From: Jay Willingham (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Oct 12 2002 - 11:21:18 EDT
George, your response was somewhat short on "shalom".
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <email@example.com>
To: "Hassell, Ian C." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: What is your faith based on?
> Hassell, Ian C. wrote:
> > Wow. In my few short months on this list I've learned that much of
> > supernatural record of the OT couldn't have happened (nor does it
> > Jesus didn't distinguish between truth and fantasy in His teachings,
> > lied when describing the after-life, some (but certainly not all) of
> > gospels may be true, Paul supported and taught positions that we have
> > determined to be lies (homosexuality is a sin, etc.), the writers of
> > gospels lied about Jesus' miracles (Peter walking on water), etc., etc.
> > know that may sound like strong language, but either these passages in
> > scripture were true or they were lies. Whether they were written out
> > altruistic motives or not, truth is either truth or it is not. Ask any
> > year old.
> > I can't disagree that it would be infinitely convenient to my "faith"
> > were able to dismiss any parts of scripture that I think didn't agree
> > our current culture (homosexuality, sanctity of life) or our current
> > interpretation of scientific evidence. But then is my faith really in
> > all-powerful, all-knowing God or is my faith in my ability to
> > what I know about him with the current tides of popular culture and
> > Isn't this really Deistic Humanism? Or Humanistic Deism?
> > My first-ever post to this group asked the question - "if the Bible
> > true, then what is your faith based upon?" I never received an answer,
> > rather I got a lot of long-winded explanations about the changing
> > language, the difficulty of translation, the inability of us to know
> > author's intent, etc. If God intended us to have His word (as He
> > several times within the Bible), if Christ re-affirmed the inspiration
> > the OT (and taught from it) then wouldn't He have taken care to
> > throughout a couple thousand years so that our understanding of Him in
> > could be as real as it was in 0002?
> You lie. I know that this may sound like strong language and
> normally I would
> say "you are mistaken" but I assume from your usage of the word "lie"
> that you'll
> consider it acceptable.
> The first dictionary definition of "lie" is "to utter
> falsehood with intention
> to deceive" and that is, I think, the way it's commonly understood.
> It's true that it
> can be used in a milder sense but nobody in civil discourse would say
> "You're lying"
> when she means "You're wrong." A lie is a deliberate attempt to give
> Nobody that I know of on this list has has said that any of
> the biblical
> passages to which you refer are "lies" in this sense. Nor has the
> argument in most
> cases been that the biblical writers were simply mistaken. To take a
> recent case in
> which I was involved, my argument was not that the writer of the 1st
> gospel was simply
> mistaken in thinking that Peter walked on water, much less that he
> was deliberately
> lying. I said that it seems likely that the evangelist composed this
> story as a
> commentary on the significance of Jesus walking on the sea. As such
> a commentary it is
> Your initial question, "If the Bible isn't true, then what is
> your faith based
> upon?" is inept because neither I nor (I think) any others on the
> list have said that
> "the Bible isn't true." Others will have to speak for themselves but
> my faith is in the
> crucified and risen God Incarnate to whom scripture - with all its
> literature and, yes, with some errors of fact (e.g., Mt.27:9)-
> faithfully bears witness.
> George L. Murphy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 12 2002 - 12:37:07 EDT