Essentially we have a media regulator (Ofcom) who impose fines on those who don’t broadcast news with due impartiality and due accuracy. The rules on news are here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/undue/

Because anyone can complain to Ofcom about misleading programs news or offensive material, the broadcasters tend to regulate themselves quite tightly. These rules where conditions of their licence to broadcast, so they have a strong obligation to keep to them as much as possible.

As a result I would say our media is less limited; they try to show both sides of an issue and make sure what they are telling us is true and accurate.

You did not address any of the facts I set before you. You used subjective experience and subjective interpretation of biblical content to explain your viewpoint. You cannot deny the information I set before you. It is distasteful to you, so you find an explanation around it. Moreover, you presume to know things about me, such as my motivation and “ambition”. I could tell you personal things about myself, but they should not be relevant to the discussion.

If you would consider the arguments and information I present, and address it directly, then we can continue. That is, take my claims and negate them specifically, if you can. Otherwise, there is no point in extending this thread.

gimelnus

You said, “Your argumentation seems circular – You can’t understand it unless you believe it.”

Well fine! The same thing applies to algebra.

Until a person accepts the possibility that said doctrine is at least useful and perhaps utterly essential, he will not believe in it. The motives or reasons are irrelevant to the point, but they exist.

The child I described pretty much sums up my own experience in high school. The apathy and the despair.

As far as Cononicity goes. I don’t think the issue is even remotely as simple as you’ve made it out to be.

I read many non-biblical texts. Some of my favorites are C.S. Lewis’ books.

It is not that nothing else is useful. It is that the books contained in the Bible are complementary in ways that are truely astonishing. They are of the same Spirit.

I you walk into a college Frat party, and then walk accross he street into a home where a young family of five has finished dining and is tending to studies, you will find a completely different atmosphere.

It is this atmosphere or Spirit that repels or attracts our attention.

If I pick up the so called ‘Gospel of Thomas’, I immediately recognize a different Spirit and meter to the scripts.

It plainly doesn’t fit. Not just mechanically, but Spiritually.

If you really want to investigate this, I highly reccomend Lee Strobel’ book, ‘The Case for Christ’.

As a skeptical seeker a few years back, I was astonished by the facts when I actually became interested in seeking objectively and willing to give up my own ambitions.

Your problem is not that the Bible doesn’t make sense. It is that it conflicts with your own ambitions. I don’t know what those ambitions are. But you have them.

Perhaps you want to be included into the mainstream of society and accepted and respected by those who follow the winds of change.

Perhaps you are a homosexual who refuses to compromise on just one point of contention.

It doesn’t matter what the reason is, and I am not suggesting that any of those represent you, but only giving an illustration.

I am not condemning the desires illustrated or even the conflict they create in one’s own mind. I am only pointing out that if you believe in one thing with all your heart minus your mind… then you will exclude alternatives irrespective of their sufficiency.

The Biblical Canon is solid. It contains a message with a particular Spirit which the world is not interested in embracing. It says what it says, because it is what it is.

Perhaps it is false, but it is not human in origin. It is quite inhuman in the sense that it threatens every point of selfishness which we consider to be quite natural for all of the animals.

The reason I know this, is because at the age of 33 (about 4 years ago) I returned to Church with my wife and newborn son, to re-xamine the message I had rejected as a 16 year old rebel.

The message was one of surrender, not belief. It was one of seeing faith, not blind obedience. Starting from the undeniable reality of my own depravity and sin, and moving into the clear and methodical provision which God made to turn that around.

There is nothing more clear than God commanding willing obedience. Not forced or coerced, but willing and understanding submission to Him as the God of my life instead of me.

The theme of the messiah to come who would fulfill the requirements of the law and redeem mankind. The messiah revealed in the flesh, and then the gift of the Holy Spirit that remains to this day.

The humble and forgiving heart of God, who was willing to come and take responsibility for this whole mess to grab our attention and cause us to investigate with our entire being.

Any book which contradicts this concept does not belong in the Canon.

It is a unique message, complete with an alien visitation of God Himself, who is subsequently misunderstood as a threat to man rather than reality Himself.

He is crucified, raised to life, and then ascends into heaven in a way more natural than the writer of Star Trek could ever have imagined when he thought the transporter was an original concept.

