Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Richard,
    
    This is one of the pericopes I often think of also when people do
    proof-texting to "validate" THEIR point.
    
    Hey, God!  That's REAL nice of you!
    
    	Hmmmm.  Maybe there's something missing here.
    
    		Shalom,
    
    		Ron
    

 What is the context of the Psalm?  Why was it written?  Who wrote it
 and in response to what?






Jim

    Good questons, Jim.  The answers to your questions are not clearly
    specified within the text.
    
    The Psalm is apparently from a period known as the Exile.  It was
    written by someone who was very bitter about it.

    Of course, some will say that David wrote all the Psalms.  Still
    others will insist on the divine authorship of the Scriptures, being
    that they're God-breathed and all.
    
    137 is a very short Psalm, only 9 verses.  If I wasn't so lazy I'd type
    the whole thing in here.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

 You don't suppose it was written to Babylon who had caused devastation
 to Israel do you (and who was forewarned about just such a thing happening)?


 If I'm not mistaken (and I'll confess my lack of complete knowledge of the
 Old Testament), God forwarned each nation on which such a judgement was
 carried out, that unless they repented it would indeed happen.  Kinda 
 analagous to the day we live in.



 Jim

I didn't know some (presumably knowledgable Bible scholars)
claim that David wrote all the Psalms.  But I am continuing
to learn.  :-)

It is a Psalm of despair and vengeance.

Personally, I have a hard time understanding/agreeing with
what it says as it is translated.  But it is indeed true
that God orders destruction of evil at times and I can
certainly see why this is right.  I am wary about attaching
to much to the word "happy" which may be better translated
something else.

Collis

    So is bashing a baby's brains a destruction of evil???
    
    	:-(
    

 What about those who ignored God's pleas/warnings...are they at all
 to blame?





 Jim

    What about Jesus who instructed us to love our enemies?
    
    What about Jesus who said, "Blessed are the merciful"?
    
    What about Paul who indicated that we should not overcome evil with
    evil, but with good?
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    .5  Collis,
    
    	I did not say that it was Bible scholars who claimed all the Psalms
    were composed by David.  I suppose this claim is one you've never heard?
    
    Richard
    

Re:  .9

You are correct; you did not say that.  Perhaps you are
knocking the uninformed who believe that David wrote all the 
Psalms?  Just trying to figure out who you're railing about.
(You're second comment about some who believe that God actually
did write the Psalms that He claims to have written is much
clearer and certainly applies to me.  There was no particular
need to comment on that - but I will if you'd like.  :-) )

I have certainly heard that "David wrote the Psalms".  However,
English being the loose language that it is, this did not mean
to me that David wrote every Psalm but rather that David
wrote most of the Psalms.  I have never heard anyone
attempt to claim clearly and unambigously that David wrote
all 150 Psalms in Psalms.  

(Some might see a similarity between this and the claim that 
Moses wrote the Pentateuch.)

Collis

    Jim
    
    Re: .4
    
    According to scripture, God also hardened their hearts so they could
    not respond.
    
    So first God makes it impossible for them to respond
    
    Then he destroys them and their children for not responding.
    
    There are many images of God contained in the scriptures.  Some do not 
    reconcile with a God who is the  embodiment of perfection.
    
    Patricia

Some embodiments of perfection do not reconcile with God.  :-)

Patricia,

When does God harden their hearts?  After the decision
has been made to reject God, to disobey Him, to go their
own way?

Indeed, this is difficult.  And part of our problem is that
we can't see the hearts of people.  We *hope* that people
will come to God.  We desire to believe that anyone at any
time can still come to God.  But perhaps this is not the way
it is.  Perhaps some people (and we don't have a clue as to
who) have set their hearts away from God and it won't be
changed.  We don't know - and there is no way for us to know
(that I know of).

I refuse to judge God by my inferior standards and claim Him
to be wanting.  I know He exists, I know He has revealed Himself
as He is and those things that I don't understand fully, I
don't *need* to understand fully.  Certainly I want to.  As
we can see from Job, it is NOT our role to question God (so
as to accuse Him).  It is our role to love and serve Him.  As
we love and serve God, God is faithful to us and our intellectual
questions become less and less important.  At least, that is
what I believee is the case.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    So tell me, why did God say that for generations to come, the children
    of those "wrong-full" parents would suffer?  Hey, what did the then yet
    to be born kids ever do wrong?
    
    This is a "loving" God image?
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

    re: -1
    
    "wrong-full" parents act and teach their children their own
    "wrong-full" ways. A good example of this today is the way adults who
    have been abused as children influence those children through the abuse
    to be abusers themselves. God tells humanity that when we choose evil
    and are disobedient to His way then our sins hurt not only our selves,
    but they influence our children and society. God has given us free will
    and therefore our children, who are innocent, do suffer because of our
    sins and rebellion against God. Only when the parents, or the children
    turn back to God and seek His ways is He able to set us free from our 
    own evil ways and its consequences.
    
    Mary

  >So tell me, why did God say that for generations to come, the children
  >of those "wrong-full" parents would suffer?

Because sin has consequences which effect others.  This is a statement
of fact, not a judgment.  Everyone gets judged on their own works
(there are references to this effect in the Bible).  But this does
not mean that we are unaffected by those around us.  Sin begets
sin.

The issue here is the proper interpretation of the verse, not
the kind of love that God has.

Collis

    William Channing, one of the most important fathers of Unitarian
    Christianity delivered a wonderful Serman back around 1830.  In that
    sermon he had a great concept that we Worship God not because God is
    omnipotent, and not because God created us but because God is Good.
    
    Since God has created each of us in her image, we are created in the
    image of Goodness.  We know instinctively what is good.  We are humans
    and as humans we err often but we still know what is good.
    
    The bible shows many examples of a god image that is not Good. 
    Goodness and Love are reliable standards by which to judge the
    scriptures.  It is pure idolatry and evil to influence persons to make
    decisions based on a biblical potrayal of a less than good god.
    
    The less than good god of Exodus according to that book influenced the
    Hebrews to commit genocide against the Caananites.  The less than good
    god of Kings influenced leaders to slaughter Pagans leaving worship
    services.  This image of a tribal god identified in these books is a
    non god.  The stories tell us as much about humanities search for God
    as it tells about God's inbreaking in history.  These stories of a Chosen
    people encouraged to wipe out their enemies, when interpreted
    as the  innerant word of God, create a great evil.  The evil is that
    other nations and people have identified themselves as "the Chosen
    People" and then used the biblical injunction to support their greed
    and imperialism.  In another example, homophobic people use passages in
    leviticus and Passages of Paul to legitimatize their hatred of
    homosexuals.  In another example whole churches use biblical injuction
    to exclude a majority of their members from full participation.  There
    is an evil being committed?
    
    Any thoughts about what is the source of this evil?
    
    The person that wrote the passage?
    The individual or organization that interprets it?
    The symbolic assumption that the bible is the word of god?
    The groups that canonized the collection?
    
    The evil is in the attributing to God that which is not godly.  
    
    This is not a criticism of God.  It is a criticism of human
    interpretation of God.  The human interpretations canonized in the
    scriptures.
    

It appears that you put human life above "goodness" since
killing evil human life is "wrong".

Personally, I disagree with you.

Biblically, I disagree with you.

I guess that this is one of the reasons I can support capital
punishment.  I believe it is appropriate, at times, to take
human life in response to evil.

Why is human life more important than good (if indeed you
do consider it to be so)?

Collis

    You could eject Psalm 137 from the Bible, and personally, I would not
    miss it.
    
    However, the Bible is more than just about God.  The Bible is about
    people.  The desire for vengeance is older than the Hebrew Bible and
    just as new as yesterday's newspaper.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

Check out Romans 9 which deals with God's hardening of hearts and our
find him wanting according to our standards.


I don't think anyone can really know how good God really is (how's that
for a blanket statement 8-) ), unless they understand his holiness as well.
One without the other may be a god but it isn't the God as revealed in
the bible. Until you understand his mercy you won't really appreciate
his incredible grace.  Without his holiness, God isn't God, he's just
a nice old senile grandfather, and Christ died for nothing.


Whew, I better stop now.... 8-)


-- 
---
Paul		[email protected]
Gordon		[email protected]
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

Exactly, Paul.  We do indeed come back to the same issue of how
MUCH God hates sin and how MUCH God loves us.  We keep wanting
to forget about hating sin so that God will accept us, sin and
all.  And God has gone to such extremes to accept us - but
only without the sin that stains us.  

