From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Noah's ark incompatible...with Noah's ark?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 03:38:32 GMT



Warren Vonroeschlaub writes:
>My point was simply that to show something is "internally inconsistant" one
>must show there is ABSOLUTELY no set of circumstances under which it could
>be true (show it is an anti-tautology).

I don't have a particular problem with this concept, but where I do have a
problem is when people claim that the Bible's "message is clear".  The
issues brought up here with regards to possible inconsistencies vs possible
consistencies of various Bible passages, to me, is a basic indication that
the messages are far from clear, despite claims to the contrary.

And the reason it seems like the issue is basic, it distills down to the
fact that Christianity claims that if you cannot read Gods mind, you are
punished.  In other words, if based on the Bible you are unable to come to
the "correct" conclusions and therefore believe the party line (that Jesus
is the savior) you won't be saved.  Yet His message is obviously so muddled
that even the best of Christians don't have a leg to stand on with regards
to what the meaning of the Bible is, they have to resort to other mumbo
jumbo such as miracles that have occured in their lives, etc. (as if that
somehow proves that their particular interpretation is more accurate, and
despite the fact that virtually all of the Christian denominations claim
similar direct experiences of miraculous events).

The problem is that the differences in belief even among Christians is a
clear indication that even believers are unable to consistently and
accurately interpret the Bible.  Many claim they have exclusive access to
Gods true thoughts, and all others *including* other Christians, are somehow
deluded.  Not a particulary compelling argument in my book, yet many
Christians themselves criticize other Christians when they do not interpret
the Bible in some particular manner.

As we've seen, even Christians use the Bible to justify just about any
behavior.  Why does an interpretation of a non-literal "day" in Genesis
somehow make someone only pseudo-Christian or at least a "deluded"
Christian despite the fact the person accepts Jesus as savior?  Why is
one Christian's interpretation less valid than anothers?  Isn't the
the Holy Spirit is supposed to keep them all pretty much on track?
How do they really justify such arrogance that they've got the only
private connection to the big guy?

It's amazing to me just how many Christians I've met who think they know all
the answers and that the answers are very simple and obvious to everyone,
that the only reason anyone doesn't believe is that they haven't opened
their eyes or are deluded or whatever, but that all you have to do is accept
Jesus and it will all become clear.  Yet the Christians themselves taken as
a group disprove this assertion, as the only thing that is clear is that
they have no idea what *any* of the answers are, and particularly with
regards to what the Bible means.  Since they all accept Jesus, it apparently
that hasn't helped in their Biblical understanding.

There seems to be this pretense that they all have consensus on these
issues, yet you don't have to look very hard to discover that it just
ain't true.

At best you'd have to claim they're like the blind men trying to describe
the elephant, based on individual little out-of-context pieces of
understanding they each have been able to muster.  And that's only if
somehow it can be determined where they're accurate and where they're not.
If the Bible was the moral arbiter it is claimed to be, there wouldn't be
such disagreement among believers.  The only thing they *agree* on is that
Christ is the savior.

Keith

"Is that a real Christian, or is that a Sears Christian?"
    - distortion of a quote by Frank Zappa