Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cbscd5.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!sb1!ll1!otuxa!we13!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscd5!pmd From: pmd@cbscd5.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: To Tim Maroney (Re: Dave Carr) Message-ID: <375@cbscd5.UUCP> Date: Tue, 2-Aug-83 11:56:18 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscd5.375 Posted: Tue Aug 2 11:56:18 1983 Date-Received: Thu, 4-Aug-83 01:14:38 EDT Organization: Bell Labs, Columbus Lines: 237 My apologies to those who may be seeing this for the second time. I don't think it got out to the net the first time. I wish cbosgd were more reliable. I would appreciate any civil comments on my discussion here. Thanks. [From Dave Carr:] To Bob Langdon Re: your comments and quotes directed to Tim - Garbage. I wouldn't agree that the quotes are garbage. The use of them was poor however. Scripture was given with a definite intent for it's use. In the free marketplace of ideas the Bible does not support itself. It makes no attempt to, and is not intended to do so. It is revelation, not an apologetic. If the Bible were it's own apologia it would become outdated with change in intellectual climate. The scriptures Bob quoted in response to Tim's assertions/questions about Noah's ark and the flood are not the Bible's attempt to explain or proscribe questions asked by skeptics. They are statements describing God's character and do not address themselves to any particular questions. As I see it, the Bible encourages (even commands) the seeking of knowledge and wisdom. (Prov. 2:1-17, Heb. 11:6, Jer. 29:13). Is it so hard for you to accept the fact that a goodly part of the Bible is myth? I have trouble with your use of the word "fact" here. There is a good deal of (unpopular) scientific and archeological support for the "myths" of the Bible. I admit it has had poor representation on the net, but it exists none the less. I think there are reasonable answers to the original questions about the ark. Maybe I'll put my 2 cents worth in if I get the time. Anyone who is really interested should check out the book "The Genesis Flood" by Henry Morris and John Witcomb (1977 I think). "Seek with an open mind and an sincere heart to know the truth." If you seek your truth in the Bible, at least do so openly and critically. The Bible should be read in the context of its historical, social, and cultural foundations. In addition,... I couldn't agree more. But remember if Christianity is true, it is not the servant of pure human reason. The element of faith and trust in any religion is important. Otherwise, how do we know that we are not believing some man-made philosophy instead of a real, infinite, God. If the knowledge of God and his ways were completly comprehensible by humans, either humans would be God (which is the essence of some religions) or God would be finite--which still leaves open the possibility of the existence of a still greater "God". Although reason can go a long way in understanding Him, we should expect there to be limits if God is indeed the Creator and man his creation. How would you expect to call God "Lord" if you are on equal terms with him? So being open to the possibility of Christianity being true involves (on the part of the skeptic) the willingness to admit that man is not and never has been his own god. That is the stumbling block for many. ... the inaccuracy of translation should make you wary of accepting the Bible as the literal Word. A translation in any language other than the original Hebrew (O.T.) or Greek (N.T.) will not convey the exact meaning of the original text. This is one of the commonly unpercieved difficulties in Bible interpretation and the source of many conflicting doctrines umong Christians. The English translations cannot be taken as the literal Word. We have to rely on sound scolarship in this area. Also, not all mandates of Scripture have equal weight. Jesus spoke of the "weightier matters of the Law" and the "greatest" and "least" of the commandments. So even with sound hermeneutics there are still some things in Scripture that are not to be taken as hard doctrine or are not to be emphasized as much as others. These cases are not determined by our own whim but from the context of Scripture itself. A good book on this is "Options in Contemporary Christian Ethics" by Norman Geisler. I'd recommend it to any Christian. Blind faith is a hiding place for weak faith. True and strong faith is not only open to criticism - it will take to heart that criticism to see if there is truth in it. AMEN! What many Christians don't seem to realize is that the Bible is not THE unabridged encyclopedia of all truth. It is a framework whithin which there is great intellectual and practical freedom. Although truth revealed from other sources does not carry the authority of Scripture, it is truth none the less. When something that seems to be true conflicts with Scripture, there are four possible reasons: 1) Scripture is wrong. 2) Scripture is right and the conflicting "truth" is actually false. 3) The conflict is only apparent and is resolved upon closer examination. 4) I do not have enough of the facts to make a good judgement and I can suspend judgement until I gain a better understanding of the issue. I must say that I have never been compelled to come to the first conclusion. I often have doubts as to the truth of Scripture, but doubt usually is the precursor of a better understanding. When I run into a conflict between the Bible and a conflicting truism, my first action is to suppose the Bible is true--for the moment. I do this because of my experience in resolving past conflicts. If, after diligent study (degree of diligence depending on how important the issue is) I cannot reconcile the difference (this is rare) I am content to take the fourth position above. Often, when I follow the Bible's instruction in spite of the conflict, the experience reveals, in retrospect, that the Bible's instruction was in fact the better way. It provides better results even though it didn't appear that it would at the outset. I have so much experience in seeing so many apparently irreconcilable conflicts resolved in this way that I have a deep trust in Scripture as the revealed word of God. Because of this experience I can have faith that the important conflicts I now experience will be resolved in the future. God's faithfulness in the past is my (subjective to be sure) assurance of His faithfulness now and in the future. He has not always given me what I have wanted (just like my parents when I was a kid) but I have to say that, looking back on it all, He has always given me the best. In the above paragraph I