"When a Realist crosses the equator he’ll expect to see a vivid black line across the ocean; while a Critical Realist will expect to see a faint grey line. The non-Realist, on the other hand, knows that the system of lines of latitude and longitude imposed on the Earth by us exists only in our own heads, but it helps us find our way around the globe. The same goes for religion: it is a system of guiding myths to help us (decide) how to live. Use it. Rejoice in its poetry and spirituality. Just don’t waste your time looking for that big black line in the sea."
The Bible is a system of guiding myths to help us how to live? OK, I agree that it is a collection of myths. "System" I don't think is accurate - it's not really organized or consistent. To help us how to live (sic)? I guess that depends who "us" is. The Bible has always been VERY helpful to the priests and ministers. It helps them gain power and money. To the common man? The point is debatable I suppose, but in my opinion it is detrimental.
The equator is actually the latitude of relevance for the Old Testament festivals. Below it, there is a disconnect between the seasons with which these days are inexorably linked, and the days themselves. There should be some clues or meaning in that fact.
Well, and... some questions have come up about the calendar... but we're pretty sure that the cult sects aren't going to last 20,000 years, so celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles Christmas Day through New Year's Day probably isn't a real option for those using the Jewish Calendar which currently puts the Spring Equinox April 6 or 7 depending on whether it's Leap Year or not, showing that the whole thing is off in yet another bad way, but not to worry, since even if it does, it will probably be (all things being equal) a lot easier to get vacation days from work and get the kids out of school.
But then, who knows?
Will the lunar cycle change by then? And will the earth's poles shift? Will the equator be where it is today, or might it go through the poles?
Just remember, cult religion isn't about science, it's about magic (the worst kind, where it's sloppy and instead of eye of newt, you can use the eye of salamander and instead of an eagle's feather, you can use a feather from a canary -- and even so, even if your incantation is exactly right and you still use virgin olive oil, you still won't be healed, but can cheat, saying you are to confirm your faith so you don't have to get vaccinations even if you get really sick and even die).
Just have faith that it will all work out at Christ's Return in 5 to 7 years from now and that we'll all be keeping the Feast as described in Zechariah 14 (well, at least the Jews, Syrians, Arabs and Egyptians -- who knows about the Gentile Americans and British Commonwealth Nations, since, as we all know, are not mentioned in the Bible at all).
Yep, it appears as if they've got their second month of Adar going on this year. According to Rabbi Menachem Posner, in the pre-Hillel II days, while the Sanhedrin was still active, incredibly, the calendar was not set in advance!. The Sanhedrin determined the timing of the events as the year proceeded. This is probably one of the reasons why the early Christian Church was largely a sub-sect or satellite of Judaism prior to Peter's vision, and Paul's ministry. But, Rabbi Hillel knew that the days of the Sanhedrin were rapidly drawing to a close, and developed the fixed Hebrew calendar. Centuries later, it was ratified and endorsed by Maimonides. But, from what you say, Douglas, it still appears not to be as reliable in determining fixed points as is the Gregorian calendar. It is not the guided trajectory for holy time that the Old Covenant folks would like us to believe it is!
The Bible was written for the Jews. As a Gentile reader, you are an interloper on Jewish terrain, a stranger to Bible concepts. If you crack open the Bible as an outsider, it is an act of faith. You are a "stranger in a strange land". If you major in the minors, a distinct Armstrongite proclivity, you will never encounter its large themes, never immerse yourself in its grand meanings. Lewis wrote "the human qualities of the raw materials show through". I believe the Bible is incarnational (as defined by Peter Enns) and also punitive. Rather than being a technical manual written by engineers, it is a challenge. It is not how communication was originally to happen between God and man. But the meaning is there, encrusted by "human qualities". And the meaning is what critics want most to avoid.
Buffalo chips. The Bible has no "grand meanings". It is a collection of writings by original authors who each had their own narrow motives related to their own situations. These writings were later repeatedly edited by other men with other motives. The result is a widely inconsistent collection of literature of varying quality, which Jews and others try to read some special meaning into.
