From: wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with information)
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
	<1992Nov11.131233.3887@wkuvx1.bitnet>
	<1992Nov13.033731.17979@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 23:24:22 GMT


In article <1992Nov13.033731.17979@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:

   /9) The Bible's Undeniable Influence for Good - When taken in its purity
   /    (I do not consider the adulterated version pushed by denominations
   /    to be pure), it has done nothing but good.  It makes those who
   /    would obey it the model parents, friends, neighbors, and citizens, if 
   /    obeyed.


   You are a deliberate liar.  More evil has been done in the name of the
   bible than any other force.  It has been used to justify the wholesale
   extermination of villages, towns, and countries.  It is used to justify
   racism, slavery, and violence against people.  Check out the verses 
   in Leviticus that proscribe death for witches & rebellious sons.  
   Fortunately, we live in a democracy and not a theocracy.

   "Undeniable influence"?  I know many who would deny it wholeheartedly.
-------
    Yeah.  It has been used for evil.  But, was the Bible being used correctly?
Or, was it just some guys *claiming* to be Christians using religion also
to prove the morality of their own agenda?
     You say, check out the verses about witches and rebellious sons.  Does
this mean you support the kind of witchcraft and rebellion the Bible 
condemns?  Here witchcraft meant consulting demons and stuff.  And rebellion
of a son meant beating up your parents.  You support these?  Nope, the Bible
punishes the people who deserve it.
     I know the Bible says make the best Christian example in whatever
station in life you find yourself: slave, second-class citizen, etc.  Where
does it say, "Slavery, racism, and violence are good"?  It doesn't.  It 
reports these as a matter of record.
     Before I blew off the Bible completely, I would check out where
the founders of this country's government got A LOT of their laws and ideas
about people's rights.
-------

   /  These are the main reasons.  Next letter I'll examine creationism vs.
   /evolutionism - 
-------
Who wrote the preceding line?  Sheesh.
-------
   I would rather you answer the holes in these arguments first.  There is
   no point in going on to another letter if you cannot or will not defend
   what has *already* been written here.
-------
Amen.
-------
   /why if the supernaturalistic viewpoint is refused that
   /evolution is the only half-way logical alternative, the closed-mindedness
   /of those who insist upon naturalism, and the holes in the evolutionary
   /theory.

   Great.  I look forward to seeing you point out the "holes" in the
   evolutionary theory.  In fact, why don't you start with the FAQ from
   talk.origins?  Go read it, and then shoot holes in all those arguments.
   Post the entire thing here so that we can all see it.

   Somehow I suspect, though, that you will not answer any of the questions 
   raised in it.  The bible-believers always ignore the questions, hoping 
   they will go away.  I also hope that you learn some chemistry, astronomy, 
   biology, and archaelogy before you try to point out the "holes" in 
   evolution.  So far, your understanding of science and history has been 
   pretty bad.
-------
     "The bible-believers?"  "Always?"
     I've been talking with some scientists and historians at school (non-
Christians).  They claim true science admits it knows nothing about the
origins of the universe.  Theories are not necessarily truth, only what
is believed until something better comes along.  These are preached like
gospel and may be totally erroneous.  Science is like a religion.  You 
rely on faith.
     You know, there is some "scientist" or "historian" who will say
whatever you want.  Just depends on what you're looking for.  And, there's
always room for differences of interpretation or re-interpretation of
"facts," for the religious or non-religious side.  Aside from really being
there no one knows a thing, especially "scientists."
     This is coming from a "scientist."
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc