Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dylan · 08-06-2002, 05:05 AM

So I'm working on a response to this letter to the editor:

Bible is God's 'letter'
In repsonse to Williiam H.'s request for a letter from God, he has written to us. It is called the Holy Bible.
Are God's communications confusing? Why so many different interpretations? People have added to his word with revelations of their own, often in contradiction with the Bible.
People have taken away from and ignored God's teachings, primarily when it condemns their lifestyle.
The modern church is being influenced by our culture rather than the culture being influenced by the church.
The history of Christianity is replete with new church groups starting in objection to abuses in existing churhces. SOme churches have reformed themselves, such has occured among the SOuthern Baptists and is now occuring in the Roman Catholic Church.
Regarding whether the phrase "under God" should be in our pledge, I refer you to George Washington's statement in 1798, when proclaiming a National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving:
"It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge to Providence of Almighty God, to bey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and to humply implore his prtoection and favor." and God's promise from Psalm 33:12, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord."

This is what I have in response so far (it's a very rough draft with many errors:

In response to Robert Frank's letter "Bible is God's 'letter'".

Robert Frank asserts that the Bible is the letter from God, yet he seems not to recognize that in the 4th century AD, various Church leaders took many writings relating to Christianity, and then voted on which would be called the Bible. One of their criterium was that whatever was included in the Bible had to agree with the Church's current dogma!

Mr. Frank may present the many miracles listed in the Bible as evidence, or the prophecies that were "fufilled". To believe the miracles in the Bible is the same as believing the UFO sitings that have happened, and the prophecies which were fufilled were most likely written down in the Bible as being fufilled (for example, Jesus being crucified) but it was in the best interest of the writers to falsify the events. One must also take into accout that, as was stated in the first paragraph, the Bible is only a select group of writings about Jesus.

Many people who promote the Bible as God's word also tend to ignore the just as credible (ie not that credible) evidence for other religious texts being the "word of God" of having "the truth".

As Thomas Paine said, 'It has often been said, that anything may be proved from the Bible, but before anything can be admitted as proved by the Bible, the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted as proof of anything."

What direction should I head with this letter? What other main points should I touch upon?

Thanks

Peter Kirby · 08-06-2002, 06:12 AM

Dylan writes: Robert Frank asserts that the Bible is the letter from God, yet he seems not to recognize that in the 4th century AD, various Church leaders took many writings relating to Christianity, and then voted on which would be called the Bible.

I myself have never seen an actual quote from a contemporary indicating that there was a fourth century council in which the selection of books in the Bible were decided upon by vote.

Yes, I have seen a lot of people say that it went down just like that, but I have never seen an actual quote.

Of course, the selection of books that belong in the Bible was a human process. There's a lot of literature on which author accepted which book as canonical and when. Some of our NT was denied by some, and some outside the NT was accepted by some.

If I were writing the response, I would point out that no book of the Bible claims, "God wrote this." Nowhere does a book of the Bible give a table of contents. One has to look to church tradition for the canon, a canon that was in flux in the first few centuries. Even today Catholics and Protestants argue over the books that are called Deuterocanon or Aporcypha.

Dylan writes: One of their criterium was that whatever was included in the Bible had to agree with the Church's current dogma!

Criteria, yes. Although perhaps some thought of unorthodoxy as a clue to inauthenticity, i.e., that a work was not written by an apostle, because it did not agree with the faith that had been handed down. The effect of excluding unorthodoxy remains, but the ratiocination is slightly different.

Dylan: Mr. Frank may present the many miracles listed in the Bible as evidence, or the prophecies that were "fufilled". To believe the miracles in the Bible is the same as believing the UFO sitings that have happened,

This is arguable from the perspective that "alien visitors" are within the realm of natural law, while the miracles of the Bible are claimed to contravene natural law.

Also, you may wish to rephrase as "that UFO sightings have happened," so as not to give the impression that you believe in the veridicality of UFO sightings. And to head off the "unidentified flying object" nitpickers, perhaps rephrase as "that reports of flying saucers are true."

Dylan writes: and the prophecies which were fufilled were most likely written down in the Bible as being fufilled (for example, Jesus being crucified) but it was in the best interest of the writers to falsify the events.

This doesn't make much sense to me. Do you mean to say, "The writers of the Gospels had a motive to claim falsely that Jesus was crucified in order to present Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies"? If so, I am not aware of any OT prophecy that says the Messiah would get crucified.

