A Civil Religious Discussion

As if knowing whether or not God exists makes a particular religion any more or less relevant to our daily lives.

I don't agree with this. It implies that all (any) religion is good for is a "warm fuzzy" feeling. (The only "warm fuzzy" feeling I'm getting today is from eating Taco Bell. Why couldn't I have been predestined to have steak and shrimp?)

If that was all I got out of it, I wouldn't be a Christian.

But then what would KNOWING that God did or did not exist change the relevance "to our daily lives"? Would you behave better? Worse?

When your mind is simply trapped by the image out there so that you never make the reference to yourself, you have misread the image."

I have no problem with spirituality for spirituality's sake. My beef is with people who want me to live by their dogma.

I noticed a couple posts differentiating between God's omniscience and omnipotence. Sometimes I might write omnipotence-omniscience to be sure people know I mean everything. The truth is, if a thing is omnipotent, all-powerful, that includes everything. No other nominating adjective is necessary.

I love this discussion, and I love most how politely and respectfully everyone, of differing beliefs, treats one another. Nonetheless, the only nurgle I have is when a question or data set is presented and the answer is a platitude or marginally-related scriptural quote...

EDIT:

I think I may have come off as a little heavy-handed; not my intention. Also, a little net research shows me that many-many scholarly brains over the years have been discussing precisely the topics of this thread, and my view of omnipotence is very debatable. I think I'll start using the hyphenated combination to be precise from now on.

Nonetheless, the only nurgle I have is when a question or data set is presented and the answer is a platitude or marginally-related scriptural quote...

I believe that is because, to many, the scripture is the unquestionable truth.

Nonetheless, the only nurgle I have is when a question or data set is presented and the answer is a platitude or marginally-related scriptural quote...

I believe that is because, to many, the scripture is the unquestionable truth.

I need to comb through the last couple pages and pull an actual example, but the impression on me is akin to this--

Q: Why are leaves green?

A: Trees are beautiful, and God hopes you make the right decision.

OK...

Q: Sometimes water freezes and sometimes it steams; how do you know which will happen and when?

A: II Samuel 14 says, "Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die."

O-o

Andrew Turner wrote:

Nonetheless, the only nurgle I have is when a question or data set is presented and the answer is a platitude or marginally-related scriptural quote...

I believe that is because, to many, the scripture is the unquestionable truth.

Maybe scripture is unquestionable truth, but it's just that nobody here on Earth happens to be fluent in the language that it's written in.

O-o

God works in mysterious ways.

O-o

Thanks. That made me laugh.

I really hope I haven't done this. For me the omniscience/omnipotent/omnipresent/omniwhatever thing is largely splitting hairs. Even the discussion on "free will" was ultimately going back and forth and not really going anywhere. And a lot of that discussion really ends up being what you believe or how you want to see it. But in the end, does it really matter? Make a good choice and be rewarded. What difference does it really make if it was preordained or predestined or that it wasn't really your "choice". Stop thinking that it's God's fault or something if you make a bad choice and stop dwelling on Dante's Inferno. Make a good choice and choose for yourself whose fault it is for that good choice. And be done with it.

There is no "data set" for what you are looking for. It eventually comes down to how you see things. Either "side" will be hard-pressed to convince the other "side" the "error of their ways" or whatever.

**Sorry again if this is a bit heavy handed. Looking for a "data set" when talking about the omniscience of God seems a bit -- odd.

Nonetheless, the only nurgle I have is when a question or data set is presented and the answer is a platitude or marginally-related scriptural quote...

I can't speak for anyone else, I try to back everything I say up with Scripture, because (at least for me) it is the ultimate authority. Therefore, in a sense I don't really care what science or anthropology, or the church or experience says, I am interested in what Scripture says.

That doesn't mean that tradition, or reason, or science, or anything else doesn't help me understand scripture, they do. But ultimately, I am interested in what the Bible says. If God has spoken (as he has in the Bible), then that is what I want to listen to, more so than any other authority.

Also, I use Scripture as much as I can, so that we can have a discussion about what the Bible actually says, because I might have it wrong, and if so, I want to know that so I can get it right. I am much more comfortable (and interested in) discussing specific references / passages / stories from the Bible than I am in the more conceptual, more philosophical / intellectual discussions.

For me, if the Bible says it, that's good enough for me. I know that is ultimately probably unsatisfactory for many, but it is where I am at.

I can't speak for anyone else, I try to back everything I say up with Scripture, because (at least for me) it is the ultimate authority. Therefore, in a sense I don't really care what science or anthropology, or the church or experience says, I am interested in what Scripture says.

That doesn't mean that tradition, or reason, or science, or anything else doesn't help me understand scripture, they do. But ultimately, I am interested in what the Bible says. If God has spoken (as he has in the Bible), then that is what I want to listen to, more so than any other authority.

Also, I use Scripture as much as I can, so that we can have a discussion about what the Bible actually says, because I might have it wrong, and if so, I want to know that so I can get it right. I am much more comfortable (and interested in) discussing specific references / passages / stories from the Bible than I am in the more conceptual, more philosophical / intellectual discussions.

For me, if the Bible says it, that's good enough for me. I know that is ultimately probably unsatisfactory for many, but it is where I am at.

But surely you recognize that scripture can only be divinely inspired if God exists to have inspired it? If one accepts this postulate, an inescapable corollary is that using scripture to prove the existence of God is a circular argument.

DoveArrow wrote:

As if knowing whether or not God exists makes a particular religion any more or less relevant to our daily lives.

I don't agree with this. It implies that all (any) religion is good for is a "warm fuzzy" feeling. (The only "warm fuzzy" feeling I'm getting today is from eating Taco Bell. Why couldn't I have been predestined to have steak and shrimp?)

If that was all I got out of it, I wouldn't be a Christian.

But then what would KNOWING that God did or did not exist change the relevance "to our daily lives"? Would you behave better? Worse?

Camus goes into this in the Myth of Sisyphus; he says (if I have it 100%) assuming there is no God, no Heaven, what not, why not just kill yourself? Says that's the only philosophical question worth asking.

But surely you recognize that scripture can only be divinely inspired if God exists to have inspired it? If one accepts this postulate, an inescapable corollary is that using scripture to prove the existence of God is a circular argument.

I agree 100% with what everything you wrote. Trying to prove the existence of God by using Scripture is (generally) a waste of time.