"the human qualities of the raw materials show through". "I believe the Bible is incarnational (as defined by Peter Enns) and also punitive. Rather than being a technical manual written by engineers, it is a challenge"
This recent Damage-Control maneuver by Christian Apologists is called "Moving the Goalposts" - an illegal tactic in debating.
I think Neo is right. While you are correct to underscore the diversity that exists among the various authors and editors of The Bible relative to quality of writing styles and agendas, the inconsistencies and uneven quality of those writings have apparently rendered you insensible of the grand themes that are apparent there. http://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2014/07/is-bible-incoherent-collection-of.html
Christianity develops as all fields of human endeavor. Most Christians now accept Evolution as a fact although they might argue that it is to some degree teleological instead of being wholly random. This is not "moving the goal posts" but progressive development. Christianity will never be static because of people like Lewis, Bell and Enns. I don't think anybody cares if Christianity no longer offers a convenient and unchanging target for critics. Let the critics think up new stuff. That will stimulate Christian apologists to venture into new fields of inquiry. If you read Enns' recent book on The Bible, you will see how this works.
Christian Apologists have been so busy Moving the Goalposts the football pitch is littered with freshly dug holes!
Related Logical Fallacies: Ambit claim Bait-and-switch Creeping normality Nirvana fallacy No true Scotsman Overton window Political suicide Setting up to fail Slippery slope Texas sharpshooter fallacy
There's a difference between cheap two-trick apologists and genuine thinkers. Christianity, like all human movements, has changed over time. You can see that in the pages of the New Testament itself as different writers adopted various Christologies - views of Jesus that neither Jesus nor his disciples (allowing that there's a genuine historical kernel to the accounts) would have recognised. The Boy Scouts have changed, educational theories change, political parties change. Is that a problem in itself? Simply knee-jerking about "changing the goalposts" avoids engaging in the issues.
And you know me - apologetics is a pet hate of mine... but fair is fair. You can't lump together the nitwits with those attempting to engage in meaningful discussion. Nor can you freeze Christian thought in some bizarre Southern Baptist mould and proclaim that as normative. That's straw man thinking.
As a committed iconoclast, I need a reference standard to target Christianity and I target the remarkably static Nicene orthodoxy: It took 250 years to formulate and in neat symmetry is taking 250 years to destroy (should be done by ~2040).
" Most Christians now accept Evolution as a fact" - Unknown Neo
The believers might be putting on a brave face, but their recent capitulation on evolution is huge.
"Christianity, like all human movements, has changed over time". I agree 100%. Christianity is a HUMAN movement. If those Christians "attempting to engage in meaningful discussion" agree on this, I respect them. But let's be honest. Historically, Christianity started with the premise that it was delivered to us straight from an infallible God. However, as mankind has gained a better understanding of our world, it has become clear that the Bible contains many outright errors, untruths and myths. Similarly, for those such as Catholics who believe that God directs their leaders: it has also become clear that these leaders make many errors and indeed make many unholy or even evil and selfish decisions.
It is clear that neither church leadership nor the written word of the Bible is God-inspired. So what is left? Here is where I agree with Minimalist. All this "changing over time" amounts to "moving the goalposts" The apologists cling to each firm belief until absolute proof forces them to admit it was wrong; then they concede that point but claim all the rest of their belief system is still true. And so it goes, one-by-one. Its a matter of conceding issue after issue while continuing to invent new rationales as to why the remaining part of the belief system is still valid.
It reminds me of the Bush II administration's justifications for invading Iraq. The conclusion (we needed to invade Iraq) remained the same no matter what new facts came to light, but the reasons we needed to invade Iraq kept changing. It's the same for apologists: the conclusion (Christianity is true) stays the same but the reasons it is true keep changing to suit the situation. This is dishonest.
