See What I Mean?(Till)

Jeff Epler jepler@inetnebr.com
Sun, 28 Sep 1997 09:45:41 -0500 (00875479541, 19970928094541.61148@inetnebr.com) 

On Sun, Sep 28, 1997 at 11:38:55AM +0100, Matt Bell wrote:

> Either I am missing something or I am not being clear enough on what I am

> saying. There are no indifferent persons, only those who appear to be so.

> There are two clear groups set out in the Scriptures, not three. The only

> way you guys can make a contradiction is by inventing a statement which

> does not exist in the Scriptures. No indifferent = no problem = no

> contradiction.


But depending which of the two passages you read, those under your
supposed "passive" category would seem to either be lumped with the
"for" or the "against".  You've arbitrarily decided it's "against", but
it could just as well be that the "passive" are really "for" if one has
read only one of the two passages.

Can you (honestly) tell me that if you were familiar with only Mark
9:40 you would not believe that the bible taught that the "passive" or
"indifferent" people were in fact "for" Jesus?  I know I could not
honestly say I believed this.  At the best, it is unclear and needs
another passage to "interpret" it. (which looks to the unbeliever like
the Christian just arbitrarily chose whichever of the two passages he
preferred, but that's not my point here)

So, here's the setup.  Today, the bible contains two statements S1 and
S2 which are on the surface contradictory, but I will grant for the
sake of the argument that something in the combination of the
statements makes it clear which statement (let's say it's S1) is literally
true and which is "not literally true" but is perhaps figurative in
some way.

Now, either statement S1 was written first, or statement S2 was written
first.  So there were times when the bible contained neither S1 nor S2,
and a time when it contained only one of S1 and S2.  Suppose S1 (the
"literally true" passage) was there first.  Why would the Holy Spirit
inspire a writer to write passage S2?  What other effect could adding
S2 to the bible have but to cause confusion?  The "right" statement was
already there and the only effect could have been to muddy the waters.
It seems that when S2 was added, the bible became more difficult to
understand, and it should be expected that more people would reject
Christianity than would have given a bible without S2.

Suppose S2 was written first.  This means that from then until the Holy
Spirit also inspired some other writer to write S1 that all who read
the manuscripts---_all_ the manuscripts---that the holy spirit had
inspired would come away with the wrong conclusion.  How long was the
bible errant for, then?  Is 5 years too long?  A year?  A month?


So far all you've done is maintain that the actual situation conforms
to what the passage in Matthew says, and that the passage in Mark is at
best misleading about the seemingly indifferent people.  You've cited
but not supported the doctrine of original sin to make this choice seem
less than arbitrary.  But even once you've made a convincing case that
there are really good reasons to belive Matthew literally and interpret
Mark in some way figuratively/less than literally, you've still got to
show how it made sense for the HS to inspire two seemingly
contradictory statements at different times.  Did HS make a mistake
when it inspired S2, and needed to fix things up later with S1?  Or
does HS want more souls in hell and so he added S2 into the mix to
fulfill satanic soul quotas?

Jeff
PS Apologies for the long signature, but it does amuse me.
-- 
\/ jepler@inetnebr.com http://incolor.inetnebr.com/jepler/ (0|1(01*0)*1)+

	After the Children of Israel had wandered for thirty-nine years
in the wilderness, Ferdinand Feghoot arrived to make sure that they would
finally find and enter the Promised Land.  With him, he brought his
favorite robot, faithful old Yewtoo Artoo, to carry his gear and do
assorted camp chores.
	The Israelites soon got over their initial fear of the robot and,
as the months passed, became very fond of him.  Patriarchs took to
discussing abtruse theological problems with him, and each evening the
children all gathered to hear the many stories with which he was programmed.
Therefore it came as a great shock to them when, just as their journey was
ending, he abruptly wore out.  Even Feghoot couldn't console them.
	"It may be true, Ferdinand Feghoot," said Moses, "that our friend
Yewtoo Artoo was soulless, but we cannot believe it.  He must be properly
interred.  We cannot embalm him as do the Egyptians.  Nor have we wood for
a coffin.  But I do have a most splendid skin from one of Pharoah's own
cattle.  We shall bury him in it."
	Feghoot agreed.  "Yes, let this be his last rusting place."
	"Rusting?" Moses cried.  "Not in this dreadful dry desert!"
	"Ah!" sighed Ferdinand Feghoot, shedding a tear, "I fear you do not
realize the full significance of Pharoah's oxhide!"
		-- Grendel Briarton "Through Time & Space With Ferdinand
		   Feghoot!"