However, I can definitely introduce you to the person of the Lord Jesus through the words of Scripture, in fact it is the only reliable way to do so.

Also, it worth pointing out that it's not my job to prove whether God exists or not, that's His job.

Just like it is not my job to convince you of the truth of Scripture, that's His job.

And it is also His job to bring people to repentance.

In fact, it is all about God. I am just a poor, wretched man that God has graciously chosen to not only save, but also work through to save others. And for that I am eternal thankful.

...But in the end, does it really matter [free will]? Make a good choice and be rewarded. What difference does it really make if it was preordained or predestined or that it wasn't really your "choice"...

The difference it makes is that if I can be penalized for making the wrong decision, and God is omniscient, and God has a set plan for the order and outcome of the universe, then God is responsible for my actions (because he has directed them), not me. As a quaint and poor example, the difference is being punished (which the Bible is quite clear on) because I decide to stop going to church. In this sceanrio it turns out that I was created by God as the example to persuade others to continue to attend church. It's the idea that Judas could not have been responsible for his actions because he was designed by God to be the Betrayer of Christ; he could be nothing else.

...Stop thinking that it's God's fault or something if you make a bad choice and stop dwelling on Dante's Inferno....

Easy to do if the Inferno does not exist, or if I cannot be predestined to wind up there.

...There is no "data set" for what you are looking for...Looking for a "data set" when talking about the omniscience of God seems a bit -- odd.

When I wrote 'data set' I was talking about the scenarios I set forth, not looking for a data set in the Bible or in the answer; the data set are the pieces making up the question, not the answer.

bugleyman wrote:

But surely you recognize that scripture can only be divinely inspired if God exists to have inspired it? If one accepts this postulate, an inescapable corollary is that using scripture to prove the existence of God is a circular argument.

I agree 100% with what everything you wrote. Trying to prove the existence of God by using Scripture is (generally) a waste of time.

However, I can definitely introduce you to the person of the Lord Jesus through the words of Scripture, in fact it is the only reliable way to do so.

Also, it worth pointing out that it's not my job to prove whether God exists or not, that's His job.

Just like it is not my job to convince you of the truth of Scripture, that's His job.

And it is also His job to bring people to repentance.

In fact, it is all about God. I am just a poor, wretched man that God has graciously chosen to not only save, but also work through to save others. And for that I am eternal thankful.

merves,

I don't doubt that you believe the Bible. I don't. Therefore the more you quote scripture to prove you're right, the more you convince me there's no point in discussing things with you because you won't accept anything that isn't the Bible, anyway. In fact, you said that yourself just now. There is literally no point discussing religion with you. You know you're right, 100% and no one can introduce anything to make you doubt that. That's very nice for you, but it makes discussing religion the same as talking to a wall.

If you want to persuade others, you have to use a source they'll accept. For a non-Christian that means something other than the Bible. If you don't you're wasting their time, your time and the electricity powering the computers.

And Andrew, please, please, please, please don't start with the free-will vs omniscience thing going again. Can't we get onto a new topic there can be no agreement about?

...And Andrew, please, please, please, please don't start with the free-will vs omniscience thing going again. Can't we get onto a new topic there can be no agreement about?

Sorry. I'll bow out; I was only answering Moff's direct questions.

merves,
One problem with this approach. It annoys the heck out of people who don't share you're belief that the Bible is not only true, but is both literally true and the only truth.

I don't doubt that you believe the Bible. I don't. Therefore the more you quote scripture to prove you're right, the more you convince me there's no point in discussing things with you because you won't accept anything that isn't the Bible, anyway. In fact, you said that yourself just now. There is literally no point discussing religion with you. You know you're right, 100% and no one can introduce anything to make you doubt that. That's very nice for you, but it makes discussing religion the same as talking to a wall.

I don't think I made myself clear.

I don't think I am 100% right. I think the Bible is 100% right. I am 100% sure there are things I get wrong from the Bible. And if I have them wrong, I want to know about that so I can get them right.

I don't quote scripture so much to prove that I am right. There are 2 main reasons I try to back up everything I say with scripture.

1) I want it to be clear that it isn't me who is saying it, but it is God.

2) The primary way God works is through his word (the Bible). The way he convicts people of their sin and the Lordship of Christ is through his word (the Bible). So I figure it is better to let God speak for himself.

And a third point, my evangelical heritage has drilled into me that every point needs to be backed up form the Bible. (At least in the circles I usually converse in), if you can't back it up from the Bible, I don't really care who you are or what you say (obviously allowing for the important role of wisdom and respect in relationships).

I suppose my point in quoting the Bible comes down to this, it's not me who is saying / teaching this, it is God through His word. That is what I want people to understand. It's not something I made up myself, but what God ahs said in his word.

And I get that that is ultimately unsatisfying for many to interact with. Nonetheless, no other authority can 'prove' Christianity (or any other religion for that manner), because then that authority sits over Christianity (or any other religion).

EG if science 'proves' that God exists (leaving aside the fact that it can't and doesn't need to), then 'God' is no longer God as he gets his authority not from himself, but from something outside himself, ie science.

Chrisitanity is at it's heart an irrational religion. Not that it make no sense and is full of contradictions, but (generally) you can't convince someone to be a Christian, for it is a spiritual problem, (overcome by prayer and the Holy Spirit), and not a problem of knowledge or understanding, or intelligence.

Chrisitanity is at it's heart an irrational religion. Not that it make no sense and is full of contradictions, but (generally) you can't convince someone to be a Christian, for it is a spiritual problem, (overcome by prayer and the Holy Spirit), and not a problem of knowledge or understanding, or intelligence.

mevers,

EDIT: I don't think you meant it like that, but it's part of the problem that neither side can give the other the respect. Richard Dawkins is far worse for the atheist side.

mevers wrote:

Chrisitanity is at it's heart an irrational religion. Not that it make no sense and is full of contradictions, but (generally) you can't convince someone to be a Christian, for it is a spiritual problem, (overcome by prayer and the Holy Spirit), and not a problem of knowledge or understanding, or intelligence.

mevers,

Not being a Christian is also not a problem. I suspect you'd be highly offended if you were told that being a Christian is a problem that needs to be solved. Please give every other believer and non-believer the same courtesy.

EDIT: I don't think you meant it like that, but it's part of the problem that neither side can give the other the respect. Richard Dawkins is far worse for the atheist side.

You are right, I didn't quite mean it like that, that every non-Christian (oh, how I hate that term, I wish there was a better one), has a problem that needs to be solved, and I am here with the solution.

But I still stand by the sentiment. Those who don't trust Jesus as Lord do in fact have a problem. The problem is that on the last day they will have to face the wrath of a God they have rejected their entire life, and will face an eternity of his wrath and punishment.

That is a pretty big problem. But God has also provided the solution, his son, the man Jesus Christ our Lord. Who has taken the punishment we all deserve, dieing in our place, so that we can be forgiven, washed clean and look forward with hope to an eternity spent in the presence of God, worshiping him and enjoying him forever.

You are right that there is an alarming lack of respect from both sides, and that is not at all right, and nothing gets me going more than to see the way some 'Christians' in the public light are so lacking in grace and charity and simple basic love.

You are right that there is an alarming lack of respect from both sides, and that is not at all right, and nothing gets me going more than to see the way some 'Christians' in the public light are so lacking in grace and charity and simple basic love.

As a Muslim, I do believe in the majority of the teachings of Jesus as presented in the Bible. I consider him a prophet and to be revered for the message he brought.

I think it is far more important for all people to value those teachings and live by them, even if you're not going to adhere to the full Christian faith or believe in the divinity of Jesus.

Those who don't trust Jesus as Lord do in fact have a problem. The problem is that on the last day they will have to face the wrath of a God they have rejected their entire life, and will face an eternity of his wrath and punishment.

That is a pretty big problem. But God has also provided the solution, his son, the man Jesus Christ our Lord. Who has taken the punishment we all deserve, dieing in our place, so that we can be forgiven, washed clean and look forward with hope to an eternity spent in the presence of God, worshiping him and enjoying him forever.

I tend to not get stuck into this gordian knot of faith, since my homeland for the past 500 years has been plagued by religious wars, where folks strove to prove their piety by wading through rivers of blood.

And a third point, my evangelical heritage has drilled into me that every point needs to be backed up form the Bible. (At least in the circles I usually converse in), if you can't back it up from the Bible, I don't really care who you are or what you say (obviously allowing for the important role of wisdom and respect in relationships).

Yeah, this goes for me as well. Most of my religious 'debates' tend to come from an acceptance on both sides of the plenary inspiration of the scriptures. It is interesting then to try and learn to communicate in a different way while still making the same points.

Still, I have long thought that public discussions like this tend to go nowhere, simply because there are too many voices trying to be heard. I much prefer one on one discussions. I only started into this one because I noticed Kirth saying he had a question and my faith teaches me that whenever anyone poses a question there is a responsibility on the part of those who can answer it to try and do so.

I only started into this one because I noticed Kirth saying he had a question and my faith teaches me that whenever anyone poses a question there is a responsibility on the part of those who can answer it to try and do so.

And I, for one, am glad that it does; I have gained a lot from your responses. I'd stepped out for a day or two to see if things would remain civil (as I'd hoped), and I just felt the need to pop back in and make two observations, the second of which strongly follows up and supports your statement regarding thinking in a different way:

1. Wicht and Moff: You guys are consistently able to discuss your faith without becoming didactic about it. Moff, you've shown that your mind is flexible enough to view Gensis as allegorical, and Wicht, you're hip to the concept of different ways of thinking; which means that you two in particular might appreciate this second point:

2. There's a lot of talk thrown around like "proof" and "faith" and "obvious." The thing is, we're dealing with two totally different mind-sets that need to be bridged before meaningful discussion can be achieved. Contrary to what would seem to be common sense, there actually is very little overlap between them.

(a) A true scientist has only one belief, which can be summed up as "men lack omniscience, and therefore nothing is ever proven." Everything is is either theory (supported by a preponderance of physical evidence -- statistical probability counts for nothing here -- and having withstood every test thus far), hypothesis (a testable idea), or falsehood. There is no "truth," only theories that can forever be either improved upon or eventually shown to be false. A scientist makes no absolute claims regarding the amino acid soup hypothesis, and fully accepts that it might one day be falsified; he merely asserts that no other testable hypotheses have been proposed for the origin of life (and, please, people: to a scientist, the origin of life is a TOTALLY SEPARATE ISSUE from the evolution of life; evolution by natural selection is a theory, not a hypothesis, because it fits the propenderance of observable physical evidence; it is not an Absolute Truth, and in fact is constantly being refined and improved). The limitations of this type of world-view are obvious: absolutes have no part in it, incredulity is a paramount virtue, and these kinds of people expect a preponderance of physical evidence before they'll accept that your view is a theory. Until then, they'll consider it either a hypothesis to be tested, or a falsehood. This is why Dawkins is so militant; he cannot take God seriously as a theory without a preponderance of observable, testable physical evidence in His favor. Without that, the existence of God is an untestable hypothesis, or, to put it more bluntly, a likely falsehood.

(b) To one with faith, especially Abrahamic religious faith, life deals in absolutes. There is no improving a hypothesis; there's only Truth or Falsehood. The insistence of Truth implies that "proof" is attainable. They therefore view a theory incorrectly: either as a claim of absolute Truth, or as a vague, unfounded guess (which is not at all what a "theory" is). The very strong advantage of this mind-set is that you can make intuitive leaps, rely on instinct and scripture, and resolve all apparent contradictions and paradoxes and break through any supposed barriers to your ideas through simple faith. These are exceptionally powerful tools that can make seemingly impossible things possible. The down side is that you are very seldomly able to understand people who require more scientifically rigorous thinking.

Moff, the ability to interpret Genesis as allegory is a beautiful example of using both mind-sets. You accept that the underlying message in the verses is Truth, but reject many of the specifics because they contradict one another and/or don't make rational sense. It's that ability to think in both ways that enables these dialogues to be productive and useful, and I'd humbly beseech everyone to keep that in mind.

The primary way God works is through his word (the Bible). The way he convicts people of their sin and the Lordship of Christ is through his word (the Bible). So I figure it is better to let God speak for himself.

And a third point, my evangelical heritage has drilled into me that every point needs to be backed up form the Bible. (At least in the circles I usually converse in), if you can't back it up from the Bible, I don't really care who you are or what you say (obviously allowing for the important role of wisdom and respect in relationships).

I suppose my point in quoting the Bible comes down to this, it's not me who is saying / teaching this, it is God through His word. That is what I want people to understand. It's not something I made up myself, but what God ahs said in his word.

... In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness does not overcome it...

Translations vary, (that was the NSRV Oxford version) but for my impression is that the Word is either the Holy Spirit and/or Christ and immortal - whereas a bible is something which has been argued about by scholars, translated and retranslated by men and women, and printed in ink that fades on paper which perishes. Even the abstract concept 'the Bible' is subject to some of these failings, unless when you say 'the Bible' you in fact use it as a shorthand (which is very confusing for other people unless you have explained it beforehand) for 'The Father', 'The Son', and/or 'The Holy Spirit'.

Do you pray to 'The Bible' or do you pray to God? When you are looking for inspiration is the actual source to which you are appealing words written down by other men and women, or are you appealing to God? Is the Bible the actual message, or just one of a number of means of conveying that message?

But just a thought.

When you are looking for inspiration is the actual source to which you are appealing words written down by other men and women, or are you appealing to God?

If Livy say the Gods made once a cow speak, and we believe it not; wee distrust not God therein, but Livy. So that it is evident, that whatsoever we believe, upon no other reason, than what is drawn from authority of men onely, and their writings; whether they be sent from God or not, is Faith in men onely [sic].

--Leviathan (1651).

mevers:
Apologies if that previous post I made came across as harsh or critical, but in some of your posts I'm not clear where your faith is coming from, or exactly what it is you believe in. If you could clarify, and if you're not sure, either, that answer would also be fine by me.

mevers:

Apologies if that previous post I made came across as harsh or critical, but in some of your posts I'm not clear where your faith is coming from, or exactly what it is you believe in. If you could clarify, and if you're not sure, either, that answer would also be fine by me.

Don't worry about it. I didn't think it was harsh at all. I get much harsher question quite often, either from mates at Bible college, or people in Bible Study.

To answer your first question, I pray to God the Father, by the Spirit, through the Son.

In John 1, the Word (logos) is Jesus, God the Son. Holy and Immortal. He is the one who makes God known.

However, although God has spoken through his Son, it is not the only way he has spoken. He has spoken through the Prophets and Apostles as well, as is recorded for us in the Bible.

By Bible I mean what everyone else means, the 66 Books of the Old and New testaments from Genesis to Revelation.

It says of itself (2 Timothy 3:16 - 17) All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

So, as far as the Bible is concerned, I believe it has dual authorship, both human and divine. It wasn't dictated by God (or an angel etc) to the authors (like the Qur'an), nor was it simply human writing in response to God (ala Calvin's Institutes or any other Christian Writings), but "no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:21).

Now, this gets us back into the whole free will / Omnipotence thing, but I will just say this. I am happy having a God who is so powerful and wise that he can somehow control things without it taking away Human responsibility. I may struggle to reconcile the two things in my head (for it is hard to wrap your head around them, although I think the philosophical theory of combatibilism helps), but for me, the Bile teaches both, so I believe both, trusting the infallible, perfect fullness of God's wisdom, more than I trust my own fallible, fallen, limited brain. I know that is an unsatisfactory answer for some (many), but I can't do any better than that. Sorry.

I believe the Bible as originially given is the inspired word of God that contains everything men need for salvation and a life of Godliness. Yes, parts of the Bible were given over 3 millenia ago, but as a text, we can get remarkable close to what the original actually was. Especially with the New Testament, there are very few 'disputed' passages, and no significant doctrinal issues hang off any of them.

It says of itself (2 Timothy 3:16 - 17) All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Speaking of "all scripture," I have another question, if I may, that's nagged at me since I went to see the Dead Sea Scrolls, and found that some of them made it into the Bible, and others didn't. What about the Apocrypha that didn't make it in? Did God just decide that some scripture didn't cut the mustard, and magically guide people in selecting which parts to cull? If so, then why do the Catholics and Protestants not even agree on which ones should be excluded? And what of the Koran, which is "scripture," but rejected by Christians -- even though Muslims themselves accept both Old and New Testaments? And the Talmud? On what basis is that rejected by Christians, although Jews accept it as scripture?

mevers:
That gives me a better idea of where you're coming from, yes.

I seem to find myself doomed to always be asking questions, wanting certainties & understanding, which appears to me to be very much an opposite to the simple approach to faith it seems to me that you are able to take. I want to be next in the queue after Thomas, in the days after the resurrection, but unfortunately (for me) that was practically 2000 years ago if the various written sources have any accuracy.

So I have to deal with uncertainties (or not) as the case may be.

Anyway, I shall drop back into occasional lurking mode, and leave the rest of you to get on with your omniscience/free-will debates.

God Be With You.

Speaking of "all scripture," I have another question, if I may, that's nagged at me since I went to see the Dead Sea Scrolls, and found that some of them made it into the Bible, and others didn't. What about the Apocrypha that didn't make it in? Did God just decide that some scripture didn't cut the mustard, and magically guide people in selecting which parts to cull? And what of the Koran, which is "scripture," but rejected by Christians -- even though Muslims themselves accept both Old and New Testaments? And the Talmud? On what basis is that rejected by Christians, although Jews accept it as scripture?

Kirth, I know you asked mevers but I'll put in my 2 cp.

The long answer to this question would take a good deal of time (I would be happy to give it but it is honestly a long and scholarly subject), so let me give the short answer.

The scriptures that are accepted today by Christianity are in essence the same Scriptures that have been accepted since the days of the apostles. Historical evidence is very strong for their antiquity and authenticity (the long answer) and it is accepted by us that the New Testament was completed by the end of the first century and the death of the apostle John. Though some claim that some council (edit - Nicea 4th century) put them together, the New Testament as we know it today was quoted and circulated by the second and third centuries. The Old Testament was completed by the days of Malachi approximately 300 or so years before Christ. It was translated into Greek about 250 years before Christ. The Dead Sea scrolls do contain other works but these were never accepted by the mainstream of Judaism as scriptures*.

As far as God guiding people into knowing which books to accept, the opinion of conservative Christians who accept the concept of Plenary Inspiration is that if God was able to give men the words to write then He could certainly let them know which words were also authentic. The scriptures themselves say to not believe every spirit but to test them.

