Agreed. We've all had enough non-sequiturs here to last a lifetime...
>>>The Christian belief
>>>>system, OTOH, does not come with such pre-packaged information.
>>>
>>>And of course I disagree. If the Christian standard of morality, which is
>>>documented in the Bible, is so shaky, then it's a mystery to me why people
>>>-- many who are not even believers in either Judaism or Christianity --
>>>have preserved and read the Bible for nearly 2000 years for the New
>>>Testament and much longer than that for the Jewish Bible.
>>
>>People have preserved the Bhagavad Gita (spelling?) for thousands of
>>years as well. Not to mention Native American religious stories, and
>>a variety of other religious stories or texts. Are they all true?
>
>Fair enough. I can't prove the truth -- or lack of it -- of other
>rnligious writings. And the authority I claim for the Christian Scriptures
>is based on the Holy Spirit, Whom you don't acknowledge. I think we're at
>our perpetual impasse again.
That's the point I'm trying to make. This is an issue that, sooner
or later, breaks down into a matter of personal perception.
>BTW your spelling of Bhagavad Gita is correct.
That's good. I never knew how to really spell that.
>>>Again, if Scripture really is not "the power of God for salvation to
>>>everyone who believes" then why do so many people read it?
>>
>>Because people see value in it. But that doesn't mean that it's *all*
>>true.
>
>The point is that the Christian Scriptures make a sufficient number of
>claims that would be outrageous if not true, that it would be puzzling (to
>me at least) why people would pay any heed at all if they didn't consider
>it substantially correct.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Bill, but I think you believe in evolution.
That is, you don't believe that the story of Genesis is a literal
historical record. And, of course, many other Christians also feel
this way. That is, many Christians believe that many parts of the
Bible can be interpreted allegorically instead of literally. This
means that many of these stories that, as you point out, would be
outrageous if not literally true, can instead be seen as sort of
poetic renderings of the truth. So that allows people to still believe
in the Bible and the central tenets of Christianity without having
to believe that everything recorded in the Bible happened *exactly*
as it is said.
I don't know if this is making sense, but what I'm trying to show
is that it is entirely possible for a book full of seemingly
impossible stories can still be taken very seriously by many people
even if those stories are not literally true.
>I'm not about to claim it's all true without
>defining what is meant by "all true". (I probably wouldn't discuss it even
>if we could for a moment agree on a definition of "all true" :-) 1 Tim
>3:16 says all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching,
>correction, reproof and training in righteousness. That's not the same as
>literally true.
Exactly!
>>>>Also, I should add that, even if everything you and Jim say is true, then
>>>>Jim's main assertion (that being loyal to God is more logical than being
>>>>loyal to one's own empathy) still hasn't been proven.
>>>>
>>>If God is omniscient, good and loving (all of which are taught in
>>>Scripture), then Jim's view seems very reasonable to me.
>>
>>But that "if" has never been logically proven.
>
>I've never said it has. I'm relating how the world looks from my point of
>view -- that of a convinced Christian.
And that's what I'm saying -- it all comes down to one's point of
view, which is not a matter of logic.
>>>I enjoy these discussions, but not for one
>>>nanosecond do I believe that any line of argument is likely to convince
>>>Russell. God is a Person who wants to have a loving relationship with
>>>people. Scripture also teaches that God takes the initiative in
>>>establishing such a relationship. So my prayer for Russell -- someone I
>>>have come to respect a great deal -- is that the Lord _will_ make His
>>>presence evident to Russell.
>>
>>Well, He may be trying. My girlfriend took me to church last
>>Sunday. But I haven't changed my mind yet. ;-)
>
>Careful! Many years ago I wasn't a Christian, and my girlfriend was. I
>went to church with her and the upshot of everything -- a process that
>played out over a number of months -- is that now I'm a Christian and she's
>my wife. No regrets, either. I'm glad you were willing to go.
I'm always willing to try new things. I haven't made her any
promises, and I have been careful to point out that I am not
looking to change my worldview. But she doesn't have a problem
with that, because she respects my views, and I respect hers.
And as far as I'm concerned, that's what really matters.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.