Dylan writes: One must also take into accout that, as was stated in the first paragraph, the Bible is only a select group of writings about Jesus.

Plus the Jewish prologue.

Dylan writes: Many people who promote the Bible as God's word also tend to ignore the just as credible (ie not that credible) evidence for other religious texts being the "word of God" of having "the truth".

Perhaps a mention of these other religious texts and an explanation of why their credentials are just as good would be appropriate.

Dylan writes: As Thomas Paine said, 'It has often been said, that anything may be proved from the Bible, but before anything can be admitted as proved by the Bible, the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted as proof of anything."

OK.

Dylan writes: What direction should I head with this letter? What other main points should I touch upon?

You seem to have taken up the point of whether the Bible is the Word of God to the neglect of the other stuff this guy says. The guy says that all confusion over the Bible is because people add their own revelations or subtract the parts that cramp their lifestyle. That's wrong. The guy says that "under God" needs to be in the Pledge of Allegiance. That's wrong. The guy uses his theology as a springboard for social and political commentary, as many theists do. You seem to have gone straight for the theology, while the guy has stuff to say about society and politics too.

best,
Peter Kirby

Dylan · 08-06-2002, 07:08 AM

Cool man, thanks for the help. I'll post the updated version soon.

Just one thing - you state that alien visitors are arguable because they fit within the natural law - but isn't it illogical to just say that everything which happens must fit within the natural law? It's like just saying "that can't happen because I deny that it can" ... it just doesn't make sense

Starspun · 08-06-2002, 07:15 AM

Be sure to mention that G Washington was not a christian. The god he speaks of is that of his Deist belief's. People assume he was a christian with the statement written in the letter.

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: Starspun ]</p>

Dylan · 08-06-2002, 08:06 AM

here's an updated version (yeah it still has spelling mistakes as well as other errors):

n response to Robert Frank's letter "Bible is God's 'letter.'"

Robert Frank ( "Bible is God's 'letter'") asserts that the Bible is the letter from God, yet he seems not to recognize that in the 4th century AD, various Church leaders took many writings relating to Christianity, and then voted on which would be called the Bible. One of their criteria was that whatever was included in the Bible had to agree with the church's current dogma!

Mr. Frank may present the many supernatural occurrences listed in the Bible or prophecies being "fulfilled" as evidence for the Bible being God's letter. If you accept the validity of all these supernatural occurrences, you should accept the validity of the multitude of other miracles which are listed in other religious texts, for example, people recalling past lives in Eastern Religions, and Native American stories that include supernatural occurrences. As for the prophecies, either the only supporting evidence for their fulfillment are in the Bible, they were "predicted" after the prophecised event, or it is obvious that what was predicted would come true (for example, Judaism being spread around the world). Additionally, the Bible even says that Jesus states " (insert quote here that Jesus said about miracles about him being false)"

As Thomas Paine said, 'It has often been said, that anything may be proved from the Bible, but before anything can be admitted as proved by the Bible, the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted as proof of anything."

Robert Frank also states that the Bible has so many contradictions because they added in their own revelations. First of all, it seems to me that there is no objective way of deciding which "revelations" are true. So, isn't it terribly subjective for which is actually the revelation of this God that you say exists? I could use the Bible to justify being a peace-loving communal-living hippie but I also could use it to justify being a strait-laced homophobic conservative.

Does anyone know where I can find that quote - I read it in the Atheist Debater's Handbook.....

And I still need to add a few things.

Are there any good essays that I could use that are like "Why I Don't Believe in the Bible"?

peace & thanks

Peter Kirby · 08-06-2002, 07:28 PM

Dylan writes: Just one thing - you state that alien visitors are arguable because they fit within the natural law - but isn't it illogical to just say that everything which happens must fit within the natural law? It's like just saying "that can't happen because I deny that it can" ... it just doesn't make sense

I was responding to this statement:

"To believe the miracles in the Bible is the same as believing the UFO sitings that have happened,"

I was pointing out that this is not a good analogy, because alien spacecraft could be part of a natural universe, while the miracles in the Bible are thought to be supernatural. Whether or not it is logical to argue against miracles because they contravene natural law, this is not a good analogy. A better analogy would be the miracles attributed to Buddha or modern gurus.