But we refuse to believe that God is really like this - hating sin 
and all.  We don't hate sin like that - so how could God?  So
we say to ourselves, "he's not like that; he just doesn't really
love us like he's supposed to" or "he doesn't exist; people just
made it up to satisfy their own needs".

Collis 

    .21
    
    	I know it's an all-time favorite theme of yours, but how does
    what you're saying tie in with Psalm 137 and the questions I asked
    in .0, if it does at all?
    
    Richard
    

Re:  .21 and .20

It ties in with responses .21 and .17.

I think it ties in quite well with .0.  Why would God
have babies killed?  Because they are evil and part of
an evil society.  God demands perfection and is *so*
patient, but his patience sometimes comes to an end.

Re:  favorite theme

A lot of people seem to believe that people are the most
important thing in the world and thus are to be valued
highly.  We are only to be valued because God values us -
and there are some things that God values more highly than
us such as goodness.  Most people don't know this or believe
it usually because they never thought about it.  But this
theme is constant throughout the Bible.  So, when an issue
is raised which is based on presumptions which are possibly
wrong in this area, I raise the theme up again.  Some people
certainly disagree that this is the case; I don't know that
anyone has made any kind of effective case that the Bible
does not say this.

Collis

    .23 Collis,
    
    Well, I can't agree, but I'll honor what you've stated as your belief.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Re: .23  Collis

>A lot of people seem to believe that people are the most
>important thing in the world and thus are to be valued
>highly.

That's certainly my belief.  I have a deep suspicion of religions that
teach differently.

				-- Bob

    re: .23
    
    I agree with Richard and Bob.  The first of the Unitarian Universalist
    principles is "We believe in the worth and dignity of every person."
    
    The bible states that humankind was created in the image of God.  That
    is in the image of God's goodness.
    
    

    I'm reminded of a button seen in this region:
    
    	   SMILE -- GOD LOVES YOU *
    
    
    	* Some restrictions may apply
    
    		    :-)
    
    
    Richard

I, too, believe in the worth and dignity of every human
being.  It is not, however, inherent - it is given by God.

And if the potter, who gave the pots worth, determines that
some are worthless - then they are indeed worthless (ref
Romans 9).

Collis

    There is not one child, one baby, who is worthless.
    
    This to me is a deontological fact.
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

    ps: how would you or your wife feel about your child being sacrificed
    by God for God?
    

  >There is not one child, one baby, who is worthless.

Indeed, God has given all of us worth, every one.  He not only has
given us worth, he has shown His deep loves for each and every one
of us by giving us the option of life through the death of His Son.

  >ps: how would you or your wife feel about your child being sacrificed
  >by God for God?
   
God abhors child sacrifice.  God would never do such a thing (in
the way you are talking about).  Of course, God did sacrifice His
one and only Son in a different way.

However, implementing justice (which has NOTHING to do with sacrifice,
child or otherwise) is entirely different.  Perhaps you like to
believe that we (including children) are innocent and unworthy of
death.  The fact is that we are all sinners (Romans 3:23) and we are
all worth of death (Romans 6:23).   This gets back to the previous
discussion on God's holiness and HATE of sin.

I see we have not communicated very well as your thoughts about what
I was saying are not at all what I was saying.  I'll try better to
communicate.

Collis 

Re:  .28

What I wrote was true, but the Bible does not indicate that
God considers any worthless (but rather that some are
doomed to destruction).

I read a Focus on the Family article yesterday as my car was
getting repaired.  James Dobson wrote that everyone will come
to the point of not understanding why something happens or
should be.  It is impossible for us to understand everything
about God.  Faith is what allows us to believe God even when
we don't understand.  God's ways are higher than our ways
and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.

Some, when they don't understand, reject God as He has revealed
Himself.  Others increase their faith and trust in God since
God is faithful and true in what we do understand.

As a logical person, I sure wish I could explain everything
logically - if only to myself.  But parts of God are beyond
my understanding and I freely admit that I will never be able
to explain it all.  Fortunately, I don't need to.  I don't
need to be able to explain any of it.  I just need to love
and trust God - and He will lead me.  This is what faith is
all about.  Faith does not compete with knowledge; it transcends
it.