Having read some of the so called "rejected scriptures" myself, I can attest that they generally do not have the same spirit as the ones that are accepted. One text I always remember called for an enema as part of the path to salvation. That being said, there were tests that were applied to scriptures in order for them to be accepted. Firstly, they had to be written by an accepted inspired individual and they could not contradict other scriptures.

There have been men claiming to write scriptures throughout history, but the Jews and subsequently Christians were always very careful about what they allowed into the canon.

Anyway, thats a short (very short) answer. If you are really interested Kirth, this is an area that I have studied a good deal (because it is good to know why you believe what you believe) and I can provide a more detailed and studied answer if you want.

*Edit: Many people misunderstand the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Sometime in the middle ages, a group of Jewish scholars got it into their heads to put together a perfect Old Testament and when they were done they destroyed all the old copies. This meant that the oldest known manuscripts were not really all that old... Until a shepherd boy discovered a bunch of scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls thus allowed biblical scholars to compare the existing manuscripts of the Old Testament with older copies. What was suprising was how few differences there actually were - the Jewish scholars had actually done a good job of transcribing way back when - but the Dead Sea Scrolls provided proof of their accuracy.

mevers wrote:

It says of itself (2 Timothy 3:16 - 17) All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Speaking of "all scripture," I have another question, if I may, that's nagged at me since I went to see the Dead Sea Scrolls, and found that some of them made it into the Bible, and others didn't. What about the Apocrypha that didn't make it in? Did God just decide that some scripture didn't cut the mustard, and magically guide people in selecting which parts to cull? And what of the Koran, which is "scripture," but rejected by Christians -- even though Muslims themselves accept both Old and New Testaments? And the Talmud? On what basis is that rejected by Christians, although Jews accept it as scripture?

It depends on the book you are asking about. I need to make clear that when I say book I am speaking not of the Bible as a whole but rather the individual books that compromise that whole. some of those books that are considered non-canonical were rejected for reasonably perceived flaws. Such as having been written much to late. which is where you get most of the apocrypha from. or that it was written in total contradiction of other books which were taken as an established canon. Now for years many people had many different gospels and would poor over them. Rejecting some and accepting others for various reason. It was the council of Nicea that finally put forth what that canon should be. And yet not everyone agreed with them. Which is why some of the books in the Nag Hammadi library are of books that we may have known about but had until then no copies of said books or if we did have copies only in the coptic church was there a copy. For a scholar it is a treasure trove, showing why these books were rejected. Books such as the gospel of Adam which tried to explain away things written in Genesis yet just made the many more questions then it answered, number one of which how could this have been written by Adam in the first place. Then there is the almost impossible to date Gospel of Thomas. It only shows the teachings of Jesus and of these it is quite close to the synoptic Gospels and in fact has many of the same teachings. And yet it is not the same and once reading it, it is easy to see for many, why this was rejected. Only half the story and the teachings are pointing you to a different view the most if not all the other Gospels.

anyway I will go back to lurking on this thread just thought I would try to answer a question.

Wicht, the question was an open one; thanks for joining in. And yes, if you could point me to some reasonably in-depth descriptions of the rubrics used, I'd be most appreciative. This is a case in which simple answers are too easily rebutted:

Only half the story and the teachings are pointing you to a different view the most if not all the other Gospels.

Forgive me, but this implies to me (a skeptic) that anything that might throw any question into the "official" view was suppressed. That sounds a lot more like censorship than validation... it is EXACTLY what non-divinely-inspired men in power would do, given half the chance.

And of course, again, the Koran contradicts some earlier scripture, but a fourth of the planet accepts it, so it can't "obviously" be incorrect. (Arguably, Muslims should know better than Christians, because they must study both the Bible and the Koran, whereas most Christians have made no serious scholarly study of the latter.) And while we're on the subject, the Book of Mormon is included by a not insignificant fraction of the population.

Even Catholics and Protestants have overlapping, but non-identical "official" Bibles, so the process is not transparent even among Christians. I'd think anyone professing any of these faiths would take this seriously. (Wicht: you evidently have; I look forward to reading more carefully into this under your guidance, if I can impose upon you. On the flip side, if you lack the time or inclination, I certainly understand.)

So, anything that might throw any question into the mainstream view was ruthlesslessly suppressed? That sounds a lot more like censorship than validation...

Not quite cencorship. You have to appreciate the concept of accepting divine inspiration. Christianity (and Judiasm and Islam and even Mormonism) is founded on the idea that God spoke to man. This concept is summed up in Hebrews 1:1-2 and 2 Timothy 3:16. Furthermore, it is accepted that God cannot lie and cannot be mistaken. The scriptures tell us to test the spirits but have also (since the days of Moses) stated that one criteria that had to be used was that the new Prophet could not preach in contradiction of a man who was already known to be a prophet (Deuteronomy 13:1-3) nor could he teach things that taught behaviors that were known to be forbidden by God.

As mentioned above, many of the rejected scriptures have obvious flaws. They were written too late. They were written under a psuedonym. They contain material that is not consistant with other material. Thus if the Apostle John (an accepted author) writes and says that Jesus was both God and Man, and some subsequent gnostic author writes and says that Jesus was not really a man but a spirit who looked like a man, then one cannot accept both as true. In this case one would obviously go with John, who was well known to the church, was known to have been picked by Jesus himself and who was accepted to be an inspired prophet of God.

and, again, the Koran contradicts some earlier scripture, but a fourth of the planet accepts it, so it can't "obviously" be incorrect. Hell, the Book of Mormon is included by a not insignificant fraction of the population.

The short answer, without opening a real can of worms with those good Muslims and Mormons who inhabit these boards is that conservative Christians reject the inspiration of Joseph Smith and Muhammed both. Mormons obviously accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and an apostle (while rejecting Muhammed). Muslims obviously accept Muhammed as a prophet. Each man must determine who he will (or won't) accept as a prophet but I think it is self evident that not every man who claims to be a prophet is necessarily sent of God.

Forgive me, but this implies to me (a skeptic) that anything that might throw any question into the "official" view was suppressed. That sounds a lot more like censorship than validation... it is EXACTLY what non-divinely-inspired men in power would do, given half the chance.

Yes you are of course right, that is what someone in power would do to keep their power. This has in fact been a common complaint for a number of years. The cannon was not put forth by the council but rather their stamp of approval, for what it was worth was placed on the cannon that was at use by the majority of churches at that time. This cannon was developed by Irenaeus in about the 2nd century if I remember correctly. He was a disciple of Polycarp himself a disciple of John. Which is why most people gave it more consideration then others.

