From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades, once more into the breach!
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:43:28 MST

Crusades:  Once more into the breach!

This thread started by showing that atrocities committed by Christians
are no different than atrocities committed by atheists or adherents of
other philosophies, and that such atrocities are not the result of the
teachings of Christianity itself.

The discusssion has now metamorphicized into a discussion of Bible
harmonization and inerrancy, of all things.  :) 

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 12:54:32 PDT
From: bobb@vice.ico.tek.com (Bob Beauchaine)
Message-Id: <9208191954.AA00695@vice.ico.tek.com>
To: jim_brown@oz.bmd.trw.com

In article <1992Aug18.172557.27380@bmerh85.bnr.ca, 
dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

[....]

Jim B. (to Doug):
>I am not criticizing you, so I hope you understand that I mean no offense
>when I say that your understanding of Christianity, its doctrines, and
>harmonizations of the gospels and the epistles in the NT is quite lacking.

Bob B.:
  Mine understanding, however, is not lacking, yet I too agree with Doug 
  in principle.

Jim B.:
    OK Bob, but you're a different story.


>There is no contradiction whatever between the teachings of Jesus and Paul.

  In terms of advice for living a Christian
  life, Jesus had very little to say, and what he did say was
  usually very clear and simplistic.  "Take up your cross and follow
  me".

    This means to make Him Lord of your life.


  "Sell everything you have and give it to the poor."

    This is not universal, but applies to the person addressed.
    There are many NT passages that show this. 

  "Love you[r] neighbor as you love yourself."

    This is half of the summation of the Law and the Prophets.
    This other half is "to love the Lord your God with all your
    heart, mind, soul, and strength."  This is one that atheists
    seem to like to overlook.

  Jesus ate with lepers,
  prostitutes, and tax collectors, and was (at least as far as the
  Bible tells us) quite tolerant of everyone except hypocrites.  

    Quite true.


  Paul, on the other hand, saw it necessary to be a whole lot more
  specific in giving instruction to the gentiles on how to live.
  Jesus had almost nothing to say about sexuality (aside from his
  comments on lust), yet Paul devotes endless page and verse
  addressing the supposed sexual immorality of the believer and
  pagan alike.

    Certainly.	Jesus was addressing traditional Jews who were
    taught the Law from childhood.  He hardly needly to waste
    effort re-telling them what was right and wrong.  He merely
    clarified the meaning of certain teachings, like "...it's not
    what's on the outside of a man that makes him unclean, but
    what's in his heart."  Jesus clarified the commandments to
    include attitudes and thoughts as well as actions.

    Paul, on the other hand, was addressing Gentiles who were
    not taught the Law from childhood, so a certain amount of
    remedial morality teaching was necessary.

  Of course these teachings don't directly contradict
  what Jesus had to say, since he had essentially nothing to say.
  The real question is are they in agreement with what Jesus *would
  have said*?

    Absolutely.

  We [atheists] will never know.

    It seems quite obvious to me and other Christians, however.

  Did Paul have the authority to
  add as much as he did to the foundations of Christianity? 

    Certainly.	He was directly commissioned by Jesus on the road
    to Damascus as you probably know.  Jesus wouldn't have picked
    someone to play such a defining role in Christianity if He
    weren't certain of Paul's integrity and humility.


>Nor is there a contradiction between Paul and James.  Nor between, Jesus,
>Paul, James, and John.  Etc.  The cohesive structure of the NT is well
>established in Christian philosophy and thought.  

  The cohesive structure of the NT has come about through centuries
  of intense theological scrutiny, appraisal, and theorizing, and to
  this day is not universally agreed upon.

    Small correction.  The **understanding** of the cohesive structure
    of the NT has come about through centuries of intense theological
    scrutiny, appraisal, and theorizing.  Certainly there are differences
    of opinion on some issues, but there is unity among *bona fide*
    Christians on matters of foundational importance.


  Unless you choose to
  ignore a very large section of the Christian world, particularly
  those who view the Bible allegorically, you cannot make this
  claim.  

    I view the Bible allegorically.  Also literally, historically,
    poetically, metaphorically, and prophetically.  The Bible contains
    a diverse range of literary style.


  And what if you can?  It has *still* taken centuries of work to
  come up with the onion-like structure of current Christian
  thought.	   ^^^^^^^^^^

    So when you cut into it, does it make you cry?  (Just a joke.)

