[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[Jed S. Baer]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 22:22:15 -0600
David L. Willson wrote:

> > Well, I've really been trying to stay out of this, but ...
> > 
> > Just how genuine would one's faith/belief be, if arrived at solely by
> > economic analysis? IIRC, the Bible imputes a measure of blessing upon
> > faith arrived at by fear of damnation, but fear of damnation requires
> > the precondition of believing in some manner of deity, and the
> > existence of hell. Isn't faith in the Biblical Triune God supposed to
> > be a matter of the heart, and not the head? How will Jehovah judge a
> > "faith" which is arrived at by risk analysis. Such a faith, if one
> > can even call it that, seems to me quite far removed from the sort of
> > faith described in the Bible.
> 
> Is avoiding Hell the only reason you see to place faith in Jesus?  I
> don't think you can do it, in that case.  It would amount to believing
> in the God of spiritual blackmail.

No, I'm suggesting that a belief/faith arrived at solely be the analysis
discussed here, as Pascal's wager, would have no validity before God, as
it would not be genuine. My bringing in belief based on fear of damnation
was only for the purpose of contrasting it with belief coming solely from
the proposition that there's no downside, and possible upside. "Faith
cometh by hearing ...", not by cold analysis of cost/benefit.

> Let me suggest that you look at him again, and see if there isn't a
> better reason to believe in him.  Don't you see something heroic,
> involved, and admirable about him?

Well sure. It's quite a story. Beowulf is quite a story as well. Were I a
Buddhist, I would say that Christ was a sort of Boddhisatva, though with a
strange message -- well, perhaps not, because in Buddhism, any path which
leads toward enlightenment is valid. 

> > Now, before you answer that how the almighty will judge the quality of
> > one's faith is something we don't know, i.e. a mystery, recall Mark
> > 16:16, "... he that believeth not shall be condemned." Seems pretty
> > clear to me, with no variance among various translations which would
> > indicate room for misunderstanding, that I know of.
> 
> That's out of context.  v.15 directs the disciples to preach the gospel
> to every creature, THEN v.16 says those who believe will be saved and
> those who do not will be condemned.  The principle is that each of us is
> judged by our response to the truth to which we are exposed.  Seems fair
> to me.

I'm well aware of taking scripture out of context. Obviously, one doesn't
combine, e.g. "And he found a fresh jawbone of an ass, and put out his
hand and seized it, and with it he slew a thousand men.", and "go and do
thou likewise." However, it's not difficult to come up with supporting
verses for a broader interpretation of Mark (et. al., BTW), e.g. John
14:6; "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
cometh unto the Father, but by me." This is only what comes to mind
immediately. Were I to dig out my Thompson chain-reference, no doubt I
could find more. Really, this isn't an obtuse doctrine of Christianity.

> For what it's worth, Mark probably didn't write verses 9 onward.  Check
> out www.bible.org for more information.
> 
> > And, as long as I'm writing on the subject, what is the fate of the
> > souls of the aborted, miscarried, and stillborn? After all, they were
> > conceived in sin, and thus bear the guilt of orginal sin. Without the
> > means of grace, how can they come to faith, and thus secure
> > salvation? I posed just this question to my Pastor, many years ago.
> > His reply was that while God limits we humans to the means of grace,
> > he does limit himself. Oh, then there are other means of attaining
> > heaven? Do tell. So is Mark right or wrong? If he's wrong, then
> > scripture is not always truth.
> 
> 1. Scripture is not always precise and consistent.  It's OK; this is the
> history of the relationship between God and man, not a computer program
> or lab notes.
> 1a. No two witnesses of a given complex event will give the same exact
> account thereof.  If they do, something's amiss.
> 1b. Details of translation.  "Thou shalt not kill" sb "Thou shalt not
> murder"
> 1c. Differences of expression.  "Jesus was in Littleton." or "Jesus was
> in Denver."
> 1d. Copy/edit differences.  Slight differences in our best source
> manuscripts.  We don't have the original letters, but translations of
> copies of copies of the original letters.
> 
> 2. Scripture is not always literal. That's OK, too.  Jesus taught very
> effectively using parables, and it is relatively easy to tell where
> language is figurative, prophetic, or otherwise not meant literally.

I'm also quite aware of the difficulties of translation, poor
manuscipts, etc. However, it is central to Christianity that the Bible is
the inspired word of God. 2 Peter 1:21; "For the prophecy came not in old
time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost." Okay, that's a reference to the OT. I was taught that
the NT was transmitted similarly, though I don't have a verse handy for
that.