Also let me add that rejecting a book is not the same as suppressing it. I do not accept Joseph Smith but I own both a copy of the Book of Mormon and the book, Doctrines and Covenants, the two books upon which Mormonism is founded. I also own the Gospel of Thomas (I just sold a copy in fact to half price books), the Apocrypha, a couple of Catholic Bibles, A New World Translation (the copy put out by the Jehovah's Witnesses, The Gospel of Pontius Pilate, etc.

Not agreeing with a book is no reason not to read it and Christian Scholars from the beginning have rejected these books, not because we had not read them, but because we had. I hold the Old and New Testament to be superior in authenticity and authority to these other books but I would never tell someone not to read them.

The scriptures tell us to test the spirits but have also (since the days of Moses) stated that one criteria that had to be used was that the new Prophet could not preach in contradiction of a man who was already known to be a prophet (Deuteronomy 13:1-3)...

As mentioned above, many of the rejected scriptures have obvious flaws. They were written too late. They contain material that is not consistant with other material. Thus if the Apostle John (an accepted author) writes and says that Jesus was both God and Man, and some subsequent gnostic author writes and says that Jesus was not really a man but a spirit who looked like a man, then one cannot accept both as true. In this case one would obviously go with John, who was well known to the church, was known to have been picked by Jesus himself and who was accepted to be an inspired prophet of God.

Still, I see two possible views:

Without necessarily accepting Deuteronomy as the Word of God, this looks like a "just accept it" part of things, not a "Christianity is the only logical choice" part of things.

kirth, what sort of argument would you accept?

(Wicht: you evidently have; I look forward to reading more carefully into this under your guidance, if I can impose upon you. On the flip side, if you lack the time or inclination, I certainly understand.)

Kirth, I don't mind doing the work but it will take time and a little effort on my part to put thoughts together in a orderly manner. There are a total of 66 books in the Bible (Thirty nine in the Old Testament and twenty seven in the New). Each book (more or less) has to be evaluated on its own.

Let me be clear that modern scholars are not in agreement as to the authenticity of each book. There is a large field of liberal theologians who do not accept inspiration and do their best to discredit the books of the Bible as authentic. I will let someone else present that veiwpoint. The veiwpoint I present will be the traditional veiwpoint. That being said, I probably won't have the time to get to it until Monday. If you don't mind waiting that long.

1. This rubric is accepted on faith as being God's plan. Things that contradict accepted scripture are easily removed, and the ease of their removal and the subsequent removal of ambiguity is seen as confirmation that God's plan works.
2. These criteria are cynically seen as self-serving on the part of the established power structure (i.e., the Church). Its logical outcome: ideas that vary from what's already accepted, or that expound upon it in ways that make the establishment unhappy, are removed. Anything written too late is ignored, so that no innocent-seeming but potential "Trojan horses" can be introduced. Skeptic's conclusion: the rubric is self-serving, rather than divinely ordained.

Without necessarily accepting Deuteronomy as the Word of God, this looks like a "just accept it" part of things, not a "Christianity is the only logical choice" part of things.

I can certainly understand how someone could come to the "cynical" conclusions you have. Again, though, each man has to make their own choice as to who they will believe and who they will trust. There were reasons that the apostles were accepted as authentic (and thus their writings). Once they are accepted though they are accepted.

The same is true of any figure who begins or is important in a religious movement (so to speak). Deuteronomy is accepted because Moses is accepted. Either one believes that God actually spoke to Moses and Moses led the children to a mountain where God spoke (with fire and lightning and trumpets) and all the children of Israel heard it or one does not believe it. If one wants to view it as a fairy tale then the books that Moses is said to have authored have no more weight then any other book penned by a man. But if God really did speak to Moses then one has to take the words he wrote seriously.

When I was in college I looked very carefully at the various religions, what each one taught and what they accepted as scriptures. I knew I believed in God, accepted that He had spoken to man and thus it fell upon me to decide who I would accept. Everyone has to do the same.

Kirth, I don't mind doing the work but it will take time and a little effort on my part to put thoughts together in a orderly manner.

Wicht, I didn't mean for you to do all the work for me, sir! The offer is quite beyond standard generosity. I'm happy to do my own research, if you could simply point me in the right direction. Like, if there are particularly useful texts describing some or all of these things, or ones which you found particularly enlightening; I can then go look them up, given titles/authors. Obviously, a proper study will take some time, in any event, and I prefer to take my time and reflect on what I learn.

I must say, though, one meets the most amazing people on Paizo...

When I was in college I looked very carefully at the various religions, what each one taught and what they accepted as scriptures. I knew I believed in God, accepted that He had spoken to man and thus it fell upon me to decide who I would accept. Everyone has to do the same.

Would that everyone thought the way you do! I personally was most taken with the Buddha, probably because I was always something of a freethinker and a cynic (and yes, I'm quite aware of the irony of quoting a scripture telling one not to believe scripture, which is partly why I do so):

It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blameable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them.

--Anguttara Nikaya III.65 - The Kalama Sutta (4)

kirth, what sort of argument would you accept?

That's a fair question, CJ. The best answer I can give is, "One that accords with my own observations and experience with humanity." So I'll read anything Wicht recommends (his stance on reading is admirable -- something more people [like 90% of humanity] would do well to emulate!), and I'll think about it, and if all the details are totally consistent with a power-maintenance mechanism, that's one thing. They might not be, though, and so my hypothesis might well fold pretty quickly. So if the specifics contradict that view, I'll certainly abandon that line of reasoning, and come up with a new one. When I've gone through and rejected enough lines of reasoning, one such as "well, by God, maybe the stuff IS divinely mandated" will come up, and I'll evaluate that one, too, in light of the evidence.

The difference it makes is that if I can be penalized for making the wrong decision, and God is omniscient, and God has a set plan for the order and outcome of the universe, then God is responsible for my actions (because he has directed them), not me. As a quaint and poor example, the difference is being punished (which the Bible is quite clear on) because I decide to stop going to church. In this sceanrio it turns out that I was created by God as the example to persuade others to continue to attend church. It's the idea that Judas could not have been responsible for his actions because he was designed by God to be the Betrayer of Christ; he could be nothing else.

