(3 e-mails follow)
==============================================================
| e-mail 1 | e-mail 2 | e-mail 3 |
e-mail 1:
(1) Comments by K.
> I am quite interested in your web page on belief systems. I have read through
your page and I have some questions for you. I don’t know how busy you are and
I simply hope you have some time to write me back. You state in your page that the
bible has ethical contradictions and therefor can not be divine.
My reply:
Slavery, Polygamy, Murder by God, Anti-Semitism, etc. can be justified using the Bible
and are acceptable in the Bible.
Comments by K.
>Is it possible that the book is divinely inspired and not perfect? Afterall it is
written by humans and even the bible says that humans are not perfect.
My reply:
The Bible itself says it is inerrant.
If a book is a perfect God’s message, you would expect God would make sure it is accurate and perfect, even if it is written by people. From my study of the Bible I think it
reflects the thinking of ancient people about the universe. To a large extent they lacked what we have today — Science.
Comments by K.:
>And if humans are overall good why does orginized religion make followers suseptable
to other peoples evil? Does believing that jesus was the son of god mean believing that he was the only son of god?
My reply:
Studies show that close to 1% of the population are (genetically?) hard-core
psychopaths (have no consciences). Many of these people are attracted to positions of power in any organized system. I think this is especially dangerous in religion. The vast majority of people are intrinsically “Good” and usually cannot comprehend the mindset that these people have. Control of the personal religious belief of others is the most powerful people-control I can imagine. This means each person must use his reason and question anyone else’s claim “to know what God wants” — each person must be his own
free-thinker.
To me, each person is as divine as any other person. Each person approaches their God or does not approach a God in his own way, including psychopaths. Each person is his own priest — no other person is needed.
I believe that Jesus was human like you and me, no more divine.
e-mail 2:
Comments by K.:
>Just one more question. Where in the bible does jesus say to believe all of the old
testament and take it as truth. Thanks in advance for an answer. K.
My reply:
“Jesus says the Bible is without error (inerrant)”. See the page that is associated with this page
Comment: – According to the Bible all of the Bible is inerrant. All of it must be
obeyed and believed.
e-mail 3:
Comments by K.:
>The comment about Jesus saying that the bible is inerrant is the only statement on
your page that truely bothers me. It was near or over one hundred years after Jesus
time that the Bible came together as we know it. The councel of trent came together
and decided what books belonged in the Bible. Pauls letters, Revelations, and even
the Gospels were written long after Jesus had gone wherever he had
gone (death, assention, whatever).
My reply:
You are right. Also, according to my research Paul’s letters and the Book of Acts
were written some time before the gospels. Apparently, the New Testament was
not written by any of the disciples of Jesus, nor by anyone living during Jesus’ time.
Outside the Bible there is no substantial evidence of Jesus having lived at all —
interesting.
I am told, there is no mention of Jesus or Christianity in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Church
councils at Rome (382 A.D.), at Hippo (393), at Carthage (397) and again at
Carthage (419) fixed the list of books now present in the Bible. The 66 books that
comprise the Bible were declared to be Scripture by a vote of 568 to 563. Who
these people (called Church Fathers) were we know little. Also of interest — in
325 A.D. the trinity became an official doctrine, the Sabbath was changed from
Saturday to Sunday — all people that did practice their Sabbath on Saturday were
then persecuted, etc. etc. etc. I find this all very fascinating.
Comments by K.:
>I can understand Jesus saying the things about the law, but what law he is talking
about is never said to be the law of the old testiment. He could be talking of a higher
law, not understood by man. The Bible does preach it’s own infalibility, but if one
accepts that the Bible is not all true those sections may be looked at as a necessary
evil to spreading the ideas of Christianity. Paul makes several sexist and Homophobic
comments in some of his letters. He is not a perfect man, but the church never would
have spread without him. Possibly another necessary evil. Now with the help of
science and historical help is it possible to look back and see which parts of the
Bible make sense, and which are due to traditional opinions, and imperfection?
My reply:
Interesting thoughts, including some of the ones after this in your e-mail. I agree
with you.
The Bible is probably based on a lot of hearsay, nevertheless the whole Bible is generally
accepted as the authoritative voice of God. I agree with you that it is only rational to
accept things in any book, including the Bible, that makes sense to you. People tend to
accept the whole Bible as Holy, but actually only believe parts of it. If a person finds
certain passages that are uplifting and instructive and uses them, that is all to the
good.
