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