A guy once told me he was waiting for the aiens to save us from oursleves. He siad this in response to my Christian beliefs which he found quite rediculous.

I said to him, “It already happened two thousand years ago, and we crucified Him.”

You should have seen the look on his face!

I could tell he suddenly realized that he desperately sought a savior.

Your free to disagree. You can create your own canon if you wish.

But at that point in my life, I was not looking for my truth. I was looking for something real, that is greater than my immediate animal pleasure.

I didn’t create the truth. What ever it is, it created me. That was really the only thing I needed to understand in order to move forward.

Thanks for your reply. As I mentioned before, it’s best if we consider only one point at a time, so, though I read your entire post carefully, I shall only, for now, consider the point at hand – that of the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. The reason you gave is as follows:

The reason is simple… I have been born of the Spirit that wrote it in exchange for my life. And as such, I am able to understand what is written.

Your argumentation seems circular – You can’t understand it unless you believe it. Because you are a believer, you believe the scriptures are inspired. Why then, can the Muslim not say, “Because I am a believer, I can understand the Koran”? He, of course, can, and his reasoning is just as circular.

Beyond that, let us consider the issue of canonicity as it relates to the notion of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible. By canonicty, I mean the process by which there came to be 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New. Who decided which books would be in and which would be out? Councils of men. They met together, and based on rules that they themselves made up, decided which books were inspired and which were not. Many of the apostles wrote letters to the various churches that do not appear in the New Testament.

You might counter that God led these councils of men to make the exact decisions that he wanted them to make. However, there is no proof of this whatsoever, and no reason to believe it except because you want to. If you try to use the Bible to prove that certain books were to be selected and others kept out, it will not work. Besides, why can Muslims not use the Koran to prove that the Koran is inspired?

Though there are other aspects of canonicity and inspiration to consider, I’ll stop here and let you respond.

For what it’s worth, kudo’s on your very clear thinking here…

It defies reason to think that something comes from nothing. Since ‘nothing’ has no qualities with which to make a big bang, I concur that ’something’ must exist eternally.

I’d like to offer some random thoughts of my own. I am not claiming that they are original. In fact, they are the only conclusions anyone can reach while staying within the bounds of logic. And I think logical bounds are quite appropriate when we consider that illogical bounds are self defeating.

Neither you, nor I, am prepared to accept an illogical or unreasonable system, as a legitimate conclusion to any given query.

I do hope we can share agreement on that.

———–

Everything created must have a beggining. Only that which is uncreated can be eternal.

Therefore anything created, must have a creator.

If we say that the material universe is eternal we have a problem. That problem… is entropy; and more specifically, that entropy is increasing.

If the material universe is essentially falling apart, how could it have existed eternally? It would have had all eternity to have completely disintegrated by now…

(an interseting aside is that it must also must have started complete in order for it to be coming apart)

I don’t know that that argument is a solid as I would like, since one could reasonably speculate that the physical laws might have once been entropically in balance in the distant past. The drawback to that criticism is that it is not verifiable. It is purely faith based. The evidence we ‘do have’ shows a devolving system (if I may put it that way).

Our sun is using up it’s fuel. Our moon is slowly exiting it’s orbit etc… And to use less scientific terms, all hell is most slowly breaking loose.

———

As far as a creator goes, what is very interesting is that the Bible gives us a revelation supposedly from God Himself.

But does it hold up?

What is more interesting is that this Biblical creator just so happens to be eternal and uncreated. Pretty good guess coming from people living ages before the ‘enlightenment’ and the age of empericism.

‘He is before all things’.

‘Through Him all things were made’.

‘He was, and is, and is to come’

‘The alpha and the omega’.

‘I am who I am’.

Those are almost astonishingly simple and yet very deep theological quotients. They have the simple beauty of e=mc2, yet also the unsearchable quality of the infinite.

If God is eternal, He is then absolute since eternity exists not just in all time, but before and after time (which by definition has a beginning and end). Time essentially equates to decay. Our atomic clocks are the most accurate time pieces and measure the rate of decay atomically.

Things that are decaying were once whole. You can’t break something down unless it was put together in the first place.

An absolute is defined philosophically as that which is complete or whole (holy). Nothing can be added or subtracted from it.

God by definition can be the only absolute, since everything in this universe is real only relative to time.

For example, while debating these things, I once told my friend that it is ‘Absolutely True’ that his Volvo is parked in his driveway. He very quickly reminded me that it is a relative truth. At ‘this’ time it is in his driveway, but earlier it was not.

I had to concede the point. In my search for an absolute, I found the only example of it that exists in this world.

The only absolute with which God can reveal Himself to man is Morality. It is part and parcel of his nature and is therefore unchanging and absolute. It is also our only real clue to who we are as human beings created in His image.

Human beings were not created to be animals but gods (little g). It’s not just that we expect ourselves to be Godly, but others as well. If we didn’t, then what grounds would you use to dismiss what I say as false? What would be the difference between a false statement and a true one?

So, if your digesting all of this, logic is tied inextricably with morality. Truth is resonable and logical. Lies are unreasonalbe and illogical.

And at the root of every sin, is a lie motivated by pride.

Soory if I was all over the park… it’s been a long day.

I’ve been burned quite a bit at EVC. Over a thousand posts that were basically a complete waste of time…

I will answer your question even though I am not at all confident that it benefits my position in your opinion.

If you do not believe your current worldview is true, I am
curious how you might go about sustaining that something else (my own) is not.

You asked, “Do you believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments? If so, why”?

I do…

The reason is simple… I have been born of the Spirit that wrote it in exchange for my life. And as such, I am able to understand what is written.

Not to a total degree mind you, but to an extent I never dreamed possible…

Not because
I am any better than you. It is simply the Gospel. We can trade our life for seeing God. That is why it is good news. We can ‘actually know the truth’ about reality, if we are willing to give up everything in exchange for Him.

I was quite in need of assistance, since I could not conceive of how I could ever truely know what reality is without God’s help.

It’s not easy you know? It is the greatest thing and the most frightening thing. Yet it is so.

Knowing Christ is selling your soul out to God. It is Spiritual posession. Let’s just get that out in the open right now and avoid wasting words with senseless sparring.

But being a recovering Baptist I have no doubt you know all of these things…

At the very least you know the words. Did you ever actually see the concepts?

Now, being empowered to understand the Bible on God’s own terms, does not mean that I have all of the answers to questions you may have or even my own personal ones. But I will do my best to endure the criticism.

——–

As an aside you said, “Language is amazing in that it can be used to make almost any proposition seem plausible”.

I emphatically disagree! Otherwise your statement could itself be only nonsense. But it wasn’t!

I know exactly what you said, because words do serve their intended purpose of conveying concepts (be they convoluted or not).

‘The word’ is not the word as in ‘letters’ or ‘language’, but the concepts and ideas (wisdom) conveyed.

If words do not have any meaning, then you wouldn’t be able to read this and grasp the concepts being conveyed.

Just remember that it is the concept and not the vehicle which has the power. You cannot deny the concepts I presented to you earlier philosophically (conceptually). Avoiding them by calling them only words, is like denying your tax return and calling it mere numbers. Tell that to the IRS auditor or the presiding Judge in tax court and see where it gets you…

Such a response is not only foolish, but twisted.

Ideas are the most powerful weapons in the universe. If you wish to share them, I am willing. If you wish to twist them, I will be forced to incinerate you with your own words. Not because I hate you, but because I wish for you to understand the gravity of the subject and have some respect for the God who is watching us.

If the IRS will not tolerate word games, then what do you think a Holy God will do to such sophistry when it is finally exposed for what it is?

Do you want to have an adult conversation or not?

You said, “I’m just saying that I do try to consider all positions”.

Really?

So you think Jeffery Daumer might have been on to some great fun that mankind is missing out on?

How about the Branch Dividians and David Koresh’s claim to be God?

The same with the Heavens Gate cult???

Nazi Germany?

Perhaps we should consider the ideas of NAMBLA? Yes, perhaps a little child porn is just what the world needs to fulfill peace and nonjudgementalism…

Luke 19:22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow?

You know these things???

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. 6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God– 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Rob

Thanks for the reply. I don’t think we are going to get anywhere unless we select a narrower topic, perhaps one element of the above debate at a time. That is not to say I have ignored your comments, however. I read them carefully, and would have responded, but decided that it would take days to write.