— God of the Universe would be big enough to accept that. The danger comes when
a person, a Church, or any group of people justifies “evil actions” by using
sections of the Bible that a humane, unindoctrinated, rational person would not accept. As soon as a book is accepted as divine or Holy it becomes very powerful in the eyes of a
believer and in very great danger of misuse. My studies of the Bible indicate
almost anything, good or evil, can be justified using the Bible.
The good ethical principles of the Bible are also found in other ancient books, older than the Bible — the Bible definitely has no monopoly on Ethics. Some better ethical principles
are actually presented in other books. You may be right about a higher law. However, according to the Bible — the only
source we have — Jesus believed literally in the Old Testament, so when he mentioned
the Law and the Prophets it is very likely that he meant the Old Testament.
Read some examples:
Matthew 24:38,39; Like 17:26 Noah
Matthew 12:40 Jonas and the Whale
Luke 17:32 Lot
Matthew 10:15; 17:28,29; Sodom and Gomorrha
John 6:49 Manna in the wilderness
Matthew 19:3,4,5; Mark 10:6,7,8 Adam and Eve story
Jesus, when he spoke about the Law in other parts of the N.T., he referred to the
Laws in the O.T. He never spoke clearly about this higher Law you refer to, but
because of the strange beginnings of the Bible this may be what Jesus was referring to.
It is also very likely that Jesus referred to the Old Testament because that is the
only Scripture the Jews had at that time.
If the Bible is inspired to be a message from God to peoplekind
you would expect
it to be clear, easily interpreted by anyone — it is not. In almost every part of the
Bible there is controversy as to the meaning of that part. This is one of the main
reasons for the existence of the many Christian Churches and Sects (all major
religions seem to have this problem of interpretation).
Comments by K.:
>You say that a person can not be a Christian without believing the whole Bible,
but I believe that true Christianity comes not from blind acceptance, but from
constant reevaluation of our actions and the main ideas of Christianity. Many of
your contradictions of the Bible are very good. But some of them can be seen as
contradictions between the Old testament and the new. If everyone had been
doing fine with the old covenant why would God send his son? Why the new
covenant? I can accept that much of the bible is mythology, and I can see that
many Christians follow that mythology as historical fact, but I disagree that
Christianity can not be used for something good. Ghandi was once asked why
he was not a Christian he answered that when the Christians started following
their own views that he would join the religion.
My reply:
For a Christian limited inerrancy is dangerous. Once limited inerrancy is accepted,
it places the Bible in the same category as every book that has ever been written.
Every book contains in it some things that are true and what is true is inerrant.
Only 2 things remain to be determined once you accept limited inerrancy.
It may be 90% false and 10% true or it may be 90% true and 10% false.
The second thing that needs to be determined is what parts of the book is
true. Limited inerrancy means that something outside of and above the Bible
becomes the judge. There is something that is truer and surer than Scripture
and the Bible becomes subordinated to the standard against which the truth
is determined and measured.
You sound like what I would call a Liberal Christian. I find Liberal Christians
more humane and rational than inerrancy believing Christians — possibly because
they have to reason through their beliefs more — as you say you must constantly
re-evaluate your actions and the main ideas of Christianity.
Comments by K.:
>I realize that I am biased to the side of Christianity, because I have been raised
in a Christian house, but the religion (if filtered through logic and experience)
can be a redieming one.
>Just opinion
>K.
My reply:
I also was raised in a Christian home. It has taken a long time to arrive at my
position of thought. It has been a very slow evolution (with God’s guidance?)
from an intense born-again Christian and all that implies. There is a lot of cultural
baggage attached to every belief system, that is difficult to give up. I can see how
many people do not believe in the official church system. They keep quiet about
it because they can’t let go of the associated attachments. To me this is living in
a mental prison without being honest with others — but I can see why they do it.
I think Truth is a Good — which might be a dangerous idea. Possibly because of
my Physics background I tend to read things as they are written and analyze them
that way. I have this tendency to look for evidence to justify a belief, wherever
possible. So far, no one has presented evidence to change my belief system and
my analysis of the Bible. You sound like a person that needs evidence to support
your beliefs too — to find the truth about things. I admire that.
Naturalism and Religious Experience 