From: Nigel B. Mitchell <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,aus.religion,nz.soc.religion
Date: Monday, 8 March 1999 11:44
Subject: Re: News: Persecution / Human Rights



I wrote:
>> I am not sure that this discussion of Josephus is getting us
>> anywhere. I do not think that the slaughter of the innocents
>> happened exactly as described in Matthew. (In fact, it may not

In <>, Tigger <> wrote:
>Why do you think Matthew described it as factual? Does the knowledge
>that Matthew used a metaphor or example as fact in any way reduce the
>liklihood that other things he wrote were not fact?

No. I think that most of what he wrote was metaphor and example.
Metaphors and examples, together with myth, legend, poetry, and
accounts of visions etc,. are the language that most people use to
describe religious experience. The Bible is no different.

>> Are you a parent? Would you descibe sharing your beliefs with
>> your children as 'parental indoctination'? Do you know of many

>Yep. We are all indoctrinated into a Western culture way of thinking.
>For some, that includes religion. For others, it is merely norms and
>mores of this Western culture.

OK, so when you speak of a Christian parent "indoctrinating" their
children with Christianity, you are not using that as a pejorative
term. Good.

>> children who do not question, test, and reject their parents'
>> belief systems in childhood, adolescence, or early adulthood. I
>> certainly did. 

>Does that mean that as an adult (or young adult) you questioned the
>truth of Christianity? May we ask what convinced you it was true?
>Would you categorise that as becoming born again?

I have probably questioned whether Christianity was true more
seriously in the past 10 years than I did when I was a teenager.
Please do not imagine that you are talking to a child who has never
considered "what if all this is a load of rubbish?". I was not, and am
not, a person who just quietly does and believes what he is told. I
questioned, and challenged, the beliefs I was taught, but I was
fortunate enough to find myself in a milieu in which there were people
willing and able to answer my questions.

What ultimately  convinced me that it was true was the difference it
made in my life. I had a particular experience which some people would
probably describe as being 'born again', in which I was powerfully
conscious of the presence and love of God in my life, when I was aged
about 16. It was whilst working backstage on a school musical
production (Yes, a religious one- Godspell). Another moment was when I
received my call/vocation to become a Priest, and another was when I
was called to move over here to Western Australia. The second and
third of these happened quite alone and 'out of the blue' - and
actually caused me and my family some grief at the time, but I have
never regretted them since. These moments are events which, if I were
to try and describe them in writing, I would (following the biblical
example) say God or an angel 'spoke to me'. But I would be using
inadequate language to describe the indescribable. I didn;t hear a
voice, or see a vision - I merely knew the presence of God and his
purpose for my life. The three events I have described are probably
the 'high points' in my Christian journey to date, but I have a less
intense expoerience of the same sort of thing almost daily whem I
participate in Christian worship, prayer, and occasionally even study!

>> >> The comment referred to God inspiring the authors of the Bible.
>> >
>> >But assumes a god....
>> 
>> Why do I have to work with your base assumptions?
>> Are you willing to be objective and work with mine?

>I have, above. The comment was in reference to proving that people of
>faith wrote the bible, therefore there must be some truth in their
>faith. If any hypothesis about God arises, and assumes the existence
>of God, it cannot be trusted. You need to assume a non-existence of
>God. Then, if the null-hypothesis (those people of faith were wrong
>and therefore their experiences are not of God) can be disproven, you
>will have proved your point. 

But you agree that religion is intrinsic to humanity.
I would have thought that on that basis, the existence of God could be
posited.
Sorry, but I am not a trained philosopher, and I am reluctant to play
word games by your rules.

>You cannot establish the correctness of a belief system by assuming
>the belief system is correct. 

I agree.
Do you have any suggestions about how the correctness of a belief
system can be established. How would you establish the correctness of
atheism, for example? 

>> >In order to convince me that God inspired the authors of the bible,
>> >one would have to convince me of God. And frankly, I doubt a person
>> >could. And since He has chosen not to....
>> 
>> Well, if you have already made up your mind, there is probably
>> not much point.

>You're saying your God gives up? What about when I hadn't made up my
>mind? Why didn't He do something about it then? Since it is incredibly
>unlikely that anyone in Western culture has not heard about God, why
>do Christians evangelise? What can they possibly have to gain, since
>people have already "made up their minds"?

Are you seriously suggesting that no-one in western culture ever
changes their minds?

>And not much point in what? Do you think that there's not much point
>in God demonstrating himself to me because I have already chosen to
>believe he does not exist?

No. If what you say is true,  I think that God has revealed himself to
you, and you have made a deliberate decision to turn away from him.
That is your decision. It is not irreversible, any more than the
decisions I have made in my life are irreversible.

>> Do you really think that the authors of the bible set out to
>> write an inconsistent and unflattering book about God? 

>I don't think the authors of the Bible set out to write one book.
>Therefore we can't really say much about the consistency or intended
>consistency between books.

I agree.

>> Or do you think it is more likely that you are misinterpreting
>> what they have written?

>I think that several people have, at different times, written down
>their impressions of God. Since people are all different, since the
>times were so far apart, since several real cultures are covered, it
>is not surprising that people have written inconsistent things about
>God. However, you'd think that if God existed, he'd have set them
>straight as to who and what he was and what he wanted.

I agree.
The Church, and the ongoing influence of the Holy Spirit, is the
answer to the last sentence of what you have written- but there will
alsways be error and disagreement amongst human beings, because we are
fallible and have free will.


>If there is a God, then he has a personality. If he has a personality,
>then he presumably consistently acts within that personality. (Aren't
>there verses about how God doesn't change?) If he is consistent, then
>either the millions of people claiming to know and follow him have got
>crossed signals about him from Heaven-Earth Communications Ltd, or
>they all have different gods.

>While the bible may not teach that everyone should have the same image
>of God (and I think it does), one would certainly expect it IF there
>were a god, and IF he communicated with his believers.

>Since there is no consistency, either there is no god, or God does not
>communicate effectively with his believers.

Or your assumptions about God are wrong.

>> >What would convince you of the correctness of atheism?
>> 
>> The triumph of evil over good.

>I would ask why, but see that's been done. "If evil triumphs then
>there is no God".

>How exactly would you define the triumph of evil over good? 

What I have written, I have written.

>Is the
>killing of six million people in cold blood a triumph of evil over
>good? Is the religious right causing gay people to be beaten to death
>a triumph of evil over good? Is the election of National over Labour a
>triumph of evil over good?

These things show the need for God. 


>Can I ask you this? I think we've touched on it before. How can you
>know for absolute certain, that whatever you're experiencing is 'God',
>not some kind of other thing, be it aliens, other gods, devils,
>demons, psychoses, imagination or hallucination?

I can only give the answer I gave before.
I cannot know for absoloute certain, but I am as sure as I can
possibly be that what I experience comes from God.

cheers


N+

Nigel B. Mitchell