So, let’s narrow here. Just in general summary, I’ll say this: I don’t consider my current worldview to be true, but I am forced to live from its perspective, for it is all I have. Language is amazing in that it can be used to make almost any proposition seem plausible. Note that in another article I wrote here, I challenged Michael Shermer’s position – http://gimelnus.wordpress.com/2007/03/17/it-all-started-when/
My line of questioning in that article was probably more creationist in flavor than agnostic, atheist or skeptic. I’m just saying that I do try to consider all positions. And yes, I am seeking an answer. Ok, moving on to the narrowing…

We can start wherever you like, but may I suggest Canonicity? As I mentioned previously, this was the main issue that fueled my spiral away from Christianity. First, let me ask this: Do you believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments? If so, why? You have mentioned the Ten Commandments many times, but do you accept them only, or the entire Old Testament. Let me know, and we can move on from there.

I am enjoying the discussion and hope that we can both profit from it.

How are those rules enforced? I mean, how does the system work? Also, do you see the media there as limited? That is, do you ever feel as though you aren’t getting the whole story? Over the years, I have become increasingly exasperated in that, I just don’t trust anything I see on TV anymore. In a sense, I’m reluctant to put any amount of confidence in what I see on a media program for fear of being duped.

I don’t know that I am offerring anything new to you, but one never knows until the discussion goes on…

You asked, ” Why do you assume that all philosophies are exclusive by nature”?

For the record, I am not ‘assuming’ that all philosophies are exclusive. I am positing that as an absolute. I am professing that it is inarguable. I am stating a fact. Please allow me to explain.. and feel free to criticize if I am unaware of some error that is my ’stumbling block’ on this note. (note the symbolism of the term ’stumbling block’)

First we must realize that one’s current worldview is always assumed to be true for that individual; at the very least, until proven wrong. That is an important point…

So moving from there, if your worldview says that all moral truth is subjective, then it excludes other worldviews which say otherwise. Therefore, a neutral worldview is an illusion.

One may say that the only legitimate thing to be prejudiced against, is ‘prejudice itself’, but one cannot ever claim neutrality unless they are willing to embrace all sorts of things they themselves consider evil.

Very often, the people most shaken and distrubed by the present evils in the world, are the very ones who claim that moral truth is always subjective and that we have no right to say that ‘this’ is good, and ‘that’ is evil.

Such an individual will both deny the Ten Commandments absolute claim to law and demand it’s inadmissability in public discourse, and yet judge the president as a liar in a public protest. It is such nonesense that provokes others like Michael Savage to label them as mentally deranged.

All philosophy (religion) is exclusive. Some exclude all others. And others exlcude only one. But they all exclude something to exalt themselves.

To illustrate further, consider that recently a man asked me to keep my morality to myself.

I was sharing my personal belief in Christ and he found it very offensive. He invoked the pluralist philosophy that all religious views are equal, and that my morality was mine and I should not attempt to impose that upon him.

Now please follow me carefully here…

I told him that I was imposing nothing. I was only sharing what I believe to be true, and that I would like to encourage him also to consider that it is indeed true for himself.

I then reminded him that if he believed that I should keep my moral beliefs to myself, that he should explain the reasoning behind his moral judgement on that matter and not just impose his will upon me.

You see? Pluralism is itslef an imposition. It has been exalted to swallow everything. ‘The new morality’ is that we cannot talk about morality in any detail. We are told to keep it to ourselves. We are pressured by ‘politically correct’ ‘postmodern theological doctrine’ that is never questioned but only assumed to be ‘True’!

That!… we are told, is what will lead to peace. “Keep the prince of peace to yourself!”

Interesting is it not?

You also asked, “Is it not possible to have a worldview that questions everything?”

Of course it is… A healthy worldivew will also examine itself. If skepticism is not skeptical of it’s own skepticism, then it is mere cynycism, and is motivated by less than healthy thinking.

However, bear in mind that we question in order to arrive at an answer. If our purpose is only to keep questioning endlessly and accepting nothing as concrete or legitimate in an ultimate sense, then why is it we accept ‘that infinite questioning’ itself as legitimate?

