Re: Thou Art Izz, And On This Rock Shalt Thou Post
Ian Dorion (dorioni@intellinet.com)
Sat, 05 Apr 1997 10:18:36 -0600
yoel haalmoni wrote:
>
> >Izz
> >Good point! That is why knowledgeable fundies claim only the non-existent
> >original scriptures as inerrant!
>
> yoel-
> IF you can succeed in getting them to that point... to admit there are
> obvious errors and inconsitencies in their VERSIONS of the Bible then my
> experience is that this is what they will claim. But getting them to this
> point is difficult, because usually they will say that you do not
> understand "God's true meaning" because you don't have the "Holy Spirit"
> dwelling in you to "reveal" it to you. And then bring in a non-sequitor
> like "personal testimony" or "witnessing" or they will change the subject
> in order to dodge the issue.
>
> Izz
> >But they only say that when pressed, normally, they just say "The Bible is
> >inerrant", and they let the uninformed person assume that they mean the
> >Bibles we read are inerrant!
> >
> >So, it seems to me that there really is no issue of inerrancy/errancy,
> >because nobody (except fools and the uninformed) claims that an inerrant
> >Bible exists.
> >
> >If any of the above is incorrect, I welcome correction.
> >
> >Izz
>
> yoel-
> Very observant. You told me in a personal posting that you had only
> recently become acquainted with the Bible. All you need in order to
> understand the Bible and Christianity (and religions in general- especially
> missionary religions,) is 1)common sense, 2)the skepticism that even
> Christians themselves will use when examining fantastic claims of other
> religions, 3)an awareness of the common human desire to feel noble and more
> insightful than than others, 4)and of the human tendency to willingly
> deceive one's self.
>
> Strip the first two away from yourself and you become a superstitious
> target for all sorts of charlatanism.
>
> Strip the last two away from religionists and they are the same as us. Not
> better nor worse.
>
> There isn't much more to it than this.
>
> yoel
(Ian 4/5) I agree with you Yoel. This is why they don't want to discuss the
Penteteuch. I'll read it and accept it just the way it's written and they can't
do that. A few have tried but, most notably, Roger Hutchinson but he soon got
tripped up in his own lies and it's been a while since I've heard from him. And
I don't expect to.