From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question for fundamentalists
Date: 15 Sep 92 06:27:25 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <Sep.12.23.57.38.1992.13105@athos.rutgers.edu>, boe@cadsun2.slac.stanford.edu (Robert Boeninger) writes:
> As a serious sceptic, I have a fundamental question for so-called Christian 
> fundamentalists.
> 
> Concerning the claimed inerrancy of the Bible, how is it possible to 
> accept as true, facts about the nature of the Bible, such as its inerrancy,
> its being inspired by God, and so on, based on the Bible making such claims
> for itself?  That would appear to be a a case of circular reasoning.

I am not sure just who counts as a fundamentalist these days, but I
take a position I think I might call "anti-anti-fundamentalist."  So I
will offer a thought.

The great critic and advocate of literacy George Steiner has a
remarkable book out called _Real Presence_.  (There's stuff about God
in it, and much else.)  One of his themes is that perhaps we don't
need literary critics (only a sly suggestion of his) because
*literature is its own best critic* -- Homer was taken up by Vergil
and built upon; then Vergil was taken up by Dante; Dante was reworked
to new purposes by Milton.  Creative criticism--the best kind.

The Bible is a very special kind of literature, and it too is its own
best critic.  It is not about logical reasoning, circular or
otherwise!  It is about meaning.

> Any 
> supposed corroboration of such claims by independent evidence all appears to 
> me to be cases of wishful thinking, arguing after the fact.

It is not the Christians who indulge in wishful thinking, but the
secularists; for the more difficult road is that of the Christian.

> You like to think 
> of the Bible as being God-inspired, and therefore you go to great pains to 
> bring up supporting evidence from within the Bible itself.  From a purely 
> logical standpoint,

From a purely logical standpoint?  I have noticed that people talk
this way only when they are arguing.  From a purely logical standpoint
there is no meaning whatever in our existence.  This will of course be
disputed -- wishful thinking, perhaps?

> it seems to me that no amount of claims in the
> Bible  about 
> the Bible itself can ever be taken as a validation of those claims. 

Validation of claims -- more of that special language we use only when
we argue.  

I urge to you examine the way you really live and see whether it has
much to do with logical standpoints and validation of claims.  (I'm
very serious!)

> Predictions
> of supposed miracles are again always referred to after the fact, when it's 
> easy to interpret the original statements however best suits the events that 
> supposedly fulfill the prediction.

If you mean prophecy, prophecy in the Bible is not about predicting
the future; a great deal of it is about social justice.  We do not
know the future (and, much more importantly, *we do not know the past*)

> Look at the difficulty fundamentalists are 
> having predicting the end of the world based on statements in the
> Bible.

They seem to be getting some competition from the environmentalists
these days...

> Do any of you have a sensible response to these issues, one that does NOT
> consist of simply quoting the Bible some more?

I have noticed that when you ask scientists questions about science,
their answers consist of more science.  I guess when you have a
method, you use it.
-- 
********************************** +.............................+
*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
********************************** +.............................+