RE: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

The Bible is very much observationally true - provided you 'grade' it upon
the correct standards. The problem isn't with our religious work, it is with
what we teach it to be. If the Bible is a guide for perfect understanding of
man, then it is excellent. If we are to consider it to be literally true in
everything it says - then it is frequently observationally false. If
further, we add to this the standard of perfection, defined with our
definition of 'flaw', then The Bible fails to be observationally true.

Is the story of Goliath true? It has a great truth about the fact that a man
can have great talents and be selectively wise, while being a total
blithering idiot where women are concerned. Has that changed?

If compared against any other historical work from any biblical era, the
Bible comes up with amazing scores of veracity. But of what? When did Jesus
speak in parables and when was he being literal? When did he reveal that he
was speaking in parables?

God speaks life into being. That is a great truth. God told Noah to build an
ark when he was miles inland and there had never been rain and Noah built
it. That tells as volumes about the need and the power of following our
convictions.

And yet, the ruins of the Philistines were found solely on what was written
in the Bible. Philistines were not even known to exist when the architect
found the ruins.

Do a little research, you will find miraculous verifications of this book.
However, you need to start with, 'What is this book?' Not with, 'Here is the
perfect, literal word of God!!!!!"

I have read most of the Apocrypha. Susanna is amazing. I do not know why it
is not in our Protestant Bible. Bel and the Dragon is also impressive. If
you have not read them: they give Daniel credit for being an early day
Sherlock Holmes. He uses analytical processes that were way ahead of his
time - and ahead of the time that these works can be verified to have been
written.

Look at the evolution of the people and their attitudes. Look at the
evolution of the way God reacts to them. Mankind may be more than 6000 years
old, but the men of 6000 years ago were pretty primitive. The Bible gives us
amazing illumination about the development of man.

Why did the Bible stop 2000 years ago? Are the religions that say that there
are additional holy works necessarily wrong? Are we to rely on the gift of
the Holy Spirit to determine our teachings from that point forward
individually? Or is there really nothing new under the sun, and the answers
we need truly are in the Bible?

Or could it be that we are seeking too hard to eat the fruit of the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil?

We look back on people of ancient days with our hindsight and wonder how
they could do the things they did. But, if you 'be there', you see this
madman Ezekiel who talks like he's been taking LSD, standing on the concrete
bench of one of our Universities telling us we are all whores. How many
other madmen stood in the ancient streets making crazy claims? Ezekiel
prophesies incredible things - things like that there won't be a president
in the United States for 40 years and that it will never be a great nation
again. Who is going to listen?

Did the prophesies come true? Once they did, wouldn't people listen?

They didn't all literally come true - at least not that can be verified,
today. And they came true over so many years, and amidst such destruction.
And what other soothsayers were making claims that partially came true?

And what about Jonah? Did his prophesy come true? Was Nineveh destroyed?

A message that permeates the Bible is that God will repent of destruction
of humanity given the slightest sign of obedience.

But, the Atheists would use this as a sign of God's and the Bible's
fallibility.

He who sets himself up to be perfect and who is self-righteous and
judgemental sets him up for a great fall. Much of Christendom does this.

He who returns criticism with love, finds that criticism is greatly reduced.

People see what they look for. When a Christian preacher claims perfection,
people look for, and find, faults. When a preacher teaches love and
acceptance and truth - then people will look at the Bible and find love and
acceptance and great truth.

The world sees us according to what we project - though that may not be what
we wish to project. Look at the children of the intense people you know.
Some will be just like them, and others will be as far opposite as they can
get. But, love attracts virtually everyone.

