Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site tellab1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!tellab1!heahd
From: heahd@tellab1.UUCP (Dan Wood)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Can a thinking man accept the Bible? (part 1)
Message-ID: <234@tellab1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Jun-84 15:42:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: tellab1.234
Posted: Mon Jun  4 15:42:08 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Jun-84 04:30:42 EDT
Organization: Tellabs, Inc., Lisle, Ill.
Lines: 86


   I am responding to the article titled "Can a thinking man accept the Bible?
Parts 1 through 3" because, as a thinking man and an ex-christian, I can not
accept the premise that a thinking man with a truly open mind can accept the
Bible as fact. It is not. It may well be an excellent system of myths that has
comforted millions in times of trouble by providing them with a better
understanding of themselvs and of their universe, but a compedium of absolute
fact it is not. Anyone with a through knowledge of the peoples, cultures,
belief systems, and history of the world will accept the bible for what it is;
a complex system of partly if not wholly barrowed myths with just enough
histroy thrown in to fool the ignorant. (I am not saying that all christians
are ignorant, just the ones that believe the bible word for word).

   I will also divide my article into at least three parts because it would
otherwise get quickly out of hand. Also I would give those who are
uninterested in this discussion a chance to skip any or all parts that they
wish. In this first part I will reply to Mr. Jender's opening article.
This first part will consist mostly of my own opinions as Mr. Jender's seemed
to do the same.

> One of the greatest thinkers of all time was Saul of Tarsus.

    According to who? I don't belive that an objective Who's Who of 
philosophers, thinkers, and intellectuals would place him very high on the 
list, if it would even list him at all. In all my years of sunday school,
youth group bible study, and church services I never once heard Paul praised
for his intellectual prowess. A great *christian* thinker he may have been,
and prolific he certainly was, even if only half of the alleged Pauline
letters are apocryphal as most biblical historions agree that they are (see
The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul by Wayne A.
Meeks, published by Yale University Press 1983).

> He could face the boastful man with questions that could not be answered and 
  answers which could not be questioned. 

   How do we know that Paul was such a great debator? After all only the
debates he won are recorded in the bible. And these were recorded by him or by
his desiples, people with a vested interest in showing Paul to be a great man.
Paul was a fanatic, and a fanatic's words are not to be taken at face value.

> Many of our teenagers and college students are wrestling with
> scientific concepts calculated to totter their spiritual heritage.

   I doubt very seriously the concepts of science are calculated  to totter
their spiritual heritage. The concepts of science are merely conlusions drawn
by intelligent curious people from their own observations and those of others
of the world around them. Many scientists are themselves devoute christians
and are certainly not out to prove there own beliefs wrong. Nor are they
trying to justify their beliefs through science. As a collegue of mine said
while discussing Mr. Jender's article: "Anyone who trys to prove the bible
with science is missing the point of the bible."

> What do we answer to those of you who have been struggling with
> these problems? Are we going to merely dismiss the aarguments of the critics
> with a wave of a hand? Or, can we furnish you real reason for accepting the
> Bible as the word of God? Emphatically, *YES*! There is enough proof to
> convince even the most skeptical, if he will open his mind.

  I am no where near the most skeptical (a friend of mine holds that title),
but if there is real reason for accepting the bible as the word of God then I
haven't seen it. My mind is as open as your's is Mr. Jender (probably more
so), if there is enough proof to convince even the most skeptical, then trot
it out. Parts 2 and 3 of your article certainly did not provide it. In the
following parts of my article I will try to refute the proofs offered point by
point.
		( to be continued )
-- 


                        Yrs. in Fear and Loathing,
                             The Blue Buffalo
                              Haunted by the -

                               /\      /\
                              / /~~~~~~\ \
                             ( (  \  /  ) )
                              \ [~]  [~] /  
                               \ / || \ / 
                                \ /||\ / ~~~           
                           G     \(^^)/ )    o
                            h     `--'\ (   z
                             o         \)  n
                              s           o
                               t   of    G    
                                        
...!ihnp4!tellab1!heahd