We cannot rebel against everything without cutting our own legs out from under us.

G.K. Chesterton addressed this issue marvelously, in light of modernity’s impact on critical thinking in the early 20th century:

“But the new rebel is a Skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be a real revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything, really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind, and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but also the doctrine by which he denounces it.

Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity and then curses Mrs. Grundy when they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is a waste of time. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland and Ireland because they take away that bauble.

The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”

(Orthodoxy, Chapter title – The Suicide of Thought / 1908)

G.K. Chesterton had a way of putting things. He said regarding the philosophy of pluralism: “The modern habit of saying, “Every man has a different philosophy; this is my philosophy and it suits me” (the habit of saying this is mere weak mindedness). A cosmic philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a cosmic philosophy is constructed to fit a cosmos. A man can no more possess a private religion than he can possess a private sun and moon.”

Now don’t get the worng idea Gimelnus. I am only a truck driver who has been doing his homework. I haven’t read as extensively as these quotes may lead some to conclude. But what I have done is focused on what is logical. If we are to build a legitimate and real (true) culture, then one of it’s qualities must be that it is coherent.

The reason officials look for contradictions when questioning witnesses is because contradictions are the only fool proof way to uncover a liar. And there are many contradictory philosophies out there which by definition are false. And by implication, they are professed by ‘false prophets’.

Gimelnus, you also asked, “Have you considered the possibility that there is no absolute truth – that truth is relative”?

I have… I considered that the truth is… that there is no truth…

…and then I asked myself… ‘Is that true?”

You see? Relativism cannot be absolute unless logic is invalid as a means of real understanding.

The reason Jesus words are not understood by so many, is because He is simply telling the truth. they are exquisitely logical and coherent with all the rest of scripture.

A man speaking truth in a land full of liars, is like a man speaking English in a land full of Chinese.

Consider Jesus words to the ‘Pharisees’ (too often you and me):

John 8:43-45 “Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!”

I hope you don’t mind the direct answers to your questions. I mean no disrespect. I only speak what I believe.

Feel free to communicate privately at rob.lockett@sbcglobal.net

I take it from your comments that you are a conservative, as well as a Christian. You mentioned that you feel that truth is, by definition, exclusive. Have you considered the possibility that there is no absolute truth – that truth is relative? I am not necessarily endorsing this notion myself, just generating ideas. Your point of view is clearly contingent on the acceptance of the Bible as the inspired Word of God. This is the very issue that caused me to “leave” religion, for I could not find sufficient evidence to prove that the Bible was indeed the inspired Word of God.

If absolute truth exists, then your claim cannot but be true. Absolute Truth is, without question, exclusive. It behooves us then, to consider the plausibility of Absolute Truth. This quandary has been pondered for millennia. I am open to the idea, but I cannot devote myself to something of which I am not wholeheartedly convinced.

You cite mathematics as an example of absolute truth, or at least it seems so. 1+1+1=3 is somewhat of a straw man, for few would question its veracity. However, consider taking the square root of -1. That’s what is known as an imaginary number. Mathematics is necessarily a paradigm which we use to express the logical relationships we see in nature. This perception is unavoidably subjective. It is indeed useful and often appears quite accurate, but I would not commit myself to the assumption that it is flawless.

In addressing your second point, I do not intend to be antagonistic, but merely skeptical, as I feel we should all be: Question, re-question, and then question again. Why do you assume that all philosophies are exclusive by nature? Is it not possible to have a worldview that questions everything? We are all subjective creatures, so we cannot hope to attain to objectivity; thus, it is essential to take our own limitations into consideration when constructing worldviews.

Canonicity is, to me, the most crucial element of Christianity. After all, if you cannot rely on your guidelines, you have no basis for belief. This reflects a background where I was brainwashed to believe in the “verbal, plenary inspiration of scripture.” Some have asserted that believing the general message of Christianity functions as a replete worldview, which avoids the necessity of believing in the “word-for-word” inspiration of Scripture. I’m not sure which camp you fall into, but either way, the reliability of the Bible is a question of extreme importance.

There is much in your article that warrants discussion. Short from writing a book, I cannot address all of your points in this post. I hope we can have continued discussion here and strive mutually for a better understanding of our existence.

gimelnus