Collis

    collis,
    
    That is inconsistent.  If God created every human being in his/her
    image than how could God find any worthless.  The idea of God finding a
    human being worthless is inconsistent with every theological idea I can
    imagine.  To me inherent and given by God are exactly the same thing. 
    Human beings have inherent worth and dignity because of the gift,
    grace, and creation of God.
    
    I will have to look at what Paul says in Romans 9.  If it says that
    some human beings are worthlesss then it is erroneous and capable of
    leading to great evil.
    
    Patricia

    re:p 31
    
    Collis,
    
    I can agree with everything you say in .31.  My only difference is
    where I turn for my source of knowledge about the divine.  I look to
    the Bible for knowledge only in the recognition that it is an imperfect
    vehicle.  I truly believe that faith and knowledge of God is a gift
    given directly to each of us.  God provides us with the understanding
    we need to have.   God is available directly to each of us through
    prayer and meditation.
    
    When I read your replies, it seems like you jump through all kinds of
    hoops to prove that the bible is consistent.  Can you distance yourself
    a little from your own stand to look at your reply about the books of
    Moses as an example.  I don't understand the need to reconcile a belief
    that the Torah was written by one person, Moses, and then it also
    describes Moses' death.  Can you not see how much more powerful God is
    in his/her ability to speak to each one of us continuously, daily than
    to have frozen his revelation in a Book 2000 years old.  The Bible is
    powerful in that it still offers us wisdom and guidance after 2000
    years, but we cannot substitute worship of the bible for worship of
    God.
    
    Patricia

   >I don't understand the need to reconcile a belief
   >that the Torah was written by one person, Moses, and then it also
   >describes Moses' death.

I don't think you understood what I said.  The problem is not
beliefs, it is language.  

  >Can you not see how much more powerful God is
  >in his/her ability to speak to each one of us continuously, daily than
  >to have frozen his revelation in a Book 2000 years old.

The Bible is not something "frozen" in history.  It is *alive*
and *well*.  It continually reveals more and more about God.
Are you attempting to say that once God has said something
that it is then ancient history, frozen, and not worthy of
believing later on?  I don't think so, but this is the logical
conclusion of rejecting what God has said - whether it was
yesterday or 3,000 years ago.

Collis

Indeed you have noted some of the important facts.  However,
you have left out some equally important facts.  God did
indeed deliver Israel into the hands of her enemies.  However,
God did NOT command the enemies to conquer Israel; rather
this conquering was a result of their sin and rejection of
God and was quite wrong for them to do.  

I certainly agree with you that there is a strong reaction
when someone is oppressed by the sin of others - whether that
oppression is justified or not.

Some would find it amazing that God can use people's sin to
punish other people's sin.  I'm not one of those as I see
it happening all the time.

Collis

Re:  .33

I don't see how believing what God Himself has revealed to
us - that His Word is true and that true prophets faithfully
wrote and spoke His Word - worships the Bible.  The Bible is
certainly not worthy of worship.  It is, however, worthy of
belief as God's Word and worthy of following and trusting
since it is the Word of God.  It is only because God spoke the
Bible that it is worthy of being totally relied on.  If God
did not, then we should place no confidence in it (as that
is it's claim for truth).

Collis

    RE .37
    
    Collis,
    
    Can you imagine no middle ground.  If the Bible is not the literal
    word of God, does that make it worthless?  I am quite intrigued by Paul
    this Semester even though I don't think he has a monopoly on truth. 
    What inspires me is that he had an experience of God that changed his
    life.  An experience that impacted every subsequent decision he made. 
    That is a powerful story regardless of what sense I make out of the
    particular experience.  I would guess that Everyone who is in this file has
    a  particular experience of the Divine or of a "ultimate concern".  I
    may further guess that that experience has changed all of our
    subsequent action.  There is power there that does not required that
    Paul got it exactly right for all times.  The Bible has something
    important to say to me even if I don't believe that it is the word of
    God.
    
    Patricia

re Note 730.34 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

>   >to have frozen his revelation in a Book 2000 years old.
> 
> The Bible is not something "frozen" in history.  It is *alive*
> and *well*.  It continually reveals more and more about God.
  
