From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:52:09 GMT

( Sorry about the other followup, I somehow goofed )

In article <1992Apr7.164917.28618@nik.b23a.ingr.com>, nik@nik.b23a.ingr.com (Nik Simpson) writes:
|> >Whoa there!  Before you discard the Bible as an objective source for facts
|> >regarding miracles (which are difficult if not impossible to verify today),
|> >you should examine whether or not it's an objective source for facts that
|> >can be verified today.  What does it say about human nature?  What does
|> >it say about historical events?
|> 
|> 	What it says about human nature is not facts, its opinion,  there is
|> a difference,  many things we do now would have been "miraculous" to the
|> writers of the bible.

I'm not sure what you mean about "opinion".  Are you saying that the
Bible's definition of "sin" is "opinion", or are you saying that
everything the Bible says about how an individual would tend to
react to a given situation is "opinion"?  If you mean the former,
you're entitled to your opinion.  If you mean the latter, then all
of psychology is also opinion.

|> >If the Bible (or any other source) is inaccurate about things you can
|> >verify, then it should not be consulted for things you cannot verify.
|> 
|> 	Since it was written so long ago,  *anything* it says is not 
|> verfiable in any sense that stands up to scientific scrutiny.

You're being too general here.  The Bible says Israel was conquered by
Assyria, can't that be verified?  The Bible says Judah was conquered by
Babylon, can't that be verified?  If not, then any evident or writings
that date to "so long ago" must also be discarded.

|> 	Just how do you propose to *verify* things written by/witnessed
|> by people who've been dead for several thousand years ?,  I certainly wouldn't
|> want to convict anyone on it.

Much, if not most, of the happenings the Bible presents as "current
events" have been verified by archeology.  True, the Bible does go
into finer detail than archeology can hope to achieve.

I'm taking issue with those who say that since the Bible is so old,
it has obviously been changed through the years.  There's no evidence
to support that position.  The Bible is the best documented body
of ancient writings on the planet.

Does that prove that what it says about God and spiritual matters is
true?  Nope.  All it does is supply evidence that what it says now
is what it said then.  The fact that it has survived so much better
indicates that it has been more meaningful to the intervening
generations than any other ancient document.  The question you
should answer to your own satisfaction is "why?".

|> 	Just because we can't currently come up with a *natural* explanation
|> for some phenomena does not mean that one does not exist.  The history of 
|> man is in part the search for explanations for what was previously 
|> considered miraculous.

I'll offer you the same challenge I gave Christian Walters:  YOU
define miracle.

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.ingr.com        | **THEN** try again.
(205) 730-8874               |