From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with information)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 04:11:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.111706.3909@wkuvx1.bitnet> barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.033336.13056@athena.mit.edu>, lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King) writes:
:  In article <1992Nov11.131233.3887@wkuvx1.bitnet>, barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
No conference ever has rewritten the Bible.

	That's because they are not supposed to. :-)

:  |> 3) The great moral teachings of the Bible - No other book has ever
:  |>     condemned immorality so severely or demanded as high a standard of
:  |>     righteousness.  It is virtually unique among religious documents.
 
:  Rubbish.  Read the Tao-teh Ching, the Bhagad'vita (sp?) ... and who's
:  standard of moral righteousness?  You'll notice that one conspicuous
:  question that Christ failed to answer was Pilate's:  "what is truth?"

>"Turn the other cheek".  "Love your enemy".  "Do unto others...".  I
>reassert, the Bible has no match, especially among religions at its
>time.

	The Tao Te Ching and the Bhagavad Gita were all written before
Jesus Christ lived. The Buddha lived before he did.

	What more can be said?

>  And do you think the answer would have mattered to Pilate?  Seems
>more like he asked that question more to convince himself Christ
>couldn't be right.  

	It would be interesting to see Pontius Pilate's memoirs, if he
ever wrote any.

	At least we'll see what he has to say about himself.

:  RUBBISH!!  Where are women in the bible?  Where is their dignity and freedom?
:  Their interests, their intelligence?

>Ever read about Deborah?  Esther?  Ruth and Naomi?  Mary, the mother
>of Jesus?  Mary Magdalene?  Priscilla?  

	But how many? Any important queens, priestesses, etc.? Any
female apostles? Even our present-day society does a _lot_ better than
a lot of the Bible, and even some ancient societies, like the Minoans
and the Etruscans.

>  The Bible sets women in subjection to men.  It does not say women
>are inferior to men.

	Women should be in an inferior position, though they are not
naturally inferior. Talk about sophistry.

It also tells husbands and wives to be in
>subjection to one another.

	Mutual degradation. How thrilling.

It tells husbands to love their wives.

	And masters to take care of their slaves. Sheesh.

I
>do not apologize for the Bible in any of this.

	If you want to make yourself sound like someone who can defend
practically _anything_, there is no need to.

:   How about non-European cultures and beliefs?

>What does this have to do with its impartiality in depicting its
>characters, in showing the faults of men such as David, Demas, Peter,
>etc.?

	Its lack of such mentions proves its non-universality.

	And what about the faults of Zeus, Hera, Athena, Artemis,
Apollo, Poseidon, Hermes, and so forth? Does _that_ make them real?

:  |> 5) The Brevity of the Bible - So much, virtually a history of the world, is
:  |>     packed into so few pages.  It tells the 33-year life of the most
:  |>     important man ever to walk the earth in four short books.

:  The history of A world, not THE world.  And please spare us your cultural
:  arrogance as regards the importance of Jesus.

>Please spare me your scholar-wannabe snobbishness, then.  And since
>when has there been more than one earth?

	The Bible ignores a Tartarus of a lot of history. What does it
say about Alexander the Great? And what about such interesting peoples
as the Minoans? You _might_ find Minoan female fashion interesting,
for starters.

:  The 
:  sexist practice of keeping women in the home is really, undeniably good.

>The Bible gives different roles to men and women.  Not putting one
>under another's feet.

	The "roles" being that a woman is to be under a man's feet.
Right.