The observational truth of the Bible is there. But, when the Bible teaches
love, and we live hate while proclaiming its truth - we ourselves proclaim
it to be a lie.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of glennmorton@entouch.net
  Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 10:05 AM
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Subject: Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

  For David Siemans, Iain Strachan and Bill Hamilton

  DAvid Siemans wrote:

>>>DS

  There is a dual approach because of differences, specifically that Islam
has shari'ah law and Buddhism does not demand conformity. By your own claim,
in a part of your response to David O., Buddhist scriptures may be
corrected, including messages that contradict the originals. Indeed, the
Hinayana and Mahayana do not agree on all points. You claim that scripture
must be true throughout. So this, on your claim, excludes Buddhism.<<<<

  I bolded part of your statement. You can't find me saying that. So, your
assumption is wrong. What I do say is that the only way I can tell if a
scripture (from whatever religion) is true is if it says something true
about nature that otherwise it couldn't have known about.

  And, you were not paying attention to why I used the Buddhist change.
David O. claimed this: "Within the Buddhist worldview, there is room for
enlightened individuals who may come on the scene from time to time, but
this doesn't represent some sort of refinement of the commands or message of
a sovereign God."

  I was pointing out that that wasn't true. Buddhism does change. And I
would add, that if God is an evolving creature rather than the same,
yesterday, today and tomorrow, then Christianity is false. To claim that I
would say Buddhism is false because of something I didn't say is to go way
beyond what I have said.

>>>Islam will be a little harder to challenge, because all but the
"correct" text were destroyed, though I suspect that a few problems remain.
But part of Islamic law makes conversion to any other faith a capital
offense. I submit that any faith that must enforce conformity by killing the
nonconformist is damnable. I recognize that this was also the situation for
a while with Catholicism: heretics were burnt for a few centuries. <<<<<

  Don't forget that the protestants also engaged in this behavior--a quick
trip through the Vatican will show you many paintings of priests kills 'by
protestant hatred', at least that is what the captions say. And, in northern
Ireland while I lived in Scotland, protestants were throwing molotov
cocktails at 6-year-old little girls for the crime of walking through a
protestant neighborhood to go to a Catholic school. (being a protestant, I
am terribly ashamed of this.)

>In brief, truth demands consistency. Truth demands freedom: it cannot be
legislated. These seem to me to be pretty effective tests.<<<

  Agreed, truth demands consistency and that is why I reject both YEC and
the widely accepted alternative of beliving that God accommodates his
message to the culture of the day. It becomes entirely inconsistent because
it means that God is allowing inconsistency into his message.. When are you
going to see that? :-)

  For Iain Strachan

  you wrote:
>>>There seems to be an underlying assumption that poverty (even by
religious choice) is a Bad Thing. (If I've misunderstood you, forgive me). I
question that assumption, for a couple of reasons, from stuff I've read.<<<<

  Absolutely fair comment. You showed me something I hadn't considered and
I like it when people do that. But, I will stand by that. Poverty means
that when you children get sick, you can't take them to the hospital to be
cured. Poverty means that when you get cancer, you die earlier than you
could have and your family suffers loss. Poverty means often a shorter
lifespan on average (maybe we should strive to die at 27 like the earliest
farmers did). Poverty means more deaths of mothers and infants during
childbirth. Poverty means not being able to control your life (you haven't
seen poverty until you see poverty in some of the places I have seen
poverty).

  I would also point out that poverty by choice, which is what Sundar Singh
did, is perfectly fine with me, but it is the choice of a knowing person.
The people I see don't have the choice--they will live a poverty stricken
life.

  Now, if the Tibetan theology is correct, then they are purchasing the
pearl of great price by their life and they are doing precisely the correct
thing. If not..... well then they are doing precisely the wrong
thing--having a life of poverty here and well, who knows in the next life,
depending of course upon what theology is ultimately true. If atheism is
true, then they get a life of suffering and poverty and nothing afterwords.
If other religions are ultimately true then they get a life of suffering and
poverty followed by suffering and who knows what else.

>>>The first is a poem "An I don't offer this as a complete answer to your
very valid questions, but nonetheless I think it's a valuable perspective.

  Be warned! Sundar Singh is VERY anti-materialistic, and is quite scathing
about Western values - and would probably have arrived at much the same
conclusion as the Okri poem, that there is richness even in poverty.<<<<

  Lest anyone think I haven't experienced poverty, I have. My father cut me
off at 18 and I lived in great poverty trying to get through college. There
were times that I was so angry that I couldn't even come up with a dime to
go get a coke with my friends. I lived on less than a 5 dollars a day--yeah
this was years ago, but even bad salaries back then gave one more than
$150/month. All my other money was saved to pay college tuition and books.
While my poverty is nowhere near what I see, I knew what real anger was back
then about the situation. It was very tough watching others take college so
cavalierly while I was struggling to eat. And when I got married, I had the
grand total of $14 in the bank. I was quite a catch. She, was very rich in
my eyes. Why she chose me, I don't know.

  For Bill Hamilton

>>>>I find this exchange rather interesting. Glenn, you ask for reasons
why we should consider the Scriptures objective evidence of the truth of
Christianity. Phil answers with what I consider to be the real proof of the
truth of Christianity: that if we seek God he will be found by us. He admits
that he can't offer objective proof, but based on his own experience -- when
he trusts in God, God comes through, and you accept his answer -- at least
you claim it's the most honest you have read on the list. I think you have
to cut the rest of us some slack: when you ask questions about evidence, we
respond with arguments about evidence.<<<

  Bill, I disagree here. When I have asked about some observational
evidence, what I read is that it isn't important and that only the theology
taught is important.

>>> Yet I expect that most participants would agree with Phil's answer (I
certainly do, and I believe I have stated so on the list before -- if I
haven't I should be chastised) In a way you are making the same error the
YEC's do when they try to use creationism for evangelistic purposes: they
seem to believe that if they present objective evidence for Christ, then the
listener will automatically believe. <<<<

  I have said for years that this is not an evangelistic issue. This is a
discipleship issue. We have young people who go into science and decide that
nothing about Christianity is observationally true. Then they leave the
faith. What I find is that no matter how many times I say this is not an
evangelistic issue, people continue to tell me that that is what I am
wanting to do. They also claim I am looking for proof, when I know no proof
can be found. What I am looking for is confirmatory evidence of a nature
that is not merely subjective (i.e., the Bible in not meant as a science
book but merely teaches true theology--of course, how does one know that it
teaches true theology without assuming it so?)

  For verification that Ihave said it is a discipleship issue for years see
http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199705/0069.html

  "No, as I have said many many times, no origins view is useful in
  evangelism. No origins view, if verified would convert many who have left
  the faith and that is not the point at all of apologetics IMO. It is
  useful in discipleship. "
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199805/0111.html

  Here is a case where I am talking about why this area is important:
http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/200003/0168.html

  Unfortunately, no one listens to what I say in these regards and every
time I raise the issue of the need for some form of observational
verification, I get the same claim, that I am trying to use this for
evangelism. All I want to do is keep from loosing our best and brightest
who conclude that there is no reality in Christianity.

>>>remember that Jesus said no one can come unto him unless the father
draws him (Jn 6:44). It's not a matter of evidence, it's a matter of having
a relationship with Jesus Christ. If other religions make similar claims, I
can live with that -- I know what my experiuence teaches me.<<

  Sorry, Bill, that isn't what I am trying to do. I will, of course be
asked this same question the next time this issue comes up because few are
really is trying to understand what I am saying. And even fewer remember. I
could go do a search for when I told DAvid Siemans the very same thing I
told him in my last post to him about my believing in proof (tonight he says
I want to have the Bible true throughout, but I have corrected him on that
numerous times and it still comes up each and every single time this issue
is discussed. Memories are so short). The word Sisyphussean comes to mind
at points like this. It is easier to simply read this through a filter of
what people expect someone like me to say rather than work a bit to try to
understand it.

  Alternatively, I may be a perfectly awful communicator.

  =
Received on Mon May 29 12:54:09 2006