Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

     Richard:

     Interesting topic.  I've seen this  book  at  the  bookstore  and  was
     intrigued.  Two items:

      o  Who is Bishop John Shelby Spong?  This is partly because I  forgot
         and  partly  because  I  feel strongly this should be here for the
         sake of providing as much information about this book as possible,
         short of actually reading it.

      o  Is there  a  snowball's  chance  that  this  book  will  have  any
         influence  among  those  who  believe  the  Bible  is  to be taken
         literally?  It's okay with me if you reply with an "IMO".


     Thanx.

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

Alvin,

Bishop John Spong is bishop of the Newark Diocese of the Episcopal Church.
(24 Rector, Newark, NJ 07102, USA)

I don't know if any large numbers will take what he says literally.  I
certainly hope that a significant number will at least take him seriously.

Peace,
Richard

I might add that one of the events which lead to his writing this book was
Bishop Spong's appearance on ABC's "Good Morning America" TV program in a
segment with Jerry Falwell.  When the normal 5 and a half minute segment was
interrupted for a commercial, Charles Gibson, the host, cancelled the next
guest and ordered the dialogue to be continued during the next 5.5 minutes.

Peace,
Richard

    One brief comment I would like to reiterate is that people may not always
    agree on the definition of "fundamentalism".  I would identify some as
    fundamentalists even though they might not label themselves as such;
    and vice versa.  My parents, for example, are theologically
    conservative, but I would not say that they are fundamentalists.  I
    respect them too much to insult them like that.

    Anyway, having said that, allow me to recommend another excellent book: 
    Lloyd J. Averill's "Religious Right, Religious Wrong: A Critique of the
    Fundamentalist Phenomenon".  I read this a few years ago.  Averill
    critiques fundamentalism from a Christian perspective, and of
    particular interest might be chapter 3, "Fundamentalism and the Bible".

    -- Mike

Re: 420.2

Thanks for providing some specifics to rebut.

  >There are two distinct Genesis stories, one of which was not written down
  >until well after most of the rest of the Old Testament.

Pure speculation.  There are certainly two versions of the same
story.  It is interesting to note that writing two versions of
the same story was common in ancient times.

  >There are 3 irreconcilable versions of the 10 Commandments contained
  >within the Old Testament.

More specifics needed.

  >Job, Ruth and Jonah were written as protests against the more dominant
  >thinking of their times.

So God protested the more dominant thinking of the times.  Doesn't
surprise me.  Does it surprise you?

  >The oldest parts of the New Testament were not the Gospels.  
  >The oldest parts of the New Testament were letters written by Paul.  

Sounds o.k. to me.

  >In their time, these were not elevated to the status of Scripture.

Please explain Peter's remark about Paul's letters:  "Bear in mind
  that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother
  Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.  He writes
  the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters.
  His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which
  ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures,
  to their own destruction."  II Peter 3:15-16

If this is the level of scholarship Bishop Spong practices, I am
not impressed.

  >It is highly likely that Paul never read any of the Gospels.

Can't read what hasn't been written!

  >Mark, apparently not fluent in Greek, suffers from syntax errors and other
  >grammatical problems.

Feel free to expound on where these errors are.

  >Luke and Matthew felt free to alter Markan texts as they saw fit.

It is not at all clear that Luke and Matthew were written based on
Mark.  Personally, I think Mark was based on Matthew (after reading
an excellent article to the effect several years ago).  It is also
reasonable to believe that both texts are accurate.

  >These are but a handful of the revelations offered by Bishop Spong to
  >begin shedding a different light on the Scriptures.

This "different light" has been shed on the Scriptures for centuries.

However, I guess my deepest fears and insecurities are truly met by
believing the Biblical claim of innerancy, so I persist in this most
ludicrous of beliefs, comfortable in the knowledge that my faith (no
matter how small) is rewarded by a feeling of peace that no questioning
can ever disturb.  :-)  :-)

Collis

    Allow me to point out that no one here has claimed that those who
    adhere to biblical inerrancy are insecure people, and any defensiveness
    on this matter is thus unfounded.  I, for one, would prefer not to
    speculate on the psychological basis for any specific individual's
    beliefs, even when those beliefs are intellectually untenable.

    -- Mike

>    <<< Note 421.4 by DEMING::VALENZA "Life's good, but not fair at all." >>>
>
>    One brief comment I would like to reiterate is that people may not always
>    agree on the definition of "fundamentalism".  ........................

     Yes, Mike.  An excellent comment!  I think  before  people  begin  any
     discussion  using  the terms "fundamentalism" or "conservative", (and,
     for that matter,  "evangelical"),  they  should  agree  (or  agree  to
     disagree) on their definitions, especially in light of the possibility
     of using any of them as insults.

     With regards to this  discussion,  as  I  understand  these  terms,  a
     fundamentalist  is one that holds the Bible is literally true, while a
     conservative may allow that the Bible often  expresses  Truth  through
     metaphor  or  allegory.   Evangelists'  primary  focus is on The Great
     Commission and they may be either  fundamentalists  or  conservatives.
     In  other  words,  a fundamentalist would, it seems to me, have a real
     problem with this topic, while a conservative would  be  watching  out
     that it didn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

     By the way, I admire anyone who has spine enough to stand up  and  say
     what they believe and are happy to be classified with those that share
     their beliefs.  The only argument I have  is  with  those  that  would
     change  the world so that *everyone* would believe as they do, and I'm
     sure there are may thinking fundamentalists that would not be part  of
     such a movement.

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

    
    Re Collis #5
    
    Maybe this will help you...
    
    I feel like this, REGARDLESS of what comes of the Bible itself, "in the
    letter of the law there is death".  But in the SPIRIT is life, and in
    this light it's not who wrote it or how it came to be in my hands, the
    fact is it informs me of a bit of knowledge and understanding of life
    and reality that is strange and wonderful.  I'm talking about eternal
    life and resurrection.  
    
    Whether there was a Moses, or a Jesus, or a Paul, whether the books
    were written by who they are claimed to be, whether the stories are
    copied over from more ancient times, is not as important as the fact
    that the ideas in the Bible, coming up from old, are speaking of a
    reality of life that is basically and fundamentally, yet allegorically,
    true....we need to, more importantly, discover the proper
    interpretation of it.
    
    We can't take it literally...that's as valid as taking a story
    whispered from ear to ear, past twenty people and taking that last
    person's story as the literal truth.  As a result, I try to go back and
    find the previous whispers and the more I can find the better I am able
    to discern the original word spoken in the first ear.  
    
    It's important to know the truth.  And if the Bible comes to us by
    dubious means then we need to know that truth.  But that doesn't have
    any bearings on the stories themselves, because again they come from
    old....read "16 Crucified Saviours before Jesus, the Christ", by Kersey
    Graves, it can give you an idea of just how many stories and ideas and
    principles where circulating in the world prior to the writing of the
    Bible, which several scholars consider a sort of conpendium or roundup
    of all of these stories.  Note that the Ptolemaic period was a time
    which Ptolemy and staff sought to collect every book, any way they
    could.  They translated only the ones they thought were "the best" by
    whatever standards that was.  Then the Bible came out of that same
    period and establisment, or shortly after the Ptolemaic period.
    
    Hope that helps.
    
    Playtoe
    
    
     

    I tend to view fundamentalism as a set of attitudes rather than a set
    of beliefs.  That is why I may very well respect specific individuals
    who describe themselves as fundamentalists; their own definition of
    fundamentalism doesn't necessary correspond with my own.  Many people
    who are theologically conservative nevertheless don't conform to the
    negative stereotype of narrow-mindedness and intolerance.  For example,
    one might think of the Southern Baptist denomination as fundamentalist;
    but from my own perspective, when the Southern Baptist denomination was
    hit with serious divisions, I saw the battle as being between
    fundamentalists and non-fundamentalist conservatives.

    Perhaps my use of the term "fundamentalist" is incorrect; if so, then
    perhaps we need to define a new term to describe what I am referring
    to.

    -- Mike

>    <<< Note 421.9 by DEMING::VALENZA "Life's good, but not fair at all." >>>
>
>    I tend to view fundamentalism as a set of attitudes rather than a set
>    of beliefs.  ........................................................

     Personally, I'd reverse that.  A fundamentalist, as I  understand  the
     word, truly believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible (among
     other things).  But I trust there are fundamentalists who are  capable
     of  saying,  "I  finally  arrived  at  the Truth, but I understand how
     others might not be there, yet."  In  other  words,  they  would  want
     people  to  discover  the  rightness of fundamentalism for themselves,
     just like they did.  Of course there are  fundamentalists  who  argue,
     "Truth  is  Truth,  and  you'd  better  believe!",  but that's *their*
     attitude, it doesn't follow that they got that way *because* of  their
     beliefs.  But maybe I'm being charitable.


>    ........................................................  Many people
>    who are theologically conservative nevertheless don't conform to the
>    negative stereotype of narrow-mindedness and intolerance.  ............

     And,  correspondingly,   I'd   argue   that   fundamentalists   aren't
     necessarily  narrow-minded or intolerant, although many certainly fall
     into those categories.  To say, "I believe in this and not  that",  is
     not   an  expression  of  narrow-mindedness,  it's  an  expression  of
     self-definition.  To say, "you are wrong  because  you  don't  believe
     like  I  do", is intolerance and all shades of belief are very capable
     of being that.


>    .........................................................  For example,
>    one might think of the Southern Baptist denomination as fundamentalist;
>    but from my own perspective, when the Southern Baptist denomination was
>    hit with serious divisions, I saw the battle as being between
>    fundamentalists and non-fundamentalist conservatives.

     Actually, I would humbly suggest this is a poor  example.   The  issue
     with  Southern  Baptists was church policy and, I think, had little to
     do with attitudes.  If a church  chooses  to  say  that  it's  members
     believe such-and-such and there are members who don't believe in that,
     well, it's either time to change the policy or time for  some  members
     to change denominations.


>    Perhaps my use of the term "fundamentalist" is incorrect; if so, then
>    perhaps we need to define a new term to describe what I am referring
>    to.

     Personally I see two answers to the question,  "Do  words  have  exact
     meanings?"   The  dictionary  offers  a  "standard"  that is sometimes
     important to refer to and stick to, for example in discussions of law.
     But  in informal or scholarly discussions, it's important sometimes to
     expand on or otherwise modify a standard a definition.  As long as one
     says, "here's what I mean when I use the word mumble", then it's okay.

     I, for one, Mike, think your definition of "fundamentalist" was  clear
     and  don't  see  any need for you to cast about for another word.  You
     and I differ, but I hope my  explanation  was  a  clear  as  yours  in
     discussing our differences.

     Peace,

     Alvin

    Perhaps our resident Baptist, Dave Dawson, can enlighten us on the
    dispute within that denomination.  My understanding was that one
    controversy involved attempts by the dominant faction at imposing
    certain doctrinal creeds on the membership.  There was also, as I
    recall, an attempt at controlling the Baptist seminaries so that only
    certain beliefs could be taught there.  I admit that I was not
    following this issue very closely, so I am not really sure.

    -- Mike

    RE: .11 Mike,
    
                     The Southern Baptist Convention has, for some time,
    struggled with the idea of a lose collection of churches of "like faith
    and message".  Sometimes I believe we are asking the impossible and yet
    the idea of no, nation wide "government", deciding what to believe and
    what not to believe, has long been a cornerstone of Southern Baptists.
    Dr. Criswell has, for a very long time, tied the convention up with his
    beliefs concerning this issue.  Alonmg with the inerrency issue, we do
    have fun. :-)
    
    
    Dave

I've read about 5 chapters of his book and so far Spong has not defined
fundamentalism.  At this point I doubt that he will.

Spong does occasionally quote Falwell as an example.  He has cited Swaggart.
He has referred to television evangelists.

Peace,
Richard

>       <<< Note 421.13 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Peace: the Final Frontier" >>>
>                        -< Fundamentalism left undefined >-
> 
> I've read about 5 chapters of his book and so far Spong has not defined
> fundamentalism.  At this point I doubt that he will.

     That's very interesting considering the title of the book.

> Spong does occasionally quote Falwell as an example.  He has cited Swaggart.
> He has referred to television evangelists.

     Maybe he should have called the book  "Rescuing  the  Bible  from  the
     Televangelists".  :^D

     Peace,

     Alvin

    Averill does provide a definition in a glossary at the end of his book,
    which I quoted in note 87.1.  He also includes definitions of
    "conservative" and "evangelical".  He makes it clear that these are
    mainly working definitions for purposes of the book (he even precedes
    the definitions with the phrase "in this book"), which is helpful in
    providing a context for his discussions.  His definition of
    "conservative" is:

        In this book, primarily a reference to those Christians who share
        many doctrinal convictions with both fundamentalists and
        evangelicals (e.g., the deity of Christ, Christ's atoning death on
        the cross), doing so with a high view of the inspiration and
        authority of the scripture but without the additional baggage
        either of "inerrancy" or "infallibility."  Like evangelicals,
        conservative Christians take a moderate, ecumenical approach to
        other Christians who do not share their doctrinal views in detail.

    -- Mike

>    <<< Note 421.15 by DEMING::VALENZA "Life's good, but not fair at all." >>>

     Thanx, Mike, especially for the reference back to 87.1.  That  helped.
     I  can see where you got your focus on attitudes vs. beliefs.  I *was*
     being charitable, but, I hope, not unreal.  I would  find  it  sad  to
     think that all fundamentalists are cut from the same cloth.

     And I find it interesting that evangelicals  consider  themselves  yet
     *another*  group!   Based  on that definition, I personally would have
     called   them   "missionary   fundamentalists"    or    "proselytizing
     fundamentalists".

     Peace,

     Alvin

Note 421.5

>  >There are 3 irreconcilable versions of the 10 Commandments contained
>  >within the Old Testament.

>More specifics needed.

Exodus 34, Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5.

>  >Job, Ruth and Jonah were written as protests against the more dominant
>  >thinking of their times.

>So God protested the more dominant thinking of the times.  Doesn't
>surprise me.  Does it surprise you?

The problem is that God was also attributed with possessing the polar
opposite view (the more dominant thinking of the times) in Obadiah and
at least 2 other prophets.  Perhaps God was merely seeking balance. ;-}

>  >In their time, these were not elevated to the status of Scripture.

>  Please explain Peter's remark about Paul's letters:  "Bear in mind
>  that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother
>  Paul also wrote...........

Actually, I haven't run into this in Spong's book yet.  But I imagine that
the same would apply to Peter, that what Peter wrote wasn't exalted as
Holy Scripture in Peter's lifetime either.

More later,

Richard

Re:  27.93

     >>In the account of the Great Flood in the Bible, it didn't just rain
     >>for 40 days, it also spewed forth from what was believed to be a 
     >>limitless reservoir of water beneath the earth.

  >Genesis 7:11

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day
of the second month - on that day all the springs of the great deep
burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."

Whether the author believed the springs to be a "limitless reservoir"
is unclear.  I expect that such a belief is quite in order - if you
consider "limitless" something like calling the water in the
Pacific ocean "limitless".  All that Moses writes is that water
came both from within the earth as well as from above the earth
in very large quantities.  Are you claiming that this is wrong?
Where is the evidence?  Why are we to believe the God would not
have water come from under the earth as well as from the sky?
Personally, it makes sense to me that both would be used. 

The real point, however, is that Bishop Spong

  - exagerrated what the Bible says, apparently including folklore 
    beliefs as if the Bible itself claimed that
  - casts doubt on what the Bible claims which appears from my
    perspective to be a very reasonable possibility - without any
    evidence that this did not happen.

     >>Heaven was on the other side of a dome-like partition over the Earth.

  >Genesis 1:1-19

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I cannot find the word heaven mentioned
in Genesis 1:1-19, nor can I find any reference to the positioning of
heaven or God in relationship to earth in those verses.  Perhaps the
reference is wrong?

However, given that somewhere there is such a reference, it is
quite true that there are multiple meanings to the English word
heaven (don't know about Hebrew) - the first definition being
"the sky or universe as seen from earth" (American Heritage, 1976).
It would hardly seem unreasonable to me to use this word this way
even 3500 years ago.

Or, perhaps, Bishop Spong's problem is not with the Bible and what
it says, but rather with uninspired folklore or commentary on the
Bible?  If so, his attacks on the accuracy of the Bible based on
non-Biblical data are not only unfounded, they reveal a desire to
discredit which can only said to come from a prejudicial attitude.

      >>The Sun and Moon rose and set over the Earth.

  >Genesis 1:1-19 and Joshua 10:12,13

Richard, I think it is the current culture's perception that is wrong.  :-)
Just becomes it is much more mathematically challenging to calculate
the sun and moon's revolution around the earth (as well as calculating
the universe's revolution around a fixed point on earth) does not mean
that the sun and moon do not revolve around the earth or that the
universe does not revolve around a point of earth. :-)

Let's be serious here.  Are you really claiming that an expression such as
this is meant to be a scientific claim?  If so, it holds up. (See
explanation above.)  (Over and under, by the way, are relative terms.  You
just have to use the same base as the writer was using.)  Of course, these
were not meant as scientific claims, but as everyday, well-understood and
accepted descriptions of natural phenomena.  Either way, even *mentioning*
this is a possible inaccuracy indicates to me the strong bias of the
author.  It also indicates that he hasn't many real problems to deal with. 

Collis

Re:  421.17

      >>>There are 3 irreconcilable versions of the 10 Commandments contained
      >>>within the Old Testament.

    >>More specifics needed.

  >Exodus 34, Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5.

Exodus 20:1 says:

  "And God spoke all these words".

Given the context, I would interpret this as possibly being the
exact text of the words written on the two stone tablets.  It 
certainly does not explicitly claim that, but it is possible.

Exodus 34 discusses the new stone tablets that Moses is to chisel
out.  It does not say what was written on them.  It does say that
God will write the same words on these stone tablets.  Where's the
conflict?  Trying to force God's statement to Moses as being the
text that was on the Ten Commandment's is clearly a reach.  It doesn't
even resemble Exodus 20.  Read it for yourself.  There is no conflict
here, not even a hint of a conflict.

Deuteronomy 5 contains the ten commandments again.  There are
several minor differences.  Are these "irreconcilable"?   Not at all!
Again, Deuteronomy 5:5 starts out the Ten Commandments with "...And he 
said:"

First.  Could God have said what was in Deuteronomy 5?  Yes, he
could.  If he did, does this mean he could NOT have said what was
in Exodus 20?  No, since everything in Exodus 20 is also in Deuteronomy 5.
Therefore, if God said everything in Deutoronomy 5, then *by definition*
God said everything in Exodus 20.  Is there a conflict - much less an
"irreconcilable" conflict here?  No, there is no conflict at all.

Now, if you wish to believe that both Exodus 20 and Deutoronomy 5
contain the exact wording of what was written on the 2 stone tablets,
you may go ahead and believe that.  The Bible doesn't explicitly make
that claim in either reference.  It is illogical to believe it.  But
you are free to.  The Bible simply relates what God said, not what
God wrote.

It is also quite possible that God *said* some things to Moses that
he did not also *write*.  In other words, Exodus 20 may contain the
exact 10 commandments and Deutoronomy 5 contains this *plus* what
God *said* to Moses (but did not write).

You may think I'm being picky here.  I don't think so.  It is Bishop
Spong that is being picky.  He is taking the text of the Bible and
not using exactly what it says, but rather using *his interpretation*
of the Bible (which, not suprisingly given that it's Bishop Spong,
is contradictory) and saying that he has found an "irreconcilable
difference".  True, his interpretation is irreconcilable.  His
interpretation is also not supported by the text.  In fact, logic
leads us to believe that his interpretation is an impossible
interpretation.

     >>>Job, Ruth and Jonah were written as protests against the more dominant
     >>>thinking of their times.

   >>So God protested the more dominant thinking of the times.  Doesn't
   >>surprise me.  Does it surprise you?

  >The problem is that God was also attributed with possessing the polar
  >opposite view (the more dominant thinking of the times) in Obadiah and
  >at least 2 other prophets.  Perhaps God was merely seeking balance. ;-}

You'll have to be much more specific.  If this accusation is like any
of the others, the specifics quickly get hard to prove.  At this point,
I have little respect for Bishop Spong's claims since they they
appear to be made without much reference to the Biblical data and with
much reference to his personal framework.

  >Actually, I haven't run into this in Spong's book yet.  But I imagine 
  >that the same would apply to Peter, that what Peter wrote wasn't 
  >exalted as Holy Scripture in Peter's lifetime either.

You missed the point, I think, Richard.  The point of the quotation
is the Peter himself exalted Paul's writings as Scripture.  For Bishop
Spong to then make the obvious errorneous claim that Paul's writings
were not considered Scripture by his contemporaries shows either
 - a lack of knowledge of Scripture itself
 - a prejudicial state of mind that refuses to accept the evidence
   of Scripture

Collis

Re: .18 & .19

Collis,

>Whether the author believed the springs to be a "limitless reservoir"
>is unclear.  I expect that such a belief is quite in order - if you
>consider "limitless" something like calling the water in the
>Pacific ocean "limitless".

The words "limitless reservoir," in this case, are my words.  I am paraphrasing
Spong.  Perhaps I'm doing Spong an injustice in doing so.  However, I suspect
you'd be no less severe in your criticism even if the Bishop were present and
posting notes on his own behalf.

At this point, I think I should make it clear that both Bishop Spong and I
hold the Holy Bible in enormous esteem.  Both of us kept a Bible by our
bedsides and read the Scriptures nightly as children.  Both of us continue
to read and study the Bible daily.

I perceive that what Spong (and I) are saying is being interpreted as an
attack on the Bible.  Not so.

The attack is on fundamentalism's notion that everything in the Bible is
literally true and inerrant (completely devoid of errors).  [See Note 27.94]

>Of course, these
>were not meant as scientific claims, but as everyday, well-understood and
>accepted descriptions of natural phenomena.  Either way, even *mentioning*
>this is a possible inaccuracy indicates to me the strong bias of the
>author.  It also indicates that he hasn't many real problems to deal with. 

That works very well, except "these everyday, well-understood and accepted
descriptions" were supposed to have been the Word of God, provided by the One
omniscient God, and not by mere mortals.  If the Bible was composed by mere
mortals, it would explain a lot of things.

Incidentally, pooh-poohing the importance of matter by saying, "It also
indicates that he hasn't many real problems to deal with," doesn't score
any points with me.  And I doubt that the tactic will sway the unconvinced
either.