Yes, Aramaic was a highly figurative language, for example Lot's wife
being turned into a "pillar of salt". I was told that this meant the
Angel of Death gave her a heart attack. Well, how the Jews of that time
differentiated a myocardial infarction from an anyeurism, I don't know,
but the point remains. Also, Greek has verb forms which don't exist in
English, the aorist verb form, for example. However, that doesn't mean
that "condemned" or "damned", "cast into the pit", etc., don't mean
consignment to eternal torment in hell.

But, since you brought it up, if translators are working from copies of
copies of copies, then how does one really know where errors have cropped
in. Add in whatever theories you want about the Council of Nicea, the
exclusion of the Apochryphal books, whether Mark wrote all of Mark, etc.,
and you wind up with ... ?

What you wind up with is picking what works for your faith and belief.
But that, in my book, isn't equivalent to truth.

> 3. Scripture is not always a spiritual prescription or prohibition.
> Some statements in the bible deal with culture issues we don't have.
> Slavery is practically non-existent in our culture, but was discussed
> quite a bit in the bible.  Women in church leadership was a terrible
> distraction in the old days, but today, it's routine, and we safely
> ignore the proscription against it.

Depends upon what you believe. Orthodox Jews would disagree with you
here. So, if you accept the NT doctrine that "these things are but a
shadow, the body is Christ", then of course you disregard some OT things,
since Christ's work fulfilled the covenant -- thus the outer forms of the
covenant arent' necessary any longer.

> I don't personally ascribe to the doctrine of Original Sin, in any case,
> so for me, it's simply, no sin = perfection = straight [back] to Heaven.
> Moreover, I never worry about Heaven OR Hell, although I acknowledge
> them doctrinally, they have nothing to do with why I believe in Jesus.

So, you don't believe that, "behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin
did my mother concieve me"? Okay. Relying on memory, I think I could come
up with a more firm basis, were I to spend the time. (Which I won't.)

> > If we assume, for the sake of argument, that every human is endowed
> > with an immortal soul upon conception, then there have been a
> > Saganesque quantity of souls "conceived in iniquity", and therefore
> > condemned to hell, who have never had the opportunity of attaining
> > salvation by the means of grace, i.e the word and sacraments. This is
> > true even of many people who have been born and lived long lives.
> 
> OK, this is entirely academic, because it deals with original sin,
> Heaven, and Hell, and I've already said I don't care about them, ~but~ I
> take it on faith that God has got some fair way of dealing with those
> people that manage to complete their earthly circuit without ever being
> exposed to the good news.

Okay, but that's contrary to what I was taught the Bible says. If God
would have that all be saved, then why not be clear about what routes are
acceptable? Why is Jesus quoted in John 14:6 as saying, "I am *the* way
and the truth and the light ...". Certainly our understanding of the
Koine Greek is up to distingushing between the direct and the indirect
article?

> What really matters (to me) is the earthly benefit that is lost to those
> people.

And that's cool. There are a vast number of people for whom Christianity
as a way of life works.

> > I, for one, cannot have faith in a god who would condemn a soul merely
> > for ignorance. OTOH, if Jehovah does not do this, then faith in Christ
> > isn't the only way. If the latter, then the inerrancy of the Bible is
> > at best, in question.
> 
> Right, or maybe right, or ... Let me ask you a question: If I offer to
> let everyone live in my house, rent free, are you going to give me Hell
> because I invited you, and I told you to extend the invitation to
> everyone else, and you think some folks are going to get missed?  Whose
> house is this?

Of course not. But you're leaving out the rest of it. I would assuredly
give you hell, and in fact would likely hunt you down, if you were to
slaughter those who didn't accept your invitation. Isn't being condemned
to eternity in the torment of hell much worse than earthly death? Jehovah
(in the Bible) hasn't said, "Oh, if you don't want to live here, well
fine, be reincarnated or whatever floats your boat."

> With regard to the inerrancy of scripture, see the above remarks.  It's
> perfect, it's just not ~mechanically~ perfect.

Can't agree with you there. I have examined it. I've found it lacking.

> > Yours in Pasta,
> 
> I'm beginning to think you didn't ask in sincerity...  :-)

Well, lest we become to serious here. For me, even though it probably
doesn't sound that way, I have no dog in this fight. The only thing left
of my Christianity is an intellectual curiousity, and not just in Western
Judaeo-Christian religions.

Sauce Vobiscum

jed