While it is clear to me that human leaders (along with the Bible they use) are flawed, it is not clear to me that they aren't inspired. Inspiration has been misconstrued by many to imply infallibility. The Bible itself refutes such an understanding. The agent of God's inspiration (the Holy Spirit) guides, leads, reveals, helps, comforts, strengthens, etc. - IT DOES NOT CONTROL. There are a lot of folks who seem to regard the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as the opposite of demon possession - it is NOT. The Holy Spirit does not control, force, take over or annihilate a person's decision making capacity. The Israelite craftsman who constructed the Tabernacle and its furnishing were said to have been inspired by God, but I have never heard anyone suggest that those finished items were flawless. Yes, I too see the clumsy fingerprints of humans all over the Bible and Christianity; but I can also discern another set of fingerprints in the mix - a set of fingerprints that many of us feel justified in characterizing as Divine. Everything evolves/changes over time, but we don't dismiss Newton, Darwin and Einstein as false because they do. We (many of us) acknowledge that they uncovered some fundamental truths about the way our world operates. Although we continue to add to our understanding of the concepts these flawed and limited men gave us, we don't discard, discredit or characterize their work as false and without value. To use your word, I think it is dishonest to portray progress as "moving the goalposts."
"The agent of God's inspiration (the Holy Spirit) guides, leads, reveals, helps, comforts, strengthens, etc. - IT DOES NOT CONTROL. There are a lot of folks who seem to regard the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as the opposite of demon possession - it is NOT. The Holy Spirit does not control, force, take over or annihilate a person's decision making capacity."
Strong assertions, Miller. It's a pity you just made them up out of thin air. The are nothing more than your unsupported fantasy.
In your opinion the Bible is guided by God but is not infallible? That's the same thing as saying it has some God-given truth and some errors. Why would a God give us such a book? Who knows which parts are true and which are in error? How can such a book provide a guide to anything?
The Bible is nothing like science. Newton, Darwin and Einstein showed their evidence, their observations, their theory and their calculations. Their conclusions were open to analysis and subject to improvement over time based on new discoveries and new analysis. That's how science works. The last time I looked, the Bible wasn't open to revision. Your equating the Bible to science shows fuzzy thinking on your part.
I don't claim the Bible is without value. It has value like any ancient literature. Do I claim it is false? Yes, mostly. It's about as "true" as the Iliad.
You are probably not interested in hearing about them (and I certainly do not have the space in this forum to enumerate them), but the Bible includes a great many statements by its various authors about what inspiration is and isn't and most of them do not imply or suggest the control, dictation and infallibility that most Fundamentalist Christians have assigned to that term. The history of the Bible and Christianity also suggests that inspiration does not conform to this view (which I'm guessing that you would be willing to acknowledge based on your previous comments/statements). I would also offer that the personal experience of most individual Christians (including this one) would argue against the "traditional" or "Fundamentalist" understanding of how inspiration works. If you Google the verb inspire, you will see the term defined as "fill (someone) with the urge or ability to do or feel something, especially to do something creative. (and Google lists as synonyms: stimulate, motivate, encourage, influence, rouse, move, stir, energize, galvanize, incite; animate, fire, excite, spark, inspirit, incentivize, affect ). I think that effectively defeats your assertion that I made mine up "out of thin air." As for your questions, I have included a few observations: "Why would a God give us such a book (containing a mixture of truth and error)?" The underlying premise of your question suggests the Fundamentalist view. I would say that the evidence (both internal and external) suggests a joint venture between human and Divine. The human part is obviously going to reflect the imperfections and inadequacies of its authors. Also, as you well know, communication always requires at least one giver and one receiver (and it can be garbled at either or both ends of the process). Hence, if God had personally authored a book and presented it to a man (or mankind in general), are you suggesting that the result would have been any clearer or less controversial? "Who knows which parts are true and which are in error?" I would say that each person who is led by inspiration of the Holy Spirit would have to discern which parts are truthful and which are in error for him/herself (based on the totality of the available evidence - and I would say that this would include things outside of Scripture like science, history, the world around us, personal experience and reasoning). "How can such a book provide a guide to anything?" By being employed in the manner suggested by my answers to your other questions. In other words, by using it in the manner prescribed as A source, not THE source. Finally, I have not suggested or implied that the Bible should be regarded as a science textbook. However, why shouldn't the conclusions of the various human authors of Scripture be subject to the same kind of analysis and improvement over time that Newton's, Darwin's and Einstein's works have been subjected to? If there is error in Scripture (and I think that you and I are in agreement that there is), then why shouldn't those portions be discarded or revised? We continue to interpret and reinvent documents like Magna Charta and the U.S. Constitution - Why not the Bible? Why should you or I be forced to accede to a premise that has been proffered by Fundamentalist Christians with whom we fundamentally disagree?