Richard

     Collis:

     I can see we're going to miss a very  interesting  discussion  between
     two   points   of   view   because  you're  getting  your  information
     second-hand.  If we worked together in the same facility I'd  be  real
     happy  to  lend  you my copy of this book (which I have yet to buy) so
     you could make your points with more than mere speculation  about  the
     source.   If  you're  interested,  contact me by VMS MAIL off-line and
     I'll send it to you by U.S. mail (I'll want it back).

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

Re:  .20

  >The attack is on fundamentalism's notion that everything in
  >the Bible is literally true and inerrant.

And how does he propose to attack this without showing where
fundamentalists are wrong?  Perhaps he simply wants to attack
fundamentalists even though they are right in this area? :-)  
That is his perogative.  Somehow or another, I missed the
attack on fundamentalists in the issues being discussed (the
sun revolving around the earth, etc.)  I'll try to listen better
next time.  :-)

I guess that "holding that Bible in high esteem" and believing
what it says are different things.

Bishop Spong claims to be pointing out discrepencies between what
the Bible says and what reality is.  His claims (up to this point)
as far as I can tell are specious.  It doesn't take a rocket
scientist to dispute his claims; just a little logic and a willingness
to look at the evidence.  At least, so it seems to me.

It may not score points with you, Richard, but I think the choice of 
issues that Bishop Spong deals with are relevant.  Certainly I don't
understand why he would take these particular issues to question
(that are easily refuted) when there are *real* problems to address.

And, by the way, there certainly are some real issues that are very
difficult to resolve (at least some that I have not resolved and have 
not heard others resolve them to my satisfaction).  This does not 
necessarily mean the Bible's claim of inerrancy is wrong; it could just 
mean that my understanding is deficient.  Given that choice, I expect
that many would say that both are true.  :-)

Collis

Re:  .21

Thank you for your kind offer.  I accept.

Collis

Note 421.22

>I guess that "holding that Bible in high esteem" and believing
>what it says are different things.

No, but "believing what it says" means something different to fundamentalists
than it does to me and many others, including Bishop Spong, I dare say.

Collis, you claim not to be a biblical literalist, so why you are attempting
to discredit Spong (or is it me?) is beyond me.

Richard

Note 421.22

>And how does he propose to attack this without showing where
>fundamentalists are wrong?  Perhaps he simply wants to attack
>fundamentalists even though they are right in this area? :-)  

Let me make it perfectly clear that Bishop Spong never attacks
fundamentalists.  The attack is against fundamentalism.  (One
might be tempted to say that he attacks the sin, but not the sinner.
8-})

Richard

    re 18
    
Just a point of info
    
     >>Heaven was on the other side of a dome-like partition over the Earth.

  >Genesis 1:1-19

>Perhaps I'm missing something, but I cannot find the word heaven mentioned
>in Genesis 1:1-19, nor can I find any reference to the positioning of
>heaven or God in relationship to earth in those verses.  Perhaps the
>reference is wrong?
    
    I don't go for the "other side of a dome-like partition" thing.  But,
    in Genesis 1:9 it says, "And God called the firmament HEAVEN"...which
    to me says this atmosphere in which we live, and  above in which the
    birds fly, is HEAVEN for us.
    
    

    I have seen Bishop Spong on television and know that he is a liberal
    leader of the Episcopal Church in favor of changing church teachings 
    on : sex outside marriage, homosexual sex, mastrubation, married 
    priests, and women priests. 
    
    Since the admonitions against most of these practices are expressed in
    clearly in rather plain Biblical writings, it would seem necessary for
    anyone denying them to cast doubt on the integrity of at least certain
    Scripture. 
    
    Bishop Spong has also shown support for the feminist 'theology' which
    seeks to revise Scripture to their [feminist] liking. The comments 
    about the Book of Ruth (etc.), although vague, certainly points to this
    agenda also.
    
    I'm summise that Bishop Spong is equally distainful and rejectful of any
    Church authority on the teaching of faith and morals.
    
    What is Bishop's Spong's point in the book?  You have sketched Bishop
    Spong's views on the validity of Scripture. Now please tell us how this
    should affect our Christian viewpoints/response.
    
    Mary
    
    
    

    Mary, I believe that two of the teachings that you cite--married
    priests and women priests--are already accepted by his church; he would
    therefore be affirming the teachings of his church in those areas,
    rather than seeking to change them. 
    
    -- Mike

    I don't wish to infuriate my Roman Catholic freinds here, but in his
    book, "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism," Spong asserts that
    it's only a matter of time before the papal office is filled by a
    woman.  My guess is that it won't be in my lifetime!
    
    Richard

Note 421.27

Let me see if I can create some clarity here.

>                        -< what's his hidden agenda? >-

Spong has an agenda, just as Falwell, Robertson and others do.  It is not a
hidden one, however.  See Notes 18.305, 11.122, & 91.807, which are excerpts
from the very book under consideration here.

>    Since the admonitions against most of these practices are expressed in
>    clearly in rather plain Biblical writings, it would seem necessary for
>    anyone denying them to cast doubt on the integrity of at least certain
>    Scripture.

They're not quite as clear and plain as the fundamentalists would have us
believe.
    
>    What is Bishop's Spong's point in the book?  You have sketched Bishop
>    Spong's views on the validity of Scripture. Now please tell us how this
>    should affect our Christian viewpoints/response.

Actually, Mary, I haven't sketched Spong's views on the validity of Scripture.
Spong and I both agree that Scripture is quite valid.  Inerrant?  Literally
the "Word of God?"  These notions are what Spong calls into question.

The point of the book can be summed up in the title.  Spong has taken the
initial steps towards seizing the Bible from the fundamentalists and
teaching its significance and relevance to other Christians.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  421.24

     >>I guess that "holding that Bible in high esteem" and believing
     >>what it says are different things.

  >No, but "believing what it says" means something different to 
  >fundamentalists than it does to me and many others, including Bishop 
  >Spong, I dare say.

I understand that there are areas where interpretation is difficult.
However, this does not seem to be the area where Bishop Spong and
I disagree.  I believe I've clearly shown in a number of instances
why Bishop Spong's interpretation of the Bible does NOT match up
with a "believing what it says" interpretation.

By "believing what it says", I mean believing what the original
author was attempting to convey to the original audience.  I expect
that this is what you mean as well.  Again, Bishop Spong's questions
on the accuracy of the Bible involve his *mis*interpretation of
the original text, as I see it.

  >Collis, you claim not to be a biblical literalist,...

Indeed I refuse that label because people usually take it to mean
something that I don't believe at all.  I think that you and I
have somewhat similar beliefs - that the Bible should be interpreted
to mean what it was originally intended to mean.  :-)  However,
I believe that God was the original author of Scripture along with
the human author - and that God didn't write errors (a belief that
comes straight from the Bible itself - and we are to believe what
the Bible says, aren't we? :-) ).

  >...so why you are attempting to discredit Spong (or is it me?) is beyond 
  >me.

Richard, I have no desire to discredit you.

I started responding with no desire to discredit Bishop Spong.  That is
still not an objective of mine.  I have a strong desire (Spong might
say "need" :-) ) to honestly and forthrightly dispute what I view as
his errorneous claims.  As I do this, I am getting an impression of
Bishop Spong that his claims are unreliable and poorly supported (if
at all supportable).  I have expressed these opinions as I reached
them.  But, despite our differences in view, I really had very little
impression of Bishop Spong before I started reading the specifics
that were entered here in the notesfile.

Collis

Re:  421.26
    
     >>Perhaps I'm missing something, but I cannot find the word heaven 
     >>mentioned in Genesis 1:1-19, nor can I find any reference to the 
     >>positioning of heaven or God in relationship to earth in those 
     >>verses.  Perhaps the reference is wrong?
    
  >I don't go for the "other side of a dome-like partition" thing.  But,
  >in Genesis 1:9 it says, "And God called the firmament HEAVEN"

Thanks, Playtoe, for that reference.  I'm using an NIV.  Genesis 1:7-8 in 
the NIV say,

 "So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse
  from the water above it.  And it was so.  God called the expanse
  'sky.'  And there was evening, and there was morning - the second
  day."

Obviously we need to know a little more Hebrew in order to fully
understand what is going on.  However, since the NIV translators
felt that "sky" was an acceptable translation for the Hebrew word
(very similar to the English word heaven), I assume that the use of
this word in Hebrew does not always mean "God's dwelling place",
but is similiar to the word heaven in English.  Therefore, it looks
like Bishop Spong is again tilting at windmills by assuming one
definition of a word when a different definition of a word is
better assumed by the context.  You tell me - why is he doing this?
(So a fundamentalist can write a book about the problems with
fundamentalism criticizers? :-) :-) ) 

Collis 

    I find it interesting that when Spong points out that the Bible is not
    100% inerrant, he is accused of attacking the integrity of Scripture,
    and that some people can't grasp how it is possible to hold the Bible
    in high esteem once the the Bible is 100% inerrant.  This, of course,
    is precisely the doctrinaire outlook that, as Spong has pointed out,
    characterizes fundamentalism.  The need to assert that the Bible is
    100% inerrant lest the faith itself be called into question makes for a 
    very strong psychological barrier against uncomfortable questions that
    might suggest otherwise.

    Averill pointed out, in the quote I cited in 18.322, that this view
    that the Bible can only be interpreted in this way is something that
    fundamentalists and atheists often agree on.  In fact, I find that many
    former fundamentalists who go to the opposite extreme and become total
    Bible-bashers are just as "fundamentalist" in their outlook and
    attitudes as they were before.  This is unfortunate.

    Why should Christians care?  Well, for one thing, if Christianity is to
    proceed as a *rational* faith, one that is intellectually viable, it is
    necessary to recognize the danger that fundamentalism poses.  Certainly
    when fundamentalism claims the Bible for itself, and claims that only
    its perspective on the Bible is the legitimate expression of
    Christianity, it plays right into the hands of atheists who wish to 
    attack Christianity.  It is often hard to convince atheists that
    Christianity is not a religion founded on ignorance when they can hold
    up the faith's shrillest and most visible expression as the model for
    the faith, and then take for granted that this is what the faith is
    about.

    Christians also need to rescue the Bible from fundamentalism because
    fundamentalists, in claiming the Bible for their own, thus attempt
    to put other Christians on the defensive.  Rational and intelligent
    Christianity need not apologize for itself, and I suspect that Spong
    wants to get that message across to millions of Christians.  Perhaps he
    thus wants them to reclaim that which rightfully belongs to them.

    -- Mike

    Mary,
    
    When I have more time I need to read this note string more fully
    because it is very interesting.  I found the book inspiring because it
    provided me with some clear insight in how to find real meaning within
    the bible beyond the literal interpretation.  He has a chapter on the
    book of Mark which I found truly inspirational.  He starts with the
    assumption that every Historic account of any event is written for a
    purpose.  Every Historic account is written with the world view of the
    author.  Demons and spirits and magic and miracles were all part of the
    world view of the people who lived in the time of Jesus.  The book of
    Mark as all the books can only be fully understood if you understand
    the context of the author.  If someone today were divinely inspired and
    knew all the facts regarding the life of Jesus, the Gospel the wrote
    would be markedly different than Mark.  Just as Matthew, Luke, and John
    were markedly different.  Bishop Spong in the chapters on each of those
    Gospels discusses the worldview, the audience, etc.  For instance
    knowing that Matthew wrote at the time of the severe persecution of the
    Christians and after both Paul and Peter were executed has a profound
    impact on what is in the book of Matthew.  An understanding of the
    differences between Mark and Matthew from the perspective of the
    audiences and the potentially different missions and world views of the
    writers is critical.
    
    The book is written I belief for people like me.  I have never
    intellectually consider the bible to be the "word of God".  For a long
    time I had consider the bible to be totally irrelevent.  Bishop Spong
    writes to inspire religious liberals to recognize the Bible as a source
    of great relevence and wealth.  He has helped me with a new outlook
    toward that book.  That does not mean I do not have my doubts about how
    this essentially male only collection of faith stories can be relevent
    for women but he has given me some pointers to help me work through
    them.  Use Bishop Spong's criteria, the Bible is so Male only because
    the world view at that time was so Male only.  Bishop Spong extends
    Jesus ministery to the Poor, the Tax Collector, the Gentiles, the
    Adulterer, to include all oppressed people.  
    
    I wish I had more time to put some of my favorite passages in here. 
    The richness of the book is not on the attack on fundamentalism but in
    the inspiration to the religious liberal.
    
    Pat 

     RE: .33

>    ........ some people can't grasp how it is possible to hold the Bible
>    in high esteem [unless] the the Bible is 100% inerrant.  ................
>    ....................................................................
>    .............................  The need to assert that the Bible is
>    100% inerrant lest the faith itself be called into question makes for a 
>    very strong psychological barrier against uncomfortable questions that
>    might suggest otherwise.
>
>    ......................................................... this view
>    that the Bible can only be interpreted in this way is something that
>    fundamentalists and atheists often agree on.  .........................

     (slight rewording mine)

     A good point and an excellent observation.

     As an agnostic I find the "all or nothing" mentality distasteful.   In
     sincere  human relationships all participants have a little bit of the
     truth even when they seem to be expressing opposite  points  of  view.
     Certainly  the  Bible  can be respected and appreciated on many levels
     without having to pass such a Draconian litmus test as inerrancy!

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

Re:  421.33

  >I find it interesting that when Spong points out that the Bible is not
  >100% inerrant, he is accused of attacking the integrity of Scripture,...

As about the only participant who has questioned Bishop Spong's remarks,
I guess this is a reference to my comments.

Actually, I'm not sure I've accused him of attacking the integrity
of Scripture, although it is true that this falls out of what logic
drives me to believe.  What I've been spending 90% of my time doing
is dealing with the specific issues that Bishop Spong addresses.
This is where the rubber meets the road - and this is where Bishop
Spong falls exceedingly short, in my opinion.

  >...and that some people can't grasp how it is possible to hold the 
  >Bible in high esteem once the Bible is [not] 100% inerrant.  

I certainly understand how and why people do this.  I believe it
is not the most logical position to hold given the Biblical claims,
but others do interpret the Biblical claims differently and others
base their beliefs on reasons other than logic.

Collis

Re:  421.36

  >Certainly  the  Bible  can be respected and appreciated on many levels
  >without having to pass such a Draconian litmus test as inerrancy!

This is quite true.  However, what if the Bible does indeed claim
to be inerrant?  If we presuppose that (regardless of the facts
upon which there is disagreement in this conference), is this position
then unreasonable?  If not, then the only question is really, "does
the Bible claim inerrancy?" i.e. the presupposition.  If it is claimed
that it *is* unresonable to still believe this, that is a point worth 
considering.  Why is it unreasonable to believe:

  - the Bible claims inerrancy
  - the Bible claims to be a revelation from God
  - God claims that if a prophet speaks that which is NOT true,
    it was not spoken by him
 
therefore

  - if the Bible is clearly wrong, then it was not written by God,
    it is not inerrant and it is, in fact, a terrible lie since
    it *claims* to be written by God and is not.

Now, admittedly, the term "Bible" here is used in a very loose sense.
It needs to be much better defined.  But the gist of the logic of
is there.  This logic has not been attacked as illogical - it has only
been attacked (so far) as unproductive with bad ramifications for
those that follow it.

Again, I say we need to examine the logic closely.  If indeed the
logic is wrong, then there is no problem (for me, anyway), in moving
away from this logic.  If indeed the logic is correct and this produces
what some consider bad ramifications, should we then simply discard
the logic and say we refuse to believe it because we are not happy
with some of the results of believing it?  Surely this position of
refusing to believe what is true (or at least what appears to be
true) and instead believing a lie (since one is not accepting this
logic which has been deemed true, they are allowing themselves to
believe other things which are false according to this true logic)
is not what God wants us to do, is it?

Collis

    Actually, Collis, my comments were not directed only at you.  They were
    more in the way of a general observation.

    In any case, I did want to point out that this whole discussion about
    Biblical inerrancy has been hashed out several times before; one need
    only look at the early replies to topic 18 to see the very same sorts
    of arguments as far back as September 1990.  Actually, I could
    have more or less cited your own argument back to you before you even
    posted note 421.38, because you've said it before.  I respectfully
    submit that it is not at all true that no one has critiqued your
    reasoning or your logic in this area. What I suspect you really mean to
    say is that no one has convinced you that your reasoning is invalid,
    which is of course a different kettle of fish entirely.  The fact that
    you don't accept someone else's argument does not mean that they
    haven't expressed their argument to you; it just means that you
    disagree with what they have said.

    I would also point out that it is certainly not true that it has *only*
    been criticized "as unproductive with bad ramifications for those that
    follow it".  I think you misunderstand the criticisms of biblical
    inerrancy if that is what you think the sole critique has been, and it
    suggests that you understand the criticisms of inerrancy much less than
    the critics of inerrancy understand your own argument. While I believe
    that your reasoning *does* have negative moral ramifications for those
    who follow it, there are those who believe that your reasoning on this
    subject quite illogical on its own terms. Now it is certainly possible
    to raise a moral argument against inerrancy, and in fact I think that
    the moral argument can have its own value; but that is not the only
    argument that has been raised.

    Perhaps the real issue is not that no one has criticized your logic,
    but that *you* don't accept those criticisms.  That is fair enough; you
    don't have to accept them if you feel that your reasoning is sound. 
    This impasse is perhaps unacceptable to you, which is perhaps why you
    argue the point so often.  One of the unfortunate consequences of
    noting is that whoever has the last word essentially gets to declare
    "victory", albeit a victory by default simply because no one took the
    bait.

    -- Mike

Re:  421.39

  >In any case, I did want to point out that this whole discussion about
  >Biblical inerrancy has been hashed out several times before; one need
  >only look at the early replies to topic 18 to see the very same sorts
  >of arguments as far back as September 1990.

Hi, Mike.

  >I respectfully submit that it is not at all true that no one has critiqued 
  >your reasoning or your logic in this area. 

I took you up on your offer to view the early replies in topic 18.
I see that I, not once but twice (first in 18.23 and then, after
no response, in 18.46) offered to discuss this logic.  These were replies 
specifically intended to discuss the logic that we continue to discuss today.  
Was there any discussion on this logic?  No.  The only discussion was on
the premise, which is irrelevant to the logic (i.e. the logic can
still be valid even if the premise is invalid).

So, to respond to you, there has not been *any* discussion of the
logic in this notesfile since it has been created.  There has only been
a one way presentation of the logic.  If my guess is correct, there will 
continue to not be any discussion of this logic in this notesfile.  Not 
because I am not willing, but because there evidently is nothing that anyone 
else wishes to say about this logic.

  >Actually, I could have more or less cited your own argument back to 
  >you before you even posted note 421.38, because you've said it before.  

It was very interesting reading your replies then, as well, since
they are exactly what Bishop Spong and you are saying today.

  >What I suspect you really mean to say is that no one has convinced you 
  >that your reasoning is invalid, which is of course a different kettle 
  >of fish entirely.  

No one has even offered an alterative to the logic presented nor
found one flaw in the logic presented.  There has been, however,
tremendous discussion about whether or not some of the premises should
be accepted (which is another matter entirely).

  >I would also point out that it is certainly not true that inerrancy has
  >*only* been criticized "as unproductive with bad ramifications for
  >those that follow it".

Sorry, I didn't mean to limit the criticisms that flow towards
fundamentalism.  I certainly have some reservations about fundamentalism
that have nothing to do with inerrancy.  I expect you could lose track
of time trying to capture all your thoughts on the flaws of
fundamentalism.  :-)

  >...there are those who believe that your reasoning on this subject 
  >quite illogical on its own terms. 

Too bad they are either not in this notesfile or not willing to discuss
the issue.

  >I think the real issue is not that no one has criticized your logic,
  >but that *you* don't accept those criticisms.

The real issue is exactly as I've stated it.  The logic has not
been discussed, to the best of my knowledge.  The premises have
been debated back and forth a great deal.  The logic has not been
touched.

Presumably, all it should take is a short paragraph or two - or perhaps
a pointer to a previously written reply - to point out the flaw in the
logic.  My expectation is that I will not see either.  Please
disappoint me.

Collis

    On Spong, the commandments, etc.:
    
    I've heard of Spong.  From my Christian viewpoint, he's on dangerous
    ground (i.e. attacking the infallibility of Scripture). More on that
    later.
    
    Exodus 34 has nothing to do with the 10 commandments.
    Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 are functionally equivalent. They say
    exactly the same thing with one or two phrases switched around. This
    definitely does not disprove inerrancy. I hardly call this 
    "irreconcilable".  Exodus 34 has to do with the Jewish Law, by the way.
    
    As far as Scripture, it should be no surprise to any Christian who
    knows his history that not only were the Apostles probably unaware that
    what they were writing was Scripture (with exceptions, as Jim I think
    pointed out), but there was a lot of confusion in the early church over
    which books were inspired.  The canon of the New Testament was not
    closed until 425 A.D. And even after that there was dispute about the
    canonical books.  By the way, it was the Catholic church that declared
    the Bible inspired and inerrant.
    
    The Catholic understanding of "inerrancy" is a little different from
    some "fundamentalists" understanding.  (BTW I am Catholic but share a
    lot with evangelical Christians.) Scripture is inerrant in that it
    reveals to us the truth about our faith, our doctrines, and about
    matters concerning our salvation.  It does not have to be syntactically
    correct or consistent, it does not have to be historically accurate, it
    does not have to be word for word complete. But the doctrines and
    concepts taught therein are without error.  When it says that Jesus was
    born of a virgin, it means just that.  When it says that Jesus came
    into the world to save men, it means just that.  When it says that
    there are 43,730 clans of Reuben, we don't really care if that's
    correct.  (In fact I can tell you right now that the Bible sometimes
    rounds off numbers. That's not heretical, and it doesn't make the Bible
    erroneous.)
    
    If you really want your mind blown, almost none of our extant
    manuscripts are exactly alike. They may differ word to word; some use
    one word, some use another, but none of the differences affects
    doctrine and they are all very minor. This does not make the Bible
    erroneous.  There are some manuscripts which omit verses. Neither does
    this make the Bible erroneous. 
    
    Oh, and it is no revelation that the Gospels were the last books
    written.  And so what if Mark and Matthew drew from Q? (As for
    syntactical errors in Mark, I might offer that the Greek may be a
    translation and not the original, but if it was, it wouldn't affect the
    Bible's inerrancy to me.)  So what if Peter actually produced Mark, but
    it was written down by Mark? (Mark was Peter's scribe.) I don't even
    care if the epistles are pseudoepigraphic, they're still inspired
    Scripture and still inerrant. Spong is approaching things from the
    wrong viewpoint. 
    
