Re: virus:Logic

chardin (
Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:13:22 CST+6CDT

> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 18:37:20 -0500
> To:
> From: Brett Lane Robertson <>
> Subject: Re: virus:Logic
> Reply-to:

> Chardin,
> I have no problem with the historical accuracy of the texts or their
> sacred nature.

I feel like progress toward understanding has been made already.
> I DO see prophecy as a natural occurance...something like "I
> prophecy that the sun will rise tomorrow"--they are based on
> scholarship and understanding of natural cycles (or perhaps more
> mysterious thought processses, intuition, revelation...these words I
> can't define too well so I won't use them but I think they are
> natural too...that a baby intuits, has revelations). If I said that
> the son of a king will grow up to be king...that is prophecy. If I
> say that five generations from now a descendent of David will rise
> up to be king...same thing. If I understand that every third
> generation or so there is a "black sheep" king who leaves the throne
> for humanitarian concerns and I assume that the multiple of 5
> generations of descendents times 3 generations of "black sheep" will
> produce a black-sheep king (or something like [5 X 3]X5 or 75
> generations) there will be a King of the miracle.
What are you describing here sounds to me like the type of
"generalizations" I was talking about. This is rather like a
fortune teller saying "I see someone in your life who is giving you
problems." This is the type of generalization I am saying that the
prophcies must not be in order to be prophecy. We could logically,
I think, assert that Jesus knew the prophecies and they became
self-fulfilling: i.e., the scriptures say that the Messiah is to be
born in Bethleham, I was born in Bethleham, therefore, I must be
Messiah and set about to fulfill the other things. I think that
would be a logical explanation for the prophecies. But I don't wish
to discuss that at this point. What I am trying to point out is that
the prophecies themselves must be something more than generalization
in order to be termed "prophecy."

> The accuracy of an old book has nothing to do with this for me. I
> can observe fruit flies or my own family and understand the
> reasoning behind the prophecy. Prophecy to me is like
> says that we will need to build more prisons to take
> care of the criminals over the next 10 years (low and behold the
> prisons were built don't you believe the prophecy...yes, I believe
> the prophecy but what does that have to do with "end times" or "died
> for your sins" or "believe in me or you will go to hell" or "God"?).

The thing I am asserting about the scriptures is that they contain
more specific information. If you told me in 1820, for example, that
there would be an incredibly poison substance turned loose in the
town of Chernobyl in approximately 150 years, I might be puzzled how
you could have known such a thing and known it with such accuracy.

> What I'm questioning is how you jump from the bible is a historical
> text, to the prophecy predicted the rise of a king, to "God is a
> bearded man on a cloud who will judge you for mistakes you make and
> give your spirit to an evil man if you don't go to church". Do you
> just say that if this part of the bible is true then EVERYTHING is
> (that's like saying that if Hitler ever did one good thing then
> everything he did was good). I have to have some sort of reason to
> accept the remaining 1% of a text even if the other 99% is correct
> (besides the arguement that because that is right then this must be
> too).

Well, it is a little more sticky than that. You see the scriptures
say that you can tell a prophet of God because he must be 100%
accurate. He is not allowed that 1% margin; it is not a matter of

> You must define messiah for me and show me how one so defined would
> help someone by dieing and then I can compare that to logic and
> decide if worshipping this person will improve my life in any way.
> And even then, this will not illustrate to me that there is a heaven
> and a god (because the one doesn't follow from the other,
> understand).

Well, I wasn't trying to make that jump at this point--I was just
trying to get you to see that such prophecies were made, and that IF
they were fulfilled and IF they were more than mere generalizations,
THEN something more than human contrivance was going on. CHardin

I leave you with prayer, the Agnostic's Prayer: "Oh, God (if there is
a God) save my soul (if I have a soul).
> Brett
> Returning,
> rBERTS%n
> Rabble Sonnet Retort
> Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.