Miller, it appears we agree that the Bible has some good parts and some bad. Rely on science too? Sure, I can agree on that. Discard and revise parts as needed? Sure, OK. Rely on some parts? Sure, if you cherry-pick the right verses I guess that can help people live good lives.
In some other areas we clearly disagree. I don't believe in the existence of a "Holy Spirit". I also don't believe ANY part of the Bible is inspired. There are no verses that show a unique, superior, godly moral code. Fact is, the good parts are not unique to the Bible - all of them can be found in other religions as well. None of the alleged words of Jesus were original or unique - they can all be found in writings that predate him.
Skeptic, we do disagree about the existence of a Holy Spirit and the inspiration of the Bible. Why does the moral code have to be unique to demonstrate that it is of Divine origin? Doesn't the fact that we can all acknowledge that things like love, care and concern for our fellow man are good suggest the universal nature of the code? If we can all agree that theft, murder, deceit, greed, envy, etc. are bad things, doesn't that suggest a moral code that is bigger than any single political, religious or cultural system extant on this earth? Maybe Confucius was inspired too? I've enjoyed the conversation.
The Bible is a system of guiding myths to help us how to live? OK, I agree that it is a collection of myths. "System" I don't think is accurate - it's not really organized or consistent. To help us how to live (sic)? I guess that depends who "us" is. The Bible has always been VERY helpful to the priests and ministers. It helps them gain power and money. To the common man? The point is debatable I suppose, but in my opinion it is detrimental.
ReplyDeleteNo big black line? Shucks! I have never crossed the Equator, but I was looking forward to seeing it.
ReplyDeleteAre we quite sure we have the definitions of realist right, or have they been reversed?
ReplyDelete"Are we quite sure we have the definitions of realist right, or have they been reversed?"
ReplyDeletePlease keep in mind - this is an apologist doing the explaining.
Without agreed upon solid definitions, there can be no real discussion.
DeleteWhat we have here is not a discussion, it's a monologue of apologists.
Oh, and, if people really told the truth, would there be any need for apologies?
DeleteThe equator is actually the latitude of relevance for the Old Testament festivals. Below it, there is a disconnect between the seasons with which these days are inexorably linked, and the days themselves. There should be some clues or meaning in that fact.
ReplyDeleteBB
Well, and... some questions have come up about the calendar... but we're pretty sure that the cult sects aren't going to last 20,000 years, so celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles Christmas Day through New Year's Day probably isn't a real option for those using the Jewish Calendar which currently puts the Spring Equinox April 6 or 7 depending on whether it's Leap Year or not, showing that the whole thing is off in yet another bad way, but not to worry, since even if it does, it will probably be (all things being equal) a lot easier to get vacation days from work and get the kids out of school.
DeleteBut then, who knows?
Will the lunar cycle change by then? And will the earth's poles shift? Will the equator be where it is today, or might it go through the poles?
Just remember, cult religion isn't about science, it's about magic (the worst kind, where it's sloppy and instead of eye of newt, you can use the eye of salamander and instead of an eagle's feather, you can use a feather from a canary -- and even so, even if your incantation is exactly right and you still use virgin olive oil, you still won't be healed, but can cheat, saying you are to confirm your faith so you don't have to get vaccinations even if you get really sick and even die).
Just have faith that it will all work out at Christ's Return in 5 to 7 years from now and that we'll all be keeping the Feast as described in Zechariah 14 (well, at least the Jews, Syrians, Arabs and Egyptians -- who knows about the Gentile Americans and British Commonwealth Nations, since, as we all know, are not mentioned in the Bible at all).
