Posted by Boje on August 25, 1999 at 19:38:51:
In Reply to: The "scientific" bible posted by Robert on August 25, 1999 at 11:51:51:
...Robert; I think that you have just written three very excellent posts.
You have stated in very a concise and well organized fashion what your views are. I agree with most of it, so I won’t redundantly belabor the issues. I would rather like to add some comments to maybe shed some light on the mindset of theists in general.
As a qualifier, let me say, from the outset that I don’t speak for anyone, but myself.
I don’t believe in or follow the tenets of any religious denomination. I think that it is contrary to the concept of the perfect nature of Deity for humans to do anything at all to effect or secure their “salvation”, or otherwise enhance their standing with God.
“Religious” organizations, which demand anything of believers other than non-meritorious belief, are operating contrary to the proposition of Divine perfection and human fallibility as mutually exclusive concepts. The fact of the establishment of such divinely unauthorized institutions is testimony to the universal rejection of their authenticity by agnostics such as you. They deserve to be condemned, just because they exist, without authorization. Rest assured; it is because of that fact that they are doomed.
I concur with your condemnation of them, as fraudulent repositories of divine authority in any sense. However, that does not mean that God does not exist, nor that Jesus Christ was not God incarnate, that He did not separate Himself from God, during a period of time, to pay the compensatory penalty for the imperfections of humanity, to allow humans to be acceptable to the divinely perfect nature. It is certainly unnecessary to understand that message, which is the Gospel in toto, in any particular language, as opposed to any other – including the language of mathematics. It doesn’t matter what name is used, what circumstances are described, nor is any other qualification pertinent or exclusionary to the message.
The message, again, is: God exists; He came to us in human form; lived a life of perfection; sacrificed that perfect life, by voluntarily separating Himself from His just union with God, to compensate for the inherent imperfection of human existence, to satisfy the just requirements of existence in unity with a perfect being, so that no one ever has to experience divine rejection. Period.
The language, which is utilized to communicate the message, is totally inconsequential. If your vision of God fits the message, you understand God’s purpose, and you are presently in union with Him. Furthermore, whether you now acknowledge that fact or not, if you have ever held that belief at any time in your life, you are still in union with God, and will so remain forever.
No statement in the Bible contradicts anything of what I have just stated. The Bible is not a science text, nor is it a literary tome. It is an accurate description of God’s relationship with humankind from His point of view in our terminology – or, at least the terminology of humans who lived between 3500 and 2000 years ago. The fact that we no longer describe specific aspects of life in those exact terms does nothing to diminish the message – it remains the same. The confirmation of that proposal is that He has provided us with the means to decipher the message despite the “ravages of time”. It is nowhere stated in the Bible, that the Bible is the only source of God’s Word. In fact the opposite is the case. It is no more “apologetic” to advance in your understanding of the Bible than it is so to advance in your understanding of the universe. Concurrently, it is just as easy to misunderstand the Bible, as it is to misread the lessons of the “natural” Word.
Boje