Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Bible inspired by God?
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 1 of 40 (46599)
07-20-2003 7:44 PM


I once posted my opinion of this subject to the Online Bible Church where it was promptly deleted and then given a slick spin by a moderator who referred to me as "colleague" while refusing to make the post available to his readers. Ah well, I have found a more suitable soapbox now, haven't I?
A question posed by minnemooseus in message #3 of the topic "Theistic Evolution" has led me here. We shall see whether this becomes a thread indeed, or a lonely strand, feared and ignored by the faithful, left to bleach in the sun of righteousness and twist in the foul, foul wind.
minnemooseus:
quote:
How can one be certain that the Bible "cannot be wrong", when "fallible humans" have been involved in it's production?
doctrbill responds: [revised excerpt]
quote:
Proponents of inerrancy claim that the original documents are free from error. This is moot since there are NO ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. There are literally thousands of manuscripts from antiquity; all different; not one in complete agreement with the others.
This is then challenged by funkmasterfreaky who writes:
quote:
Where did you get your information? Seems like everyone and their dog has a different story.
In answer to the funkmaster:
quote:
I got them from a website posted by someone who is translating parts of the New Testament.
Here's what he says:
"... the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the four gospels which we do have available to us today all differ from one another." ... "The problem is, if God preserved his word perfectly to the letter, in which of the 5,000+ manuscripts is it preserved, since not one is identical to the other?"
Excerpted from: Bible Translations - Why are there so many differences? http://www.ilovejesus.com//school/hologos
This guy claims to "believe in the inspiration of scripture by God" and furthermore, gives credence to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy http://www.bibletranslation.ws/down/chicago.txt which is puzzling given the meaninglessness of it all in face of the facts: No Original Documents. No Agreement Among Documents Extant.
I believe these guys are terrified of their God, of what he will do to them if they break with tradition; or perhaps terrified they might discover that he does not exist. They seem to exercise a poor brand of scholarship, put tradition ahead of truth, and delude themselves through mental gymnastics. They offer evidence in support of their misconception but their "evidence" does not stand up to scrutiny.
The argument for divine inspiration (and thus: "inerrancy") is taken from a statement by Saint Paul:
quote:
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness ..." 2 Timothy 3:16 Revised Standard Version
Alternative readings:
1. "Every scripture inspired by God ..." [footnote: Revised Standard Version]
2. "Every inspired scripture ..." [New English Bible]
3. "The whole Bible ..." [Living Bible]
The first two alternatives are OK but will require someone to decide which of the scriptures are inspired, or which are inspired by God.
The third alternative is what many people think it really means. But that presents an immediate problem. Right away we must conclude that the New Testament, the Christian portion of the Bible, is not covered by Paul's statement and thus not "inspired by God," because it did not yet exist when he wrote those lines.
Another alternative, and a simpler one in my opinion, is to look at the Greek here. Two verses prior to the one in question, Paul mentions the "Holy Scripture" < Greek - hiera grammata or priestly writings, noting that his reader, the young preacher Timothy, has read those since he was a child. Then, he talks about "All scripture" < Greek - pasa graphi, literally everything written, saying that they are "profitable for teaching ..." etc.
The Septuagint Bible, the one popular in Paul's time has since been purged, especially among Protestant churches; the groups most concerned about "inspiration." Many of the Septuagint scriptures have been deleted by some ecclesiastical "authority" who decided that they were not "inspired by God."
And yet, Paul utilized those very scriptures; quoted them in his lessons; obviously recognizing them as profitable for teaching .... If he had thought the Septuagint or any part of it to be uninspired, he could have said so. He did not. He also quoted Pagan poetry, utilizing that scripture in the same way he utilized all other. And if he was concerned that someone might mistakenly think them to be inspired, he could have easily injected a word of caution into any one of his voluminous correspondences, or created a list limiting what could be called "inspired of God," saying, "not THAT book, or not THAT Bible." But he didn't. All of which suggests to me that his use of pasa graphi was nothing less than intentional.
db

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2003 3:59 AM doctrbill has replied
 Message 8 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2003 1:26 PM doctrbill has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2 of 40 (46632)
07-21-2003 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by doctrbill
07-20-2003 7:44 PM