It's all good!
Unless it isn't.
Yep, it appears as if they've got their second month of Adar going on this year. According to Rabbi Menachem Posner, in the pre-Hillel II days, while the Sanhedrin was still active, incredibly, the calendar was not set in advance!. The Sanhedrin determined the timing of the events as the year proceeded. This is probably one of the reasons why the early Christian Church was largely a sub-sect or satellite of Judaism prior to Peter's vision, and Paul's ministry. But, Rabbi Hillel knew that the days of the Sanhedrin were rapidly drawing to a close, and developed the fixed Hebrew calendar. Centuries later, it was ratified and endorsed by Maimonides. But, from what you say, Douglas, it still appears not to be as reliable in determining fixed points as is the Gregorian calendar. It is not the guided trajectory for holy time that the Old Covenant folks would like us to believe it is!
DeleteBB
The Bible was written for the Jews. As a Gentile reader, you are an interloper on Jewish terrain, a stranger to Bible concepts. If you crack open the Bible as an outsider, it is an act of faith. You are a "stranger in a strange land". If you major in the minors, a distinct Armstrongite proclivity, you will never encounter its large themes, never immerse yourself in its grand meanings. Lewis wrote "the human qualities of the raw materials show through". I believe the Bible is incarnational (as defined by Peter Enns) and also punitive. Rather than being a technical manual written by engineers, it is a challenge. It is not how communication was originally to happen between God and man. But the meaning is there, encrusted by "human qualities". And the meaning is what critics want most to avoid.
ReplyDelete-- Neo
Buffalo chips. The Bible has no "grand meanings". It is a collection of writings by original authors who each had their own narrow motives related to their own situations. These writings were later repeatedly edited by other men with other motives. The result is a widely inconsistent collection of literature of varying quality, which Jews and others try to read some special meaning into.
DeleteI see it and you don't. I don't think there is anything we can do about that. We will both experience the consequences of our decision. Good luck.
Delete-- Neo
"the human qualities of the raw materials show through". "I believe the Bible is incarnational (as defined by Peter Enns) and also punitive. Rather than being a technical manual written by engineers, it is a challenge"
DeleteThis recent Damage-Control maneuver by Christian Apologists is called "Moving the Goalposts" - an illegal tactic in debating.
I think Neo is right. While you are correct to underscore the diversity that exists among the various authors and editors of The Bible relative to quality of writing styles and agendas, the inconsistencies and uneven quality of those writings have apparently rendered you insensible of the grand themes that are apparent there.
Deletehttp://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2014/07/is-bible-incoherent-collection-of.html
Christianity develops as all fields of human endeavor. Most Christians now accept Evolution as a fact although they might argue that it is to some degree teleological instead of being wholly random. This is not "moving the goal posts" but progressive development. Christianity will never be static because of people like Lewis, Bell and Enns. I don't think anybody cares if Christianity no longer offers a convenient and unchanging target for critics. Let the critics think up new stuff. That will stimulate Christian apologists to venture into new fields of inquiry. If you read Enns' recent book on The Bible, you will see how this works.
ReplyDelete-- Neo
Christian Apologists have been so busy Moving the Goalposts the football pitch is littered with freshly dug holes!
DeleteRelated Logical Fallacies:
Ambit claim
Bait-and-switch
Creeping normality
Nirvana fallacy
No true Scotsman
Overton window
Political suicide
Setting up to fail
Slippery slope
Texas sharpshooter fallacy
There's a difference between cheap two-trick apologists and genuine thinkers. Christianity, like all human movements, has changed over time. You can see that in the pages of the New Testament itself as different writers adopted various Christologies - views of Jesus that neither Jesus nor his disciples (allowing that there's a genuine historical kernel to the accounts) would have recognised. The Boy Scouts have changed, educational theories change, political parties change. Is that a problem in itself? Simply knee-jerking about "changing the goalposts" avoids engaging in the issues.