        Well, perhaps it's both, or have you noticed any changes in
        the text during the past almost two millennia?

        Bob

 Is there any aspect of life today that it cannot be applied to?





 Jim

    Today Isaac would call up the cops!
    
    Also, you'd prbably die in the lion's den.
    
    And serving up all those animals, yuk!
    
    Solomon sure had a LOT of women!
    
    And on and on an on ...
    
    Not exactly where we are today, is it?
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

Note 730.41

>    Solomon sure had a LOT of women!

Say, Ron, as long as were drifting off the topic a little here:  How
about that commandment about adultery?  I mean, with so many wives, a
man would have to be a screaming idiot to want to commit adultery,
wouldn't he?

Shalom (from the same root as Solomon),
Richard

    Forgive me if I'm getting my stories mixed up, but I seem to recall
    that, according to the prophets, God allowed foreign invaders to take
    over the Hebrew people because they had turned away from God.
    
    If this is true, it's hardly a matter of justice to smash the babies
    of one's captors against a rock.  The driving force is the human want
    of vengeance, nothing more.
    
    It does enlighten us to the human condition that anyone who is oppressed
    is bound to be feel some sense of outrage, distrust, and resentment.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    What's really GREAT about the bible can also include this sense of
    levity that we're taking on its meaning.  Believe it or not, what a
    great way to learn more about God; the giver to us of such levity.
    
    In other words, it's ok that the bible is ancient, that it's
    patriarchal, that we really have to work hard to understand the
    "living'ness" of the messages that are somewhat hidden from us.
    
    On the other hand, some people who "know" the meaning of the "words"
    have understood it in such a way that their enemy (also "knowing" the
    meaning of the "word") seemed to have a different understanding.
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

  >Can you imagine no middle ground?

Sure, I can imagine it.  However, the Bible itself doesn't leave that
option open for us, does it.  A prophet either speaks for God
with totally accuracy or he is NOT a prophet.  That is, either
God told Him what to say or God had nothing to do with him.
The "I got a semi-revelation from God" theory of the Bible
is refuted explicitly and implicity throughout the entire
Bible.

Admittedly, what you propose is a popular belief today.  You are one 
of many to believe that God had prophets (people who spoke for
God) who have filled the pages of the scrolls they wrote
with error.  I still don't understand how this is reconcilable
with the definition of prophet or the assumption throughout
the Bible that what prophets said and/or wrote was TRUE.
Others don't seem to have this problem, however.

Usually, what I have heard is that the people were not prophets
at all.  The Bible tells us exactly how to treat those who
claim to be prophets but are not - ignore/shun them.  If I
believed that these people were not prophets, that is indeed
what I would do.  

Did God speak to them or not?  They claimed that He did.  Well,
are they telling the truth or are they lying?  Can we trust
them or not?  We don't have the option (according to the Bible)
of semi-believing them.  Therefore, I don't consider this to be
a realistic (or logical) option.

I hope you see the logic of this thinking, even if you disagree.

Collis

    Actually, Patricia may come back from ANTS with some other notes of
    interest; especially if she takes some Olt Testament.  Seems Professor
    Holliday speaks to the notion of many "after-the-fact prophets" whose
    "wisdom" was quite good - after all; the events were long past!
    
    Patriacia; say "Hi" to Bill from Dot and me if you meet him.
    
    BTW; Prof. Holliday is a brilliant and learned scholar who specializes
    in Jeremiah and Isaaih and whose work is perhaps best known as he is
    the author of the Isaaih and Jeremiah part of the Anchor Bible Series;
    a modern and developing exegesis of the complete bible.
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

re Note 730.44 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

>   >Can you imagine no middle ground?
> 
> Sure, I can imagine it.  However, the Bible itself doesn't leave that
> option open for us, does it.  A prophet either speaks for God
> with totally accuracy or he is NOT a prophet.  That is, either
> God told Him what to say or God had nothing to do with him.

        Collis, first you talk about prophets, and then you impute an
        attribute of a prophet when speaking in the name of God to
        the entirety of the Bible.

        Since the Bible is not a prophet (nor is it even exclusively
        the writing of prophets), and since the Bible does not claim
        to speak for God in all its words (and in fact in some places
        claims to NOT speak for God), it would seem to be baseless to
        claim Biblical inerrancy on prophetic inerrancy.

> I still don't understand how this is reconcilable
> with the definition of prophet or the assumption throughout
> the Bible that what prophets said and/or wrote was TRUE.

        Since even you don't seem to believe that entirety of the
        books of the Bible were written by proven prophets, the
        equation of "prophets speaking for God are true" with
        "everything written in the Bible is true" is not supported by
        this.

        You seem to be assuming that if it's in the Bible then it
        must have been written by a true prophet writing in the name
        of God.  On what do you base this?

> We don't have the option (according to the Bible)
> of semi-believing them.  Therefore, I don't consider this to be
> a realistic (or logical) option.

        You're evading the issue -- the issue isn't whether the
        prophets who wrote in the Bible was true, but whether the
        entirety of the Bible is true.

        Bob

    RE: 42
    
    Obviously the commandment Thou shall not commit adultery was written
    for men about women.  With 100 wifes and concubines being permitted for
    the Jewish Patriarchs, Solomonon specifically but also David, the
    Patriarch of the Patriarchs.  What about the unpublished story of Hagar. 
    The woman used by Abraham and forced to take her illegitamite Son
    through the dessert when Sarah and Abraham became jealous for the
    legitamate son Isaac.
    
    I am following Richards diversion which obviously is a hot button for
    me.
    
    Patricia 

    >However, the Bible itself doesn't leave that
    >option open for us, does it.  A prophet either speaks for God
    >with totally accuracy or he is NOT a prophet.  That is, either
    >God told Him what to say or God had nothing to do with him.
    >The "I got a semi-revelation from God" theory of the Bible
    >is refuted explicitly and implicity throughout the entire
    >Bible.
    
    It is NOT important to me what option the Bible leaves open for us.  IT
    IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT WHAT OPTIONS GOD LEAVES OPEN FOR US. The bible
    regardless of the Truth of the revelations is written by humans and
    therefore is fallable.
    
    The divine gave each of us a rational minds.  Our rational minds tell us
    that there is ambiguity, difference and literal untruth in the bible. 
    To deny that is to deny that God gave us rational minds.  Our rational
    minds also tell us that there is Truth and Beauty in the Bible.  Our
    rational minds, although imperfect, are the best tool we have for
    finding this Truth and Beauty.
    
    Patricia

>    It is NOT important to me what option the Bible leaves open for us.  IT
>    IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT WHAT OPTIONS GOD LEAVES OPEN FOR US. The bible
>    regardless of the Truth of the revelations is written by humans and
>    therefore is fallable.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may
be thoroughly equipped for every good work."   2 Timothy 3:16-17, NIV

If Scripture makes such a sweeping proclamation of its own complete
truth and authorship, how can you take a half-and-half stand?  If you don't
take all of the Bible as true, how do you know who God really is, and what
he's like?  The Bible states that humans (after the fall) are corrupt, and
their hearts desperately wicked.  Please don't trust yourself over what
God has stated.

>    The divine gave each of us a rational minds.  Our rational minds tell us
>    that there is ambiguity, difference and literal untruth in the bible. 
>    To deny that is to deny that God gave us rational minds.

I believe that the Bible is completely true.  I also have a very rational
mind.  But my rational mind can't compete with God's mind.

>     Our rational minds, although imperfect, are the best tool we have for
>     finding this Truth and Beauty.

For the unsaved person, this is true.  For the saved person, this is not
true.  For those of us saved, the Holy Spirit is the one who shows us
the real truth and beauty of what God says: "But when he, the Spirit of
truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.  He will not speak on
his own; he will speak only what he hears..." John 16:13 NIV

Patricia, you're on a slippery slope, and I really hope you don't stay
there.  When God calls you for judgement you'll need something much more
solid to stand on.

-Steve

re: Note 730.49 by Steve Huston

>If Scripture makes such a sweeping proclamation of its own complete
>truth and authorship, how can you take a half-and-half stand?  

It sounds to me like you are anthropomorphizing scripture.  

Was the person who wrote the passage you mention (2 Timothy 3:16-17) 
refering to what was consided canon at the time of its writing, what
is considered canon now, or what?

Peace,

Jim

>Was the person who wrote the passage you mention (2 Timothy 3:16-17) 
>refering to what was consided canon at the time of its writing, what
>is considered canon now, or what?

I believe the writer (Paul) was referring to the scriptures he had
available at the time (the Old Testament).  The New Testament is
completely consistent with the Old, and every bit as trustworthy.

-Steve

re: Note 730.51 by Steve Huston

>I believe the writer (Paul) was referring to the scriptures he had
>available at the time (the Old Testament).  The New Testament is
>completely consistent with the Old, and every bit as trustworthy.

But does the New Testament explicitly say that of itself?

Peace,

Jim

>But does the New Testament explicitly say that of itself?

No.  And the Old Testament doesn't say that about itself either; the
New Testament does.

Here's where the logical mind comes into play.

-Steve

re: Note 730.53 by Steve Huston

>Here's where the logical mind comes into play.

Well, since Kurt G�del played havoc with self-referential systems,
I'd say that's where the Faithful mind comes into play.

Peace,

Jim

re Note 730.51 by CFSCTC::HUSTON:

> The New Testament is
> completely consistent with the Old, and every bit as trustworthy.

        Hey Steve!

        You just told Patricia that she could not judge whether
        Scripture was correct, yet here you've just expressed a
        judgment on the correctness of the New Testament.

        What gives?

        Bob

re .56

This information is wrong.  Go look it up in any reference book, or where I
have posted the chronology, many times before and an many conferences.

/john

    I will check the information.  Memory tells me the Bible was canonized
    in AD 375.  The canon of the Hebrew Bible was done in response to this.
    
    I'm sorry we're such an ignorant lot, John.
    
    Richard
    

>Well, since Kurt G�del played havoc with self-referential systems,

You just went past the limit of my education ;-)
I'll stick where I am and acknowledge there are some things I haven't got a
perfect understanding of.

>I'd say that's where the Faithful mind comes into play.

Yes, I agree with you.  I also keep in mind the times when I've taken God at his
word without having any education/intellect to back it up, and He's proven himself
faithful to what's stated in the Bible.

-Steve

>        You just told Patricia that she could not judge whether
>        Scripture was correct, yet here you've just expressed a
>        judgment on the correctness of the New Testament.

Well, what I really told Patricia was that the Holy Spirit in the Christian
is what allows Scripture to be seen accurately and in all of its beauty.  I
said that the person without the Spirit can't see it straight.

I have expressed a judegement of correctness based on Scripture, not based on
if it passes my test of what's correct or not.  That's the essential difference
I've been trying to make.

-Steve

    I've not been able to locate the source I relied upon for the information
    I gave in .56.  And it appears from my research this morning that it
    may have been inaccurate.  And so, I have set .56 hidden and apologize
    for any misunderstanding it may have caused.
    
    It appears that the Hebrew Bible was finalized about AD 90.  There was
    a Christian canon of the Old Testment, but I haven't been able to link
    that list of Scriptures to a date.  My sources cite AD 367 as the year
    of the New Testament canon, not AD 375 as I guessed in .58.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    Steve,
    
    I sort of agree with your words but I am sure not with your
    conclusions.
    
    The spirit of God which is within me allow me to see truth dimly
    though.  Seeing truth dimly is the best glimpse we get.  That is why we
    all interpret truth slightly differently.
    
    I like the motto of a friends church that says "let the Christ within
    me great the Christ within you"
    
    
    

>    I sort of agree with your words but I am sure not with your
>    conclusions.

Ok, we'll agree to disagree, I guess.  That ok with you?

Take care,

-Steve

re Note 730.60 by CFSCTC::HUSTON:

> I have expressed a judegement of correctness based on Scripture, not based on
> if it passes my test of what's correct or not.  That's the essential difference
> I've been trying to make.
  
        I don't see the difference -- it's still YOU applying a test. 
        You believe that it happens to be the right test* (which in
        itself is another judgment you're making).  But it's still
        you doing it.

        The result is still yours, the reliability level of the test
        is still your level of reliability.

        Bob

        * I would think it strange if you thought that the test you
        were applying were the wrong test.  However, and quite
        curiously, the test you are applying, which you believe is
        the right test, comes from the very subject you are testing.