From: thughes@ug.cs.dal.ca (Tracy L. Hughes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re : Biblical Contradictions
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:29:23 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

>: You see, not every Christian believes the Bible is the word-for-word
>: revelation of God.  This does not label them as mockers nor indicate that
>: they are bound for hell.  These contradictions are of legitimate concern
>: to them and they quote them to reveal to other Christians 
>: the basis of their type of faith (very often to avoid persecution, as funny
>: as that sounds).  They are merely approaching God in a different way than
>: the accepted norm.  After all, even the proposition that the Bible is God's
>: word to us is merely a proposition of our fallible human reasoning, so
>: who has the right to fault their reasoning?
>: 

>Not so.  To assert this chips away at the foundations defining christianity
>and removes the elements that distinguish between that which is and is not
>christian.


A lot of people seem to stand by this, as much as they stand by a similar
saying: "You cannot pick and choose in a religion".  The sad thing is that
neither is true.  Religion is the attempt to discover what is God's will for
us.  Given no personal relationship with God other than what we have been
taught or read, all we can do is pick or choose.  To believe the Bible is
God's revelation for us is one such choice.  To believe it merely points
the way towards Him is another such choice.  Many Christians have made both
choices.  The point is, given no absolute knowledge, we haven't the right
to define religion: only God has that right.  What we try to do is to
determine just what God's definition is.  It is an arrogance to assume we
are right to the point of peremptorily condemning those who do not agree with
us to hell.  

	As to asserting that the Bible isn't the word-for-word revelation of
God chipping away at the foundations of Christianity I would like to point
out that there is a large body of Christians who believes just this, and that
they seem to have no such problems.  Perhaps the foundations of Christianity
are stronger, and more easily recognizeable, than you might believe.  I think
the answer lies in the fact that Christianity is an internal, not an external
state.  Those Christians who, given the opportunity, would dismiss those 
parts of the Bible that are inconvenient to them are the same type that, given
the word-for-word truth approach will overlook those parts of the Bible that
might inconvenience them and emphasize those parts which they find most
pleasing.  Neither are true Christians.  Among those Christians trying
to follow God's will who do not ascribe to the word-for-word truth approach
the general consensis seems to be to dismiss those section of the Bible
that appear to harm other people, sometimes to their own detriment (as
well as to dismiss many of the old ritualistic laws in the old testament,
as both groups seem to do).

 You are not at fault for believing what you believe.  You are at fault
for standing in judgement in the place of God.  The human mind is
very fallible in its judgements, because none of us know the full truth.  It
is not for nothing that we were taught not to judge our neighbors.


>While this may appear to be an act of love and kindness, it is
>only an act to remove a word and an element of communication and undermine
>the basic meaning of the word "christian".


cf above:  It is Christ's right to define the word "Christian", not ours.  In
the absense of certain knowledge I think perhaps our definition should include
all those who believe in God and are attempting to be disciples of Christ
(which seems to be the external consensis) and not just the narrow band of  
those people who, as well as the above two points, believe doctrine X and Y.


>So many are competing for attention and examination.  Let's give God His share
>of the attention first. 


Oh we are ... proponents of all different doctrines alike ...:)


>People constantly try to set their moral standards above God's.
 

Uh uh.  Wrong.  People constantly try to set their moral standards above that
of other people's:  we all seem to have our own version of the Bible...
interpereting this or that part in this or that way,  whether in a 
fundamental light or otherwise.  I remain unconvinced that some of these
people aren't closer to the truth than some Christians, and perhaps
actually examining what they say will bring us closer to God.  You know,
although some people question Jesus' humility... noone seems to question his
moral stances (none of which included anything remotely inhumane or which
anyone could consider unloving)... and yet some "Christian morals" appear
just that... kinda makes you wonder about Christianity's own wisdom in
deriving these laws and morals, in whatever way they were derived.


>Isn't it
>better to learn from God instead of criticizing the King of the Universe for
>His lack of our knowledge?


Noone is criticizing God... listen carefully.  They are only criticizing what
you think God is saying to us, and how He is saying it.  


>When a person casts doubt on the Word of God, it is very unlikely
>they know much of anything at all about God and surely do not know Him in
>person.  I'm sorry if this sounds harsh...


Tsk, tsk.  None of us, my friend, know much about God.  This is why there
are so many different doctrines, so many different churches, and so many
different ways of approaching Him.  It is very unlikely that any of us are
absolutely right in what we think is God's will for us.  Again, these people
are not casting doubt on the Word of God ... in fact in being brave enough
to face persecution by being different they are proving their respect for
the Word of God ... they just hear that Word differently from you and,
again, it is God's place to judge them, not yours.  However, when a person
devoid of personal relationship with God (ie not knowing Him in person) 
assumes a judgemental role over others in complete assumption that his or 
hers is the only possible correct way, well then I think perhaps they have
not listened to the teachings of Christ very carefully....


>I believe I understand what you mean here.  But you need to understand that
>the teachings of Christ are really more firm than people often represent them.


Oh, they are very firm indeed.  They do not, however, extend to every
single doctrine each of us has so much faith in.  For example, considering
another discussion from this newsgroup, Christ never spoke personally
about the doctrine of the Virgin Birth (or at least it is not recorded that
he did so) and yet it means so much to so many Christians. If he had, well,
there wouldn't be a debate about it.  Those things debated by Christians
seem to be mainly those things that Christ is not recorded as having
spoken about ... hence leaving doubt in some minds as to whether or not
they are essential, or even proper, doctrines for Christianity to have.


>but I doubt they have the same respect for the verses where Jesus
>says "I am the way the truth and the light" and "nobody comes to the Father
>but by me."


Hmmmm.  Notice Jesus did not say "noone comes to the Father except those
that believe X".  Funny noone ever points that out.  I imagine he had
a very sound reason for not defining what we have to "believe" to come
to the Father.... perhaps our beliefs are not so important as how close
we are to God on a more personal basis.  And I think most proponents of
both doctrines believe that Christ is the true (and only) way to the
Father anyways.


A persons relationship with God is no less beautiful for choosing a 
different road than you are on:  if it were then I am sure Christ would
have been very specific on exactly what doctrine we have to believe
to find our way to salvation.  Since he did not, we have no right to set
up the rules now, without his personal guidance.  

-Tracy