DeleteAnd you know me - apologetics is a pet hate of mine... but fair is fair. You can't lump together the nitwits with those attempting to engage in meaningful discussion. Nor can you freeze Christian thought in some bizarre Southern Baptist mould and proclaim that as normative. That's straw man thinking.
As a committed iconoclast, I need a reference standard to target Christianity and I target the remarkably static Nicene orthodoxy:
DeleteIt took 250 years to formulate and in neat symmetry is taking 250 years to destroy (should be done by ~2040).
" Most Christians now accept Evolution as a fact" - Unknown Neo
The believers might be putting on a brave face, but their recent capitulation on evolution is huge.
"Christianity, like all human movements, has changed over time". I agree 100%. Christianity is a HUMAN movement. If those Christians "attempting to engage in meaningful discussion" agree on this, I respect them. But let's be honest. Historically, Christianity started with the premise that it was delivered to us straight from an infallible God. However, as mankind has gained a better understanding of our world, it has become clear that the Bible contains many outright errors, untruths and myths. Similarly, for those such as Catholics who believe that God directs their leaders: it has also become clear that these leaders make many errors and indeed make many unholy or even evil and selfish decisions.
DeleteIt is clear that neither church leadership nor the written word of the Bible is God-inspired. So what is left? Here is where I agree with Minimalist. All this "changing over time" amounts to "moving the goalposts" The apologists cling to each firm belief until absolute proof forces them to admit it was wrong; then they concede that point but claim all the rest of their belief system is still true. And so it goes, one-by-one. Its a matter of conceding issue after issue while continuing to invent new rationales as to why the remaining part of the belief system is still valid.
It reminds me of the Bush II administration's justifications for invading Iraq. The conclusion (we needed to invade Iraq) remained the same no matter what new facts came to light, but the reasons we needed to invade Iraq kept changing. It's the same for apologists: the conclusion (Christianity is true) stays the same but the reasons it is true keep changing to suit the situation. This is dishonest.
While it is clear to me that human leaders (along with the Bible they use) are flawed, it is not clear to me that they aren't inspired. Inspiration has been misconstrued by many to imply infallibility. The Bible itself refutes such an understanding. The agent of God's inspiration (the Holy Spirit) guides, leads, reveals, helps, comforts, strengthens, etc. - IT DOES NOT CONTROL. There are a lot of folks who seem to regard the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as the opposite of demon possession - it is NOT. The Holy Spirit does not control, force, take over or annihilate a person's decision making capacity. The Israelite craftsman who constructed the Tabernacle and its furnishing were said to have been inspired by God, but I have never heard anyone suggest that those finished items were flawless. Yes, I too see the clumsy fingerprints of humans all over the Bible and Christianity; but I can also discern another set of fingerprints in the mix - a set of fingerprints that many of us feel justified in characterizing as Divine.
ReplyDeleteEverything evolves/changes over time, but we don't dismiss Newton, Darwin and Einstein as false because they do. We (many of us) acknowledge that they uncovered some fundamental truths about the way our world operates. Although we continue to add to our understanding of the concepts these flawed and limited men gave us, we don't discard, discredit or characterize their work as false and without value. To use your word, I think it is dishonest to portray progress as "moving the goalposts."
"The agent of God's inspiration (the Holy Spirit) guides, leads, reveals, helps, comforts, strengthens, etc. - IT DOES NOT CONTROL. There are a lot of folks who seem to regard the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as the opposite of demon possession - it is NOT. The Holy Spirit does not control, force, take over or annihilate a person's decision making capacity."
ReplyDeleteStrong assertions, Miller. It's a pity you just made them up out of thin air. The are nothing more than your unsupported fantasy.
In your opinion the Bible is guided by God but is not infallible? That's the same thing as saying it has some God-given truth and some errors. Why would a God give us such a book? Who knows which parts are true and which are in error? How can such a book provide a guide to anything?