I think the problem is mainly in the OT books. We do have alternate versions from the Dead Sea Scrolls of some books, with significant variations. Some books have seen significant additions (e.g. Isaiah - perhaps twice).
Aside from early editing (which we have some evidence of) the main problem in the NT is pseudonymous works (although there is an argument that the ending of Mark was lost).
And just as an aside this seems like an appropriate place to put this little comment.
A Christian fundamentalist is someone who believes that the Gospels four are independent accounts - all written by the same Person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by doctrbill, posted 07-20-2003 7:44 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by doctrbill, posted 07-21-2003 11:49 AM PaulK has replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 3 of 40 (46680)
07-21-2003 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by PaulK
07-21-2003 3:59 AM


quote:
I think the problem is mainly in the OT books.
If you mean the question of "inspiration" then I would have to agree. But it does not simplify the issue very much.
There were two variants of sacred Jewish scripture available at that time: The Hebrew text, which few could actually read; and the popular Greek Septuagint. Paul apparently imagined the Hebrew, Greek and Pagan scriptures to be equally "inspired by God," quoting them all at will, without citation; apparently judging them by content rather than source.
{Lest anyone should misunderstand the terminology here: the word scripture simply means anything written. It is not an exclusive reference to the Bible.}
quote:
A Christian fundamentalist is someone who believes that the Gospels four are independent accounts - all written by the same Person.
That's cute but I don't believe they think of it in quite the same way you do. I believe they would say that the holy spirit guided all four. They are not likely to know about the scores of other Gospels which the Church decided not to include in The Book. If they are aware of it, then they must trust the Church to know what's inspired by God and what is not. And that seems to be the issue here.
Who decides? How do they do it? And how do we know they did well?
I have read some of the materials which have been left out of the Bible, and frankly, I would agree with some of their decisions. Not all literature stands up to the test of time. But then, I fancy myself a Bible scholar and those are the kinds of decisions which scholars have to make.
As to whether the four gospels were written by the same "person," I suspect you already know how easy it is to demonstrate the flaws in that theory.
db
------------------
Have you graduated from Sunday School?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2003 3:59 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2003 12:24 PM doctrbill has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 4 of 40 (46698)
07-21-2003 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by doctrbill
07-21-2003 11:49 AM


Let's be clear, I have talked ot fundamentalists who explicitly satate that the Bible is literally the Word of God - not that it is somehow guided. And I have often seen the claim that the Gospels are independant eyewitness accounts (which is even more obviously false since even the traditional authorship of Luke denies that he was an eyewitness).
The real point is that fundamentalists don't usually think about the implications of what they are saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by doctrbill, posted 07-21-2003 11:49 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by John, posted 07-21-2003 12:31 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 7 by Brian, posted 07-21-2003 1:05 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 14 by doctrbill, posted 07-21-2003 10:01 PM PaulK has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 40 (46701)
07-21-2003 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
07-21-2003 12:24 PM


quote:
Let's be clear, I have talked ot fundamentalists who explicitly satate that the Bible is literally the Word of God - not that it is somehow guided.
My experience is that these two views are nearly always intertwined in various mind-boggling and unstable ways.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2003 12:24 PM PaulK has not replied

emotional
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 40 (46706)
07-21-2003 12:52 PM


The Bible is clearly not the Word of God. Here is part of a message I sent to a Christian in order to deconvert him:
Genesis 1 says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. By stringing together the genealogies of Genesis you get an age of 6000 years for the earth. This is false: the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Genesis 1 says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but this is false: the earth was not present from the beginning. In the beginning, when God created the universe 15 billion years ago (the Big Bang), there was neither earth nor sun. They coalesced from clouds of nebular gas about 4.5 billion years ago.
Genesis 1 says God created a firmament to separate between the waters above and the waters below. What is the firmament? In Hebrew raqiya', which means a layer of beaten metal. The firmament is a solid roof above our heads protecting us from the waters above it. The firmament has windows, which were opened in Noah's day to let the flood waters down. Needless to say, all this is an error: we send shuttles high above, to space, and they never crash into a solid firmament. The Bible is in error.
Genesis 1 says God created lights to rule the day and night: a greater light (the sun) to rule the day, and a lesser light (the moon) to rule the night, and the stars as an afterthought, as tiny decorative lights stuck onto the solid firmament. There are a few errors here: the sun is a light, yes, but it is not so great compared to other stars (such as Rigel or Betelgeuse); the moon is not a light at all, but reflects sunlight; and the stars are distant suns, not tiny dots of light.
And finally, Genesis 1 neglects to mention how God created living beings: the process of evolution. This is a process of descent with modification, of random mutations combined with non-random natural selection to produce novelty. Genesis 1 puts mankind at the pinnacle of creation, while in fact mankind shares common descent with all other living beings and is closely related to the ape species.
Now you see that the Bible tells us untruths about God's creation. Shall we attribute such untruths to God's authorship? By no means! It was ignorant men that wrote those things. We have come to the truth not by accepting the guesswork of ignorant men, but by investigating the universe scientifically.
We must equally be chary, then, of accepting what the Bible says about God. The men who wrote the Bible infused their own ideas about God's creation; is it not then possible that they infused their own ideas about God as well? Is it not possible that God is totally different than the one whom the Bible describes?
I believe God created the universe 15 billion years ago, setting the whole host of natural laws and material properties sufficient for subsequent evolution of stars, planets and living organisms. He created a fully-gifted creation, capable of self-organisation. I believe God is self-sufficient and requires no praise nor worship. All that is required is a life of love and kindliness towards other beings, which prepares the self for the coming life after death.

