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apologia it would become outdated with change in intellectual climate.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