The Bible is nothing like science. Newton, Darwin and Einstein showed their evidence, their observations, their theory and their calculations. Their conclusions were open to analysis and subject to improvement over time based on new discoveries and new analysis. That's how science works. The last time I looked, the Bible wasn't open to revision. Your equating the Bible to science shows fuzzy thinking on your part.
I don't claim the Bible is without value. It has value like any ancient literature. Do I claim it is false? Yes, mostly. It's about as "true" as the Iliad.
You are probably not interested in hearing about them (and I certainly do not have the space in this forum to enumerate them), but the Bible includes a great many statements by its various authors about what inspiration is and isn't and most of them do not imply or suggest the control, dictation and infallibility that most Fundamentalist Christians have assigned to that term. The history of the Bible and Christianity also suggests that inspiration does not conform to this view (which I'm guessing that you would be willing to acknowledge based on your previous comments/statements). I would also offer that the personal experience of most individual Christians (including this one) would argue against the "traditional" or "Fundamentalist" understanding of how inspiration works. If you Google the verb inspire, you will see the term defined as "fill (someone) with the urge or ability to do or feel something, especially to do something creative. (and Google lists as synonyms: stimulate, motivate, encourage, influence, rouse, move, stir, energize, galvanize, incite; animate, fire, excite, spark, inspirit, incentivize, affect ). I think that effectively defeats your assertion that I made mine up "out of thin air."
DeleteAs for your questions, I have included a few observations:
"Why would a God give us such a book (containing a mixture of truth and error)?" The underlying premise of your question suggests the Fundamentalist view. I would say that the evidence (both internal and external) suggests a joint venture between human and Divine. The human part is obviously going to reflect the imperfections and inadequacies of its authors. Also, as you well know, communication always requires at least one giver and one receiver (and it can be garbled at either or both ends of the process). Hence, if God had personally authored a book and presented it to a man (or mankind in general), are you suggesting that the result would have been any clearer or less controversial?
"Who knows which parts are true and which are in error?" I would say that each person who is led by inspiration of the Holy Spirit would have to discern which parts are truthful and which are in error for him/herself (based on the totality of the available evidence - and I would say that this would include things outside of Scripture like science, history, the world around us, personal experience and reasoning).
"How can such a book provide a guide to anything?" By being employed in the manner suggested by my answers to your other questions. In other words, by using it in the manner prescribed as A source, not THE source.
Finally, I have not suggested or implied that the Bible should be regarded as a science textbook. However, why shouldn't the conclusions of the various human authors of Scripture be subject to the same kind of analysis and improvement over time that Newton's, Darwin's and Einstein's works have been subjected to? If there is error in Scripture (and I think that you and I are in agreement that there is), then why shouldn't those portions be discarded or revised? We continue to interpret and reinvent documents like Magna Charta and the U.S. Constitution - Why not the Bible? Why should you or I be forced to accede to a premise that has been proffered by Fundamentalist Christians with whom we fundamentally disagree?
Miller, it appears we agree that the Bible has some good parts and some bad. Rely on science too? Sure, I can agree on that. Discard and revise parts as needed? Sure, OK. Rely on some parts? Sure, if you cherry-pick the right verses I guess that can help people live good lives.
DeleteIn some other areas we clearly disagree. I don't believe in the existence of a "Holy Spirit". I also don't believe ANY part of the Bible is inspired. There are no verses that show a unique, superior, godly moral code. Fact is, the good parts are not unique to the Bible - all of them can be found in other religions as well. None of the alleged words of Jesus were original or unique - they can all be found in writings that predate him.
Skeptic, we do disagree about the existence of a Holy Spirit and the inspiration of the Bible. Why does the moral code have to be unique to demonstrate that it is of Divine origin? Doesn't the fact that we can all acknowledge that things like love, care and concern for our fellow man are good suggest the universal nature of the code? If we can all agree that theft, murder, deceit, greed, envy, etc. are bad things, doesn't that suggest a moral code that is bigger than any single political, religious or cultural system extant on this earth? Maybe Confucius was inspired too? I've enjoyed the conversation.
ReplyDelete