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 7 of 40 (46709)
07-21-2003 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
07-21-2003 12:24 PM


Hi Paul,
I too have met people with similar views.
In their defence, they could argue that Luke wrote down his version from eyewitnesses that he interviewed, but that's about as good as it gets for the fundy, but Luke also reproduces about 70% of Mark's Gospel, and Mark wasn't an eyewitness.
I think there are more serious problems for the fundamentalist who thinks that the gospels are the inerrant word of God.
Firstly, we do not know for certain who wrote ANY of the Gospels, they are all anonymous.
Secondly, Matthew Levi was not the author of the Gospel of Matthew that we have, I think the view that Matthew Levi wrote the Gospel is only held onto by the fundies, no serious scholar would claim that Matthew' gospel is the work of Matthew Levi. One reason for this is that it reproduces almost 90% of Mark's Gospel, and Mark didnt claim to know Jesus, Mark was Peter's secretary apparently. So why would an eyewitness copy a non eyewitnes account?
Thirdly, are the contradictions and historical impossibilies in the accounts, the narratives have 'fiction' written all over them. for example, why was Jesus tried without witnesses, by Jewish law you were entitled to two witnesses? Also, you couldnt be tried on your own testimony. The sanhedrin could only meet in the Temple and they meet could not meet at night. It was also Holy Week, another time that the Sanhedrin couldnt meet. The list goes on and on, why is there no record of the 'tradition' of the Romans releasing a prisoner at Passover?
If the Bible is the word of God, then God's name isnt YWHW, it is Hans Christian Anderson.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2003 12:24 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by truthlover, posted 07-22-2003 5:45 AM Brian has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 40 (46711)
07-21-2003 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by doctrbill
07-20-2003 7:44 PM


quote:
?Alternative readings: ?
1. "Every scripture inspired by God ..." [footnote: Revised Standard Version]
2. "Every inspired scripture ..." ?[New English Bible]
3. "The whole Bible ..." [Living Bible]
The first two alternatives are OK but will require someone to decide which of the scriptures are inspired, or which are inspired by God.
There are two primary Greek texts from which nearly all, if not all of New Testament translations are taken. There is the Alexandrian, also known as the Egyptian and/or neutral text. It used some older Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus manuscripts. Some major translations taken from it were the 1901 Standard Version as well as later revised versions and more recently the NIV Version, the old unpopular 1901 Standard being the most literally/acurately translated of any versions from this text.
Then there's the Received or Byzantine text from which the King James and some other translations were translated.
The two Greek source texts are about 85% textually exact, with the majority of the differences being insignificant nondoctrinal words or rephrasing of the same wording.
Of your above three versions, #1 is more liberal than the 1901 Standard, #2 is very liberal/nonliteral to the text and #3 is so far out that most Biblical findies such as myself believe it should not be called a Bible, but a Bible commentary.
So to respond to your propositon, none of the above are literally inspired of God. In fact, we have no absolute originals. The fact that the existing manuscripts are so close lends reason to believe that the originals were very close to what they are. The problem is that translators tend to think the need to be interpreters rather than sticking to the job of translating and letting the reader do the interpreting as led by the Holy Spirit. As the NIV was being translated back in the 70's I believe, I heard one of the translators of that version speak. One statement he made disturbed me which was to the effect that they as translators were'nt so much concerned about being literal as they were in conveying the message. Well, that sounds good, but they are assuming the role of the reader and preacher which is to decide what the literal words are saying. That is not to say the order of the words must be arranged by the translator so as to be readable and understood by the reader. The nearest English equivolent to the Greed words should be used inasmuch as is possible in our case, for the English language. That's why I keep a Greek-English Interlinear at hand to keep whatever translation I am using honest. Personally my favorite is the ole 1901 American Standard, so unpopular that they're not that easy to find. It's the closest to my interlinear.
Likely Paul was speaking of all the sacred writings of the Jewish scriptures including the prophets in his statement you have cited as being inspired of God. The Christian compilers of the Bible cannon evidently thought so, though it took them some time to sort out which of the NT should be included. Bottom line is that Biblical literalist based nations are the prosperous and the blessed of the planet's cultures. To me that says something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by doctrbill, posted 07-20-2003 7:44 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by doctrbill, posted 07-21-2003 2:44 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 07-21-2003 3:05 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 21 by doctrbill, posted 07-21-2003 11:07 PM Buzsaw has replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 9 of 40 (46719)
07-21-2003 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Buzsaw
07-21-2003 1:26 PM