have breifly described the biblical relationship I see between faith and reason. This is the essence of Heb. 11:6. As I have said before, if the God of the Bible is who he claims to be, it cannot be expected that the complete knowledge of him will fit into the finite human intellect. There have to be limits, but their existence is no excuse for being content not to find the limits; given the scriptural admonitions cited above. As C.S. Lewis once said, "One must look along, and at, everything". I think people are wrong in insisting on an accurate view of true Cristianity just by looking at it from the outside. You will never be completely convinced of its truth if you limit yourself to this view. Acceptance of the claims of Christianity can never be a passive affair on the part of the individual. In anything God does on our behalf (e.g. saving us from death, damnation, drugs, etc.; giving us knowledge, wisdom, spiritual gifts, etc.) there is always an volitional act required on our part. Otherwise God would be guilty of forcing his will on us and making us dependent on him against our will. I want to illustrate this by trying to answer one of the questions Tim asked about Noah's ark. Tim: You asked why and omnipotent God would require Noah to build an ark, Lot to leave Sodom on foot and other such things on the part of individuals instead of just doing it all for them. I would say that the reason is because it would violate a cardinal principle God uses in his dealings with humans. Humans have a right to (by their own actions) reject God's benevolent acts done on their behalf. Noah, though he was righteous had the right to act in disbelief that God would flood the earth as much as anyone else. Building the ark was Noah's volitional act in acceptance of God's deliverance. Otherwise it could be argued that God saved Noah against his will. Sure no one likes to drown, but there is no way of being sure God actually will do what he says he will until he does it--then it's too late. What assurance was Noah given that he would not end up being the fool everyone thought he was? Only God's word. That's all anyone gets--at first. Afterword they know by experience that God's word is good. God is not under the burden of proving himself emperically to people before they even accept his existence. A loving, lasting commitement to God cannot be made under duress or as the result of special demands. Would you want God to scare you into "getting saved" by somehow showing you that the threat of Hell is real? If he did that, what real choice would you have? (I know that you said you would choose Hell rather than worship the Christian God, but maybe you don't know what either is really like.) If God were to scratch "YHWH" on the moon to prove his existence to you, he would have to meet thousands of similar demands made by others. God then becomes the servant of the whims of man. What kind of God is that? What would you say if someone claimed E.T. did it or that the Russians did it with their moon crawler as a joke? Prove them wrong? How? My point is that no emperical proof is conclusive, people would keep demanding greater and greater proof. Jesus was often wearied by these demands. What would their fulfillment really accomplish in the hearts of people? Think about your own relationships with people. Would you value a relationship with a person who was constantly demanding that you prove to them by your actions that you are worthy of their friendship, respect, trust, or admiration? Rember Jesus' words to Thomas after his resurrection? Jesus made it plain to thousands of people in John ch. 6 that he does not want to be loved for what he can do, but for who he is. If this is the God for which you demand such proof, can you wonder any more why he dosen't comply? This is not to say that he can't or won't prove himself to you. But I think God is more concerned with the relationship that the "proof" will produce than just the fact that you acknowledge his existence. If you want proof of the existence of the God of the Bible, you cannot expect him to prove himself in ways that are inconsistent with his character and intentions. For then he would only prove that he is not the God of the Bible at all. One last point to consider: A god that would intervene on your behalf without giving you full power and opportunity for refusal only seeks to enslave you. Religious sects that refuse medical treatment on the premise that their god will pluck them free of any distress they happen to fall into, often experience the consequences of this type of enslavement. What if Jesus continued to meet the needs and desires of the thousands of people he fed in John 6? Before long those people would be totally dependant on his supernatural intervention because they would have neglected their own abilities to provide food for themselves. If Jesus had sought to enslave those people the thing to do would have been to keep feeding them until they had no homes to return to and they had neglected their livelihoods long enough to be unable to support themselves. Then spring the heavy teaching on them when they would have no choice but to continue following him. Isn't this what Jim Jones did at People's Temple? The God I serve is often given to showing his love for people. Christian or not, this God loves everyone equally (his "redeemed ones" often do not follow suit, but that is another matter). The only difference between people is how much they love God. If I want to "backslide" and go to hell, God has got to let me. (Sorry all of you that believe the doctrine of eternal security; it just dosen't make sense, biblically or otherwise). In my relationship to others, I am God's servant. Ideally I should perform his good will on your behalf (whatever that entails). In my relationship with God, I am a son; I call him "Father". Back to Dave Carr: To Tim and Paul I don't always agree with either of you - but you make interesting reading. Keep up the effort and ignore people like Langdon. -- Dave Carr I hope I'm right in assuming I am the "Paul" your talking about (I don't know of any other "Paul" that causes so much fuss in this news group). I don't claim to be totally open minded, but I'm working on it hard. People like Tim are a real help (I think :-)). Thanks for the encouragement. I can't totally ignore people like Bob, I have to love them just as much as unbelievers. I came down pretty hard on him a couple of months ago when used Scripture as an invective against Tim, but my desire is to see change, not to belittle. I do think the Christian Faith is worth defending, (I will probably do so till I die) I just want to see it done well. By the way... are you THE Dave Carr? The one I know? Paul Dubuc