Furthermore, an argument against miracle claims would be more like saying "that didn't happen because it goes against everything we know about how the world really works." You may not agree with such an argument, but it does make sense.

best,
Peter Kirby

PTET · 08-08-2002, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dylan:
<strong>here's an updated version (yeah it still has spelling mistakes as well as other errors):

...he seems not to recognize that in the 4th century AD, various Church leaders took many writings relating to Christianity, and then voted on which would be called the Bible... </strong>

My page on <a href="http://dreamwater.net/ptet/bible-composition.html" target="_blank">The composition of the New Testament</a> has a quote from a Theophosist website claiming that the <a href="http://dreamwater.net/ptet/bible-composition.html#NICEA" target="_blank">Council Of Nicea</a> voted on the books of the New Testament - but it doesn't seem like a very reliable source. (It does tell a great story, tho ;&gt

I'd suggest keeping your letter very short and to the point... What astounds me is how Fundies can consider the "orginal word" of the Bible to be inerrant, when we have no way of knowing what the "original words" were...

All the best

<a href="http://dreamwater.net/ptet/" target="_blank">PTET</a>

Dylan · 08-08-2002, 09:02 AM

This is more along the lines of what I'm going to send:

Robert Frank ( �Bible is God's 'letter'�) asserts that the Bible is the letter from God, yet he seems not to recognize that in the 4th century AD, various Church leaders took many writings relating to Christianity, and then voted on which would be called the Bible. One of their criteria was that whatever was included in the Bible had to agree with the church's current dogma! To state that the Bible is the truth is plainly ignoring all the other religious texts from around the world which also have many stories of miracles and supernatural occurrences.

Robert Frank also states that the Bible has so many contradictions because they added in their own revelations. First of all, it seems to me that there is no objective way of deciding which �revelations� are true. So, isn't it terribly subjective for which is actually the revelation of this God that you say exists? I could use the Bible to justify being a peace-loving communal-living hippie but I also could use it to justify being a strait-laced homophobic conservative.

Lastly, it also should be recognized that the concept of salvation in world religions started to appear at a certain point in history when there was much suffering, starvation, and pain among the masses (not that there isn't currently). Early tribal societies do not have the concept of salvation in their religions, they do not seem to need it. One should recognize this fact and see that Christianity was a reflection of a need in society (to be saved) rather than a truth.

As Thomas Paine said, 'It has often been said, that anything may be proved from the Bible, but before anything can be admitted as proved by the Bible, the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted as proof of anything.�

And does anyone know where the quote is in the Bible where Jesus "says" the miracles told about him are false?

queue · 08-09-2002, 03:50 AM

If I may make a suggestion. Change the "strait-laced homophobic conservative" to "homophobic child-beating slave owner". IMO, any conservative that reads your letter will see that phrase and think you are just a bleeding-heart liberal giving them a reason to ignore the points that you are making in the rest of the letter.

Sorry, I do not know the verse that you are looking for.

08-06-2002, 05:05 AM	#1
Dylan Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Somewhere Posts: 100	letter to the editor So I'm working on a response to this letter to the editor: Bible is God's 'letter' In repsonse to Williiam H.'s request for a letter from God, he has written to us. It is called the Holy Bible. Are God's communications confusing? Why so many different interpretations? People have added to his word with revelations of their own, often in contradiction with the Bible. People have taken away from and ignored God's teachings, primarily when it condemns their lifestyle. The modern church is being influenced by our culture rather than the culture being influenced by the church. The history of Christianity is replete with new church groups starting in objection to abuses in existing churhces. SOme churches have reformed themselves, such has occured among the SOuthern Baptists and is now occuring in the Roman Catholic Church. Regarding whether the phrase "under God" should be in our pledge, I refer you to George Washington's statement in 1798, when proclaiming a National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving: "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge to Providence of Almighty God, to bey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and to humply implore his prtoection and favor." and God's promise from Psalm 33:12, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord." This is what I have in response so far (it's a very rough draft with many errors: In response to Robert Frank's letter "Bible is God's 'letter'". Robert Frank asserts that the Bible is the letter from God, yet he seems not to recognize that in the 4th century AD, various Church leaders took many writings relating to Christianity, and then voted on which would be called the Bible. One of their criterium was that whatever was included in the Bible had to agree with the Church's current dogma! Mr. Frank may present the many miracles listed in the Bible as evidence, or the prophecies that were "fufilled". To believe the miracles in the Bible is the same as believing the UFO sitings that have happened, and the prophecies which were fufilled were most likely written down in the Bible as being fufilled (for example, Jesus being crucified) but it was in the best interest of the writers to falsify the events. One must also take into accout that, as was stated in the first paragraph, the Bible is only a select group of writings about Jesus. Many people who promote the Bible as God's word also tend to ignore the just as credible (ie not that credible) evidence for other religious texts being the "word of God" of having "the truth". As Thomas Paine said, 'It has often been said, that anything may be proved from the Bible, but before anything can be admitted as proved by the Bible, the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted as proof of anything." What direction should I head with this letter? What other main points should I touch upon? Thanks

