From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:29:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.064253.28550@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.054106.14603@menudo.uh.edu> kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
[...]
>>God can prevent anyone from warping anything that is written by his
>>inspired agents by inspiring anyone who reads the words of his agents in
>>*exactly the same way* as he originally inspired his agents.  That is,
>>through the appropriate mind controls, he may insure that every person's
>>interpretation of the words of his inspired agents is the same, and matches
>>the original intended meaning of the words.  You may think of this as
>>occurring in the form of an instructive voice as the person is reading,
>>or something more subtle and harder to detect.  The form doesn't matter
>>much, as long as the end result is the same: a consistent (from person to
>>person) interpretation of the Bible, regardless of the language the Bible
>>being read was written in and regardless of the experiences of the person
>>reading it.
>>
>>A sufficiently powerful entity may accomplish anything...
>
>God doesn't want puppets... If everyone came to the same conclusion because
>God was forcing them to then where is free will? 

Free will is involved in the process of deciding what to do based on the
information at hand, NOT in gathering the information itself.

If you wish to argue that forcing people to have the same interpretation
of things blows free will, then you must accept that God has *already*
done this.  *Everyone* sees or feels gravity in action, for example.

If God can make a physical world that has a consistent (from person to
person) interpretation without destroying free will, he can do the same
with the writings of his inspired agents without destroying free will.

>I think the Bible has been preserved by God down to the "jot and tittle"
>because he promises that not one (jot or tittle) shall pass away 'till all 
>be fulfilled.  Does this mean word for word?  Perhaps not, but at least
>concept for concept, without changing any meaning.  

Then it should be clear to you that THIS IS NOT THE CASE.  For there are
those on this newsgroup who disagree substantially with you on what
concepts exist in the Bible despite the fact that many of them, I dare say,
have read it at least as much, if not more, than you have.  For instance,
you argue that the concept that homosexuality is a sin exists in the Bible,
whereas others argue that this is not necessarily so.

That is a debate about interpretation, and thus concepts, since concepts
arise from interpretation.

>As far as peoples
>interpretations - it is easy to make just about any source say just about
>whatever you want...

So?  You cannot determine what is impossible for GOD to do based on
what is impossible for MAN to do.

I cannot write something that someone else cannot misinterpret.  That does
not mean that God cannot cause such a thing to be written.

I reiterate: a sufficiently powerful entity can accomplish *anything*.
You can name any conditions you wish.  A sufficiently powerful entity
can meet them.  All I have to do is change what I mean by "sufficiently
powerful" to include meeting those conditions.

>John M.

I find it very strange to be attempting to convince a believer in God,
who believes that his God is powerful enough to move mountains, create
universes, etc., that his God is not necessarily as big a wimp as he
would like to believe his God is...

		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)