From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Why I am an atheist (long!)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:57:36 GMT

yohan@shadow.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:


>In article <sam.715453681@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>yohan@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
>>>You obviously know very few christian theologians.  You are not allowed to 
>>>doubt that the bible is the word of god, and you are not allowed to doubt 
>>>christ is the son of god.  You are to simply have faith that these 
>>>assumptions are correct. Post on christian newsgroups and most will agree 
>>>that you must have faith in these.  If my views are a fantasy, then we are 
>>>all being tricked by Descarte's evil demon.
>>
>>Uhm, have you taken a theology course?  Do you know anything about Process
>>Theology?  It denies ex-niholo creation.  How about John Hick's universal 
>>salvation, derived from Iraneaus?  Christian theology is a very broad field.  
>>There is plenty of room to doubt the literal bible.  Most modern, 
>>non-evangelical Christian theologians deny 'plenary verbal inspiration.'
>>
>>Go take a theology class at a good liberal arts college...you'll be quite
>>surprised what Christian theologians propose.  I know I was.
>>
>>Heck, my copy of the Oxford NRSV refers to the Deluge as a myth and gives
>>it's origins as Babylonian myths.  My NIV Study Bible disagrees, but both 
>>opinions are from Christian theologians.
>>

>No, Steve, I haven't taken a theology course.  How about you enlighten me on
>their positions on these questions:

>1)  Is faith in christ required?
No.  A survey of 'Christian' religions (self-defined) shows that there is
not even agreement on Christ.

>2)  Can god's existence be proven?
I don't believe so.  Every 'proof' breaks down at some point or on some
level.

>Last time I checked, the answers were no and no.  If you disagree, please 
>tell me what your position is, and your reasoning for it.  If you don't 
>disagree, then you are not thinking about many critical issues.
I don't disagree.  What I was trying to say is that there are no hard and
fast requirements.  You said "you are not allowed to" and listed a few
things.  I say that you are allowed.

>Just out of curiosity:
>3)  Is the bible god's word to man?
You mean is it the revealed word of God (ie plenary verbal inspiration) or
is it a response to revelation?  Well in *my* opinion, it is a response to
revelation.  There is no consensus on this issue, even among theologians.
Those trained at Univ of Chicago will have differering opinoins than those
trained at, say, Moody Bible Institute.

>4)  If so, why is it so inefficient at conveying his message?  Don't try to 
>say that the problem is man's fault either.  Who's fault is it when someone 
>can't understand the literature: the author or the reader?
That's just it.  This question is meaningless to me, and to most modern,
non literalist (I hate to say evangelical, for there are some
non-literalist evangelicals) scholars.  The current level of criticism says
that we have to consider the author, the recipiet and the society before we
make any decisions about what the text says.  This of course denies plenary
verbal inspiration, but does not deny inspiration at some level.

>5)  Is the bible a compilation of metaphors?
Not completely.  The bible uses almost every literary form known: poetry,
metaphor, allegory, simile, parables, etc, etc.  Form critisism looks at
just this thing.  Redaction critisism concentrates on the final 'editor' of
the document and attempts to discern particular threads and stories.  A
good example of this is the '4-threads' theory for the Torah.  Basically,
four traditions woven together by priestly authors around the time of the
Babylonian exile.  Again, denying plenary verbal inspriration.

On the other hand, if we take a literalist aproach, there is still no
reason for God not to have used all methods available...Jesus himself
(referring only to the historical figure at the moment) taught by using
parables...

>6)  If so, why were metaphors used, since they result in very subjective
>interpretations?  
This question depends on literal interpertation, as near as I can tell.  If
humans wrote the book, we're missing many of the basic understandings of
the day.  We often recognize Homeric and Shakespearean nods now.  What's to
say that what was being said wasn't clear to the recipients of the day?
That's the problem.  

With literalism, the basic concept is trancendence of the message.   The
metaphors had to be understandable throughout time, simple enough for the
Hebrews and still applicable in days of knowledge.

>7)  Is the flood a myth (see your oxford nrsv)?
My answer here is I don't know.  My understanding of the book of Genesis is
based on the message and symbolism contained, not a concentration on the
actual events themselves.  In other words, I can learn from the Genesis
accounts, irrespective of their 'truth' as actual history.  See the
speculative and theorhetical discussion I'm having on this with Paul Harvey
in another talk.religion.misc thread.


>8)  If so, how do you know what is fact or fiction in the bible?  Why can't
>everything be a myth?
There are clearly identifiable historical figures listed, that are
independantly reported from the Bible.  There are historical events that
are fairly clearly confirmed.  Archeology confirms other aspects.

While there is a certain amount of fictional information, the basic thrust
of the document (to non literalists) is to relay information (revelation)
about God's interaction with man throughout history.  The Bible makes no
attempt to 'prove' the existence of God, it is simply assumed.

>Well, since you're armed with these enlightening theology courses, please share
>your wealth of knowledge with the group.  BTW, save quotations for the theology
>class.  When you christians simply copy segments of texts, it just proves that
>you are non-thinkers.

I hope this wasn't meant at me.  If so, you are very, very wrong.  Go read
the thread on the Problem of Evil and the discussion I'm having with Sean
Hartigan there.  Hardly non-thinking.  Go read the discussion I'm having on
Genesis with Paul Harvey.  Hardly non-thinking.

There are Christians that do think about this stuff and intelligently at
that!  But according to Hartigan's Law "All intellectually active
Christians end up as heretics".  While 'heresy' doesn't mean what it did, 
this statement reflects the truth.  Actually, perhaps anti-orthodoxy is a
better word...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism