.  The
Genesis passage in no way contradicts that, if you take the time to understand
it on its OWN terms. 
	So my questions from my original posting still stand, regarding the
linguistic/historical/literary context of your citations.  I agree with you
that a lot of people belonging to a church have little idea of what the core
of there beliefs are. Most do not study their religion in  depth. If you are
going to attack it however, it would be good to go to the same effort that
others have in trying to understand it, and not simply attack what at first
glance seem to be contradictions.  That is what my original posting was saying.
If you chose to take it as a "punch in the nose" then I don't see that we could
have an intellectual discussion about these issues.

Mark Ritchie