I don't think that you understood what I was saying. I'll try again, but then I'm done with this line...

I'm asking you to think about what difference this has on your life right now. From your point of view. Does it really matter? Is it going to change how you act? Is this knowledge going to change what you do? Part of what you're talking about is what's "fair". Basically that it's not "fair" that God knows what you're going to do and does nothing to make you do the right thing.

Assuming that God exists, it's almost like you are saying that by not believing in God that it will somehow totally negate his plan for you or whatever.

What if God doesn't exist? What if he does exist and he is directing your actions/reactions for some divine purpose? What if does exist and he isn't directing your actions/ect. for some divine purpose? Does it really matter in the end? If God exists and you don't believe in him, maybe it gives some final satisfaction to say that it really isn't your "fault" that it was somehow part of God's plan -- as if that makes any difference in the end result. Judas probably went before God after he hung himself and said "It's all your fault. It was your plan I was fulfilling." To which God replied "Oh, well that's ok then."

If you don't feel that God exists then trying to figure out if you have free will seems pointless to me.
If you feel that God does exist, then trying to figure out if you have free will equally seems pointless to me.
To come to any conclusion that says that we don't have free will, implies to me that it's just a way to (try and) not take responsibility for your actions.
Regardless, it doesn't really change how I will live.

(And just curious -- what exactly does the Bible say the punishment is for not attending church? I seemed to have missed that "quite clear" punishment from my studies.)

Also let me add that rejecting a book is not the same as suppressing it. I do not accept Joseph Smith but I own both a copy of the Book of Mormon and the book, Doctrines and Covenants, the two books upon which Mormonism is founded. I also own the Gospel of Thomas (I just sold a copy in fact to half price books), the Apocrypha, a couple of Catholic Bibles, A New World Translation (the copy put out by the Jehovah's Witnesses, The Gospel of Pontius Pilate, etc.

Wicht is doing a really good job with this stuff but here are a few random thoughts of mine about this subject.

Is there any other religious document that has as many authors that are considered "canon" to the religion? Seriously. Mormans got their stuff from Joseph Smith. The Koran came from Mohammed. The closest thing that I could come up with was Hindu -- mostly because their texts are so old that it's difficult to determine authorships. But also, their texts have been shown to change through time. (Part of the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls.)

Just from a strictly logical view, some "mainline" had to be defined at some point. Otherwise, people could keep adding to the scripture (even though the scripture says specifically that you can't) to a potential point where no one knew anything. It seems to me far easier to define "mainline" if you only have one author.

As far as -- why these texts? At some point we need to trust that the people who made the decision asked for guidance and got it. There are reasons for why some books didn't make it. Doing a quick google search on why the Apocrypha is generally not accepted by Protestants yielded many sites.

I just think that because of how Christianity was being formed, it needed to be standardized.

(a) A true scientist has only one belief, which can be summed up as "men lack omniscience, and therefore nothing is ever proven." Everything is is either theory (supported by a preponderance of physical evidence -- statistical probability counts for nothing here -- and having withstood every test thus far), hypothesis (a testable idea), or falsehood. There is no "truth," only theories that can forever be either improved upon or eventually shown to be false. A scientist makes no absolute claims regarding the amino acid soup hypothesis, and fully accepts that it might one day be falsified; he merely asserts that no other testable hypotheses have been proposed for the origin of life (and, please, people: to a scientist, the origin of life is a TOTALLY SEPARATE ISSUE from the evolution of...

...and on.

Kirth: I am a textbook type A. I freely admit I cannot think any other way. Great job laying that out, BTW.

Crimson Jester wrote:

kirth, what sort of argument would you accept?

That's a fair question, CJ. The best answer I can give is, "One that accords with my own observations and experience with humanity." So I'll read anything Wicht recommends (his stance on reading is admirable -- something more people [like 90% of humanity] would do well to emulate!), and I'll think about it, and if all the details are totally consistent with a power-maintenance mechanism, that's one thing. They might not be, though, and so my hypothesis might well fold pretty quickly. So if the specifics contradict that view, I'll certainly abandon that line of reasoning, and come up with a new one. When I've gone through and rejected enough lines of reasoning, one such as "well, by God, maybe the stuff IS divinely mandated" will come up, and I'll evaluate that one, too, in light of the evidence.

I had originally had a much longer post for you but settled on just that one question. I have a habit, which I am trying to break, of aggressively responding at times to what can seem attacks on my beliefs. Yours did not and as such I left it to that one question. Your answer was very astute and I thank you. I have always felt that with religion one must start with a cynical approach, evidence must be gathered.

We should not just meekly take what we are told, by others, for granted. I however have become convinced that religion (by which I mean the practice thereof) and spirituality (by which I mean a personal relationship with the divine) must include a community of peers. I have come to believe that the old saying "no man is an island" to be true and that to be a Christian in particular one must be a part of the larger whole of Christianity.

I had more to say but have since been distracted by kids. :) anyway good luck with your journey just don't keep traveling when you are already at your destination.

I don't think that you understood what I was saying. I'll try again, but then I'm done with this line...

I'm asking you to think about what difference this has on your life right now. From your point of view. Does it really matter? Is it going to change how you act? Is this knowledge going to change what you do? Part of what you're talking about is what's "fair". Basically that it's not "fair" that God knows what you're going to do and does nothing to make you do the right thing.

Assuming that God exists, it's almost like you are saying that by not believing in God that it will somehow totally negate his plan for you or whatever.

What if God doesn't exist? What if he does exist and he is directing your actions/reactions for some divine purpose? What if does exist and he isn't directing your actions/ect. for some divine purpose? Does it really matter in the end? If God exists and you don't believe in him, maybe it gives some final satisfaction to say that it really isn't your "fault" that it was somehow part of God's plan -- as if that makes any difference in the end result. Judas probably went before God after he hung himself and said "It's all your fault. It was your plan I was fulfilling." To which God replied "Oh, well that's ok then."

If you don't feel that God exists then trying to figure out if you have free will seems pointless to me.
If you feel that God does exist, then trying to figure out if you have free will equally seems pointless to me.
To come to any conclusion that says that we don't have free will, implies to me that it's just a way to (try and) not take responsibility for your actions.
Regardless, it doesn't really change how I will live.