    As a Catholic Christian, I take things from a different viewpoint. I
    believe that the Scriptures are inspired because they were compiled by
    the Catholic Church and declared as inerrant and inspired by the
    church.  And so I believe the Catholic Church is also in charge of
    interpreting the Bible, and determining which parts are literally true
    and which parts may be allegorical. For example, we know that the
    Resurrection was a real historical event, and that Jesus not only was
    really resurrected, but was resurrected bodily, and not just as a
    ghost.  No hallugenic mushrooms here.  But as to whether Jonah is
    didactic or historical, that is open to interpretation.
    
    The problem with declaring open season on the Bible is that you lose
    all basis for the Christian faith.  How do you know what's right
    and what's wrong unless you believe the Bible to be correct in matters
    of faith, morals, and doctrine? How can you be a Christian, which means
    one who follows Christ, if you don't believe that the Bible accurately
    records what Jesus said?  If the Bible is wrong about what Jesus said,
    then you can't be a Christian because you can't follow Christ, not
    being able to ascertain what he actually taught. You can be a New Ager
    and say that the Bible is only one expression of wisdom among many. But
    Jesus says, "I AM the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the
    Father except through Me."  Hence Jesus says that he is the only truth,
    and the only way to life, and through no one else may anyone receive
    salvation.  And the teachings of Jesus are the only authoritative
    truth. The Bible contains these teachings. Those writings outside of
    Scripture do not contain authoritative teachings of Jesus, because
    that's what the church Jesus founded says. 
    
    Eric Ewanco
    

    The issue has been raised as to whether Spong is seeking to reclaim the
    Bible from fundamentalist interpretation, or to discredit it.
    
    I do not see a problem with attempting to look at the Bible in a way
    different from what the so-called "fundamentalists" do (i.e. those who
    take the BIble in a strictly literal sense).
    
    However this does not appear, from what I see here, to be Spong's goal.
    Spong's goal seems to me to show that the Bible is not a reliable
    source of revelation, period.
    
    Or, put another way, he is arguing that the Bible is not a uniquely
    inspired document.  This part I strongly disagree with. The Bible is
    our only authoritative written source of divine revelation.  Scripture
    says that Jesus promised to send us the Holy Spirit, who would reveal
    ALL TRUTH. This Spirit of Truth was in the Apostles, and revealed to
    them the doctrinal truths of Christianity, which they recorded in the
    Bible.  (Note that the Bible was not written through "automatic
    writing" or through a trance; it was inspired in the minds of the
    authors who wrote it down in their own way.) This Spirit of Truth also
    led the Church to discern good books from bad books, to compile the
    Bible, and to declare it alone inspired and infallible. In my faith, we
    also have Sacred Tradition which flows from the same divine wellspring
    and reveals to us how Scripture is to be accurately interpreted. To
    remove the authority of Scripture is to loose Christianity from its
    historical moorings, and causes it to drift into other religions and
    lose the truth that it has revealed.
    
    Take, for example, the Constitution.  If we analogize American
    democracy (guess I have to take in mind the international character of
    this file) to religion, our Constitution is our authoritative and
    inerrant Bible.  We have a Supreme Court to determine how it is to be
    interpreted.  But suppose 200 years from now, some people decide that
    it really isn't authoritative and inerrant, and decide to take
    liberties with certain articles in the Bill of Rights (i.e. violate
    them). They insist that it really isn't wrong to censor people, or they
    decide that the "cultural context" of the Revolution renders certain
    rights (for example the 2nd, or even the 1st) invalid. Don't you see
    chaos? Would that really be American democracy? How can we have an
    American democracy without pledging allegiance to the authority of the
    Constitution? You may call yourself American if you deny the authority
    of the Constitution, but you really aren't. Or you could just dance
    around the issue, coming up with novel interpretations of the
    Constitution to prove your point, saying that it's invalid because it's
    based on the teachings of Rousseau and the Roman state, or whatever
    else.
    
    The Bible is our Constitution. It contains our rules and keeps us from
    going into spiritual anarchy. Christianity can no more be without the
    authority of the Bible than democracy can be without a constitution.
    Interpret it as you wish, but don't throw it out as a rule of faith.
    
    Eric
    

Re: .38  Collis

>  - the Bible claims inerrancy
>  - the Bible claims to be a revelation from God
>  - God claims that if a prophet speaks that which is NOT true,
>    it was not spoken by him
> 
>therefore
>
>  - if the Bible is clearly wrong, then it was not written by God,

Assuming that God is infallible then I agree.  However, this is a straw man
argument because I think the non-literalist Christians don't believe that
the Bible was written by God, but by men who believed in God.

>    it is not inerrant and it is, in fact, a terrible lie since
>    it *claims* to be written by God and is not.

Obviously if the Bible is clearly wrong then it is not inerrent - this isn't
so much a proof as tautology.  As for it being "a terrible lie", I think the
people who wrote it were sincere, just as I think that everyone in this
discussion is being sincere, even though we disagree with each other.

If one doesn't believe in the inerrency of the entire Bible is it possible
to believe parts of it?  Well, if some parts of the Bible are wrong then the
parts of the Bible that claim that it is inerrent, or that it is a revelation
from God, might also be be wrong.  This wouldn't prove that the Bible
contains no truth.

				-- Bob

> However, this is a straw man
> argument because I think the non-literalist Christians don't believe that
> the Bible was written by God, but by men who believed in God.

It is not just the "literalist" Christians who believe that the Bible was
written by God.  There are a large number of those who do not take the 
"literalist" stance, including Catholics and Orthodox, who believe that Bible
is inspired by God.

For me I guess the more crucial question is this: Did Jesus say what the Bible
said that he said? Does the Bible accurately record what the Apostles wrote?
And, if so, were the Apostles inspired with (doctrinal) truth? If you (general 
you) do not believe these things, on what do you base your doctrine? Personal 
opinion? Eastern mysticism? Channelled entities? Subjective feeling? Again, how 
can you follow Christ if you don't believe what He taught was accurately 
preserved? Do you view the Apostles as just as fallible as the rest of us? 

You can't be a Christian unless you follow Jesus as the only authority of truth,
and you can't follow Jesus unless you know with accuracy what He taught.
Otherwise you're just following a pseudochristian faith.

At one time I doubted the Bible yet I wanted to follow Christ.  But I determined
that it was impossible to have any certainty of truth at all unless I accepted
the Bible as doctrinally correct.  You don't have to check your brain at the
door to do this.  There are a lot of intellectual Christians, some who have
challenged the Bible and come up convinced it was true. 

By the way, because America is a largely post-Christian society, most of us were
brought up thinking that if you believe in God, you're a Christian. Not so. If
you believe in God, you are a theist; being a Christian is more, however. 
Being a Christian involves believing that Christ is the Son of God and was
truly risen from the dead, and following him as the only authority of truth 
("I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except 
through Me").  Simply believing in God does not make one a Christian; even Jews,
Muslims, Mormons, and many other non-Christian groups believe in one God.

Eric

re Note 421.45 by KALI::EWANCO:

> At one time I doubted the Bible yet I wanted to follow Christ.  But I determined
> that it was impossible to have any certainty of truth at all unless I accepted
> the Bible as doctrinally correct.  You don't have to check your brain at the
> door to do this.  There are a lot of intellectual Christians, some who have
> challenged the Bible and come up convinced it was true. 

        Eric,

        I suspect that there are equally many who have come to the
        opposite conclusion.  If you believe that the ultimate
        objective truth is the person (some might say the existence)
        of God, and not verbal propositions in human language, then
        the above conclusion is not inevitable, and in fact the
        opposite conclusion may be reached.

        Bob

>> the Bible as doctrinally correct.  You don't have to check your brain at the
>> door to do this.  There are a lot of intellectual Christians, some who have
>> challenged the Bible and come up convinced it was true. 

> I suspect that there are equally many who have come to the opposite 
> conclusion.  If you believe that the ultimate objective truth is the person 
> (some might say the existence) of God, and not verbal propositions in human 
> language, then the above conclusion is not inevitable, and in fact the
> opposite conclusion may be reached.

Perhaps.  But my point is that it is not intellectual suicide to believe that
the Scriptures are doctrinally correct.  If God wanted to communicate with us,
and Yahweh (the Christian and Jewish God) does want to communicate with us, then
it only makes sense that he would communicate with us in such a way that we
know what He has to say, i.e., there has to be some objective truth outside of
our minds.

You can perhaps prove that the Bible is historically inaccurate (i.e. it can be
compared against other sources of historical objective truth), and perhaps you
can prove that it is scientifically inaccurate, but you have no way of proving
that it is doctrinally inaccurate, since you have no other source of objective
doctrinal truth. 

Eric

| Perhaps.  But my point is that it is not intellectual suicide to believe that
| the Scriptures are doctrinally correct.  If God wanted to communicate with us,
| and Yahweh (the Christian and Jewish God) does want to communicate with us, then
| it only makes sense that he would communicate with us in such a way that we
| know what He has to say, i.e., there has to be some objective truth outside of
| our minds.

	Hmmm..... couldn't He use people, even those perceived to be
"non-Christians" when He wants to communicate with us? It doesn't mean
that those who are perceived to be "non-Christians" have the absolute 
truth with each word they speak, right? God will/has/does reveal the
truth to us in many ways. The Bible is one of those tools, but it doesn't 
mean it's 100% accurate.

| You can perhaps prove that the Bible is historically inaccurate (i.e. it can be
| compared against other sources of historical objective truth), and perhaps you
| can prove that it is scientifically inaccurate, but you have no way of proving
| that it is doctrinally inaccurate, since you have no other source of objective
| doctrinal truth.

	Eric, if people can prove any part of the Bible is wrong, how can
anyone say that any part of the Bible is true? Meaning, if there is one flaw,
who can say that the doctrine part of it doesn't also contain flaws? Humans
wrote down those words as well.




Glen

re: Note 421.38 by Collis "The Word became flesh" 

>                             -< examing the logic >-

>  Why is it unreasonable to believe:
>
>  - the Bible claims inerrancy
>  - the Bible claims to be a revelation from God
>  - God claims that if a prophet speaks that which is NOT true,
>    it was not spoken by him

>therefore

>  - if the Bible is clearly wrong, then it was not written by God,
>    it is not inerrant and it is, in fact, a terrible lie since
>    it *claims* to be written by God and is not.

This is why it is unreasonable for me to *logically believe* that...

First, the self-referential nature obviates the use of logic in the analysis.

I may claim something about myself, it may be true or false.  I may claim that 
it is true.  That claim may itself be true or false.  I may claim that my 
previous claim is true, that claim may also be true or false...There is no
totally complete way that my veracity may be proven.  The problem falls
outside the bounds of deterministic logical systems.  

Second, how is one to consider the logic when you say later that the term 
"Bible" is being used in a very loose sense?  

Third, and perhaps this ties in to how one defines the term "Bible", how is a 
collection of books "claiming" anything about itself?

And where, precisely, is God making such claims?  The Bible?  That would again 
be self-referential.
 
So, the logic doesn't work for me because as the terms are being defined "very
loosely", therefore, *any* conclusion would be absolutely true or false only
*very loosely* .-) 

Furthermore, logic has a very poor track record in self-referential systems, 
which the Bible most definitely is.  It simply doesn't work there.

And (yes, there's more! .-), if anyone finds it possible to reduce the Bible 
to an absolutely deterministic set of logical rules, where every true 
statement can clearly be proven true, and every false statement can clearly be 
proven false, then they have stripped the Bible of its ineffable character 
that makes it the Living Word that it is.  

Fortunately, I don't believe that that is possible, and note that earlier on  
I said that it is unreasonable for me to *logically believe* those claims 
about the Bible.  I never said I *don't* believe those claims.  Just that I 
cannot logically defend them.  For me, it's a matter of Faith, Trust, and life 
experience.

Peace,

Jim

     It seems to me Eric makes a clear distinction between  "the  inerrancy
     of the Bible" and "the Bible being literally true" which makes me very
     uncomfortable about my last comment, i.e., "Certainly the Bible can be
     respected and appreciated on many levels without having to pass such a
     Draconian litmus test as inerrancy!" Ouch!  :^(  Please, in  light  of
     this  distinction,  let me reword that and say certainly the Bible can
     be respected and appreciated on many levels  without  having  to  pass
     such a Draconian litmus test as being literally true!

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

    I guess I am not logical enough to follow this discussion.  Can you
    folks help me in simple terms using perhaps the Noah's Ark Story.  What
    does Inerrancy, literal interpretation, allegory, metaphor mean relating
    to this story.  It would help me to specifically understand what you believe
    about this story?  Why is it part of "Holy Scripture" and what does it
    mean that similar stories exist in other mythology?

    RE: .51
    
    The Bible describes humankind's growing understanding of God
    over many centuries.  The importance of the Bible is its revelation
    of God, God's nature, and God's love for us, demonstrated supremely in
    Jesus Christ.
    
    The myths and legends in the Old Testament are the attempts of those
    ancient people to *find meaning* -- religious meaning -- in the
    natural and historical events they experienced.  Many ancient people
    have similar flood legends, but the significance of the Noah's Ark story
    is the *covenant* that God made with his people after the Flood.  
    This covenant represented a special relationship between God and the
    Israelites, unlike any relationship that other peoples they knew had
    with their gods. As such, it represents a major "step forward" in
    humanity's understanding of what God offers and requires of us!
    
    Nancy

     Glen,
    
    The fallacy in the reasoning that "if one part of the Bible is wrong,
    then all of it is wrong" is that I am making a distinction between
    using the Bible as a revelation of doctrinal truth, and using is a
    revelation of every other truth.
    
    Let me start with my understanding of the Bible not as a book dictated
    letter by letter by God, but rather a book written by men inspired by
    God with the truths of faith.  To me, the inerrancy of the Bible
    applies only to its revelation of matters of faith and doctrine. I
    think that it is perfectly valid to speak in this way.  While I hate to
    compare the Bible to a user's manual (because it is possible for the
    authors of the user's manual to be actually wrong), I will do it to
    show my point.  Take a user's manual.  You trust that that user's
    manual is an accurate and authoritative guide IN OPERATING THAT
    PRODUCT.  If you find a typo, you don't decide that it is no longer
    correct for its purposes and then dismiss it as erroneous.  If you find
    a historical mistake, you wouldn't either. If you found a scientific
    mistake, then it still doesn't affect the operation of that product
    (unless it betrays a possible engineering error! ;-)).  The user's
    manual is designed to tell you accurately how to use that product; it
    is not designed to be scientifically, typographically, syntactically,
    historically, or grammatically accurate.
    
    Part of

    oops, hit the wrong key!
    
    Part of my argument was this: My assertion is that the Bible's
    inerrancy applies only to its doctrinal truths.  But you cannot prove a
    doctrinal truth right or wrong, hence the Bible cannot be declared
    erroneous (or inerrant) objectively, since you have no way of proving
    that it contains a doctrinal mistake (you not being God). 
    
    I think once people aren't forced to accept the historical and
    scientific accuracy of the Bible, they would be willing to accept its
    doctrinal inerrancy. Then again, lots of people don't like to be told
    what's right and what's wrong and don't want to believe that the Bible
    contains moral and doctrinal truth.  Oh, well.
    
    Eric
    

    Glen,
    
    Yes, God certainly uses everyone, even non-Christians, to reveal his
    truth, but first, that does not mean that non-Christian sources are
    authoritative, nor does it mean that the Bible is NOT accurate. Keep in
    mind, I am Catholic and believe that God speaks authoritatively through
    the church as well as through Scriptures. 
    
    I'm not sure I follow why the Bible is not 100% accurate if the truth
    is revealed in other ways. After all, the Bible is doctrinally accurate
    NOT because it's "The Bible", but ONLY because it was written by those
    to whom the Spirit revealed the Truth. The Word of God came first, THEN
    the Bible.  The Bible is an authoritative and written embodiment of the
    Word of God, and the Bible is no more discredited by historical or
    scientific inaccuracies than the authority of the Apostles was
    discredited by their sins, confusions, shortcomings, scientific
    ignorance, and and imperfections! I like that analogy, I'll have to
    remember it.  The Apostles still knew all revealed doctrinal truth,
    though they were imperfect. So it is with the Bible -- and perceived
    imperfections does not invalidate its doctrinal authority.
    
    Humans may have written down the words of the Bible, Glen, but where is
    your faith in God?  Jesus said he would reveal ALL TRUTH to us!! WOuld
    He have allowed that truth to be lost?  Did Jesus forsake His promise?
    What kind of God would Yahweh be to leave us groping in the dark,
    searching for truth! What a bitter God, to promise us the truth but
    leave us in the dark! Yet God had an interest in ensuring the doctrinal
    truth of Scriptures, and he has an interest in revealing to us the
    truth! A father wants to speak to his children! If you loved your
    children, yet were not able speak to them directly (not that God
    cannot), would you not write to them?  If you knew you would die before
    they grew up (not that God has died), would you not write them a letter
    for them to read and keep, that would give them your wisdom and guide
    them along the path of life? How much more does Yahweh love us! How
    much more does Yahweh wish to speak to us through Scripture! How much
    more does it wish to tell us what he has left us in his will! No,
    Yahweh is not the god of the pagans, disinterested in His people,
    distant, not to be bothered; yet Yahweh woos his people like a lover
    woos his bride! Yahweh speaks to us and calls to us, though we may not
    listen! He wants us to call him Father, even Daddy! No Father would
    leave his children in confusion! No Father would cease to speak to his
    sons and daughters! And -- NO FATHER WOULD ALLOW HIS CHILDREN TO DO
    WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO IN THEIR IGNORANCE! For his childrens own good,
    a father sets down rules for his children so that they might not be
    harmed. Though they may be young and not understand, nevertheless the
    rules and message of the father is one of love and compassion! When you
    were young, did you not reason that your father set down arbitrary
    rules that made no sense? Did you not dispute those rules and see no
    sense in them? Ah, how foolish we are when we are young! Yet as we grow
    older, we see wisdom in the "arbitrary" rules of our father! We see how
    these rules and guidance helped us grow into strong men and women. How
    much more does God wish to help us grow as strong children of his by
    giving us His Word! Thanks be to God that we can speak to him as
    Father, "Abba," Daddy!
    
    Shalom,
    Eric
    

Re:  421.41

  >Although your final paragraph in 421.40 was essentially a baiting
  >tactic...

It was unabashedly, unashamedly a baiting tactic.  :-)  Let's just
say that I'm willing to use baiting tactics when there is refusal
to discuss an issue and claim that one's position has already been
proven correct at the same time.

  >You have stated that your interest is strictly in the validity of the
  >logical proof that you have tentatively and dispassionately offered for
  >our feedback.

No, I am not dispassionate on this particular issue.  However, the logic
is dispassionate.

  >Perhaps it would benefit us all if you expressed this tentative 
  >argument that you offer in the form of a symbolic proof.

Well, this certainly is the totally opposite extreme.  From not
being willing to talk at all about it to wanting to deal with it
in an extremely detailed sense.

Indeed, I did take a symbolic logic course in college (even got an 
"A" :-) ) and freely acknowledge all the problems that there are when
discussing a subject in English.

However, the use of English and the lack of symbolic logic in this 
conference over the past 1-1/2 years has not seemed to stop people
from trying to be logical and present logical arguments.  I'm willing
to settle for mid-ground here - just a discussion of the (admittedly
vague) English logic presented.  If it is your desire to move this
into the symbolic logic realm as well, I'm willing to go there with you.  :-)

Collis

Re:  421.44

  >Assuming that God is infallible then I agree.  

Another supposition for you.

  The Bible claims God is infallible.

  >However, this is a straw man argument because I think the 
  >non-literalist Christians don't believe that
  >the Bible was written by God, but by men who believed in God.

It sounds like you agree with the logic, but disagree with one of
the suppositions - the one that says that God wrote what was in
the Bible.

If so (and I have accurately heard you), it sounds like you are
saying the logic is true.

  >As for it being "a terrible lie", I think the people who wrote it 
  >were sincere...

I call it a "terrible lie" since it claims to be from God and it
is not from God.  This is obviously a lie - and I call it a terrible
lie because this is the greatest deception possible - to claim to
be from God and to not actually be from God.  Whether you think that
this lie is indeed a terrible one is a judgment call for you.

  >If one doesn't believe in the inerrency of the entire Bible is it possible
  >to believe parts of it?  Well, if some parts of the Bible are wrong then 
  >the parts of the Bible that claim that it is inerrent, or that it is a 
  >revelation from God, might also be be wrong.  This wouldn't prove that 
  >the Bible contains no truth.

Agreed.  If the parts of the Bible that claim or assume inerrancy are
wrong, it is still possible that other parts of the Bible contain truth.
In fact, much truth is in the Bible.

However, is it now reasonable to believe that it was God who gave
us this truth?  No it is not - unless all the parts of the Bible that
reflect God as being totally honest and pure are also wrong.  However,
I believe that this is reflected throughout the entire Bible - perhaps
not every book, but just about.  Effectively, it amounts to accepting
that the Bible is not from God.

Collis

Re:  421.49

Hi, Jim,

  >First, the self-referential nature obviates the use of logic in the 
  >analysis.

No, the logic is still valid.  What you are really saying (and expand
on in your next paragraph) is that you need some independent way of
determining the truth of the suppositions in order for the logic to
be *useful*.  Even that is not quite true, since the logic drives us to
find some conclusions about the Bible unacceptable is illogical -
conclusions that many people wish to believe as true.

  >Second, how is one to consider the logic when you say later that the term 
  >"Bible" is being used in a very loose sense?

Indeed, this is an important issue.  Let me expand on that by saying
that the issue of God writing the Bible is explicit or implicit in most
of the books of the Bible.  The issue of the what the Bible says being
absolutely true is also explicit or implicit in most of the books of
the Bible.  We could certainly get bogged down in trying to pick apart
exactly what part of the Bible says about itself or about another
part of the Bible.  Although I believe that this is very useful to 
know (and to do sometime), I also expect that this would mean moving
away from the issue of the logic.  If you were willing to say, "yes,
the logic is valid - insofar as the Bible actually says what you are
presuming it says", then it is clearly time to take this next step.

  >Third, and perhaps this ties in to how one defines the term "Bible", how 
  >is a collection of books "claiming" anything about itself?

How does any writing (or speech for that matter) claim anything about
itself?  It says it.  

  >And where, precisely, is God making such claims?  The Bible?  That would 
  >again be self-referential.

Again, self-referential does not mean logic is invalid; it only means
that it is unprovable because the suppositions can not be proved.

But I'm not claiming the suppositions are true.  You can claim that
they are true (in which case the Bible is inerrant) or you can claim
that they are false (in which case God do not write the Bible and
it is a terrible lie).  Again, the issue is not nearly as black and
white as this since the claims are not quite this black and white -
but there is some truth to this position (and it is a fair summary
of what should be believed).

  >And (yes, there's more! .-), if anyone finds it possible to reduce the 
  >Bible to an absolutely deterministic set of logical rules, where every 
  >true statement can clearly be proven true, and every false statement 
  >can clearly be proven false, then they have stripped the Bible of its 
  >ineffable character that makes it the Living Word that it is.  

I agree completely - in terms of the purpose for which God gave us
His Word.

I disagree strongly in terms of using our reasoning for determing that
which is true or false.  God wants us to examine the evidence.  That's
one of the reasons Jesus did many miracles - to present evidence of who
He was.  He also wants us to examine the evidence of His Word.  I believe
He wants us to examine both the life-giving spirit of it as well as
the logic of it.  Certainly logic is used throughout the Bible and God
gave us logic.  Nowhere are we commanded to be illogical.  Both have their
place.  One does not obviate the other.

Now, admittedly, one can believe the truth in the Bible without any
logic at all - and one can believe the logic about the Bible without
believing in God at all.  However, this does not mean that God intends
for us to ignore logic when considering what He has written.  We are
to have faith, yes.  But is it a crime for our faith to be reconciled
with logic?

Collis

>I call it a "terrible lie" since it claims to be from God and it
>is not from God.  This is obviously a lie - and I call it a terrible
>lie because this is the greatest deception possible - to claim to
>be from God and to not actually be from God.  Whether you think that
>this lie is indeed a terrible one is a judgment call for you.
    
    Collis,
    
    I guess your response just hit something for me and I say this to
    offend no one but just to show why I cannot fathom or accept the
    inerrency of the bible.
    
    When I was a child somehow I believed the Bible was the word of God and
    somehow I believed in the god of the old testament.  A god that
    ordained first born children be killed merely because they were
    Egyptian, A god who hardenned the Pharoahs heart so he could not
    respond and then killed those children as a response.  I god who found
    only Noah and his family acceptible and wiped out the rest of the world
    only to feel remorse the next day and make a covenant to not do it
    again.  A god who in the Sodon and Gomohrea story found only Lot, a
    child abuser to be acceptible and wiped out the rest of the city.
    
    In my opinion, all of this is a lie.  And you are right, a terrible
    lie.  The God I believe in is pure goodness and those things identified
    above are not good. 
    I agree with Nancy's reply that the myths and legends represent
    humankinds growing understanding of the nature of God.  These early
    hebrews did not have a good conception of the nature of God.
    
    I guess I have to say that the belief in the inerrancy of the bible is
    a terrible lie because it in my opinion diminishes the divine by
    attributing jeolousy, wrath, destructiveness, male dominance etc to the
    divine.
    
    By the way, Mike, you have me thinking about process theology in this
    regard.  If God is all good, then s/he cannot be omnipotent because
    evil does exist, and if God is omnipotent then s/he cannot be all good
    because evil still exists.  Is that what process theology is all about?
    
    Pat
    
    
    

Re: .57  Collis

>  >However, this is a straw man argument because I think the 
>  >non-literalist Christians don't believe that
>  >the Bible was written by God, but by men who believed in God.
>
>It sounds like you agree with the logic, but disagree with one of
>the suppositions - the one that says that God wrote what was in
>the Bible.

Let me ask you this, Collis: what is it that you're trying to prove?  As
far as I can tell, your "logic" consists of circular arguments.

>Agreed.  If the parts of the Bible that claim or assume inerrancy are
>wrong, it is still possible that other parts of the Bible contain truth.
>In fact, much truth is in the Bible.
>
>However, is it now reasonable to believe that it was God who gave
>us this truth?  No it is not - unless all the parts of the Bible that
>reflect God as being totally honest and pure are also wrong.

I disagree, Collis.  God may have inspired truth in *some* parts of the Bible
even though other parts are demonstrably wrong.  The Bible may have been
written by men who wrote down their impressions of God, and those impressions
may have been right in some cases and wrong in others.

				-- Bob

>    When I was a child somehow I believed the Bible was the word of God and
>    somehow I believed in the god of the old testament.  A god that
>    ordained first born children be killed merely because they were
>    Egyptian, A god who hardenned the Pharoahs heart so he could not
>    respond and then killed those children as a response.  I god who found
>    only Noah and his family acceptible and wiped out the rest of the world
>    only to feel remorse the next day and make a covenant to not do it
>    again.  A god who in the Sodon and Gomohrea story found only Lot, a
>    child abuser to be acceptible and wiped out the rest of the city.
 
At first glance, yes, this does appear to be terribly awful. But you have not
read carefully. You will find that God was not arbitrary, but destroyed only
the wicked.

In Exodus, God destroyed the firstborn not of the Egyptians, but of anyone who
did not have the blood of a lamb on their doorposts.  He would have killed
Jews who did not have this, but saved Egyptians who did.  The Jews were saved
because they had faith in Yahweh (demonstrated by putting the blood of a 
sacrifice lamb on the doorway); the Egyptians died not because they were
Egyptians, but because they refused to believe in the authority of Yahweh and
did not believe he could destroy them.

In the case of Noah, again, Noah was saved because he was righteous, but the
rest of the world was wicked. "The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on
the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart
was only evil all the time." "All the people on the earth had corrupted their
ways."  Evidently Noah was the only righteous one in the whole world; the rest
were wicked. So God was justified in destroying the wicked.

If you read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, Genesis 18:32, you will see that
God could evidently find not one person who was righteous in the whole city,
worthy of being saved.  (Actually Abraham only asked if ten were righteous, but
after going from fifty down to ten by tens and fives, we get the idea that no
one was righteous.) So God again was just.  Remember that when God was going
to destroy Ninevah in the book of Jonah, they repented and God did not destroy
them. Evidently no one but Lot was worthy to be saved in Sodom and Gomorrah,
but God knew Lot's heart and knew that he had faith, which made him different.
You said that Lot was a "child abuser"; where do you see this? (His story is 
in Genesis 19.)  His daughters caused him to get drunk, and they had sex with
him when _he was not aware of it_ (19:33). Actually his daughters abused him!

So God is not as arbitrary as you might think. He rewards the righteous but
destroys the wicked.

Eric

Re:  421.59

Thank you, Pat.

I agree with your logic.  I disagree with your interpretation
and misrepresentation (as I see it) of the facts.

Collis

Re:  .60

  >...logic consists of circular arguments

No, it's not truly a cirucular argument - because the goal is
not to try to prove the suppositions true or false.  The goal
is simply to show logical conclusions whether the suppositions
are true or if they are false.

A conclusion which is NOT reached is a conclusion which says
"The Bible is essentially correct, but has a number of 
God-breathed errors in it".  This conclusion is simply
illogical - yet it is the conclusion that many people reach.
Why?  For the vast majority, I expect it is because they are
comfortable with the conclusion and it makes some sense - despite
being unsupportable when you examine it in great detail.  

  >God may have inspired truth in *some* parts of the Bible
  >even though other parts are demonstrably wrong.

I agree.  However, these parts where the truth are must not be 
those parts of the Bible that refer to the truth of the other 
parts of the Bible that are false.  In that case, they would
not have been "true" or God-breathed.  It is my contention
(not discussed much here yet) that the parts of the Bible that
refer to the truth of the other parts of the Bible are many and
impossible to seperate out from the parts that many would like
to call wrong.  That, upon close examination, we are left to
conclude that the Bible truly is inerrant as a whole or it is
not from God.  However, that is well beyond the simple logic
of the statements that we were discussing.  Again, it sounds
to me like you agree with the logic I'm presenting.  I agree
with you on the holes (which are not in the logic, but which
are question about the truth of the suppositions).

Collis

    It seems that if you keep modifying the term inerrant that sooner
    or later you'll come up with a definition which fits the Scriptures.
    
    I think a good definition of the term inerrant is: possessing zero errors
    of any kind whatsoever; perfection.
    
    After all, if God is perfect, then the written "word" which God authored
    must necessarily be perfect as well.
    
    Richard

Re: .63  Collis

>  >...logic consists of circular arguments
>
>No, it's not truly a cirucular argument - because the goal is
>not to try to prove the suppositions true or false.  The goal
>is simply to show logical conclusions whether the suppositions
>are true or if they are false.

OK, I'll take back what I said about circular arguments.  The problem I
had with .38 was that it wasn't clear to me what you were trying to prove.
I think you've answered this in .63: you're trying to disprove the statement
that:

>"The Bible is essentially correct, but has a number of 
>God-breathed errors in it".

And you're trying to prove that

>That, upon close examination, we are left to
>conclude that the Bible truly is inerrant as a whole or it is
>not from God.

Well, I have to say that I'm sympathetic to your argument, Collis.  That is,
for me, the fact that the Bible contains errors (not just scientific or
historical errors but more importantly IMO it contains moral errors) makes
me suspicious of the entire book.  I'm not convinced that you can prove
your case *logically*, though, because there is too much ambiguity in the
wording of your suppositions and conclusions.  For example, does "God-breathed"
mean "written by God" or "inspired by God"?  How many errors can the Bible
contain and still be "essentially correct"?  What does it mean for the Bible to
be "not from God" - does it mean that nothing in the Bible could have been
spoken by or inspired by God?  If you could define these terms more rigorously
then it might be possible to examine your logic, but as it is the whole
argument is just too subjective.

				-- Bob

     RE: .64

>    It seems that if you keep modifying the term inerrant that sooner
>    or later you'll come up with a definition which fits the Scriptures.
>    
>    I think a good definition of the term inerrant is: possessing zero errors
>    of any kind whatsoever; perfection.

     With all due respect, Richard, I don't  think  anyone  was  trying  to
     *modify*  the  term  inerrant.  I think what's happening is people are
     *qualifying* it.  In other words, there seems to be an agreement  that
     the  Bible  {can be/is}  inerrant  with  regards to Truth and Doctrine
     without necessarily being literally true with  regard  to  facts.   If
     you're  now  removing  the  qualifiers,  then  it  seems  to me you're
     bringing the discussion back to point zero.  Or  did  I  misunderstand
     you?

     Peace,

     Alvin

    .66
    
    With all due respect, I think that if that is the case then another
    term should be used either instead of "inerrant" or in conjuction with
    "inerrant."
    
    I submit that when the bulk of fundamentalists use the term "inerrant"
    in conjunction with the Bible, they mean that it is literally flawless,
    without qualifiers.  Correct me if I am wrong.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

     ...100% with your REPLY.  I just meant that, in the  context  of  this
     discussion,  inerrant  took  on  these  qualifiers.  Personally, I was
     comfortable with "inerrant" meaning *not* literally true with  regards
     to  facts, but your note makes it obvious that that distinction may be
     lost on anyone just giving this topic a cursory reading.

     Peace,

     Alvin

How about using "infallible" to mean inerrant in regards to faith and morals?

>    After all, if God is perfect, then the written "word" which God authored
>    must necessarily be perfect as well.

If God dictated it word for word via a trance, then yes, the Bible must be
fully perfect, but this is not how the Bible was written.  God revealed
doctrinal truth to the authors through inspiration, and they wrote down what
they received.  These writers were inspired with doctrinal truth, i.e. they
were infallible in matters of faith, doctrine, and morals.  Hence what they
wrote is considered inspired.  But inspiration does not apply to what they 
wrote concerning history or science that they did not receive from God. I would
like to think that the Bible is historically correct, and it is remarkable the
accurate historic facts it contains, but if someone were to conclusively prove
that the Bible contains a historical error, it would not cause me to doubt its
infallibility. 

> but more importantly IMO it contains moral errors

Unfortunately by the nature of morality, this cannot be proven.

Re: .69 Eric

>> but more importantly IMO it contains moral errors
>
>Unfortunately by the nature of morality, this cannot be proven.

Yes, that's right, morality is felt in the heart rather than in the head.  So
for example for you there was nothing wrong with God killing Egyptian and
Canaanite children (421.61), while for me this was nothing less than genocide.
You can't convince me that you're right and I can't convince you that I'm
right.  All I can say is that I hope you don't take the lessons taught by the
book of Joshua to heart and apply them in your own life.

				-- Bob

RE .38:
   Collis,
    
.38>Why is it unreasonable to believe:
.38>
.38>  - the Bible claims inerrancy
.38>  - the Bible claims to be a revelation from God
.38>  - God claims that if a prophet speaks that which is NOT true,
.38>    it was not spoken by him
.38> 
.38>therefore
.38>
.38>  - if the Bible is clearly wrong, then it was not written by God,
.38>    it is not inerrant and it is, in fact, a terrible lie since
.38>    it *claims* to be written by God and is not.
    
    
    I'm not entirely sure I understand how all three of your givens
     have to be wrong *if* the bible ends up "clearly wrong."
    
    That is, if A _and_ B _and_ C support something that is proven
     false, only one of A,B or C would *have* to be false, no?
    
    It also seems to me like two different ideas are getting lumped
     together.  (Maybe they have to be, I can't tell yet.)
    
       If X is inerrant, then if X is proven wrong, X is not inerrant.  
    
    				and 
    
       If X is a revelation from God and God is inerrant, then if X is
        wrong, then X is either not a revelation from God or God is
        not inerrant.  
    
    
    
    
    If the Bible is proven at least partially wrong, then the Bible is
     not inerrant.  I don't think too many people would argue with that.
     
    But if the Bible is proven at least partially wrong, then either
     the Bible is not completely the word of God or God doesn't always 
     speak that which is true.  (I don't think we have to worry too much
     about discussing the second point.)
    
    You don't specify whether you mean the Bible as a whole is a revelation
     from God or whether just sections of the Bible are God inspired.
    
    If you say that the Bible as a whole is God inspired, then 
     (I think) if you find at least parts of the Bible wrong, then you
     can only really say that the Bible *as a whole* is not the 
     revelation of God (or that God doesn't speak the truth).  
    
    The wrong parts of the Bible cannot be attributed to God, given the
     premises, but I don't see how that implies anything about the authorship
     of the correct parts of the Bible.
    
    
     Also, how does a section of a book claim things about the whole book
      if it was written independently from the rest of the book?  
      (i.e. does each individual section claim to be the word of
       God and does each individual section claim to be inerrant?) 
    
    
     If anyone wants to step in and point out any flaws, please do.
      I'm not sure I've given this all the thought it deserves.
      (Also a disclaimer, I don't have much background in formal logic,
       so I'm not sure of the correct names for the various pieces of 
       a syllogism, or whatever this would be.)
    
     This is really interesting.  I'm glad I came across this note.
    
     Steve
    
                                                                 

RE: inerrancy


                  This idea of inerrancy has bothered me for some time. I
fail to understand how a book can be translated and translated and not lose
something in the process.  I believe that in the ancient Greek, there are 
9 different words that we translate into love.  In its original form, I
believe that the authors writings are indeed inerrant.  However, there are
passages that I find *VERY* confusing and only after going to an earlier
form does the passage begin to make sense.  But to say that the English
form of the bible is inerrant, for me, is being a bit naive. 


Dave

RE: inerrancy

    
   The whole idea to me that the Bible is an accurate and complete history
   of God and man is untrue.  It is the translated stories, memos,
   letters, written and oral history of mankind.  It is without error? NO.
   Is the stories and their meaning without value as a result. Still no.
   It's the inspired word of what many religions call God.  It is not
   to me Gods word.  There are parts that I read as stories that glorify
   men who served God as best they could.  Sprituality is not a thing that
   one can apply algebraic proofs to, it is belief.  Belief is not built
   on literal word or absolute lack of error.  

   One small thing I get bent up about is small passages being used out
   of context.  An example: "Genocide" of the children Cannan and Egypt,
   If that is Exodus story, then don't forget that was by Pharoh's word
   not God.  We use different language in this age but the story reminds
   me of "Be careful what you wish for, it may come true and surprise
   you.".   There are a lot of lessons in that story, it is above
   inerrancy and literal interpretation though it may be full of
   contradictions and historical errors.

   Of course none of us speak colloquial languages of the appropriate
   century and location to comment in the accuracy of the english
   translation.  I found this out watching a friend using highschool
   french in Quebec, it works, but the colloquial expressions are unique
   and part of the local language.  The point is who can know the accuracy
   of translation especally if the translation is iterative (greek to
   latin to middle english to modern english).

   Allison

Re:  421.71
    
  >I'm not entirely sure I understand how all three of your givens
  >have to be wrong *if* the bible ends up "clearly wrong."
    
  >That is, if A _and_ B _and_ C support something that is proven
  >false, only one of A,B or C would *have* to be false, no?
    
Agreed.  It is indeed a different set of logic that shows that
if A is false, then B is also false, etc.  This logic has not
been explored in detail and I have been guilty of assuming it
yet not defining it.  I also believe that this logic can be
shown.

  >You don't specify whether you mean the Bible as a whole is a revelation
  >from God or whether just sections of the Bible are God inspired.

Since God-breathed the entire Bible (according to the Bible), I
mean the entire Bible.
    
  >If you say that the Bible as a whole is God inspired, then 
  >(I think) if you find at least parts of the Bible wrong, then you
  >can only really say that the Bible *as a whole* is not the 
  >revelation of God (or that God doesn't speak the truth).  
    
  >The wrong parts of the Bible cannot be attributed to God, given the
  >premises, but I don't see how that implies anything about the authorship
  >of the correct parts of the Bible.

I agree with your logic.  My understanding is that the claims of inerrancy
and being God-breathed are so pervasive throughout the books of the 
Bible that it amounts to throwing out the whole Bible as authoritative.
In addition, God doesn't partially inspire prophets.  So if part of
what a prophet writes is not from God, then we know that this is a
*false* prophet, one who does NOT speak (at all) for God.

  >This is really interesting.  I'm glad I came across this note.
    
So am I, Steve.  I think your points are very well taken.  I freely
admit that as we explore the real logical question, that there is
a lot of work needed on my part to draw a tight logical case.  I
don't think I can make an airtight case, but I think I can make a
case tight enough to show the sense in making the general claim
that the whole Bible (as a practical matter) is either entirely
from God or entirely not from God.

Collis

Re:  421.72

Hi Dave,

  >I fail to understand how a book can be translated and translated and not 
  >lose something in the process.

In my opinion, something is often lost in the translation.

  >But to say that the English form of the bible is inerrant, for me, is 
  >being a bit naive.

I agree.  That is one of the reasons that Marshall and I (as well as
others) carried on quite an extensive translation roots discussion
in GOLF::CHRISTIAN.  It appears that everyone involved in the discussion
with the exception of Marshall agrees with you.

When I talk about inerrancy, I refer to the Biblical claim which is
that the origianal writing done by the original authors (human and
Holy Spirit) were without error.  Since we don't have the original
writings (only very good copies of them) and since we generally use
translated versions of them, there is certainly some room for
differences.  Fortunately, however, the evidence that we have indicates
that the original words have been extremely well preserved and, thus,
worthy of a very high degree of trust.

Collis

Re: .74 Collis

>In addition, God doesn't partially inspire prophets.  So if part of
>what a prophet writes is not from God, then we know that this is a
>*false* prophet, one who does NOT speak (at all) for God.

How do you know this?  I hope you aren't going to quote a possibly suspect
verse of the Bible...

				-- Bob

    re: The inerrancy of the Bible on morality...
    
    I agree with Bob Messenger that morality is not so much a head-issue 
    as it is a heart-issue, and as such, there is no way to objectively 
    prove one's outlook on a moral issue is more valid than the next.
    I also agree with others who've expressed the opinion that the Bible 
    is a documentary of people's endeavors toward understanding God and 
    striving to live the "divine" life on earth.
    
    I am, and have always been, unable to accept the premise, however, that 
    the Bible is without error when it comes to *ALL* issues of morality, 
    for I have *extreme* difficulty in accepting a God who would have us 
    embrace some of the Old Testatment's so-called "morality."
    
    In Numbers 31, for example, we read of what happened after the fall 
    of Midian.  Having slain all the adult males, the ancient Hebrew 
    invaders "took all the women of Midian captives, and their little 
    ones."  And now they were told by Moses that this was the command of 
    the Lord: "Kill every male among the little ones and every woman who 
    hath known man by lying with him, but all the women children that 
    have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
    
    So this particular morality justified the killing of male children, 
    and all women who were not virgins.  However, the ones who were 
    virgins, God allegedly commanded the invaders to keep alive for 
    themselves.  Gee, why do you suppose that was?
    
    Also in Judges Chapter 19 we read a story of a man who, upon being 
    harrassed by a mob of men, hands over his daughter and a concubine to 
    them saying "here is my daughter, a maiden (meaning virgin) ...I will 
    bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good 
    unto you, [and, get this part:] but unto this man do not so vile a 
    thing."
    
    The mob proceeds to rape and brutally assualt these women througout 
    the night, one of them being murdered as a result.  If I remeber the 
    story correctly she is found the next morning dead upon her 
    "master's" threshold, but he simply steps over her on his way out the 
    door to go about his business.  
    
    <emotion mode on>
    
    This is the kind of morality God lays down for us to follow????  Give 
    me a break.  If it is, sorry God, I don't buy it.  I'd rather rot in 
    hell.  But in *my* heart of hearts, the heart I share with You, I 
    know it is not.  The Bible is NOT without errors on matters of 
    morality.  Oh yeah...imho. :-)
    
    Karen

    
    re 421.74:
    
    Collis,
    
.71>That is, if A _and_ B _and_ C support something that is proven
.71>false, only one of A,B or C would *have* to be false, no?
    
    
    I guess I should have said here that only one of A,B or C would
     have to be false if they are not interrelated.  The original
     three points seem pretty much independent to me, though you
     said you hadn't explored that yet.  I guess we can discuss it
     when you make the argument for them being interrelated.
    
    
.74> I agree with your logic.  My understanding is that the claims of inerrancy
.74> and being God-breathed are so pervasive throughout the books of the 
.74> Bible that it amounts to throwing out the whole Bible as authoritative.
    
    If, given your original statements, a claim cannot be made about the
     parts of the Bible that are *not* shown to be incorrect, how is that
     influcenced by the pervasivness of the claims of being God-breathed or
     inerrant?
    
.74>In addition, God doesn't partially inspire prophets.  So if part of
.74>what a prophet writes is not from God, then we know that this is a
.74>*false* prophet, one who does NOT speak (at all) for God.
                                    
    If this were added to your basic premises, than it would certainly
     answer the question about the authorship of the "correct parts" of
     the Bible. 
    
    In your original list you have statements attributed to the Bible
     and a statement attributed to God.  Who/what would this be attributed
     to?
    
    
    I still don't understand how statments in sections of the Bible
     that were written independently of the rest of the book, can
     logically be attributed to the book as a whole.  Maybe there's
     something I'm missing here.
    
    
.74> in making the general claim
.74> that the whole Bible (as a practical matter) is either entirely
.74> from God or entirely not from God.
                                    
     If some parts of the Bible were shown to be incorrect, what
      would that mean about the parts of the Bible that seem 
      irrefutably correct?  Say for instance, "God is Love"? 
      Would these be correct, but not necessarily God inspired?  
    
    
     Steve
    

    P.S. to .77,
        
    So following the "morality" implictly expressed in the example out of
    Judges and using a modern day scenario, I'd like to propose a question
    to fathers in this conference who have a daughter(s):
                                                                  
    You and your daughter go out shopping one day, or you're bringing her 
    to the dentist and you're going along and an unruly group of people
    approach, could be men, or men and women, whatever, but they come up 
    and threaten to mug you.  What do you do?  Think back to the morality 
    in Judges and hand over your daughter to them, tell them they can do to 
    her whatever seems good to them, but to you do not so vile a thing?  
    You propose this to them.  They seem to like the idea - a lot - so you 
    turn to your daughter, (I can imagine the look on her face) and what do 
    you say, "Sorry, dear" as you hand her over, not knowing if you're even 
    going to see her alive again?  But at least you've removed the danger 
    to yourself.  And in the process, as the Bible would have us believe, 
    you've broken no law:  civil, criminal, or divine.  
     
    Karen
    

>    Also in Judges Chapter 19 we read a story of a man who, upon being 
>    harrassed by a mob of men, hands over his daughter and a concubine to 
>    them saying "here is my daughter, a maiden (meaning virgin) ...I will 
>    bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good 
>    unto you, [and, get this part:] but unto this man do not so vile a 
>    thing."
>    The mob proceeds to rape and brutally assualt these women througout 
>    the night, one of them being murdered as a result.  If I remeber the 
>    story correctly she is found the next morning dead upon her 
>    "master's" threshold, but he simply steps over her on his way out the 
>    door to go about his business.  
>    This is the kind of morality God lays down for us to follow????  Give 

Well, what I would see upon initially looking at this is that simply because
something happens in the OT doesn't mean it's right.   Often the OT reports
events such as this without any comment, but a careful analysis may show that
God was quite displeased with them.  Or it may not.  The point is, just because
it happens doesn't mean it was morally justified.

Eric

Note 421.80

>Well, what I would see upon initially looking at this is that simply because
>something happens in the OT doesn't mean it's right.   Often the OT reports
>events such as this without any comment, but a careful analysis may show that
>God was quite displeased with them.  Or it may not.  The point is, just because
>it happens doesn't mean it was morally justified.

Eric,

	Would you say that when terms like "inerrant" and "God-breathed"
are applied to the entire Bible, that it sends out a very different message
than what you've just stated here?

Peace,
Richard

    
    RE: last few
    
    Particularly when stories of genocide are justified because the Bible
    says God wanted it that way.  I have read the words of some Christians
    that say, based on these instances in the Bible, if they heard a voice
    and believed it was God and found similar justification in the Bible,
    they would do similar deeds today.  Scarey stuff.
    
    Carole

    .80,
    
    Thanks for you thoughts Eric.  I share the same concerns/questions 
    mentioned by Richard and Carole.  If such stories are considered as 
    being inerrant and God-breathed, yet as you say, may not necessarily 
    be morally justified by God, I am at a loss as to why God would include 
    them in the Bible, particularly when some people do consider them to 
    exemplify the type of morality God finds acceptable.
    
    Karen  

     With regard to God taking anyone's life, on  first  blush  this  would
     seem  to  be  a  pretty  cruel  action  for  a  deity  to take, but on
     reflection, it seems to me that that reaction is simply the result  of
     only  seeing  such  an  event from a human perspective.  Looking at it
     from a broader  view,  if  you're  lucky  enough  to  believe  in  the
     Judeo-Christian  God,  then  I  think  you  believe  that that God has
     another purpose for humans that has more to do  with  their  existence
     after-life  and  who  has  it's  own purposes for ending anyone's life
     here, no matter the hardship/sadness that action may have for  any  of
     us  remaining.  So I personally am not too upset when the Angel of the
     Lord takes the lives of the first-born of any that have not had  their
     doors  marked  by  the  blood  of  a  lamb.   I'd categorize that as a
     "natural" event, sad as it was.  On the other hand,  I  have  a  *big*
     problem  with  anyone  losing their life at the hands of another human
     being, even if the perpetrator's action is the  will  of  God  because
     there is no objective test for the will of God.

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

Re:  421.76

     >>In addition, God doesn't partially inspire prophets.  So if part of
     >>what a prophet writes is not from God, then we know that this is a
     >>*false* prophet, one who does NOT speak (at all) for God.

  >How do you know this?  I hope you aren't going to quote a possibly suspect
  >verse of the Bible...

I admit it.  I'm guilty.  :-)

I accept this because of what the Bible says and implies.  It clearly
says it in one (or more) places.  It implies it in a number of places.
Let's look there's a lot of work ahead of me...

Collis

Re:  421.77

  >And now they were told by Moses that this was the command of 
  >the Lord: "Kill every male among the little ones and every woman who 
  >hath known man by lying with him, but all the women children that 
  >have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
    
  >So this particular morality justified the killing of male children, 
  >and all women who were not virgins.  

Indeed, you are not alone in finding this hard to accept.  Personally,
I see God's mercy in this passage since He allowed some to live.

  >Also in Judges Chapter 19 we read a story...
    
  >This is the kind of morality God lays down for us to follow????  

I think you missed something, Karen.  It does *NOT* say here that
God instructed the man to do this or approved what was done.  Why do
you jump to this conclusion?  The Bible is full of incidents of
sinners committing sins.  This is simply one more.

Collis

Re:  421.78  

  >The original three points seem pretty much independent to me, though you
  >said you hadn't explored that yet.  I guess we can discuss it
  >when you make the argument for them being interrelated.

Agreed.
    
  >I still don't understand how statments in sections of the Bible
  >that were written independently of the rest of the book, can
  >logically be attributed to the book as a whole.

Sometimes the statements refer to all of Scripture specifically
in their claims.  Some Scriptures refer to the Holy Spirit as the
author of *all* Scripture.  Of course, there are extremely numerous
examples of specific Scriptures being used as if either God had
written them or as if they were inerrant as well as literally
thousands of claims of what God specifically said, wrote or told
others to say or write.

  >If some parts of the Bible were shown to be incorrect, what
  >would that mean about the parts of the Bible that seem 
  >irrefutably correct?  Say for instance, "God is Love"? 
  >Would these be correct, but not necessarily God inspired?

Exactly.  We can all agree that there is a lot of truth in the
Bible.  Whether the Bible is all truth and God-breathed or
not God-breathed and contains thousands of lies along with
the truth is the issue.
    
Collis

Re:  421.83

  >If such stories are considered as being inerrant and God-breathed, yet
  >as you say, may not necessarily be morally justified by God, I am at a
  >loss as to why God would include them in the Bible, particularly when
  >some people do consider them to exemplify the type of morality God
  >finds acceptable.

The Old Testament is a history of a people as well as being revelation
from God.  This history includes the good with the bad.  There are
superlative terms and accounts given at times; at other times there
are atrocities that are related.

The inclusion of the sinfulness of people in the specific as well
as the general is, in my opinion, very necessary.  It is in this
way that we can see and appreciate that the way we are today is
the say way that people were back then.  It reveals to us the depth
of our need for salvation - i.e. to be set right with God.

This story contrasts with the morality the actions of people with
the morality of God (as indicated elsewhere in the Bible).  Do
these reasons make sense?

Collis

Alvin Orzechowski was kind enough to send me a copy of
Bishop Spong's book.  Despite a hectic schedule, I did take
the time to read about 100 pages last night (most of it
between 11:30 and 1:00 a.m.).

How the book strikes me:  In thinking back over what
  Bishop Spong says, I can't remember a single point
  of agreement between us.  Since Bishop Spong makes
  about 1,000 points in these 100 pages, that's quite
  a difference of belief!

How Bishop Spong strikes me:  In two ways - anger and
  sorrow.  I am angry that Bishop Spong attacks and
  belittles the power of God, the holiness of God, the
  revelation of God, the prophecies of God and the
  Word of God.  However, I also strongly feel the way
  that Jesus must have felt when he said from the cross,
  "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

How the examples of errancy strike me:  Bishop Spong is
  no logician.  He writing includes whatever issues he has
  with the Bible and, by sheer weight of examples, drives
  his points home.  He rarely stops to look closely at
  the examples (after all the book is only 200 pages and
  that is not the purpose of the book - is it?).  When he
  does, he examines it strictly from a liberal viewpoint.
  There is not one - not one - example in the book where he
  deals with the inerrantist's argument (for the validity of
  the Biblical text).  Surely, being raised a fundamentalist,
  he is aware of *some* of the reasons that fundamentalists
  use to justify a text.  Why won't he respond to the logical,
  well-thought out explanations that abound in fundamentalist
  (and evangelical) literature?  Why does he rely primarily on
  superficial and easily rebutted arguments.  I would have been
  much more impressed if he had taken to time to study 10 issues
  in depth rather than superficially mention 300 issues.

How the title strikes me:  I read the first 80 pages or
  so and then jumped to the next to last chapter, "Christmas
  and Easter:  Ultimate truth and literal nonsense".  It's
  hard to express the full questioning of the Bible that Bishop
  Spong goes through in just a short paragraph.  Essentially,
  Bishop Spong takes every important claim of the Bible as well
  as a large number of peripheral claims and throws them on the
  trash pile.  Virgin birth?  Bishop Spong dismisses this (after
  a faulty discussion of the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14)
  with the statement, "Of course these narratives are not literally
  true.  Stars do not wander, angels do not sing, virgins do not
  give birth, magi do not travel to a distant land to present
  gifts to a baby and shepherds do not go in search of a newborn
  savior."  He follows this "logic" with the following claim,
  "I know of no reputable biblical scholar in the world today
  who takes these birth narratives literally."  Re-read that.
  It is a sad commentary on Bishop Spong.  He has determined not
  only that anyone who disagrees with his point of view is not
  only wrong, but that it is *impossible* to be a "reputable
  biblical scholar" and believe in the virgin birth.  This is
  the height of prejudice, in my opinion.  (Personally, I freely
  admit that there are scores of liberal biblical scholars.  Many
  of their claims are wrong :-), but they are reputable scholars.)

  But the main point I wanted to express here immediately follows
  these comments.  Bishop Spong writes, "Should we then purge the
  Bible of these narratives?  Absolutely not!  These birth narratives
  are not only amoung the most beautiful parts of Scripture but
  they are among the most profound."  Bishop Spong argues again
  and again that we can reasonably deny anything the Bible says,
  anything that Jesus is supposed to have said.  Jesus died for
  our sins?  How ridiculous.  And yet - after denying the essence
  of the Biblical message - he somehow believes that there is a
  critical message there for you and I.  This I do not understand.
  It makes no sense to me.  Well, it makes practically no sense to
  me.  On an extremely superficialy level, I can understand the
  desire for this.  But when examined closely, it is clear that if
  the Bible is wrong about all the essentials, why are we to believe
  it has anything to do with God?  It is clear from Bishop Spong's
  perspective that humans reaching for God wrote the Bible.  It
  is equally clear to me from all that he says that God was not
  intervening to insure that they wrote what was correct.  So, what
  are we to learn from these people who thought they knew God, who
  wrote all about it and who are flat-out wrong from beginning to end
  about their understanding of who God is?  I don't understand.
  Bishop Spong is "rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" so that
  it can be thrown in the garbage can - in my perspective.  It is
  the only explanation that makes sense.

  However, it is not the explanation that Bishop Spong gives.  He
  "loves" the Bible.  He wants to study more about it.  Perhaps I
  need to read more to discover exactly what value he sees in it.
  It is certainly not obvious.  What this book has to do with God
  is much less clear - since it is filled with inaccuracies 
  everywhere about who God is - especially the most critical parts.
  The Bible that he rescues, as far as I can tell, is a totally
  meaningless book that gives an account of a spiritual journey 
  having no relationship with the true God.  I expect that Bishop
  Spong could write an even more convincing book on "Rescuing Greek
  Mythology from those who really believe it".  I am left believing
  that there is no more value in the stories of the Bible than there
  is in Greek mythology.  In fact, I don't understand how any other
  conclusion is possible, given the underlying beliefs that Bishop
  Spong espouses.

What was missing:  I kept thinking that Bishop Spong would address
  the major issue of inerrantists - the Bible is inerrant because
  it claims inerrancy.  Although I have not read the entire book
  (only about half), I doubt that he even *mentions* this, much
  less critiques it.  Well, there was a vague reference that
  fundamentalists fall back on the claim that the Bible claims
  inerrancy after their logic fails them in explaining discrepencies.
  Nothing could be further from the truth!  Inerrantists *base*
  their belief on the claims of the Bible - it is not a fallback
  position.  To ignore the basis for the belief in his discussion
  on the failings of fundamentalism is, to put it midly, an
  oversight.

I really don't have the time to write all this (or to respond),
but I felt compelled to respond to what I read.  A good book to
ignore.  Jerry Falwell was right to refuse future debates with him
(and there's not a whole lot Jerry and I agree on!)

Collis

    
    
    Collis,
    
     I've been thinking about your statement that a prophet is
      either entirely inspired by God and speaks all Truth or
      not at all inspired by God.
    
     How does a statement like that fit into situations where
      Jesus corrected his disciples?  
    
     Also, in reference to .87, who decides what's Scripture?  
      If the books of the Bible were written before the Bible
      existed, I'm not sure I understand exactly what they would 
      have been referring to when they made references to "all of 
      Scripture"?
    
    Steve
    
    

Note 421.89

>Alvin Orzechowski was kind enough to send me a copy of
>Bishop Spong's book.  Despite a hectic schedule, I did take
>the time to read about 100 pages last night (most of it
>between 11:30 and 1:00 a.m.).

Well, Collis, I commend you.  I commend you for at least considering a work
so foreign to your own beliefs.

>  It is clear from Bishop Spong's
>  perspective that humans reaching for God wrote the Bible.

It is a perspective the bishop and I share.

>  It
>  is equally clear to me from all that he says that God was not
>  intervening to insure that they wrote what was correct.

Yours is an accurate assessment, I'd say.

>  However, it is not the explanation that Bishop Spong gives.  He
>  "loves" the Bible.

I, too, love the Bible.

>What was missing:  I kept thinking that Bishop Spong would address
>  the major issue of inerrantists - the Bible is inerrant because
>  it claims inerrancy.

After all the other discrepancies which Spong brings to the reader's
attention, that self-validation is questionable becomes practically
self-evident.

I do feel better for having read .89.  I'd been concerned that I'd
done a poor job of portraying Spong's viewpoints.  From what you've
shared, I trust that's not the case.

Peace,
Richard

    I've been thinking a bit more lately about this question of how the
    Bible is viewed.  Regarding Spong's book title, we already know who he
    seeks to rescue the Bible *from* (fundamentalists); but another point to
    remember is who is seeks to rescue it *for*.  The answer, of course, is
    other Christians.  The reason I bring this up is that it is worthwhile
    to consider whether or not non-Christians can also find value in the
    Bible.

    From my own experience, I believe that the answer is *yes*, at least if
    you are inclined to take a pluralist perspective towards religion in
    general.  I think this is important because the Bible is often subjected
    to severe criticism from many quarters.  Some feminists, for example,
    believe that Christianity is inherently sexist and has nothing to offer
    women.  They base many of these criticisms on passages from the Bible
    which are, as a matter of fact, sexist.  But, the problem is that such
    criticisms don't see the forest for the trees.  In pinpointing specific
    instances of sexist or otherwise offensive passages in the Bible, the
    critics are taking what is essentially a fundamentalist view of the
    Bible.  This gets back to the point raised elsewhere, namely that
    fundamentalists and many critics of Christianity (especially atheists)
    often share the same assumptions about the Bible, that it can only be
    interpreted one way.  And in that sense, Spong's book may have value in
    showing some people that their criticisms of Christianity are based on a
    dogmatic perspective that doesn't necessarily relate to what the Bible
    is all about.  Thus, the Bible can not only be rescued *for* Christians,
    but for non-Christians as well who might otherwise be inclined to
    dismiss the Bible as irrelevant or worse.
        
    My own recent experience has been involved with re-discovering the value
    in various religious faiths.  After having been soured on religion
    (particularly Christianity) by my experience with fundamentalism, I
    spent a period of ten years or so having nothing to do with any religion
    of any kind.  There was a lot of resentment, a feeling that I had been
    sold a bill of goods, that I had been had; and out of that resentment I
    lost my faith altogether.  This is one of the unfortunate side effects
    that often occurs with those who break out of the fundamentalist dogma.
    
    After that long dry period, when I did find myself developing an
    interest in religion once again, I made a point of looking at the
    scriptures of *many* religions, not just Christianity.  I really wanted
    to find out what the various faiths had to offer; and since I was not
    attached to any one faith, but interested in all, I could do so with
    fresh eyes.  Of course, of all the various world scriptures, the Bible
    was unique in that I *was* familiar with it.  Not only was it a part of
    my personal past, it was also a part of the culture I inherited.  One 
    of the most difficult things for me to do, as I read the Bible, was to
    shed myself of the old dogmatism that I had never really shed.  I really
    strove to read the Bible with an open mind this time, and not let myself
    be carried away by negative reactions to specific passages and thus
    dismiss the entire Bible as worthless crap.  What helped, for me, was
    that I had a starting point--the ethical teachings of Jesus, which had
    so profoundly influenced my religious outlook in my earlier, Christian
    days, and which had stayed with me in some sense ever since.

    So I read--not just the Bible, but also the Bhagavad Gita, the Q'uran,
    the Upanishads, and other scriptures.  In every case, it was from the
    perspective of an interested observer, an outsider who wanted to find
    value in what I was reading.  And I did find the value that I sought.  I
    discovered that it was possible draw value and inspiration from these
    diverse works, even if they expresses specific theological viewpoints
    that did not necessarily coincide with my own.  I also made another
    discovery---that the Bible, warts and all, was such a part of me that I
    was more drawn to it than to the other scriptures.  Had I been born in
    another culture or another time, my experience would no doubt have been
    different.
    
    Learning to view religions in this way, moving beyond the dogmatic
    perspective and appreciating the myths, and the quests for understanding
    God (or the Ultimate, or whatever term you choose to use) that these
    various scriptures express, represented a maturing process in my
    personal religious odyssey.  I shed my old dogmatic perspective for
    something broader, and it was a kind of liberation for me; religion
    suddenly became interesting to me again.  I came to realize that
    religion was not inherently irrational and incompatible with reason,
    something I had assumed for those previous ten or so years.

    I expect that I will continue to mature in my religious understanding;
    although I may reach plateaus, I think there will always be room for
    growth.  If I continue exist in some sort of afterlife after I die, then
    I would hope that the growth process would continue even then.  But the
    one thing that I don't foresee happening is going backwards, unlearning
    what I have already learned.
    
    Given what I now know and understand, the Bible was thus "rescued" for
    me, both as an outsider with a healthy appreciation for the spiritual
    value in scriptures of various faiths, and as one whose religious
    sensibility was necessarily shaped at least in part by the Bible.  As an
    outsider, I can find value in many types of scripture, and certainly
    that is true for the Bible.  I can't say how this relates, if at all, to
    the view of the Bible held by non-fundamentalist Christians, those who
    are committed to Christ as their savior.  Certainly my own perspective
    is quite different, so what is involved in such a "rescue" effort may be
    different.
    
    My own hope is that we will see more people of all faiths showing a
    healthy appreciation for other faiths.  I think there have been many
    hopeful signs of dialogue and communication (outside the fundamentalist
    community, of course).  One example that comes to mind is Hans Kung's
    recent books on various world religions, co-written with people from
    other faiths.  In this sense, then, perhaps we can rescue the Q'uran
    from Islamic fundamentalists, the Torah from Jewish fundamentalists,
    etc.  This is my hope, as a religious pluralist, that we can rescue all
    religions from exclusivism and dogmatism and move towards greater mutual
    understanding.

    Actually, I *can* understand why Spong's point of view would be so
    difficult for some Christians to understand.  Having come from a
    fundamentalist perspective myself, I know quite well the outlook that
    cannot see how the Bible can be appreciated and admired if you believe
    that it nevertheless has its share of flaws.  This perspective on the
    Bible is *inherent* to their faith.  It took some effort for me to grow
    beyond that perspective myself.  A narrower religious outlook is less
    likely to be able to understand the broader religious perspective, but
    the reverse is usually not the case.  I know that Spong's perspective
    makes no sense to some Christians, and I can see why that would be the
    case.

    This, of course, is my own perspective, which is not a Christian one.  I
    am sure that many Christians, even among those who don't believe in
    Biblical inerrancy, would have a different point of view.
    
    -- Mike

    re .92
    
    Mike - 
    
    It is that kind of reply that makes me stand up and cheer that you
    chose to stay in C-P!  
    
    (I better pipe down.  I'm getting nasty looks from the people around
    me!)
    
    :-)
    
    Thanks!
    
    Nanci

    *blush*  :-)

   Mike,

   I really felt good reading .92.  It reminded me of why I came here,
   and why in general.  I choose to seek and by seeking I become closer
   to my spritual realization of my higher power.  

   Spong's works are interesting as they contrast and highlight scirpture
   and by doing so provide another path to understanding.

   Allison

Re:  421.90
    
  >I've been thinking about your statement that a prophet is
  >either entirely inspired by God and speaks all Truth or
  >not at all inspired by God.
    
  >How does a statement like that fit into situations where
  >Jesus corrected his disciples?

It is when prophets speak for God that there standard is absolute
truth.  This is how we can know (according to Scripture) whether
or not a prophet is speaking for God or not.

Men and women (except for Jesus) are all sinners.  The disciples
of Jesus did not claim to always speak for God nor where they in
fact always speaking for God (especially during Jesus' life).
    
  >Also, in reference to .87, who decides what's Scripture?

God.  :-)

We just have to learn to agree with Him.  Naturally, there are
a lot of criteria used to form this agreement.  These criteria
include the the author and the content of the writings.  Many
sub-criteria for the content of the writings exist.  This has
been discussed in detail elsewhere in this conference, I think.
If not here, in Christian.  I can provide more specific pointers
if you would like.

  >If the books of the Bible were written before the Bible existed, 
  >I'm not sure I understand exactly what they would have been referring 
  >to when they made references to "all of Scripture"?

Scripture is what God wrote through prophets.  When you are talking
about "the Bible existing", it appears that you are talking about it
having been collected together in the form that we know today.
Certainly, Scripture existed before it was put in the form we know
today - it was Scripture as soon as it was written (i.e. it met the
definition of having been written by God through a prophet).

In terms of II Timothy 3:16, that has been discussed exhaustively
elsewhere in this conference.  To summarize, I believe that "all
Scripture" means any Scripture written because:

  - that is the most common interpretation of this sentence structure
  - a different word or set of words that meant the Old Testament
    was readily available, but was not used.  Scripture (or graphE)
    was instead the word used
  - this is consistent with numerous other implicit and explicit
    claims throughout Scripture
  - particularly, this claim is consistent with Paul's other
    writings where the exclusion of any Scripture is inconsistent
    both with Paul and the other Biblical claims

Collis

Re:  .92

Thanks Mike for your perspective.  I understood why it
is shared by those who have many difficulties with the
differences in the Bible.

In my evaluation, it also clearly labels Jesus a fraud.
Jesus was clearly not God, by this evaluation.  Jesus
clearly made mistakes.  Jesus was clearly a sinner.  Jesus
clearly is not perfect and Jesus is clearly not the way,
the truth and the life.  His example includes deceit and
outright lies.  He warns of a hell that doesn't exist.
He claims sinlessness and equality with God that he does
not have.

True, he is also filled with love and compassion.  This
part of the life of Jesus is what is often focused on by
those who find some value in the Bible.  But how can we
in honesty ignore the other implications of calling so many
of Jesus' claims false?  Are we so blinded by our desire
for an example that we're willing to overlook anything that
gets in the way of what we desire?  Are we willing to look
at the hard facts that apparently show errors in the Bible,
and overlook the same facts when they show that Jesus is
simply a fraud - a loving and kind fraud, but a fraud just
the same.

It is true that we, as a people, are easily taken in.  There
is a sucker born every minute.  I understand the desires
that lead people to close their eyes.  But is there no hope
then for these?  Ever seeing, but never perceiving?

Hopefully, it is quite clear (and quite logical) as to why
and how Jesus *must* be a fraud, by liberal assumptions.  If 
it is not, I'm not sure that more explanation will help.

Collis

    Is there value to be found in myth, even when aspects of the myth are
    not literally true?

    One of the more important things I learned in my own spiritual journey
    is that the answer is yes.  This revelation allowed me to understand
    the value of religious pluralism, and to appreciate and feel inspired
    by various religions and their respective scriptures.  At one time, my
    earlier religious outlook would not have allowed for this kind of
    understanding.

    -- Mike

    Replies .99 through .102 have been moved to new topic 429
    "Was Jesus a fraud?"
    
    Richard Jones-Christie
    Co-Moderator/CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE

    
    re .97
    
    Collis,
    
    So a prophet could speak things that were not true and this
     would not negate the things the prophet said that were
     true, as long as the prophet wasn't claiming to speak
     for/from God. 
    
    If something a prophet claimed was from God were shown to be flawed, 
     it couldn't be Scripture, but would it necessarily affect other 
     writing of the prophet that were also claimed as Scripture?
     Would the status of being a true prophet be entirely lost if
     some of the Scripture written by that prophet were shown to be 
     flawed?
    
    
    Re "all Scripture"
    
    I can see that "all Scripture" could mean both present and
     future Scripture.  
    
    I guess I'm going to need a pointer about the Scripture discussion,
     because to say that God decides what is scripture and then to
     say that there are "a lot of criteria used to form this agreement"
     seems contradictory to me.  
    
    Maybe my question should have been, if God decides what's Scritpture, 
     how does he communicate that decison to us?  (i.e.  if Scripture
     is what God wrote through prophets, how do you figure out who the
     prophets are?)
    
    The reason I see this as relevant to the discussion at hand is because
     it seems to me that something outside of Scripture defines what
     Scripture is (or who the prophets are).  Somehow that feels to
     me like it interfers with what you are trying to prove, which
     I believe you are basing entirely on Scripture.
    
    I'm not sure I understand how it interferes, or even if it does,
     it just seems amiss to me.  
    
    I'll have to think about it some more.
    
    Steve
    

    Collis,
    
    What you fail to understand is that if we do not believe in the
    inerrancy of the bible, then we do not believe that what the bible says
    is the word of God, or the word of Jesus.  The bible is the work of human
    authors about Jesus.  Just as I do not believe everything a modern
    author writes about a modern event, I do not believe everything ancient
    authors wrote about Jesus.
    
    Through all the writings, and through my understanding of human nature
    and of history I can only glimpse at the life of the man named Jesus.
    
    Bishop Spong's book does an excellent job of taking the readers through
    each of the four gospels and showing the intentions of the human
    authors for that gospel and the differences based on those intentions. 
    The way we define Jesus is strongly influenced by which gospel we read,
    or whether we use Paul's revealed truth.  Rabbi, teacher, son of man,
    son of God, Christ, Savior.  All different perspectives emphasized
    differently by different authors.  
    
    Pat

Re:  421.104

  >So a prophet could speak things that were not true and this
  >would not negate the things the prophet said that were
  >true, as long as the prophet wasn't claiming to speak
  >for/from God.

Quite true.
    
  >If something a prophet claimed was from God were shown to be flawed, 
  >it couldn't be Scripture, but would it necessarily affect other 
  >writing of the prophet that were also claimed as Scripture?
  >Would the status of being a true prophet be entirely lost if
  >some of the Scripture written by that prophet were shown to be flawed?

If a prophet lied or spoke errorneously when speaking for God, he
is not a prophet of God and never was.  That is my understanding
of the claim in Scripture.  (From a logical perspective, it also
makes sense as well - at least to me.)
    
  >I guess I'm going to need a pointer about the Scripture discussion,
  >because to say that God decides what is scripture and then to
  >say that there are "a lot of criteria used to form this agreement"
  >seems contradictory to me.

I know. :-)  Indeed, it is God who wrote Scripture, so naturally
He is the one who decided what would be Scripture.  Now, we humans
do have to judge what indeed God wrote and what God didn't write.
This is what the criteria I gave you was for.  Naturally, God's
guidance plays a very large role in this determination.

  >Maybe my question should have been, if God decides what's Scritpture, 
  >how does he communicate that decison to us?

God answers prayer.  God has revealed who his prophets are.  When a
prophet writes from God, it is Scripture.  I'll try to find a
pointer to the appropriate discussion.
    
  >Somehow that feels to me like it interfers with what you are trying 
  >to prove, which I believe you are basing entirely on Scripture.

I believe that there is a lot of evidence (even overwhelming evidence)
outside of Scripture to show that it is Scripture.  I also find within
Scripture overwhelming evidence to accept its claim of inerrancy.

Collis

P.S.  I'll have to look through a few places to find the discussions
your interested in.  I'll get back to you.

    
    
    re .107:
    
    Collis,
    
    You don't feel that a decsion made by possibly errant humans
     about what is and isn't Scripture interferes with your
     argument at all?
    
    I understand that you believe there is overwhelming evidence
     outside of Scripture to show that it is Scripture, but it
     comes from outside.  
    
    Again, I'm not entirely sure this is relevant and I don't want 
     to turn this into a discussion of how to properly identify prophets,
     it just strikes me as strange.
    
    I'm much more interested in seeing how all the original statments
     are going to be tied together so that showing one is wrong
     proves that all must be wrong.
    
    Steve
    
    PS As an aside, I'm curious as to how something can be true, but
        not be from God.  If something is shown to contain both
        truths and falsehoods, so that it is not Scripture, who are the 
        truths attributed to?  Who else, aside from God, would be the
        author of truth?
    
    

    
    
    Collis,
    
      About the logic of the argument in general:
                                                         
      I think the real problem with what you're trying to prove
       is that your statements are being take from what you're
       supposing has errors.
    
      To draw a conclusion from statements taken from the Bible 
       after saying "Now if the Bible is shown to be at least 
       partially wrong" isn't defendable because if the Bible
       is wrong, per the supposition, any of the statements you're
       using to make your conclusion could be wrong.
    
      Does that make sense?
    
    Steve
    
    
    

Re:  .108

I understand the problem, Steve.  Yes, it is a problem.
But it turns out not to be as difficult a problem as one
might think - partially because the standards of being
a prophet of God are so high and partially because God
*has* given His Spirit to help believers discern what
is true.  The general agreement amongst churches of *very*
different beliefs on what books constitute the Bible is
rather convincing evidence (although certainly not
overwhelming).

Collis

Re:  .109

Indeed, yours is a very valid objection.  I did
mention previously that so much is intertwined in
the Bible that it is very difficult to extract one
part without impacting another part.  That is a
whole 'nother part of the logic that must also be
shown.  In other words, if Isaiah did not write
all of Isaiah, then Jesus was wrong when he attributed
parts the quotes to the prophet Isaiah.  But if
Jesus was authoritatively teaching what was in fact
wrong, then Jesus was indeed not God and large other
parts of the Scripture collapse - you see the domino
affect.  I believe that this effect is intertwined
throughout Scripture.

Let's say as well that some of Paul's teachings were
not from God and, in fact, contradicted what God said.
Then Paul was, in fact, not a prophet from God.  But
Peter indicated that Paul's writings *were* Scripture.
Well, then Peter was not a prophet either.  But Jesus
Himself gave authority to Peter.  He gave Him his
Spirit and promised to bring things to Peter's remembrance.
Then Jesus deceived Peter and was not God.  Etc.
You see the problems?  These are just a few examples.
Scripture is *so* intimately tied to other Scripture
that prophets are so tied to their prophecies that
invalidating one tends to invalidate a lot of other
things right up the line.

The above is not a comprehensive argument, but only an
overview to show the problems.

Collis

Re:  420.5

What does it mean to "capture truth"?  To win
possession of (so that others do not have this
truth)?  I certainly agree with Bishop Spong if
this is what he meants.  Scripture does not
"capture" truth in this sense.  The truth is freely
available to *any* who claim it.

If he means that Scripture does not contain truth,
well he contradicts what God has said done through
the ages through His prophets.

Perhaps he means something else?

Collis

    
    
    re .111
    
    But Collis, showing that the Scripture is heavily interrelated
     is a whole lot different than proving that either God authored
     all of it or God authored none of it.                   
                                                 
    There are certainly types of statements that could be considered
     wrong that wouldn't invalidate everything in the Bible.
    
    Say for instance, prophets are highly inspired, but not infallible.
     Then everywhere that the Bible said  that prophets were infallible
     would be wrong.   Nothing else in the Bible would have to be thrown
     out though.
    
    Steve
    

Collis .112,

I believe that by "capturing truth," Spong means the attempt to lock
truth into a timeless, changeless, and wholly permanent reality.  I
think Spong means that truth is more elusive than the merchants of
certainty would have us believe.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  .114

Thanks, Richard, your explanation is indeed helpful.
I would contrast Bishop's Spong belief with the following:

  "Jesus Christ, yesterday, today and forever"

  "The Word of our God shall stand forever"

It sounds from your explanation that Bishop Spong may
consider himself a relativist.  Do you think that he
is saying that?

Collis

    
    
    RE: .115
    
    Can someone tell me the context in which the phrase -
    
    'The Word of our God will stand forever'
    
    - is contained.
    
    Thanks,
    Carole

Sure.

It is in the Bible in several places.  I am most
familiar with the reference of Isaiah 40:8

  6  A voice says, "Cry out."
     And I said, "What shall I cry?"

     "All men are like grass,
     and all their glory is like the flowers of the field.
  7  The grass withers and the flowers fall,
     because the breath of the LORD blows on them.
     Surely the people are grass.
  8  The grass withers and the flowers fall,
     but the word of our God stands forever."
  9  You who bring good tidings to Zion,
     go up on a high mountain.
     You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem,
     lift up your voice with a shout,
     lift it up, do not be afraid;
     say to the towns of Judah,
     "Here is your God"

    
    
    Thanks Collis.
    
    Could you tell me please, what is it in this verse that brings you
    to the belief that "the word" means scripture?
    
    Carole

Note 421.115

I cannot answer for Bishop Spong.  But I will answer for me.

>  "Jesus Christ, [the same] yesterday, today and forever"

Yes, very reassuring.  But, the first question that occurs to me is,
will our perceptions and understandings of what that means remain
equally as static?

>  "The Word of our God shall stand forever"

Yes, again.  But, surely you don't mean that the Word here refers to 
the Bible, do you?

Peace,
Richard

Re:  421.118, .119

  >Could you tell me please, what is it in this verse that brings you
  >to the belief that "the word" means scripture?
    
  >But, surely you don't mean that the Word here refers to the Bible, do you?

I believe the "word of God" means *anything* that God says.  It will
remain (abide) forever.  This is supported in other verses of Scripture
and nowhere denied (that I am aware of).  You may seem some similarities
between this verse and Jesus' reference to no jot or tittle of the law
passing away.  (Then again you may not?  :-) )

You are quite right in noticing that this verse does not explicitly
refer to Scripture.

However, there are hundreds/thousands of other verses in the Bible
that equate part or all of Scripture with the word of God.

Combining the two observations gives us a conclusion which answers
your question.

Collis

    
    Collis,
    
    Couldn't the references to the word of God mean different things?
    For me, the phrase 'the Word of our God shall stand forever' talks
    of the creation of spirit and the eternal nature of the spirit, as
    in 'the Word was made Flesh'.  I believe 'the Word of our God' was
    the utterance that brought all spirits into being before the 
    manifestation into flesh.
    
    Carole

    From the perspective of process theology, God is both changeable and
    changeless.  What that means is that God is unchanging in his/her
    absolute  attributes--his/her goodness and perfection.  But because God
    is not unaffected by the world, because God responds to us over time
    and thus acquires the world's accumulated experiences into his/her own
    divine experience (process theologians call this "objective
    immortality"), God is also changing.

    Also, process theology views God as offering novel opportunities to the
    world continuously as part of the process of ongoing creation.  These
    novel opportunities that God offers at any given time would depend
    somewhat on what is available--the state of the universe at a given
    time.  So, in that sense, what God offers to us also changes over time. 

    Since process theology views God as operating through a continuous
    process of creative influence (rather than omnipotent prerogative),
    this relates to the question of omnipotence and evil.  See Pat, I
    wasn't ignoring you when you posted your earlier question!  :-)

    -- Mike

Re:  421.121
    
  >Couldn't the references to the word of God mean different things?
  >For me, the phrase 'the Word of our God shall stand forever' talks
  >of the creation of spirit and the eternal nature of the spirit, as
  >in 'the Word was made Flesh'.  I believe 'the Word of our God' was
  >the utterance that brought all spirits into being before the 
  >manifestation into flesh.

Yes, the word "word" in Hebrew (whatever that is) can certainly
mean different things.  The explanation you offer seems to me to
be a highly unlikely one.  Why?

  - "word" is never used this way elsewhere in the Old Testament
    to my knowledge
  - it does not fit the context well, from my reading of Isaiah 40:8
    In fact, it seems to be saying the opposite of the context.  The
    context indicates that people wither and fall and contrasting
    this with the "word of God".
  - When God spoke to people and it was written down, it was almost
    always written as "The word the the Lord" or "The word of God"
    came to me...  This is highly suggestive that the "word of God"
    being a phrase itself which has a generally accepted meaning,
    i.e. what God actually says.

Collis

    
    RE: .121 Collis
    
    Could not the verse from Isaiah be referring to the temporary
    nature of physicality, and that it is the spirit (that part of
    us that is created in God's image - imo) that is eternal....
    that stands forever.
    
    Carole

    Someone correct me if I'm wrong ;-), but isn't "word" in the scriptures
    a translation of the hebrew "dabhar"?
    
    If so, I seem to recall that "dabhar" has several definitions, "word"
    being only one of them.  I believe "creative energy" was another.
    
    Karen

Re:  421.124
    
  >Could not the verse from Isaiah be referring to the temporary
  >nature of physicality, and that it is the spirit (that part of
  >us that is created in God's image - imo) that is eternal....
  >that stands forever.

It could, if I could get that meaning from the word "word".  I
happen to agree with your conclusion (which is supported elsewhere
in the Bible) that people have eternal souls.  Making this verse
say that, however, is a real stretch for me when there is no reason
that I know of not to accept the "normal" meaning.  The meaning you
want to assign to it is not even listed in my dictionary (American
Heritage).

Collis

Re:  421.125

  >Someone correct me if I'm wrong ;-), but isn't "word" in the scriptures
  >a translation of the hebrew "dabhar"?
    
  >If so, I seem to recall that "dabhar" has several definitions, "word"
  >being only one of them.  I believe "creative energy" was another.
    
I have no idea what the Hebrew word is; it was translated in the
Septuagint as "rAma" which means 

  1.  that which is said, word, saying, espression
  2.  after the Hebrew thing, object, matter, event

It would seem to me that if you want to generalize this to mean
thing or object, it is very fair to believe that this would include
the first definition in this phrase, i.e. that God's words would
last forever as well.

Collis

Without stretching a bit, the word "word" can also be understood to
mean "message."

The message of God will last forever, even when that message is written
on the human heart.

Peace,
Richard

    RE: .125  Karen,
    
                      Not just several but a bunch!  Here is what Strongs 
    Exhaustive Concordance gives as a defination: (for those of you that
    have a copy of this book you can find this on page 29 of the Hebrew
    dictionary)
    
    
    1697    dabar, (daw-bawr') from 1696 (the root word)  "a word; by
    impl. a matter (as spoken of) or thing; adv. a cause;-act, advice,
    affair, answer, X any such (thing), + because of, book, business,
    care, case, cause, certain rate, + chronicles, commandment, X commune
    (-ication), + concern [-ing], + confer, counsel, + dearth, decree,
    deed, X disease, due, duty, effect, + eloquent, errand, [evil
    favoured-] ness, + glory, + harm, hurt, + iniquity, + judgment,
    language, + lying, manner, matter, message, [no]thing, oracle, X 
    ought, X parts, + pertaining, + please, portion, + power, promise,
    provision, purpose, question, rate, reason, report, request, X (as
    hast) said, sake, saying, sentence, + sign, + so, some [uncleanness],
    somewhat to say, + song, speach, X spoken, talk, task, + that, X there
    done, thing (concerning), thought,+ thus, tidings, what [-soever], +
    wherewith, which, word, work."
    
    
    Just thought I would add my 2�.   :-)
    Dave 

    Re: .81 (I'm behind)
>>Well, what I would see upon initially looking at this is that simply because
>>something happens in the OT doesn't mean it's right.   Often the OT reports
>>events such as this without any comment, but a careful analysis may show that
>>God was quite displeased with them.  Or it may not.  The point is, just because
>>it happens doesn't mean it was morally justified.

>Eric,

>	Would you say that when terms like "inerrant" and "God-breathed"
>are applied to the entire Bible, that it sends out a very different message
>than what you've just stated here?
    
    Richard,
    
    No.
    
    You are trying to define inerrant in a particular way so as to make the
    Bible not fit it.
    
    Can God not tell a story about a bunch of sinful people without being
    in error? The Bible is filled with counterexamples of faith. Why should
    that make it wrong? Lots of writers use counterexamples. Or they may
    just relate a story. The Bible is a record of human history, among
    other things. You cannot expect the people described therein to be
    perfect in order for the whole Bible to be inerrant. And I don't
    believe that the Bible has to point out their sins in order to be
    consistent. 
    
    Eric
    

    Re: .98
    
    Bravo, Collis!! Bravo!! Hip, hip, hooray!!
    
    That was very well said. Liberals do not see the ultimate result of
    their conclusions: by their own description, Jesus is not only a fraud,
    but insane.  And who looks to an insane man for inspiration? A man who,
    knowing he would die for his lies, died for them anyway? All Jesus had
    to do to live was renouce his claims that he was God.  But he didn't.
    WWhat advantage did he have by dying for a lie?  And, so his disciples
    also died for a lie.  They claimed he was resurrected, but they knew
    they were lying.   Yet they died for that lie.
    
    My suggestion is that anyone who doesn't believe Jesus was God and was
    resurrected from the dead should consider him the most dangerous man in
    all of history, because he was insane and a fraud
    
    "I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man than a fool in the eyes of
    God." (Petra, Fool's Gold)
    
    No Jesus, No peace.
    Know Jesus, Know peace.
    
    Eric
    

    Steve,
    
    You asked how we know what is Scripture.  Collis gave you an answer,
    but I have one that he might disagree with me on, but I think it might
    be a bit more concrete.
    
    We know what is Scripture and what isn't because Jesus founded a
    church to which he revealed the truth, and this church, over a period
    of years of careful discernment and investigation by church leadership
    ending  in 425 A.D., proclaimed the authoritative canon of the
    Scriptures.  They also proclaimed that this canon of Scripture (canon
    means measuring rod; the "canon" refers to the list of books considered
    Scripture) was the infallible and inspired written Word of God. This is
    why *I* believe that the Scriptures are inspired and infallible, and
    why I believe that the books in my Bible are these inspiried and
    infallible Scriptures. Within the Bible itself, there is not enough
    evidence to decide what is in Scripture, or to decide how much of it is
    infallible and inspired.  And to me it makes no sense to rely on a
    document's testimony about itself; even Jesus said that his testimony
    about himself was not acceptable, but required another to testify. The
    Church testifies to the veracity of the Scriptures.  I also happen to
    believe that only the Church (specifically the Catholic Church) has the
    authority to arbitrate between conflicting understandings of Scripture.
    After all, if the Catholic Church put the Bible together, it should
    also be able to authoritatively interpret it.
    
    Suppose we take the Bible as a purely human document (actually
    let's say the New Testament).  This document says that Jesus founded a
    visible church, and this is corroborated by other, extrabiblical
    documents.  We also see from the Bible (still considered purely human)
    and other documents that Christ established a church with leadership,
    hierarchy, teaching authority, and, finally, as a consequence,
    infallibility.  For in order for the church to carry out Christ's
    mission, it would need to be infallible, and the evidence shows that
    this is what Christ intended to found - an infallible church.  The
    church, which we have determined is infallible purely from reason, can
    now by virtue of its authority declare Scripture to be inspired and
    inerrant.  Note that my definition of the church's infallibility, like
    my definition of the Bible's infallibility, applies _only_ to matters
    of faith and morals (i.e. doctrines and dogmas).  It does not mean that
    the church never makes a mistake, nor that it always does the right
    thing, but that what it teaches as absolute truth is indeed absolute
    truth.
    
    This is how I know the Scriptures are inspired, and how I know what
    writings are Scriptures.
    
    As for the definition of "Word of God", the Word of God is JESUS CHRIST
    (John 1:1), who created all things.  What he says is then also the Word
    of God in the literal sense; and when that word is written down, what
    is written is then the Word of God.  When the Word of God (Jesus)
    inspires the sacred writers, that, too, is the Word of God. We know
    what writings are inspired by the testimony of the church, whom Jesus
    the Word of God guides.
    