Just a quick reply before I go to work. I'll respond more fully and to other posts when I return.
quote:
translators tend to think the need to be interpreters rather than sticking to the job of translating
Whether one is willing to admit it or not, translation is interpretation; that's why translators are also called: interpreters. It just can't be helped. Unfortunately for us, Hebrew and Greek are not English and there is simply no way that every word in those old languages can be understood by the scholar. One simply had to be there to understand. But even then, many would not, did not at the time, and if you pressed the speaker, or writer, he might come up with a different, perhaps even to him, better way of saying what he said.
quote:
... they are assuming the role of the reader and preacher which is to decide what the literal words are saying.
I'm afraid you don't realize the challenges of translation. Besides, no matter what the translator gives as equivalency, the preacher and reader will make they want of it.
quote:
Biblical literalist based nations are the prosperous and the blessed of the planet's cultures. To me that says something.
Indeed, it says that they are dominators. Besides, it wasn't always that way. Israel has never been a major player in that game and where do you think we got the Bible in the first place?
If God wants to send me a message he can call. He's got my number doesn't he, and my email?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2003 1:26 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 10 of 40 (46722)
07-21-2003 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Buzsaw
07-21-2003 1:26 PM


Buzz writes:
Bottom line is that Biblical literalist based nations are the prosperous and the blessed of the planet's cultures. To me that says something.
To me the following data says even more. Poverty rates as of 2001:
Finland4.9%
Denmark5.0%
Switzerland6.2%
Netherlands6.3%
Sweden6.4%
Hungary7.3%
Austria7.4%
France7.5%
Belgium7.8%
Australia9.3%
Germany9.4%
Norway10%
Canada10.3%
United Kingdom10.9%
Ireland11%
Greece13.8%
Italy14.2%
Turkey16.2%
United States17.0%
Mexico21.9%
Which countries have the highest percentage of Biblical literalists? Probably the two ranked last for poverty, the United States and Mexico.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2003 1:26 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 40 (46733)
07-21-2003 4:14 PM


Hi Percy.
1. Roman Catholics are not known for being Biblical fundamentalists. The immaculate conception, celibacy, indulgences, popes and priests as fathers, etc. all attest to that. Thus the difference in north of the border and south of the border (Mexico and south).
2. If you used US standards of poverty for nations like Turkey and Hungary likely 80% of those would be in the poverty range. Also, the socialist nations you listed have most on par with an overall lower standard of living across the board than in America.
3. The US is in a decline with the gap widening between the rich and the poor. This seems to correlate with the Biblical fundamentalist decline in the US so far as government, education and social life. The days of blessings of the Almighty and prosperity are historically true for out nation, but it appears we're loosing it, so yes, the poverty rate in America is on the rise, but your chart appears to be missleading.
4. If your list were compiled during the days of oppressive communism, your list would have most communist European nations at the top of your list with practically no poverty, yet compared to Americans they would all be in poverty.

