Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

[pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <3A8D3A8C.737D64E2@inetnebr.com>,
Roy and/or Janet Miller  <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:
 
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
> 
>> In article <3A8C972E.68BF3CD3@inetnebr.com>,
>> Roy and/or Janet Miller  <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I do. However, since you have claimed that statements of Christ,
>>> as recorded in scripture were the words of the evil one, that means
>>> that you are a son of the father of lies.
>>
>> Both those who claim that the Bible is the "words of God" and those
>> who claim it's the "words of Satan" are liars really.
> 
> I don't make that claim.
 
Do you agree or disagree with that claim?
 
.............
 
> 1. Do not call men liars before you accurately understand what they
> mean by what they say, otherwise you are a liar when you brand them so;
 
OK -- so I'll ask then: do you agree or disagree with the Bible's
claim to be the "words of God"?
 
> 2. Do not put yourself so quickly in the category of the above quote
> "untaught and unstable who twist to their own destruction"
 
Sorry, but you are a few centuries late with that one!  A few
centuries ago it would probably have worked to scare people with hell
(no, you don't say "hell" explicitly, but you do say "..to their own
destruction").
 
> 3. The historic Christian position has always been that the Scripture
> are both the words of men, and completely the Word of God.
 
Which implies that the words of men and the words of God are one and the
same, right?  BTW the Bible itself disagrees with this position.
 
> Thus, one can find differing vocabularies, differing writing styles,
> three different languages used (Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek),
> differing issues, but the teaching is the same.
 
Not quite -- the teaching in the Old Testament (originally in Hebrew)
and in the New Testament (originally in Aramaic and Koine Greek) are
noticeably different -- just like Judaism and Christianity are
noticeably different.
 
> To the last point, "untaught and unstable people" often "twist ... the
> scriptures" by failing to see that sometimes, exactly the same thing is
> said, but two differ authors use terms in such a fashion that a cursory
> reading leads the "untaught and unstable" to conclude that the authors
> are contradicting one another.
 
...which means exactly the same things aren't written, or else these
different interpretations would not be possible.  Perhaps you should
look up "exactly" in your dictionary?
 
> Case in point, Paul and James on the subject of justification by
> grace/works. The both quote the same OT passage, and use it to claim
> justification by grace (Paul) or works (James). Contradiction! No, Paul
> is claiming that one is justified (declared righteous by God) via grace,
> whereas James is claiming that one proves one's justification by grace
> through works. No contradiction at all. Just closer, more careful reading.
 
So you're thus claiming that "works" and "grace" actually are synonyms?
 
> 
>> As a matter of fact, the Bible is the words of men.....
> 
> A half truth is a lie.
 
If so, is a half lie the truth?  If not, why not?
 
> Prove that the Bible isn't what it says it is,
 
I cannot do that.  LIkewise I cannot prove with 100% certainty that the
tooth fairy doesn't exist either.  Should my failure to prove the
non-existence of the tooth fairy make us conclude there actually is a
tooth fairy?
 
> and do so either through email, or posting elsewhere. BTW, you said you
> were agnostic. The word means "a" negative "gnostic" one who knows;
> translation: ignorant, one who has no knowledge. Now you claim to know
> something. Make up your mind, either you don't know, or you do know
> (or think you know.)
 
I was just expressing my belief.....  try some closer, more careful,
reading not just with the Bible but also with other stuff.....
 
>> In another few thousand years, Christianity may very well be an
>> extinct religion -- like the religions of ancient Greece and Rome are
>> extinct today.
> 
> I'm wouldn't be surprised to hear you say that you hope so. However,
> under the rigorous anti Christian persecutions by the atheistic rulers
> of the Soviet Union for 75 years, Christianity has become stronger than
> ever.  Ditto in mainland China, and other communist countries. It still
> exists, in Iraq and Iran where centuries of total societal rejection
> hasn't stamped it out. The Turks practiced genocide on the Christian
> Armenian people, and yet both the people and the faith survives. And
> Christians don't have the ethic unity that has helped the Jews to remain
> a people.  So, time will tell, but I am confident that the faith, which
> is still spreading and growing (outside Europe) will survive. I
> personally think that you suffer from a provincial attitude in this area.
 
So what does this teach us?  It teaches us the very reason people
become religious: out of fear!  Persecuting people in order to try to
eradicate their religion is indeed counter-productive, as all the
examples you've given above so clearly show: it merely enhances the
fear among those persecuted people, who then cling to their religion
even more to be able to endure this fear.  Medieval priests knew, and
used, this too, when they frightened the people by the eternal
flames, pains and suffering in hell -- and from their point of view,
it was a productive method since it did scare the uneducated to cling
to their religion -- after all, who wants eternal suffering?
 
Instead educate people and remove their fear -- then they won't have
as strong need for religion.  That's what has happened in my
"province" of the world.  And it's very likely that a number of
Soviet Union officials have marvelled at the Swedish success in
secularizing the country -- and we even did it without putting people
in jail for their religion!
 
 
Now, to return to the question about the lifetime of Christianity: I
said that in a few thousand years Christianity may very well be
extinct.  However I don't think all religions will be extinct by
then, but Christianity may have been replaced by some other religion
which hasn't been formed yet, just like Christianity once replaced
the ancient Roman gods Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, etc.  Basically all
religions deal with one thing: our death.  Just like all other
animals, humans will die, but unlike the other animals we're aware we
will die long before it happens.  A lot of people don't like the idea
that they will cease to exist, so mankind created religions.  And all
religions have one thing in common: they all promise some kind of
afterlife after the physical death.
 
Therefore God didn't create Man -- instead Man created God !
 
(no, I cannot prove this -- I was merely expressing my belief.
And of course I may be wrong -- time will tell....)
 
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se   or    paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW:     http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch    http://welcome.to/pausch