Summations Only

Can we agree that its within the point? I see his broader message that you mention, but I was just focusing on that smaller part. Honestly, I don't think his point is all that clear...He starts with:

quote:

---

I have never known any christianity that was not based on the idea that the whole bible was absolutely true. Message 80

---

Which is followed by the same reasoning you just outlined. But then he gets to:

quote:

---

Without a literal bible, christianity is absolutely worthless. Message 84

---

Now, maybe "literal" and "absolutely true" mean the same thing to them, but to me it obfuscates the point being made.When you're getting into literal-ness, you're getting more into doctrine than dogma, imho. I see that (better now), but there's more to it. "Christianity" is not just what he's making it out to be and "dogmatic" doesn't have to be non-doctrinal. The Golden Rule is both dagmatic and doctrinal. I didn't intend it, as and example, to be limited to a doctrinal one, I just used it because I thought we could all agree that its in the bible and it has truth and that Genesis having an error doesn't mean we have to throw out the Golden Rule along with it. Too, if you do use it as a piece of dogmatic content, then it could address the wider point as well, no?

No, that's not what foreveryoung and Tangle have argued. You've likely cited your own impression. Your impression is far more reasonable, and I won't chase down my disagreement with it.Foreveryoung says that if any portion of the Bible is not free from error when literally read, then the whole text is worthless. And that's notwithstanding the fact that the Bible is not a monolithic work. I don't believe foreveryoung's conclusion is justifiable.Tangle on the other hand has only commented on the possiblity of the Bible containing merely convention wisdom, I don't think he's actually commented on the issue you discuss here, and I don't think I really disagree with his point. I just don't find Tangle's point very relevant.If the back in 1960 or so, an author of a high school chemistry textbooks writes that it is impossible to make compounds from the noble gasses, as was believed in the early 1960's, does that falsehood mean that none of the rest of the book is worth reading, or does it simply warn us to look for more errors? Would you begin to doubt that the author was right about the formula for water?I would expect that large portions of a 1960 vintage high school chemistry textbook would hold up pretty well today.Edited by NoNukes, : Modify to include Tangle

What would be wrong with having doubt about the Gospels?If you don't have doubt about the Gospels, then your religion is not based on faith - it is based on stupidity or naivety.

The only way I can make sense of what your saying is if the point is that christianity looses its worth because it didn't come up with the valuable truth itself. Let me outline it: Yeah, I'm sorry. That's not making much sense to me. Are you relying on the worth of christianity to be the invention of the valuable truth?

I'll combine my answers into a single post here. Absolutely nothing. Indeed, people should doubt these texts, even or perhaps especially those who hold to them. The problem is what happens when you apply that doubt to events like the resurrection; you find that there really isn't much evidence for them. Now obviously foreveryoung's treatment of this issue is over-the-top and naive, but there is a grain of truth in what he's saying. Once you start to read the Bible with a sceptical mind it starts to fall apart like a house of cards. Sure, I can see how your argument is related to what foreveryoung's saying, but I still don't think that it completely counters what he's saying. Agreed. I kind of assumed foreveryoung to mean "both literal and true". I agree that literalness and turth are not the same thing. the Bible could be both literal and false, or metaphorical and subjectively true, etc. True. Foreveryoung seemed to be talking about historical events in particular. It still seems to me that if the Bible is wrong about one historical event then it seems perverse to then rely on it as a historical guide, especially when it is the only historical source for an event - like the resurrection. This is what I mean when I say that there's a grain of truth in what foreveryoung is saying. Sure and I agree to that extent. However, I think that there is a worthwhile distinction to be drawn between historical dogmas and more subjective truths like the Golden Mean. Even if every single event in the Bible was non-historical, we would still be left with its subjective content, moral teachings and such (although I would personally doubt the value of these given what a mixed bag biblical morality can be). But if the bible is not reliable as a historical record, the historicity of many important events comes into doubt. I think that this is a problem for the more liberal branches of Club Christian and I don't think that it can be easily dismissed. Naturally! I agree that foreveryoung goes too far. I hope I have made it clear from the start that I do not completely agree with his position. Specifically, I would not regard the Bible as "worthless". That's a hyperbolic over-reaction. What I would say is that it does knock the Bible off its pedestal somewhat and it makes it look rather unreliable when used as a historical guide. I'm sure it would. But the error would make us view it with a good deal more scepticism. It certainly undermines any Argument form Authority based upon it. Further, if said textbook was the only source to make a specific claim, we would be justified in applying extreme doubt to that claim.Overall, I do agree that foreveryoung over-sates this problem, but I still think that the

I don't think there is a grain of truth in it.Suppose we bound together in one book everything everyone ever wrote about the history of Rome. Now, I would reject the idea that the founders of Rome were suckled by a she-wolf. On the other hand, I would believe in the existence of Julius Caesar.The problem with the purported biographies of Jesus is not that they are bound together in the same volume as the stupid myths contained in the book of Genesis. How could that be a problem? If I published a volume consisting of Alice In Wonderland and the Las Vegas phone directory, then the falsehood of the former would have no relevance to the truth of the latter. Putting two different books with different provenances in the same volume does not affect the credibility of either --- it does not exalt the credibility of the less credible book, nor does it impugn the credibility of the more credible book. How could it?

