From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: An open question...
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:42:10 GMT

hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
: 
: >: have enough records to keep it from going too far.  Why would you find
: >: it odd that Christians would acknowledge this obvious fact about how
: >: people pass on their history?
: >Because it brings the deity of Christ into question.
: 
: I don't understand.  Why can the deity of Christ only be established
: using an inerrant source of information?  

Good point.  If it's not established by inerrancy, how is it
established?

:  My evaluation is that the NT
: gives us a substantially accurate view of what Jesus taught, and of
: the critical events of his life: his death and resurrection.  I don't
: see what inerrancy would add to that.

Inerrancy would impress me much more than what is currently there.
Apparently, others agree.  They see it, I don't.

:  Now possibly your disagree with
: my evaluation of the historical accuracy of the Gospels.  Maybe you
: think they are not substantially accurate.  But if so, you're equally
: attacking my view and the fundamentalists'.

I got ahead of myself and responded to this on another posting.  Let
me repeat it briefly.  I find Matthew dishonest due to his use of
OT quotes taken out of context.  This brings up the question of his
integrity.  How far where the authors willing to go to gain converts?

: Of course I wouldn't say that.  I believe God acted in history, but he
: allowed people to record what he did and said, and communicate them to
: other people.  That's fairly easy to interpret for the historical
: books.  The prophets are a bit different, since they claim direct
: revelation.  Even there I may not entirely agree with the
: fundamentalists, but I'm probably closer.  I think the prophets really
: received revelations from God.  In some cases they are reported in a
: nearly verbatim form.  But in many cases they are visions or other
: sorts of work.  I have a suspicion that in at least some of the
: visions, the writers may not have been able to make sense of
: everything they saw.

What is your opinion of the Documentary Hypothesis.  They have
evidence that many prophesies were recorded after the fact.
Not proof of course, but I found it compelling.

: Maybe you think I'm more radical than I am.  Certainly I think God's
: covenant with Israel is real.  I also think he was really working with
: Israel to get people to live the way he wanted them to.  However I
: think his communication was limited by their understanding.  I think
: we can see what he was getting at if we look at the way his message
: developed over time.  You can see a progression from a fairly rough
: justice, with ideas like not holding children responsible for their
: parents sins, and respecting members of other nations, being
: introduced over time.  Thus I think the OT is better viewed as a
: record of a process than a set of finished truths.  

How do I decide if this is a case of progressive revelation or just
the advancement of civilization?  Would you claim that the Israelites
were advancing at a pace that can only be explained by progressive
revelation?

: That seems to be
: implied by the overall format.  If it were a set of finished truths,
: you'd expect to find a single set of laws and doctrines, sort of a
: combination of the Constitution and the Nicene Creed.  Instead what
: you find is history, works of religious literature of quite varied
: types, laws and precepts revealed to prophets at different times, etc.
: This is much more consistent with being a record of God working with a
: nation than a final form of his revelation.

Do you believe these records are materially superior to those of
other contemporary civilizations?

:  But I certainly believe
: God was really there, and that we do see his revelation.  I think
: Jesus teachings are the culmination of what God was trying to get at.
: 
: >Alright, I think this is a good time to pop the question.  Am I going
: >to Hell if I don't accept Christ?  If so, what does this say about
: >Jesus and Paul teaching moral principles only and not invoking arbitrary
: >rules?
: 
: Where you are going is between you and God.  One of the clearest
: things taught by Jesus and reemphasized by Paul is that we are not in
: a position to judge you.  

I'm not asking for judgment, I just curious how desperate 
my situation is.  I wish the Bible was a little more clear on
the matter.  It might have meant the difference for a great number
of people.

: I believe God will give everyone
: an opportunity to respond to him.  I don't claim to know in what form
: that has happened for any given individual.

He'd better give me an extra big jolt.  He knows how hard headed I am. ;)

: 
: >: opposite: that God intended to provide a good deal of autonomy for
: >: people.
: >I find atheism to be the ultimate in autonomy.  Would Jesus agree?
: 
: I'm sure Jesus would agree that atheism is complete autonomy from God.
: Somehow I doubt that he would agree that it's a good idea.  One can
: carry a good thing too far.

Why is atheism a bad thing?  Simply because God said so, or is there
a material reason?
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14767 alt.atheism:15822