    I don't deny that Christians now have a fuller understanding of
    the Bible and its message than that of the early Church.  But
    having a full understanding of the Bible is not a requirement
    for salvation.  First things first.

  Much of it is not at all self evident to the average lay
  Christian, and none of it is objectively verifiable short of
  death.

    Yes, it's not *all* self-evident, and much is not objectively
    verifiable short of death.	Some is though.

  Sure, I've heard how Judas hanged himself, the rope broke,
  and he burst on the ground.  That explanation, however, is an
  extrapolation of the data as presented in the Bible, where two
  disparate accounts of his death are provided.  You may not see
  this as a contradiction, but that is because the idea of having a
  contradiction in the Bible is more repugnant to you than is the 
  practice of jumping through theological hoops to preserve it's 
  innerancy.  

    Inerrancy, IMO, does not depend on how Judas died.	Perhaps he
    did in fact hang himself, the branch broke, and he made a mess
    on the rocks below.  A picture of a tree overhanging a cliff
    in Palestine is given in my Revell's Bible Dictionary as an
    example of a tree Judas may have used.  At least it's possible.

    Maybe Peter wasn't aware of all the facts surrounding Judas'
    death at the time he addressed the apostles as recorded in
    Acts, or maybe he repeated the most popular account which
    was then faithfully recorded.

    Perhaps the two accounts are in conflict.  So what?  The fact
    is that Judas died.  The moral teachings and the doctrines of
    salvation are not affected.  The apparent discrepancy is really
    trivial.


  What about books like Revelations and Daniel?  I dare you to find 
  just two bible scholars who agree on the details of the interpretation 
  and implications of this book.  

    Dr. John MacArthur
    Rev. Chuck Smith
    Hal Lindsey
    Rev. Chuck Swindoll
    Me  :)


>Any imagined contradiction
>in the NT is trivial at best, and the real work of harmonization remains,
>admittedly, between the NT and portions of the Old.  
  
  These contradictions are only trivial if you assume from the get
  go that they are not contradictions.	Jesus' lineage.

    Jesus is a *legal* descendent from Solomon through the line of
    kings through Joseph His adoptive father.  (Matthew's account)

    Jesus is a *natural* descendent from Nathan, son of David, through
    Mary His natural mother.  (Luke's account)

  Judas' death.

    Discussed above.

  These are not trivial, and only intellectual dishonesty
  saves you from having to admit that there is a real possibility
  that they are indeed mistakes.

    Judas' death is indeed trivial.  And Jesus' lineage is not trivial
    and not contradictory as explained above.


>Whether you or others
>wish to accept Christian harmonizations in the NT, is of course, up to you.
>But arguments as to whether Christians obey Jesus or Paul (or James or John)
>really carry little weight for the well-grounded Christian who is aware of
>the context and harmonizations of these various teachings.  You might as
>well assert that Jesus never lived, or that Christianity is "immoral" for
>all the good it will do.  All you will succeed in doing is to convince other
>non-believers, as lacking in their understanding of Christianity as you, of
>the "truth" of these assertions.

  And you have to understand that the harmonizations of the NT beg
  the question.  Harmonizers do not approach the question from the
  perspective of "is the NT harmonious? Let's see".  They approach
  it from the perspective "the NT is harmonious, here's how I prove
  it."   

    It hardly matters what their attitude is if they can demonstrate
    the harmony.  It doesn't matter if I believe in evolution or not
    for me to show that this fossil goes with that one.

  Why is it so dangerous for many Christians to admit that perhaps they
  are wrong?

    Is it?  Let's see.  "Perhaps I am wrong."  Hmmm.  No lightning.
    No hard drive failure.  Everything seems OK.


  I am quite willing to admit that God may exist, and
  will change my opinion accordingly if new evidence becomes
  available.

    So does that make you an agnostic?	Or a "weak" atheist?


  Why do you have to cling to the idea that the Bible
  can't have inconsistencies and errors?

    It can.  It just doesn't have errors in *doctrine* and *moral
    teaching*.	Sometimes there are misspellings in the manuscripts,
    bad grammar, a smudge on a sheet here and there...


  There is, even allowing
  for Biblical errors, a clear core message to Christianity that
  would not be compromised by the loss of innerrancy.  So what's the
  problem?

    None, and I agree.	There is a clear, core message to Christianity,
    and that's one of the main reasons I hold to doctrinal inerrancy.
    No problem.


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 


    Regards,

    Jim