Quite so. I'm with you on this one, although we may be on opposite sides in other respects.The Bible is a compilation of writings by different authors, with different degrees of reliability, about the interactions of men with God. This is clearly true.Given this, a man is an idiot if he uses the inaccuracy of Genesis to cast doubt on the existence of God or the truth of the gospels; and, conversely, a man is an idiot if, contrary to all the evidence, he maintains the literal truth of Genesis to give credence to the existence of God or the truth of the gospels.

Absolutely we should question the gospels. Others have made the point very well that the Bible is written by a large group of authors over a long period of time.The funny thing about fundamentalism is that they emphasize salvation by grace based on their faith in a literal understanding of the Bible.Aside from the various contradictions both historically and concerning the nature of God there are two obvious problems with this.Firstly if getting right with God, (salvation), is about faith in the scriptures then faith is just another "work" and we are right back to salvation by works.Secondly this understanding once again puts the focus back on "me and my salvation" instead of on the Biblical message of sacrificial love. It becomes "me" focused instead of "God" focused.Fundamentalism as we understand reduces God to what has been written by people over the centuries. It makes God out to be loving and forgiving and at other times hateful and tyrannical. It makes no sense to understand the Bible or God in that way. Thankfully, God is a whole lot bigger than that.So yes, let’s question the Gospels and find out what they have to say. There have been Christian scholars over the years who have committed their lives to doing just that and we have centuries of scholarship built up over the years doing just that. I suggest reading N T Wright who is generally conceded to be the leading or at least one of the leading NT scholars today.Here is something he has written on the Gospels. Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian OriginsHere is a web site that contains much of what he has written and spoken about. N T Wright

Hello, foreveryoung. Allow me to add my two cents worth to this discussion, if I may. I came to EvC Forum in 2003 or so, I think. When I came, I was quite the fundamentalist/charismatic Christian who honestly believed (and still do, to some extent) that I had met God through Jesus Christ and through the inspired word of God. To me, canons were what sunk the Bismarck....I had neither care nor concern that many differed and thought that many of the intellectually minded skeptics and naysayers here were simply too proud to accept the God that I knew and loved.Jar challenged me. He asked me things like "How Do You Know Its God?" At first I rebelled...how dare some unenlightened person challenge my sincere belief? Later, I softened up. After all, if God exists, God exists regardless of what I believe, know, or think I know. Thus, challenging my beliefs does not challenge God in any way. All that it challenges is my understanding of God. God can take care of Herself. I came to understand the difference between beliefs and facts.At first, I resisted labeling my beliefs as scientifically nonfactual, but as I became more secure I simply let that concern go. Some of us believe that not only does God exist but that He is personal...through Jesus Christ, knowable to a degree through communion with the Holy Spirit, and defensible. Others may say that there is no way to defend the belief. That too used to bother me, but now it does not.Lately I have stopped trying to defend my beliefs through science. I no longer believe that most scientists are atheists and are blinded to the truth due to their refusal to accept final answers. I will even admit that I want my beliefs to be true, and I want a personal, interactive God that loves and even favors me (and all humanity) because He "so loved the world."I no longer attempt to prove my faith. I maintain that it is based on more than emotionalism, however. And finally, I respect your belief that the whole Bible is absolutely "true"...though I may believe it to be symbolic and true in a thought for thought sense rather than a word for word sense.

You registered: 30-December-2003

I think even this goes too far.In the case of compounds of the noble gases, we are in a position to understand the reasons why the older view was wrong. That knowledge allows us to make some attempts to partition off things in that older text book that may be unreliable.One might have a similar impression about Genesis. If God had dictated the truth about how the universe came to be to an unscientifically minded man of the bronze, Genesis might well be that person's best attempt to make heads or tails out of what he was told. Or one might note that whoever wrote Genesis, the person who wrote Matthew isn't the responsible for any errors in the Torah.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

foreveryoung is a perfect example of what I see as a common creationist viewpoint. It is a tortured position where evidence takes a back seat. Here are the steps in the thought process:1. The Bible is trustworthy because it has not been shown to be false.2. Someone claims to have evidence that shows the Bible (or more accurately, my personal interpretation of the Bible) to be false.3. Evidence has to be wrong. See step 1.We can see this thought process in action when foreveryoung states that s/he does not trust science, and is especially distrustful of atheist scientists. Afterall, foreveryoung trusts the Bible and it is never wrong, so the science has to be wrong.It is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize a dogmatic position. foreveryoung claims that christians should have a logical foundation for their beliefs, but it is quite obvious that this position is based on dogma that is devoid of logic and reason. Until foreveryoung is willing to follow the evidence there is really no reason to present it. When a belief is formed without evidence, how could evidence be used to change it?Some of the most enlightening conversations I have had is when I ask creationists to describe the type of evidence that would falsify their claims. For example, what features would a fossil need in order for them to accept it as transitional? What geologic feature would disprove a recent global flood? What shared genetic feature would they accept as evidence that humans and other apes share a common ancestor? The silence that follows these types of questions is very damning.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Some believe the Pope is never wrong. But the Catholics teach that science in general and evolution in particular describe real events, and are not in conflict with their beliefs.So, between the creationists who believe the bible is never wrong and Catholics who believe (in at least some instances) that the bible is allegory or parable, who is right? And who is wrong?Certainly one of the two is wrong, if not both?So let's see the evidence on each side so we can make a reasonable determination.They do have evidence, don't they?Once religions of all stripes fight it out and determine a winner--based on evidence, perhaps that winner can take on science.Otherwise, without evidence what's the point?

The problem for foreveryoung is that when he starts to approach Genesis in a sensible way - as a historical document like any other - he is honour bound to do the same with the Gospels. Once you start to analyse the various books of the Bible in a sensible way, you are inevitably going to find problems. It's certainly not a matter of simply casting doubt on the Gospels directly because of Genesis containing falsehoods; that would be foolish as you say. It's more a matter of approach. Once you start taking a sceptical look at Genesis, you're going to find problems with it. And once you've reached that point, you're not going to be able to ignore that the same thing is going to happen when you look at the Gospels, not because they relate directly to Genesis, but because they have their own problems. In fact, some of these problems have close parallels in Genesis. Just as the two creation accounts put doubt on Genesis, the two differing versions of the death of Judas put doubt on the gospels. Even the apologetics used to counter these arguments are similar.Foreveryoung has come up with an ingenious solution to all this. He is going to bury his head in the sand and pretend that none of these problems exist. It probably works pretty well in terms of shielding him from uncomfortable truths. The trouble is that were he to pull his head out of the sand, he would not be able to limit his new vision to just Genesis. He would have to look at all the failings of the Bible (or indeed any other historical/mythological source) and for emotional reasons, that's not something he's willing to do. Too risky. he knows deep down that these problems exist and he knows instinctively that he won't be able to keep up his self-deception if he looks at them. So he keeps his head in the sand where it's nice and safe. But no-one ever claimed that both of those volumes were divinely inspired by the same god as part of his plan for humanity. Christians do make this claim for the various books of the Bible.That fact that the bible is a collection of disparate sources, most of which are only tangentially related to one another is one of the uncomfortable truths that foreveryoung is trying to avoid here. It undermines the notion that these books contain a single unified message from God, a notion that foreveryoung clearly finds comforting.You and I may agree that burying one's head in the sand is a poor way of regarding the world, but I can still see why foreveryoung is reluctant to pull it out and start looking around. He might not like what he sees.Genesis cannot directly disprove the Gospels, that is clearly true. but it does serve as an object lesson in how to read a historical text and how one should treat all sources with scepticism. Of course, this could just as easily work the other way around.Mutate and Survive

If this is indeed Foreveryoung's strategy, I find his execution of said strategy difficult to fathom. Rather than electing to live in his own private Idaho, Foreveryoung has gone out of his way to ask questions in a debate forum, where the rather predictable result is that some, if not all of the answers he gets will require stuffing more sand about the eyes and ears.Exactly what types of answers did fy expect here? What does he mean when he says he wants to discuss science? I disagree. Neither one of the two creation accounts is the least bit plausible as a literal description of the origin of life on this planet. Pointing out that the accounts disagree is merely a convenient way to argue against a literalist on his home court.By comparison, the different versions of the death of Judas, with each version coming from authors who were not eye witnesses isn't nearly as big a deal. You cannot get two eyewitnesses to describe a car accident consistently. The essentials are that the man betrayed Jesus and then killed himself. Some silly myths were then written about the name of the field, and the myths don't seem to agree in the details. So what?