(And just curious -- what exactly does the Bible say the punishment is for not attending church? I seemed to have missed that "quite clear" punishment from my studies.)

Moff,

If there is no free will, as an omniscient God implies for us, then we have no ability to believe because God doesn't want us too. If God then punishes us for this lack of belief (as most Christians believe he does because the only salvation is to believe in Jesus) then he is punishing us for following his plan., If he does that, he is not just. This is the fundamental contradiction we do not understand so we ask those who have come to a solution as to what that solution is. Unfortunately, the different world views that Kirth explained very well means that we cannot accept the solution that believers have.

Or, alternatively, we're just trying to stir up trouble, which I'm sure some questioners are, but I doubt Andrew or myself fall into this category. ;-)

EDIT: For the record, I do believe we have free will, and I choose to use mine to live a reasonably good, if sometimes argumentative, life. But that's one reason why I do not believe in the god of the Bible, because if he exists as stated, I cannot reconcile that with free will. Free will is more important to me than God, so in the conflict for my belief, God loses.

Speaking of "all scripture," I have another question, if I may, that's nagged at me since I went to see the Dead Sea Scrolls, and found that some of them made it into the Bible, and others didn't. What about the Apocrypha that didn't make it in? Did God just decide that some scripture didn't cut the mustard, and magically guide people in selecting which parts to cull? If so, then why do the Catholics and Protestants not even agree on which ones should be excluded? And what of the Koran, which is "scripture," but rejected by Christians -- even though Muslims themselves accept both Old and New Testaments? And the Talmud? On what basis is that rejected by Christians, although Jews accept it as scripture?

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this, I posted just be fore heading out to church, and have been slaving over an essay for the rest of the day.

Wicht has done a very good job of summarising the main points, but there are a few things I want to clarify.

We need to remember that the early (2nd / 3rd century) church was nothing like the current Roman Catholic church in terms of reach, power and influence. Chrisitanity started off as a small, despised, persecuted sect of Judaism. As such, there was no authority structure to impose an 'official' cannon on anyone.

Each church (usually in each region) put together their own list of accepted scripture. Very early in the piece (1st century) Paul's letters were combined and circulated. Likewise the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke). To this 'core' most churches added a few others as well.

The various books were gradually accepted as canonical, and eventually, the current 27 books of the NT were pretty widely accepted. Not via some imposed 'top down' authority, but by a general 'bottom up', approach. Basically they compared all the 'canons' in various areas, and found there was a high degree of agreement between the various churches, with a few disputed books (Jude, 2 Peter, Hebrews I think were the most discussed).

As for the OT, I will be quite hones and up front that the Early church just used what the Jews were using as their scripture of the time. It is worth noting that although the Apocrypha are generally Jewish writings, very few Jews accept tehm as scripture on the same level as the OT. In fact I think most of the Apocrypha are written in Greek, not Hebrew like the rest of the OT, although I may be wrong on that account.

I'm off to bed, goodnight.

Wicht wrote:

Kirth, I don't mind doing the work but it will take time and a little effort on my part to put thoughts together in a orderly manner.

Wicht, I didn't mean for you to do all the work for me, sir! The offer is quite beyond standard generosity. I'm happy to do my own research, if you could simply point me in the right direction. Like, if there are particularly useful texts describing some or all of these things, or ones which you found particularly enlightening; I can then go look them up, given titles/authors.

Heh. Guess I misunderstood what you wanted,... but as far as books - The one I would recommend for a beginner looking into an overveiw of Christian Apolegitics, is one I mentioned earlier in this thread, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by Josh McDowell. I recommend it not only because it is a good textbook style analysis but also because its readily available in bookstores. Chapters 1-4 of this book deal with the Bible, its uniqueness, the cannon and its authenticity.

There are some others I have read that go into more detail but I think they are all out of print. (Edit - One of the better books I have read is J.W. McGarvey's Text and Canon, published in 1886. I used to have a copy but I can't find it at the moment. Like I said, not in print that I know of and hard to find.) As I said before, each book of the Bible is an individuyal case and I tend to study them that way, with commentaries devoted to one or two books of the Bible at a time. If you want recommendations for commentaries I can give those to you as well, but buying whole sets of commentaries can be an expensive proposition (I tend to buy one or two books every few months).

The various books were gradually accepted as canonical, and eventually, the current 27 books of the NT were pretty widely accepted. Not via some imposed 'top down' authority, but by a general 'bottom up', approach.

I think thats a pretty good way of looking at it.

And again, writings were accepted because the authors of the writings were accepted.

As for the OT, I will be quite hones and up front that the Early church just used what the Jews were using as their scripture of the time.

This is also more or less true but it was not true because of laziness. It was true for two reasons. Firstly Christianity was founded with the understanding that the Old Testament was leading us to the New Testament and that for Christ to be true, the things written about him beforehand had to be true as well. Thus Christianity was not a rejection of Judiasm and the Law of Moses but was understood to be the final step in what God had been saying all along. Secondly, and just as importantly, Christianity is founded upon the person and authority of Jesus. Jesus, and subsequently his apostles, accepted the Old Testament as true, taught from it, quoted it, etc. and so the followers of Jesus accept it as well.

The one I would recommend for a beginner looking into an overveiw of Christian Apolegitics, is one I mentioned earlier in this thread, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by Josh McDowell. I recommend it not only because it is a good textbook style analysis but also because its readily available in bookstores. Chapters 1-4 of this book deal with the Bible, its uniqueness, the cannon and its authenticity. There are some others I have read that go into more detail but I think they are all out of print. (Edit - One of the better books I have read is J.W. McGarvey's Text and Canon, published in 1886.

Thanks for the references! I live near a branch of the Houston Public Library, and can often get very obscure journals, manuscripts, etc. through interlibrary loan. (I also frequent used book shops whenever I can, and in Texas, the contents are usually about 90% Christian-related and 10% Alamo-related.)

I look forward to further study.

... and excellent post ...

That helps. I don't know if I have a good answer for you. I'll think about it.

I don't think or believe that God put people on this earth just to punish them in the long run. That is contradictory to anything and everything that I feel I know to be true. At the same time, I can understand why you and/or Andrew might come to that conclusion. I hate not being able to give a good answer. I'll see what I can come up with, but I don't know that a good answer to what you are asking can be found.

Additional: One person's "answer" to this is C.S. Lewis's book -- the Great Divorce.