longing for the facts

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Jim Washburn wrote:


> ducq

> regarding the below, i went through the cited passages and found no

> contradictions.  but a thorough exegisis would probably take the

> better part of an hour to put together, as well as be boring to

> read.  nor is the $1000 goose chase attractive.  i suppose i could

> give a shortened version that deals with what i'm assuming others

> are assuming to be errancies... (?)

> 

> WASHBURN

> Right on, ducq!  I feel the same way about James Randi's goose chase. 

> Hell, I can demonstrate ESP, remove viewing, levitation, spoon bending,

> dowsing, etc., etc. whenever I feel like it.  It just ain't worth the

> trouble for a lousy million bucks.

> 

> Jim Washburn


CHRISA:

   Actually, I agree with what ducq is implying: the fact that this
so-called "challenge" has been up for many years without a single
payoff is NOT because it is impossible to come up with a harmonization,
but because of the reluctuance of the "judges" to part with their
money.  The terms for this "challenge" are most unlike Randi's 
challenge in that the terms for "winning the challenge" are very
ill-defined ... "come up with a rationalization for all five accounts".
That's easy.  I, an atheist, could do it myself using the tried-and-true
"any explanation will work" hermaneutic.  In fact I've been sorely 
tempted to do so; however I know that my chances of being recognized are
close to nil and so I have also decided, like ducq, to not waste my
time and energy chasing after that imaginary carrot.  Secondly, I find
that most of the atheists on this list adopt some sort of "hyper-inerrist"
position almost as a mockery of what I think most Christians believe.
The atheists on this board tend to strain gnats and swallow camels; to the
point that they will argue whether Peter heard one cock crow or two and
totally ignore the important questions: are the gospels accurate
histories?  Did Jesus rise from the dead?  Why should we believe in the
Bible?  Farrell made a point some time ago that there are Christians who
are ready to pounce on weak atheistic arguments and turn them into
represntative samples of atheist theology.  That could be done so easily
here!  Imagine the pastor telling his flock: "these atheists are so
depraved, they think that JUST because rabbits do not chew the cud (Lev
11:6) that Jesus is not God.  It's obvious that they do not understand
and misinterpret God's TRUE MEANING of the passage and are so rebellious
that they will jump at any lame excuse to deny Jesus the right to be Lord
and Savior in their lives".  

All told, I think debating over inerrancy is a fruitless endevour: even if
you catch the True Believer in a position where they cannot come up with a
harmonization of the text, they are more than likely just to say "well,
just because *I* can't come up with a harmonization that doesn't mean one
doesn't exist".  In addition, they are more than likely, as would I, to
notice how picky some of these discreprancies can get.  I daresay
there is even a sizable amount of Christians today who believe in
inerrancy ONLY WHEN IT IS TALKING ABOUT SPIRITUAL MATTERS, those who
believe that only the "original MSS are inspired", or those that believe 
in the authority of the Scriptures without inerrancy of the Scriptures.

Well, enough ranting for now.
- Chris

----------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above because my 
cats have apparently learned to type. 

Visit The Other Side: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~cashton/atheism/

• Previous message: longing for the facts
• Next message: longing for the facts
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]