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-06-2002, 06:12 AM	#2
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Dylan writes: Robert Frank asserts that the Bible is the letter from God, yet he seems not to recognize that in the 4th century AD, various Church leaders took many writings relating to Christianity, and then voted on which would be called the Bible. I myself have never seen an actual quote from a contemporary indicating that there was a fourth century council in which the selection of books in the Bible were decided upon by vote. Yes, I have seen a lot of people say that it went down just like that, but I have never seen an actual quote. Of course, the selection of books that belong in the Bible was a human process. There's a lot of literature on which author accepted which book as canonical and when. Some of our NT was denied by some, and some outside the NT was accepted by some. If I were writing the response, I would point out that no book of the Bible claims, "God wrote this." Nowhere does a book of the Bible give a table of contents. One has to look to church tradition for the canon, a canon that was in flux in the first few centuries. Even today Catholics and Protestants argue over the books that are called Deuterocanon or Aporcypha. Dylan writes: One of their criterium was that whatever was included in the Bible had to agree with the Church's current dogma! Criteria, yes. Although perhaps some thought of unorthodoxy as a clue to inauthenticity, i.e., that a work was not written by an apostle, because it did not agree with the faith that had been handed down. The effect of excluding unorthodoxy remains, but the ratiocination is slightly different. Dylan: Mr. Frank may present the many miracles listed in the Bible as evidence, or the prophecies that were "fufilled". To believe the miracles in the Bible is the same as believing the UFO sitings that have happened, This is arguable from the perspective that "alien visitors" are within the realm of natural law, while the miracles of the Bible are claimed to contravene natural law. Also, you may wish to rephrase as "that UFO sightings have happened," so as not to give the impression that you believe in the veridicality of UFO sightings. And to head off the "unidentified flying object" nitpickers, perhaps rephrase as "that reports of flying saucers are true." Dylan writes: and the prophecies which were fufilled were most likely written down in the Bible as being fufilled (for example, Jesus being crucified) but it was in the best interest of the writers to falsify the events. This doesn't make much sense to me. Do you mean to say, "The writers of the Gospels had a motive to claim falsely that Jesus was crucified in order to present Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies"? If so, I am not aware of any OT prophecy that says the Messiah would get crucified. Dylan writes: One must also take into accout that, as was stated in the first paragraph, the Bible is only a select group of writings about Jesus. Plus the Jewish prologue. Dylan writes: Many people who promote the Bible as God's word also tend to ignore the just as credible (ie not that credible) evidence for other religious texts being the "word of God" of having "the truth". Perhaps a mention of these other religious texts and an explanation of why their credentials are just as good would be appropriate. Dylan writes: As Thomas Paine said, 'It has often been said, that anything may be proved from the Bible, but before anything can be admitted as proved by the Bible, the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted as proof of anything." OK. Dylan writes: What direction should I head with this letter? What other main points should I touch upon? You seem to have taken up the point of whether the Bible is the Word of God to the neglect of the other stuff this guy says. The guy says that all confusion over the Bible is because people add their own revelations or subtract the parts that cramp their lifestyle. That's wrong. The guy says that "under God" needs to be in the Pledge of Allegiance. That's wrong. The guy uses his theology as a springboard for social and political commentary, as many theists do. You seem to have gone straight for the theology, while the guy has stuff to say about society and politics too. best, Peter Kirby

08-06-2002, 07:08 AM	#3
Dylan Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Somewhere Posts: 100	Cool man, thanks for the help. I'll post the updated version soon. Just one thing - you state that alien visitors are arguable because they fit within the natural law - but isn't it illogical to just say that everything which happens must fit within the natural law? It's like just saying "that can't happen because I deny that it can" ... it just doesn't make sense

08-06-2002, 07:15 AM	#4
Starspun Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 334	Be sure to mention that G Washington was not a christian. The god he speaks of is that of his Deist belief's. People assume he was a christian with the statement written in the letter. [ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: Starspun ]</p>

08-06-2002, 08:06 AM	#5
Dylan Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Somewhere Posts: 100	here's an updated version (yeah it still has spelling mistakes as well as other errors): n response to Robert Frank's letter "Bible is God's 'letter.'" Robert Frank ( "Bible is God's 'letter'") asserts that the Bible is the letter from God, yet he seems not to recognize that in the 4th century AD, various Church leaders took many writings relating to Christianity, and then voted on which would be called the Bible. One of their criteria was that whatever was included in the Bible had to agree with the church's current dogma! Mr. Frank may present the many supernatural occurrences listed in the Bible or prophecies being "fulfilled" as evidence for the Bible being God's letter. If you accept the validity of all these supernatural occurrences, you should accept the validity of the multitude of other miracles which are listed in other religious texts, for example, people recalling past lives in Eastern Religions, and Native American stories that include supernatural occurrences. As for the prophecies, either the only supporting evidence for their fulfillment are in the Bible, they were "predicted" after the prophecised event, or it is obvious that what was predicted would come true (for example, Judaism being spread around the world). Additionally, the Bible even says that Jesus states " (insert quote here that Jesus said about miracles about him being false)" As Thomas Paine said, 'It has often been said, that anything may be proved from the Bible, but before anything can be admitted as proved by the Bible, the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted as proof of anything." Robert Frank also states that the Bible has so many contradictions because they added in their own revelations. First of all, it seems to me that there is no objective way of deciding which "revelations" are true. So, isn't it terribly subjective for which is actually the revelation of this God that you say exists? I could use the Bible to justify being a peace-loving communal-living hippie but I also could use it to justify being a strait-laced homophobic conservative. Does anyone know where I can find that quote - I read it in the Atheist Debater's Handbook..... And I still need to add a few things. Are there any good essays that I could use that are like "Why I Don't Believe in the Bible"? peace & thanks

08-06-2002, 07:28 PM	#6
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Dylan writes: Just one thing - you state that alien visitors are arguable because they fit within the natural law - but isn't it illogical to just say that everything which happens must fit within the natural law? It's like just saying "that can't happen because I deny that it can" ... it just doesn't make sense I was responding to this statement: "To believe the miracles in the Bible is the same as believing the UFO sitings that have happened," I was pointing out that this is not a good analogy, because alien spacecraft could be part of a natural universe, while the miracles in the Bible are thought to be supernatural. Whether or not it is logical to argue against miracles because they contravene natural law, this is not a good analogy. A better analogy would be the miracles attributed to Buddha or modern gurus. Furthermore, an argument against miracle claims would be more like saying "that didn't happen because it goes against everything we know about how the world really works." You may not agree with such an argument, but it does make sense. best, Peter Kirby

08-08-2002, 09:02 AM	#8
Dylan Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Somewhere Posts: 100	This is more along the lines of what I'm going to send: Robert Frank ( �Bible is God's 'letter'�) asserts that the Bible is the letter from God, yet he seems not to recognize that in the 4th century AD, various Church leaders took many writings relating to Christianity, and then voted on which would be called the Bible. One of their criteria was that whatever was included in the Bible had to agree with the church's current dogma! To state that the Bible is the truth is plainly ignoring all the other religious texts from around the world which also have many stories of miracles and supernatural occurrences. Robert Frank also states that the Bible has so many contradictions because they added in their own revelations. First of all, it seems to me that there is no objective way of deciding which �revelations� are true. So, isn't it terribly subjective for which is actually the revelation of this God that you say exists? I could use the Bible to justify being a peace-loving communal-living hippie but I also could use it to justify being a strait-laced homophobic conservative. Lastly, it also should be recognized that the concept of salvation in world religions started to appear at a certain point in history when there was much suffering, starvation, and pain among the masses (not that there isn't currently). Early tribal societies do not have the concept of salvation in their religions, they do not seem to need it. One should recognize this fact and see that Christianity was a reflection of a need in society (to be saved) rather than a truth. As Thomas Paine said, 'It has often been said, that anything may be proved from the Bible, but before anything can be admitted as proved by the Bible, the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted as proof of anything.� And does anyone know where the quote is in the Bible where Jesus "says" the miracles told about him are false?

08-09-2002, 03:50 AM	#9
queue Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 368	If I may make a suggestion. Change the "strait-laced homophobic conservative" to "homophobic child-beating slave owner". IMO, any conservative that reads your letter will see that phrase and think you are just a bleeding-heart liberal giving them a reason to ignore the points that you are making in the rest of the letter. Sorry, I do not know the verse that you are looking for.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.