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 07-21-2003 6:35 PM Buzsaw has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 12 of 40 (46756)
07-21-2003 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Buzsaw
07-21-2003 4:14 PM


Hi Buzz!
I agree with you about Roman Catholicism not any longer including Biblical inerrancy as a fundamental tenet, but this hasn't penetrated the rank-and-file adherents to any great extent, either in this country or Mexico.
The issue of scale is a good one. Should one use an absolute scale and judge poverty according to a single standard, or should one use a relative scale and judge poverty according to local standards? I can see arguments both ways.
I'm not sure why you think there is a fundamentalist decline in this country. Last data I saw had the conservative evangelical sects still growing.
About the days of communism, you would probably have ignored statistics from countries suspected of simply defining away the problem. Certainly if you compare standard of living instead of poverty rates they would have come out near the bottom.
Anyway, as our short exchange indicates, your simple declaration that fundamentalism correlates positively with living standards is not supported by evidence. Living standards more likely correlate with things like the presence of natural resources and the existence of a viable market economy. Plus there is data completely counter to your proposition, such as non-fundamentalist countries like Finland having higher standards of living than the US.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2003 4:14 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2003 9:51 PM Percy has replied
 Message 16 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2003 10:14 PM Percy has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 40 (46785)
07-21-2003 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
07-21-2003 6:35 PM


quote:
I agree with you about Roman Catholicism not any longer including Biblical inerrancy as a fundamental tenet, but this hasn't penetrated the rank-and-file adherents to any great extent, either in this country or Mexico.
There's always been a world of difference in the theology of the rank and file of adherents of Catholicism (especially in Mexico)to that of Biblical fundamentalists of the US. The difference isn't so much of the Bilical inerrancy as translated as it is in the doctrinal theology of the two which has translated into moral and social issues and practices.
quote:
I'm not sure why you think there is a fundamentalist decline in this country. Last data I saw had the conservative evangelical sects still growing.
You'd have to have been closly involved in the church as I have been for nearly 60 years to notice the steady decline, even in fundamentalistic circles which I am involved with. The decline has been in literal interpretation, morals and simple fundamentals like the Ten Commandments. The evangelical sects are growing but a lota hype and Penticostalistic hooplah with large rich churches, big programs and such but to heck with the fundamentals of the written word. Too many for the blessings of Christianity without accepting the responsibilities that are required to be approved and blessed of God. That's not to say there's not a lot of good churches and Christians out there, but the decline is telling.
quote:
About the days of communism, you would probably have ignored statistics from countries suspected of simply defining away the problem. Certainly if you compare standard of living instead of poverty rates they would have come out near the bottom.
But aren't you making my point? By the same token if the originators of your list had taken the standard of living rather than the local poverty rate into account, places like Turkey and Hungary certainly wouldn't have been rated way up there over the US. They would consider the standard of living of the majority of our poor to be quite good. The upper segment of our poor do not look poor and nobody would know they were such but the IRS and the grocery store where they turn in their food stamps. If I'm not mistaken the poverty level of earnings here is around $17,000.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 07-21-2003 6:35 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 07-21-2003 10:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 14 of 40 (46786)
07-21-2003 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
07-21-2003 12:24 PM


quote:
... fundamentalists who explicitly state that the Bible is literally the Word of God - not that it is somehow guided.
Yes, I too have that experience; but if they are sincere, they will evolve; and as they become more sophisticated, these arguments become more useful.
quote:
The real point is that fundamentalists don't usually think about the implications of what they are saying.
You'll get no argument from me on that account. They are merely parroting the assertions and arguments of their trusted clergy. Unfortunately for church members, the clergy is not best known for scholarship. Most are simply too busy for that. Those who are scholarly are not likely to last long in an environment where re-evalutation of tradition is considered taboo. The scholarly types, the honest ones, are likely to abandon such a hell and lead their following to greener pastures. This is one reason why Christianity continues to splinter.
db
------------------
Are you a Sunday School graduate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2003 12:24 PM PaulK has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 15 of 40 (46789)
07-21-2003 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Buzsaw
07-21-2003 9:51 PM


Buzz writes:
But aren't you making my point? By the same token if the originators of your list had taken the standard of living rather than the local poverty rate into account, places like Turkey and Hungary certainly wouldn't have been rated way up there over the US. They would consider the standard of living of the majority of our poor to be quite good. The upper segment of our poor do not look poor and nobody would know they were such but the IRS and the grocery store where they turn in their food stamps. If I'm not mistaken the poverty level of earnings here is around $17,000.
I don't know if I'm making your point, but I went with the data I found, which was the poverty rate. I had looked for some worldwide standard of living data but found only anecdotal accounts, no tables. I believe, though, that if we were to locate a standard of living table by country that the US would be around number 4 or 5, with countries like Finland and Sweden in front of us. And my point would be that these countries have a far smaller fundamentalist component than the US.
I would have to see actual hard data that fundamentalism correlates with standard of living. This sounds like just one of those things fundamentalists like to say about themselves.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2003 9:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024