    No Jesus, No peace.
    Know Jesus, Know peace.
    
    Eric
    

>God is and was an omnipresent God.  Yet this God was seen with burning
>intensity in the full humanity of the one we call Jesus of Nazareth.
>This God calls those who have been divinely created in this God's image
>to be the persons God created them to be, for in the fullness of humanity
>the presence of God can still be experienced.  A literal view of Holy
>Scripture can never lead to this vision.

	I would never have expected a person to come to this conclusion
	without a literal view of the Bible. Well, I can sort of. But it
	seems to me that a literal view of the Bible leads more directly
	to this vision.

			Alfred

Note 429.54

>Clearly, the Bible misses truth on the essentials of Christian faith
>completely, according to Bishop Spong.  (Just compare his essentials
>of faith with the essentials of a Bible-believing church.)

Collis,

	I find no evidence in Spong's book to support the accusation
that Spong believes "the Bible misses truth on the essentials of Christian
faith completely."  Indeed, I find evidence to the contrary.  And
as for his "essentials of faith," on what pages may I find this?  And
where does Spong itemize "the essentials of a Bible-believing church"?

	Spong, contrary to what you've implied here, is a Bible-believer.
And, for that matter, so am I.  It would be more accurate to say that we're
neither literalists, inerrantists, nor fundamentalists.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  421.134

     >>Clearly, the Bible misses truth on the essentials of Christian faith
     >>completely, according to Bishop Spong.  (Just compare his essentials
     >>of faith with the essentials of a Bible-believing church.)

  >I find no evidence in Spong's book to support the accusation
  >that Spong believes "the Bible misses truth on the essentials of Christian
  >faith completely."  

I left my book at home and so am unable to provide references
today.  I will provide, in gory detail, many of the foundational
doctrines of Christianity which Bishop Spong rejects.

  >Spong, contrary to what you've implied here, is a Bible-believer.

I have, in fact, stated that Spong claims to love the Bible.  To
state that he is a Bible-believer - well it is clear that the term
"Bible-believer" needs to be well-defined.  I expect that, by my
definition, Spong is not a Bible-believer.  By the Bible's definition,
I don't think he qualifies either.  (One might expect that a
"Bible-believer" believes the Bible.  What does it mean to believe
the Bible?  A fair definition in my mind is to, as best as possible,
believe what the original author was attempting to communicate to
the original audience.  There is no doubt in my mind that Bishop
Spong does not qualify under this definition.  I don't know whether
Bishop Spong would think he qualifies under this definition or not.)

Collis

    I've recently bought the book and am *very* impressed with it. I 
    think he gives real power to the Christian message often lost
    in the mainstream churches, without the uncritical literal acceptance
    that seems more characteristic of the fundamentalist churches.

Note 421.135

>I left my book at home and so am unable to provide references
>today.  I will provide, in gory detail, many of the foundational
>doctrines of Christianity which Bishop Spong rejects.

Collis,

	I think I found the parts you're refering to.  Is it where
Spong shares his disinterest in perpetuating the doctrines of the
Trinity, the incarnation, the virgin birth, etc.?

>There is no doubt in my mind that Bishop
>Spong does not qualify under this definition.  I don't know whether
>Bishop Spong would think he qualifies under this definition or not.)

While I believe Spong understands what the the original author intended
to say to the original audience, and while I strongly suspect Spong gives
that bias serious consideration, I have to agree that Spong would probably
disqualify himself from your definition of what constitutes a Bible-
believer.  I still maintain that he is a Bible-believer.  At the same time
I'd say Spong is certainly no Bibliolator!

Richard

> At the same time I'd say Spong is certainly no Bibliolator!

Point of order.  A Bibliolator is someone who worships books, or in this case,
the Bible. No orthodox Christian would worship the Bible. Nor would they 
attribute to the Bible itself any divine qualities; what is honored is the
message it conveys, not the book itself.

To me, to "believe the Bible" is to believe that it is correct and true. If
I say that I "believe you", it means that I trust you and have faith in you, 
and that I accept your testimony as true. Spong does't trust the Bible, believe 
that it is correct, or believe that it is true. Obviously it exists, so simply 
"believing the Bible" is more than simply believing it exists. He may find it 
instructive and an accurate representation of what they said, but I find 
Newsweek instructive and an accurate representation of what their editors think,
but I don't "believe Newsweek".  Even books which I feel portray noble 
philosophical thoughts that are inspiring, I do not say that I "believe".  How
can you say that you "believe" a book which you claim does not represent what
it claims to represent (that is, the Word of God)? Isn't rather ridiculous to
say that someone who claims that a book is wrong in what it says, not histor-
ically accurate, and not what it claims to be, "believes" that book?

Eric

    To borrow a term from Tillich, the concept of idolatry comes from a
    misplaced "ultimate concern".  Bibliolatry is one form of idolatry, one
    that occurs among some Christians.

    Then again, anyone who would consider me inerrant would be guilty of
    Mike-olatry.  Lest anyone be deceived by the overall brilliance of my
    notes, allow me to assure everyone that I do not claim to be inerrant.

    -- Mike

    Yer on a role today Mike. :-) 
    
    Kb  

    Mike
    
    Can't we dub you inerrant for a day or something?
    
    
    PF

Note 421.138

>Spong does't trust the Bible, believe 
>that it is correct, or believe that it is true.

Oh, Au contrare, mon Frer!  Spong does trust the Bible, believe that it is
correct and that it is true, but on a level that literalists find difficult
to comprehend.  And I wonder on what basis you're making these accusations;
second-hand knowledge?

I would define Bibliolatry as holding the Bible up so high that it eclipses
one's vision.

Richard

    Pat,
    
    Well, okay, but first tell me which day so I can plan for it.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

Re:  421.142

     >>Spong does't trust the Bible, believe 
     >>that it is correct, or believe that it is true.

  >Oh, Au contrare, mon Frer!  Spong does trust the Bible, believe that it is
  >correct and that it is true, but on a level that literalists find difficult
  >to comprehend.  

Please, Richard, don't limit this to literalists.  The issue is not
a "literalist" issue.  Ask the common man on the street.  Give him
a Bible, show him the relevant section, give him Bishop Spong's
statements about that section and ask him, "Does Bishop Spong believe
that the Bible is correct and that it is true in this area?"

This is just a long-winded way of saying that is is clear that you
are redefining what it means to "believe that it is correct and that it 
is true".

Bishop Spong is denying that what the original authors were attempting
to communicate to their original audiences was true in many instances.
The fact that he sees a deeper level of meaning there is interesting
to note.  It is also interesting to note that Bishop Spong's deeper
level of meaning is usually going to be different than someone else's
deeper level of meaning since it is so subjective.

Where he disagrees with the obvious meaning stated in the Bible, Bishop Spong
freely throws around accusations that the Bible is wrong and misleading, 
blaming the fundamentalists for believing that the Bible would actually mean
what it says (although many others who are not fundamentalists believe
this as well).

The rhyme and reason of why he accepts some claims of the Bible
and rejects others appears (to me) arbitrary.  Some make sense in
light of what he believes.  In many situations, he creates problems
that do not exist.

Collis

Re:  27.116

  >Another question must be asked:  Does this make sense or are we forcing it
  >to make sense?  (Another way to phrase it might be, "Would it hold up in
  >a court of law?")

Just for your information, the study and acceptance of historical
documents is *totally different* than the requirements in a court
of law.  Essentially, the historical document is given the benefit
of the doubt.  The measuring stick you are suggesting is not the
measuring stick that historians use (and should use).

Collis

Re:  27.119

  >In my version the next words are "Soon afterward" the astrologers 
  >came to Jerusalem.

"Soon afterward" is not in the Greek text.  The text says that it
happened during the reign of King Herod.  That is the only time
indication.

  >Now according to Luke, Jesus was presented for circumcision at the Temple
  >in Jerusalem when he was only days old.  Something that Matthew failed to
  >mention.

Bethlehem and Jerusalem are 4 miles apart.  Most people walk at a
rate of 3 MPH.  Assuming a newborn child would slow things down, let's
assuming it took them 2 hours to get there.  Is that reasonable?

  >And in Luke 2.39, it says from there the family went to their
  >hometown of Nazareth, not to Bethlehem and from there on to Egypt.

It is true that Luke makes no mention of the magi or the trip to
Egypt.  It is also true that the statement is correct as is without
mentioning such a trip that may have taken place.  The emphasis in
Luke is that the Law was fulfilled in all ways.  They did return
to Nazareth (after doing some other things that are not covered).

Now, if you want to read the "when" literally with a precise definition
without allowing for other possibilities of meaning (i.e. if want to
be a literalist who not only interprets the Bible literally but also
wishes to allow a word to have only the meaning that he/she chooses),
then you can say that the Bible has an error.  (Saying/believing such
does not make it so, but you can do that.)

If, however, you are attempting to discern what the author is 
communicating and recognize that it is possible that something else
could have happened between Jerusalem and Nazareth journeys that was
not recorded, you can say that there is no discrepency.

Personally (attempting to be a good historian like my father-in-law :-) ), 
I give the benefit of the doubt to the Bible rather than to those who 
wish to force a particular meaning on a word whose desire it is to prove 
the Bible wrong.

  >Doubtlessly, there is some rationalization to explain away all these 
  >apparent inconsistencies.  

The truth usually works well.  :-)

Collis

    
    I think an important point which many fundamentalists and literalists
    miss is that, from their presentation of the Bible, many people won't
    bother picking up the book at all.  That's the way it is for me,
    anyway.  If anything is going to inspire me to pick up the Bible and
    read it, it is works like Spong's.....*not* by telling me that I have
    to accept everything that is said as the end truth.
    
    And once I pick up the book and begin reading it with an open mind,
    God can then have a place within me to enter and thereby inspire and
    guide me in my life.  This is what happens with all other books I read,
    or experiences I have, etc.  I allow room for God to enter.  If
    everthing is predefined and static and limited to how the Bible defines
    it, where is the room for God?
    
    If anything, it is works like Spong's that will bring the Bible back
    into the hands of many people who will never have their hearts touched
    by those who want and need to lock the Bible into their form of belief.
    
    
    Carole

Note 421.147

>    I think an important point which many fundamentalists and literalists
>    miss is that, from their presentation of the Bible, many people won't
>    bother picking up the book at all.

Carole,

	To me, this is the most profound statement made yet in this entire
string!

Thank you!
Richard

Note 421.144

>This is just a long-winded way of saying that is is clear that you
>are redefining what it means to "believe that it is correct and that it 
>is true".

High time it was redefined, too!

Your "man on the street" watches too much 700 Club!

Richard

Re:  421.149

     >>This is just a long-winded way of saying that is is clear that you
     >>are redefining what it means to "believe that it is correct and that it 
     >>is true".

  >High time it was redefined, too!

Let's take this same man on the street, put him in the jurors
box and see if you still want what is correct and true to be
redefined.

Collis

    
    Collis, (or anyone else who feels similarly)
    
      Since you mentioned your views on the innerancy of prophets when
       speaking for God, I've wondered about the passage where Jesus
       speaks of Moses and his bill of divorcement as being written
       for the "hardness of your heart."
    
    
Mark	10:2  	And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it
	      	lawful for a man to put away [his] wife? tempting him.
	10:3  	And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses
	      	command you?
	10:4  	And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of
	      	divorcement, and to put [her] away.
	10:5  	And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the 
              	hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
    
                                                  
       As I see it, Jesus was correcting or superceding what Moses
        wrote.  
    
       I'm curious as to your understanding of the passage.
    
       Steve
    
    
    PS:  I think this is the passage referred to, but I'm not sure.
    
Deuteronomy
	24:1  	When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it
	      	come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, 
              	because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then 
              	let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] 
              	in her hand, and send her out of his house.
    

>       As I see it, Jesus was correcting or superceding what Moses
>        wrote.  

	Where do you see that? What I see is Jesus suggesting that divorce
	was a legal option allowed only because people have hard hearts at times.
	In other words He was saying that divorce was not a disirable option
	but one that God allowed.

				Alfred

    
    
    
   
    
    Alfred,
    
      There is more to the passage, which perhaps I should have included.  
    
      10:9 in Mark goes on to say.
    
      What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
    
    
      The corresponding passage in Mathew says,
    
      19:8  	He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of
	      	your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but 
              	from the beginning it was not so.
      19:9  	And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife,
		except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another,
		committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put 
                away doth commit adultery.
    
    
      which perhaps makes my question a little more clear.
                                  
      Hmmm, after a getting a divorce, does Moses say that a man can remarry?
    
      
    Steve
      
    

Re:  .153

What I read it as saying is that people are not allowed
to divorce in the first place except for fornication
(by the spouse).

Yes, indeed, remarriage after a "proper" divorce is
acceptable.  The reason is that the divorced individual
is no longer under the "law" of marriage and is considered
single again (just as if the spouse had died).  Those who
divorce unlawfully are still under the "law" of marriage
and therefore commit the sin of adultery should they
engage in sexual activity (regardless of whether or not
they marry again).

Collis 

Re:  .154

Well, Richard, it sounds as if you agree that a man in the
juror's box is going to judge what it true or not true based on
similar standards as I have suggested.  I agree with this
if you indeed are saying this.

I would also suggest to you that this would be true of
the ones who voted for McGovern, Carter, Anderson, Dukakis
and even those who plan on voting for Clinton.  You see,
judging what is true and what is not true is not related
to politics or the 700 club as you are inferring.  Rather
it is a skill that we practice every day of our lives in
trying to understand the world around us.

I'm really surprised that choose to characterize Bishop Spong's
assertions as true teaching of the Bible.  Denying the basic
message of the Bible can be truthfully claimed to be in
agreement???  The man in the street or in the juror's box is
not so easily taken in, I expect.

Collis

     RE: .153
    
     Steve quotes:
    
    > 19:8  	He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of
	      	your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but 
              	from the beginning it was not so.
      19:9  	And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife,
		except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another,
		committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put 
                away doth commit adultery.
    >
    
    
    Does this mean that a woman cannot divorce her husband for fornication?
      
    

    RE: .155

    >What I read it as saying is that people are not allowed
    >to divorce in the first place except for fornication
    >(by the spouse).

    The above passage does not refer to 'people', but to men
    divorcing their wives.  Is it ok to assume this passage
    means both?
    
   
    
    What a convoluted mess the rest of your explanation can create.
    What about people who are abused in a marriage?  If they divorce
    and remarry, they are committing adultery?  How absurd!
    
    Carole

    Upon reconsideration, I've decided to delete .154.
    
    Richard

    
    
    Collis,
    
      Does it seem to you that Moses' and Jesus' definitions of either
       proper divorce or adultery (or both) were different?
    
      If Moses said remarrying after a divorce for reasons other
       than fornication was OK, and he also said not to commit adultery,
       while Jesus said that remarrying after divorce for reasons
       other than fornication was commiting adultery, who is right?
    
    
    Steve
    
    
    

    
    
    Re .157
    
    Carole,
    
      The passage only refers to men.  It doesn't say that women can't
       divorce their husbands, so I suppose by default that they can.
    
      As for people who are abused in marriage, I don't know.  Maybe
       they can get divorced but are never supposed to remarry?
    
    Steve
    
    

Re:  421.158
    
  >Does it seem to you that Moses' and Jesus' definitions of either
  >proper divorce or adultery (or both) were different?

Jesus was asked to clarify what Moses' (actually God's) teachings were.  
    
  >If Moses said remarrying after a divorce for reasons other
  >than fornication was OK...

According to Jesus, God did not say that to Moses.

Collis    

Re:  421.157
    
  >What about people who are abused in a marriage?  If they divorce
  >and remarry, they are committing adultery?  How absurd!

Perhaps they shouldn't be divorcing in the first place.  Perhaps
they shouldn't be getting married in the first place.  But how do
you deal with people who go their own way?  You are right, Carole,
it is indeed a mess.  However, I wouldn't blame God (or His Word)
for it as you are apparently doing.

Collis

By the way, what does the law of love say about divorce?

Should love ever thwart God's intention that a marriage is for
as long as both shall live?  Or should love say, "I'm going to
break my promise to you to always love you regardless of
circumstances."

If we followed the law of love, IMO, we wouldn't get hung up
on divorce.  It is only those with hard hearts (that is essentially
all of us :-( ) who want to seek our own way that creates any need
at all for divorce.

Collis

    .156
    
    I'm afraid you do not understand what I am saying, Collis.
    
    After this much time of trying to communicate with you, I'm filled
    with despair that I will ever be able to make that critical connection.
    I am probably not the right conduit.
    
    Peace be with you,
    Richard

     RE: .159

>      The passage only refers to men.  It doesn't say that women can't
>       divorce their husbands, so I suppose by default that they can.

     May  I  respectfully  submit,  Steve,  that  since   it   does   *not*
     specifically  refer  to  women,  you can come to either the conclusion
     that they can, as you have suggested, or they  *can't*.   *It  doesn't
     say!*   One of the problems with a literal interpretation of the Bible
     is what do you do about questions like this that are not answered, not
     to  mention  since Jesus was speaking to his contemporaries, how would
     he have meant it for them?  I think you'll  find  that  women  in  his
     time,  even  in  Judea and Israel, did not have the same rights as men
     although, as I understand it, they  may  have  faired  better,  rights
     wise, than most women alive at that time.

     Peace,

     Alvin

    
    
    Alvin,
    
     I agree.  I didn't think many people would think that there was a 
      reason or any writing to indicate(?) that God would be opposed to a 
      woman's divorce of her husband in such a case, hence the "suppose"
      and "default".
    
     This innerancy and literalism is very curious.
    
    Steve

    
    
    Re .160
    
.160> According to Jesus, God did not say that to Moses.
    
    Collis,
    
     So why did Moses write it down? 
    
     Or do you think he said what Jesus said?
    
     
    Steve
    

    
    RE: .161 Collis
    
  >>What about people who are abused in a marriage?  If they divorce
  >>and remarry, they are committing adultery?  How absurd!

>Perhaps they shouldn't be divorcing in the first place.  Perhaps
>they shouldn't be getting married in the first place.  But how do
>you deal with people who go their own way?  You are right, Carole,
>it is indeed a mess.  However, I wouldn't blame God (or His Word)
>for it as you are apparently doing.

    Collis,
    
    It is so easy to say what you have said, but have you lived through
    something like this?  Do you know that sometimes people seem ok when
    they first marry and then for whatever reason, negative behavior seeps
    in and then takes over their relationship.  I cannot believe that a
    loving God would want anyone to stay married to a person that was
    beating them up every day, or that someone would believe that. 
    *That's* what's absurd to me.
    
    We need to remember the cultural context of the Bible and realize that
    hopefully we have grown as a species since then.  Granted in some 
    instances it looks like we have gone backwards (consider the numbers
    of battered women today), but at the least they shouldn't be labeled
    as sinners when they take some positive steps to move themselves out
    of an abusive situation into a more loving one.  To me, God would
    bless this endeavor.
    

    RE: .162
    
>By the way, what does the law of love say about divorce?

>Should love ever thwart God's intention that a marriage is for
>as long as both shall live?  
    
    Being abused regularly is not living, imo.
    
    >Or should love say, "I'm going to
>break my promise to you to always love you regardless of
>circumstances."

    Being abused is not being loved.  The promise was broken with the
    abuse.
    
>If we followed the law of love, IMO, we wouldn't get hung up
>on divorce.  It is only those with hard hearts (that is essentially
>all of us :-( ) who want to seek our own way that creates any need
>at all for divorce.


    It is more likely broken hearts that lead people to be abusive
    and they need healing.  It is not a hardened heart that causes
    an abused person to leave an abusive one, but rather a healing
    taking place.
    
    
    
    Carole

    People seem to assume that just because people are married that
    God has joined them together. How absurd. It ignores the principle
    of free will. I do believe that God prefers that people have happy
    lifetime marriages. But I do not believe that God is opposed to
    marriages that He doesn't approve of ending. And I see nothing to
    indicate that He approves of all marriages.
    
    People say, "well they were married in a church ..." So what? Lots
    of things happen in churches that are not of God. Where people are
    involved bad things can and do happen.

    			Alfred

    
    Wow Alfred!  We are in close agreement.....wonders will never cease!
    
    ;^)
    
    Carole

    Hi Carole,
    
    Good response (.167)!!
    
<<    It is more likely broken hearts that lead people to be abusive
    and they need healing.  It is not a hardened heart that causes
    an abused person to leave an abusive one, but rather a healing
    taking place.
    
    And to take it a step further, the person being abused *cannot* heal/
    fix the abuser.  Sometimes the most loving thing to do is leave the
    abusive situation and pray that the abuser seeks the help they need to
    fix their broken heart.  Most likely the abuser was a victim of
    some type of abuse themselves.
    
    Ro
    
    

    
    
    I did a little reading over the weekend, and though I don't have
     any of the passages or specific information with me, I thought
     I would post the essentials of what I found.  I can get specifics
     if anyone is interested, though not until after the weekend.
    
    With regard to Deuteronomy 24:1, where Moses speaks of when a
     man should/could divorce a woman, "some uncleanness" was
     interpreted different ways by different groups.  Peake's (sp?)
     commentary listed two different groups by name and said
     one interpreted it to mean at least some of the various
     definitions of uncleanness while the second group interpreted
     it to mean only uncleanness caused by adultery.  (I didn't
     have any idea who the groups were, or why those two were
     specified.)
                                                                 
    It seems to me that using the definitions that Moses gave for
     uncleanness and using what he said about divirce, a person
     could divorce for reasons other than adultery and not be
     committing adultery if they remarried.  Until Jesus came
     along to clarify the passage, that is.  (So I wonder if 
     all the people who followed the one interpretation were
     commiting adultery or not?  According to Jesus they were,
     but they didn't know that, because according to what they
     knew they were not.)
    
    
    Interestingly enough, there was a passage in Numbers or Leviticus
     that spoke of situations in which a woman was allowed to leave
     her husband.  Both the commentaries I looked at indicated this
     as divorce, though the passage itself didn't use that word.
     The passage said essentially that if a man took a second wife
     and neglected the orignal wife with regard to food, clothing and
     something else, then the first wife could leave him.  
    
    
    Steve
    

Re:  421.164
    
  >Or do you think he [Moses] said what Jesus said?

I accept the explanation Jesus gave in the gospels that he was
correctly interpreting what God originally told Moses.  Interestingly
enough, one of the two positions that had been reached by the Jews
was exactly what Jesus said Moses and God originally meant.

Collis

Re:  421.166
    
  >This innerancy and literalism is very curious.
    
