From:  (Nigel B. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: nz.soc.religion,aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Tigger gave it a try
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:12:51 GMT

Nigel:
>> Like many fundamentalists, you mistake the Bible for a "rule
>> book". Try thinking of it as a "guide book" instead. After all,
>> that is what the Bible says of itself. Fundamentalists often
>> quote 1 Timothy 3:16, in the mistaken view that "Inspired" (Gk
>> "God Breathed") means inerrant. In fact, the author goes on to
>> spell out the meaning-
>> _useful_ for teaching, for reproof, for correction and training
>> in righteousness.

Tigger:
>Okay, but what of the rules mentioned? Are they flexible?

The Bible contains very few "rules". 

Most of the commands in the Bible are about Jewish and Christian
worship. Many specific prohibitions are culturally conditioned, and
can be safely disgarded (eg women should cover their heads and keep
silent in church). The Christian community, under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit and the leadership of properly appointed authorities
(Bishops, elders, etc.) makes a judgement on these matters. That is
"flexibility", if you like, but it is not "anything goes". 
 
Jesus was once asked to sum up the law and the prophets - he answered
that love of God and love of neighbour is the essence of all true
religion. A Jewish Rabbi who lived about 50 years before Jesus said
much the ame thing - "this is the whole law; do not do to others what
is hateful to you. The rest is commentary". 

Love God, Love your neighbour. 
That is the essence of Christianity. Those are the rules that matter.

>> The game of "The Bible is inerrant" vs" Errors in the Bible prove
>> that God does not exist" is a silly competition played between
>> people who do not understand the Christian gospel. It is funny to
>> watch, but ultimately pointless.

>I hope you do not meet too many of the latter, nor assume that we are.
>What I think, is that the many errors contained within the bible prove
>that it is not 'written' (cf. inspired) by God, and that what I have
>read of its history is entirely consistent with a culture writing their
>experiences of their God, as many societies have, and so see no need to
>assume that this God is real whereas others are not.

There is a big gap between "written" and "inspired". Most Christians
would agree with what is written in 2 Timothy 3:16 - that the Bible is
inspired with God. The idea that it is "written" or otherwisae
infallibly "dictated" by God is a peculiar and unbiblical view. 

What you say about the cultural background of the Bible may well all
be true. What book do you think provides the best source of
information about God in your culture?

>Um, so that doesn't mean it disproves God, it just means it does not
>give a reason to assume God.

Fair enough.

cheers

N+

Nigel B. Mitchell