Hi, Steve

You should hear the meanings given to the Bible by those who
think the meanings of the words used are next to irrelevant...

Collis

Re:  421.168

  >People seem to assume that just because people are married that
  >God has joined them together.

What I would say is that we have a God-given commitment to fulfill
our commitments.

Collis

Re:  421.167  

Carole,

Are you talking about divorce or about leaving?  They are two quite
seperate things.  This discussion was originally about divorce.
On the issue of leaving someone, let's define that more closely.

I think the Bible very clearly leaves open the possibility of
letting an unbeliever leave in I Cor 7.  I also believe that
there are circumstances where leaving someone is appropriate (an
abusive situation being one of those).  But I'm not talking about
divorce nor am I talking about a change in commitment.  The reason
for leaving is for the sake of the individual as well as for the
sake of the relationship.  This is not to create a split in the
relationship, but rather to create an opportunity for healing.
So far, everything you've talked about can be done with this
type of seperation without either a divorce or a loss of commitment.
Does this make sense?

Is it difficult?  Yes, very.  Is it Biblical?  In my opinion,
yes, very.  Is it worth it?  Yes, very much so.

Collis

P.S.  You are quite right that I have never experienced such
a relationship and never will with my wife.  However, it is also
true that a man's true love for his wife will practically guarantee
a relationship that will last for all time.  (Unfortunately, the
reverse is not the case.)

	RE: .175 Collis

	

>Are you talking about divorce or about leaving? 

Both

>I think the Bible very clearly leaves open the possibility of
>letting an unbeliever leave in I Cor 7.  I also believe that
>there are circumstances where leaving someone is appropriate (an
>abusive situation being one of those).  But I'm not talking about
>divorce nor am I talking about a change in commitment.  The reason
>for leaving is for the sake of the individual as well as for the
>sake of the relationship.  This is not to create a split in the
>relationship, but rather to create an opportunity for healing.
>So far, everything you've talked about can be done with this
>type of seperation without either a divorce or a loss of commitment.
>Does this make sense?

If a person is not willing to heal and has basically betrayed their
commitment to a person by beating them up regularly, than imo it is
appropriate that the abused person leave and if they choose, get a
divorce.  Why should this person not be able to remarry and have an
opportunity to have a loving, committed, supportive relationship?

To require a person to live their life alone because of a mistake in
their choice of partners makes no sense to me at all, and not what
God asks us to do, imo.

>However, it is also
>true that a man's true love for his wife will practically guarantee
>a relationship that will last for all time.  (Unfortunately, the
>reverse is not the case.)

What reversal are you referring to?

Thanks,
Carole

    "To require a person to live their life alone because of a mistake in
    their choice of partners makes no sense to me at all, and not what God
    asks us to do, imo."
    
    What's a matter with you, Carole?  You think God is compassionate or
    something? :-)
    
    Must be the same god who tells gays to live their life alone rather
    than experience the joys of a loving romantic relationship with another
    human being.  Some might say that this makes god out to be a hardass;
    but hey, it's a tough job, and someone's got to do it.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    Thanks for the humor, Mike.  I was getting steamed at the idea that
    people have no choices once they have married an abusive partner!! 
    That they are committed to either a life of abuse or a life alone.
    How could the creator of all life give such limited choices to his
    creations?!?!  If my children make choices that turn out not to be good
    or healthy for them, I'd certainly not want to make it worse for them
    by punishing them for that choice.  I'd want them to have an
    opportunity to grow and learn from that experience.  Would not God want
    the same for his children?
    
    Your humor diffused by angst...  ;')
    
    Ro
    

    Anything to de-angstify you, Ro.  :-)

Re:  421.176

  >If a person is not willing to heal and has basically betrayed their
  >commitment to a person by beating them up regularly...

Traditional marriage vows are unconditional commitments.  Certainly
my marriage vows were.  Are you saying that they should not be?
If so, who holds the measuring stick that says that one is not
living up to their vows?  You can bet that each spouse will want
to hold it up for the other!  No, marriage is an unconditional
commitment to the other, just as Jesus has made an uncondtional
commitment to the church.  Note that Jesus corrected the Pharisees
who said that Moses decreed a divorce when actually Moses *permitted*
a divorce.  According to Jesus, it is God's intention that marriage
should last as long as both shall live.

  >Why should this person not be able to remarry and have an
  >opportunity to have a loving, committed, supportive relationship?

I've already explained why - out of love and servitude for both God
and his/her spouse.  Of course, attempting to do this may result
in a loving, committed, supportive relationship with his/her spouse,
but we're probably not supposed to take that into consideration.
God is indeed a God of miracles who changes lives.  There are no
guarantees when you marry - that's why the traditional marriage vows 
include the lines about sickness and health, etc.  If your goal is
to look out for yourself instead of to serve God with your life as
a witness, then you are likely to choose divorce.  If your commitment
is truly to God and to your spouse, you will work to change your
attitude and life to be more pleasing to God.  I freely admit that
if I were in that situation, divorce would look mighty tempting.
I pray that God never puts me in that situation.  My faith is not
what it should be.

     >>However, it is also true that a man's true love for his wife 
     >>will practically guarantee a relationship that will last for all 
     >>time.  (Unfortunately, the reverse is not the case.)

  >What reversal are you referring to?

The unconditional love of a wife for her husband has often not been enough
to keep a marriage together.  The unconditional love of a husband for
her wife will always (or nearly always) not only keep a marriage together,
but bless the relationship immensely.  The reason for this?  Hard to
say from an anthropological view.  From a Biblical point of view, the
reason is that women were made to love their husbands and will respond
when they they are loved.  The need and desire for men to love their
wives, however, is just not inately there in the same way.  Because of
this, the responsibility for the health of the marriage (after the
initial years) rests squarely on the husband's shoulders.

Collis

    
    
    Re .164:
    
    Collis,
    
      Does it seem significant to you that the other position
       concering divorce reached by the Jews seems perfectly valid
       given what Moses said, even though it contradicts what Jesus said?
    
    Steve
    

    Where is .180 coming from?????

    Re: .182
    
    Ron,
    
    It appears Collis is sharing with us his perspective.
    
    You know, I hesitated saying anything until now, but this string has
    drifted way off the topic.  Do you suppose the tangental discussion
    could be moved to a new topic?
    
    Richard

    
    RE: .183
    
    Richard,
    
    I don't think the discussions have strayed from the topic at all,
    but have rather focused on one area that highlights what the
    topic title is addressing.
    
    Given that, you can still move my notes to a new topic. ;^)
    
    Carole

Re:  divorce and marriage replies

If you would point me to the correct note, I'd be happy
to move the replies.

Re:  >Where is .180 coming from?

Most of it comes from taking the common sense meaning of
what Jesus and other prophets said in the Bible.

The last paragraph is not my original thoughts, but is something
I've read (and fully agree with).  I believe H Norman Wright,
who is a prolific writer when it comes to Christians, marriage
and sex, presents the case best.  Other Bible-believing Christians
have supported this view.  Of course, it's not so much that it
is supported by the Bible that I cite it; it's because it is the
clear experience of marriage counselors that this is indeed the
case.

Collis

Re:  421.181
    
  >Does it seem significant to you that the other position
  >concering divorce reached by the Jews seems perfectly valid
  >given what Moses said, even though it contradicts what Jesus said?
    
It doesn't seem perfectly valid to me given what Moses (and God)
said.  After all, there is a lot more to what Moses said than
simply that one statement.  As Jesus points out, there is the
creation story and God's purposes for creating Adam and Eve.
I think that this *must* be taken into account when trying to
determine the role of divorce.

However, assuming that this was the only kind of reference to
divorce or marriage in the Bible before Jesus spoke on it, it would
be interesting to note that there are various interpretations, but
it would not affect the correctness of Jesus' interpretations or the
incorrectness of other interpretations down through the ages (and
which continue after Jesus' explanation).

Collis

    
    
    re .186:
    
.186>I think that this *must* be taken into account when trying to
.186>determine the role of divorce.
    
    Would you attribute this interpretation to yourself?  It seems
     to me that Moses gave a very simple rule for divorce.  (That was
     the only reference I found mentioned in the commentaries I looked
     at, except for the one about when a woman could leave her husband.)
                      
    Maybe I've got this wrong, but when you examine the Bible, don't 
     you attempt to understand what the author was trying to say to 
     the people at that time?  Isn't that one of the main differences 
     between a literalist and an inerrantist?  
                               
    I don't think there's a question that Jesus' interpretation was
     correct.  In my mind though there's an issue that there are
     interpretations of what Moses wrote that are in conflict with
     what Jesus wrote.  Interpretations that seem valid, given what
     Moses wrote, and that were made by some of the people who Moses  
     was speaking to.
    
    Steve
    

    Collis (.180 last para and .185),
    
    
<< supported this view.  Of course, it's not so much that it
is supported by the Bible that I cite it; it's because it is the
clear experience of marriage counselors that this is indeed the
case.
    
    These marriage counselors that you site, are they psychologists,
    clergy, men?   The studies I've read over the last several years show
    that what you are calling 'innate' tendencies by women are not that but
    cultural conditioning.  Survival mechanisms developed in order to co-
    exist (survive, maybe) in a patriarchal society, perhaps.
    
    Ro
    

RE: .180

> The unconditional love of a wife for her husband has often not been enough
> to keep a marriage together.  The unconditional love of a husband for
> her wife will always (or nearly always) not only keep a marriage together,
> but bless the relationship immensely.  The reason for this?  Hard to
> say from an anthropological view.  From a Biblical point of view, the
> reason is that women were made to love their husbands and will respond
> when they they are loved.  The need and desire for men to love their
> wives, however, is just not inately there in the same way.  Because of
> this, the responsibility for the health of the marriage (after the
> initial years) rests squarely on the husband's shoulders.

     With all respect, Collis, this has to be one of the  strangest  things
     I've  ever read.  Having given this subject much thought over the last
     eighteen years (since  I  was  divorced),  I  would  suggest  the  old
     chestnut,  "it  takes  two  to  tango",  is the best way to describe a
     marriage that works.  Your statement gives males an extra  responsibly
     that  simply  does  not  make  sense no matter how you think it can be
     justified by explaining the differences between the  male  and  female
     psyches, even if you think these differences are Biblically based.  If
     you're lucky enough to have a good marriage, I  suggest  it's  because
     *both* you and your wife are making it so.  And I further suggest that
     you're inadvertently diminishing her contribution with this convoluted
     thinking.

     Peace,

     Alvin

Re:  421.188
    
  >These marriage counselors that you site, are they psychologists,
  >clergy, men?

Dr. H. Norman Wright is a Christian counselor and has been for the
past 25? years.  Off the top of my head, I don't think he has ever 
been ordained.  I'll find out exactly what degree he has.

  >The studies I've read over the last several years show
  >that what you are calling 'innate' tendencies by women are not that but
  >cultural conditioning.  Survival mechanisms developed in order to co-
  >exist (survive, maybe) in a patriarchal society, perhaps.

Indeed, we have great differences of opinion on this issue.  Males
and females are very different in many ways.  Of course, they are also
alike in many ways, too.

Collis

Re:  421.189

  >Your statement gives males an extra  responsibility...

Well, the Bible gives males an extra responsibility, as I understand it,
in many areas of marriage.  For example, the man is to be the spiritual
leader - something most men including myself find very hard to do.

If it turns out (as I believe it has) that the nature of men and women
is such that women are almost guaranteed to respond to the sacrificial
love of her husband while men do not necessarily respond this way to
their wives, then it can indeed be argued that males have an extra
responsibility.  It can also be argued that they don't; that this is
just an interesting fact to note.

  >If you're lucky enough to have a good marriage, I  suggest  it's  because
  >*both* you and your wife are making it so.

It's not luck and it *is* both of us.  Let me re-state this.  Wives
respond to husband's sacrificial love.  This does not make them robots;
they get all the credit in the world for their responding.  (They also
initiate, but the subject right now is responding.)  Men, unfortunately,
often don't respond to their wives' sacrificial love.  

  >And I further suggest that you're inadvertently diminishing her 
  >contribution with this convoluted thinking.

I have done no such thing.  I understand how you reason that I have,
but I am not saying that at all.

I'll try to find exactly what is said on this subject in the main book
that deals with it.  BTW, Dr. Wright claims he is still looking for
the first exception to this rule in all his years (and thousands of
couples) of counseling.  Several times he believed he found an exception -
and in each case was proven wrong (in his opinion).  Note also that he does 
claim that a marriage needs to have existed for a while (he says 5 years) 
before he holds this to be almost inevitably true.  Also note that he is NOT
saying that the wife is not primarily responsible for the breakup of
a marriage.  What he is saying is that a wife almost invariable *responds*
to her husband and that a sensitive, caring, husband with sacrificial
love will almost invariably produce a committed relationship whereas
the converse just isn't true, i.e. he could fill books with sensitive
caring wives with sacrificial love that do NOT produce a committed
relationship.  I hope that this makes it clearer.

Collis

     RE: .191

> ..... the Bible gives males an extra responsibility, as I understand it,
> in many areas of marriage.  For example, the man is to be the spiritual
> leader ...........................................................

     To say that the Bible spells out the responsibilities of husbands  and
     wives   is  not  the  same  as  saying  that  the  husband  has  extra
     responsibility.

> .......................................... the nature of men and women
> is such that women are almost guaranteed to respond to the sacrificial
> love of her husband while men do not necessarily respond this way to
> responsibility.  ...................................................
> 
> .....................................  Let me re-state this.  Wives
> respond to husband's sacrificial love.  This does not make them robots;
> they get all the credit in the world for their responding.  (They also
> initiate, but the subject right now is responding.)  Men, unfortunately,
> often don't respond to their wives' sacrificial love.  

     To say that marital responsibilities derive from the  natures  of  men
     and  women  doesn't  even  imply  that  there  is a hierarchy in those
     responsibilities.  And doesn't it seem possible to you that there  are
     wives  who  don't  respond  to the "sacrificial" (whatever that means)
     love of their husbands?  After all, you can draw all the  generalities
     you want to, but when it comes right down to it, we're all individuals
     with unique combinations of attributes.  Mark Twain had  something  to
     say about that, although I can't recall his words now.

     By the way, are we talking about the Bible here,  or  are  we  talking
     about Paul's Epistles?

>   >If you're lucky enough to have a good marriage, I  suggest  it's  because
>   >*both* you and your wife are making it so.
> 
> It's not luck and it *is* both of us.  ............................

     Yes, my error.   The  correct  word  is  "fortunate",  *not*  "lucky"!
     Sorry.

>   >And I further suggest that you're inadvertently diminishing her 
>   >contribution with this convoluted thinking.
> 
> I have done no such thing.  I understand how you reason that I have,
> but I am not saying that at all.

     As I read you, you seemed to say if it wasn't for the husband, a  good
     marriage  wouldn't be possible.  That's why I asked you to reconsider.
     Your words were:

> ..... the responsibility for the health of the marriage (after the
> initial years) rests squarely on the husband's shoulders.

     This is hog-wash.

     Peace,

     Alvin

	Actually, most of what the Bible has to say about behaviors
of marriage partners come from our ol' friend Paul.

	Paul never urges a woman to love the man she married.  Paul does,
on the other hand, urge a man to love his wife.  We can't say what Paul
assumed.  We simply don't know.

	But let's examine another assumption: that nothing has changed
since Paul penned his letters.

	Women are still to cover their heads, still to keep silent in
church, and still to refrain from providing instruction.  No?

	I, for one, don't buy into some of these culturally defined norms
and expectations of nearly 2,000 years ago.

Peace,
Richard

    This discussion around divorce reinforces why I feel that a literal
    interpretation of the bible is harmful to many and therefore morally
    wrong.  Too many people use a literal interpretation of the bible as an
    excuse to condemn other people or to subject them to a life of abuse. 
    If one battered woman stayed in an abusive marriage because she was
    taught she was doing God's will that is terribly wrong.
    
    The gifts of reason and intuition are two of the greatest gifts God has
    given us.   Both reason and intuition tell us that if a person is in an
    abusive relationship then s/he should get out of it.  Divorce is a
    acceptable alternative. 
    
    At the time of Jesus and before woman unfortunately had few legal rights.
    A woman without a husband and without a dowry  and without her precious
    virginity was considered worthless by many. Divorce was therefore a
    terrible problem for a woman.  Today we are in a different time and
    culture and we can argue in favor of or against divorce for different
    reasons.  
    
    Jesus' reinterpreted many of the Hebrew scriptures.  This is what
    caused a lot of the animousity that the pharisees felt for him.  This
    is much of the power and relevence of his life.  But it is another
    condition upon the inerrancy of the bible.  "The Hebrew scriptures are
    inerrant.... except where reinterpreted by Jesus or later by Paul""  ??  

    
    RE: .194
    
    I agree with you Pat.
    
    Carole

    RE: .194
    
	Well said, abuse is not an acceptable part of any relationship.
   	
   	Allison

Re:  421.194

  >This discussion around divorce reinforces why I feel that a literal
  >interpretation of the bible is harmful to many and therefore morally
  >wrong.

Morally wrong is a bit strong, don't you think?

  >Too many people use a literal interpretation of the bible as an
  >excuse to condemn other people or to subject them to a life of abuse. 

Indeed this is true.  No matter what good things God gives us, we
will misuse them even when it is the sure, true Word of God.

  >If one battered woman stayed in an abusive marriage because she was
  >taught she was doing God's will that is terribly wrong.

If one battered woman left a marriage that could and should have been
turned around if only she was willing to follow God's principles,
that's a shame.  (And I am *not* talking about taking more battering,
either!  Please leave that type of assumption out of the discussion
since we agree that women should not be battered.)

  >The gifts of reason and intuition are two of the greatest gifts God has
  >given us.

Some believe they are even greater than the reasoning and knowledge
of the Giver.  I am not one of those.

Collis

    
    I do agree that Morally wrong is very strong. And a belief is not
    morally wrong. 
    
    However, I believe that it would be morally wrong for a clergyperson to
    suggest to a battered women that she stay in an abusive marriage. 
    Therefore my logic has to follow that a literal interpretation of the
    bible  can lead directly to actions that are morally wrong.  It has 
    the potential of causing great harm to  people.  I also understand that 
    battered woman are often very     emotionally fragile and often can not 
    handle that kind of advice.
    
    I do not see any reason whatsoever for a battered woman to 
    stay in an abusive relationship.  Human life and dignity is much more Sacred
    than marriage.  Your logic Collis would suggest that since there is always
    a possibility that the abuser can be reformed then the woman should
    alway pray to God and hope her husband will be changed.  Unfortunately
    life does not usually work like that. The statistics on battered women
    show that.
    
    A similar example is a fundamental preacher preaching in a church that
    Homosexuality is an abomination and should not be tolerated.  Young
    adults from the church, incited by their pastor might then go out and
    beat up or murder Gay people.  Unfortunately this happens.  It is
    action that is directly related to a literal interpretation of the
    bible.  It is wrong.
    
    Patricia

Re:  421.198

Hi Pat,
    
  >However, I believe that it would be morally wrong for a clergyperson to
  >suggest to a battered women that she stay in an abusive marriage.

Please by very specific when using phrases such as "stay in an abusive 
marriage".  It sounds like you are assuming that there are two options:

  - continue to get abused
  - get a divorce

Indeed, there is a third option which I have already discussed and
said that I believe is Biblically valid:

  - avoid abuse and stay married

If you wish to continue discussing this, Pat, please comment on why
this is or is not an option.
    
  >A similar example is a fundamental preacher preaching in a church that
  >Homosexuality is an abomination and should not be tolerated.  Young
  >adults from the church, incited by their pastor might then go out and
  >beat up or murder Gay people.  Unfortunately this happens.  It is
  >action that is directly related to a literal interpretation of the
  >bible.  It is wrong.

We are to take the *full* counsel of God's Word.  Indeed, I agree with
you that this is wrong.  Does this mean that the Bible is wrong?  No.
It certainly means that a one-sided story was given.  Yes, homosexual
sexual relationships are an abomination to God.  So are the lustful
thoughts I have towards women at times.  Does this mean that we should
all be stoned to death?  Or should we love those who do wrong?  Should
we forgive them for they know not what they do?

The Bible is constantly misinterpreted.  In my opinion, this conference
is a prime example of that!  Actions which are anti-Biblical are commonly
justified from the Bible.  Literalists have no corner on that market.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    RE: 421.198
    
    I don't see any point in arguing this further.  I am a religious
    liberal and you a religious conservative.  As far a divorce is
    concerned I see the issue of a battered woman as a very extreme case
    and as I stated see absolutely no reason why a battered woman should
    stay in an abusive marriage.  I do not believe that such a woman could
    stay in the marriage and not be abused.
    
    I am a divorced woman and chose to end my marriage after 18 years.  I
    am very comfortable with that decision and it is consistent with my
    religious and spiritual beliefs.
    
    As a divorced woman, I am not persecuted, or abused, or called a
    sinner.  Fortunately our society has accepted the fact that marriage is
    an emotional and spiritual committment as well as a legal one.  The
    emotional and spiritual committment is either there or not.  Once gone,
    in my opinion, it is time to end the relationship.
    
    This topic is interesting to me in how it relates to the homosexuality
    issue.  There are many real specific pronouncements against divorce in
    both the Christian and Hebrew scriptures.  Jesus himself is quoted as
    condemning divorce which as far as biblical literacy goes perhaps gives
    that the highest authority.  
    
    I wonder why Gay and Lesbian person's have so much more difficult with
    religious conservatives including clergypeople than divorced people.
    
    
    Patricia

I'm sorry that you experienced an abusive marriage.  I'm
sure it is very painful to divorce your husband and come
to an acceptance of yourself and the situation.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    Thank you for your reply.  Perhaps my entry did not adequately
    communicate my thoughts.  Fortunately I did not experience an abusive
    marriage.  None the less I did come to the difficult decision to divorce. 
    Physical abuse is only an extreme case of why people choose to end a
    marriage.  The point is how do we make any difficult decision in line
    with our own belief structures and values.  And as a religious liberal,
    a second important issue for me is how do we accept and affirm the
    right of each person to make decisions according to their own standards
    and structure.  In my opinion, it is not the structures and values a
    person chooses for their own decision making but the attempt to impose
    those structures and values on others that is troubling.
    
    Patricia

    RE: 420.11  Richard

    
>	"Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" is not an indepth study
>of the Bible, nor it is meant to be.  Rather, it is an attempt to draw
>to the Bible people who have come to believe that there simply exists no
>valid or legitimate view of the Bible beyond that which Fundamentalism
>promotes.  
    
    Sounds like the Bishop is speaking directly with *me*!
    
    Carole