Jane,

You ask: "what then is ‘reliability’ in this context, if not ‘truth’? Surely the ‘reliability’ of the Biblical text has got everything to do with one’s assessment of its truthfulness?"

If you look at my post on this matter it is clear that reliability relates to actual text of the Bible. ie. we can be sure that the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 - Beresit bara elohim et hassamayim wa'et ha'arets - is what Moses actually recorded, and the Greek text of John 1:1 - EN ARXH HN hO LOGOS, KAI hO LOGOS HN PROS TON THEON, KAI THEOS EN hO LOGOS - was what John actually wrote.

Oliver,

Why would the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders have such a designation for baby killers and thrill killers and not for people with a sweet tooth?

You said:"My point was a fraction of the community hold one opinion, and, the vast majority would have another opinion on baby killing. Both groups hold an opinion."

Does that mean that truth and morality is decided by the majority?

Regarding "etic" and "emic" behaviours, why do anthropologists makes such distinctions? How do they decide what is etic and what is emic? On your view isn't it just a matter of opinion?

You view torturing babies for fun as an opinion (which you and most others agree with). If someone tortured your baby, would you prosecute them? Given that you accept that it is not wrong in their opinion, if you decide to prosecute, on what basis would you do so?

Abelard's skepticism is self-defeating. By suspending judgment about reality he is in effect making a judgment about reality ie. that it is unknowable. How does he know this?

Some interesting links that are on topic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/opinion/15kristof.html?hp

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1531851,00.html

http://www.counterbias.com/287.html

As for the bibles reliability, well if you look at any Christian website you would think so , but as with anything like that it is base on whish full thinking rather then facts. But I’m sure that on of the GB’s will tell how the Aussie version of the good news bible faithfully records what the actors said in the other versions.

Dear Fiona, at least you balanced 'little man' with 'dear'

But how can one have a vigorous debate if one party degenerates to name calling (the list is becoming quite long now) of another ? It appears that as soon as someone expresses a view which is contrary to yours, they attract a littany of mean names. Never mind, thats how it goes I guess.

The 'point' of the topic was about the right getting it wrong and the left not getting it. We have been exploring some of the reasons for this. It mainly revolves around the left picking and choosing selectively about the teaching and life of Jesus to suit their agenda and the right doing the same. Neither of them gets it or gets it right. We have been looking at WHY this occurs. I'm saying that we cannot have a 'cut and paste' Jesus, we have to deal with the BIBlical one. So, then, when I present the 'real' Jesus of scripture, you call me names and suggest I'm bigoted. (as did Bosk at first).

My position is that problem presented by the article is SOLVED by taking the whole and real Jesus into account. This leads to the issue of the reliability of Scripture and Aslan has been saying quite a bit about that. You have challenged this point, and thats kinda where we are up to (except that you are doing a lot of name calling when apparently you don't have any more to contribute to the actual issue.)

Aslan and others (should you choose to join in):

The key word in my more recent responses to your contribution is “opinion”. Both the “majority” and the “minority” hold an opinion. In the “opinion” of the Community of Practice of Behavioural Scientists” having three lumps of sugar does not warrant psychiatric classification. Perhaps, other people hold alternative “opinions”. All hold “opinions”.

Etic and Emic qualifiers are used by anthropologists to make distinctions between behaviours that trend towards (a) universal or (b) local behaviour, respectively. Marriage is etic. Alternatively, wearing a wedding ring is emic. Yes, it is a matter of opinion, based on the observation of behaviour. I recommend you read, “Culture and Social Behavior”, by Harry C. Triandis for a better understanding.

I have the “opinion”, that etic behaviour would be highly entrenched, perhaps, yielding to major ecological events, such as an Ice Age. Paradigms tend exist in response to the state of prevailing knowledge. Regarding paradigms, I recommend you read, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, by Thomas S. Kuhn. An example, of a paradigm shift was from the Christian Church’s belief in the Ptolemaic Geocentric universe to the heliocentric solar system in a larger universe. The Christians held their opinions. And pioneers of science held, alternative opinions.

Herein, had the majority or at least those in control retained the Christian opinion, we would still be in the Dark Ages. Nonetheless, we are talking about opinions. When the West rediscovered the opinions of the Greeks and replaced the opinions of the Church, we moved into a period of History called, The Enlightenment. I recommend you read, “Science and the Enlightenment” by Thomas L. Hankin,“A History of Knowledge” by Charles Van Doren, and, the “Ascent of Man” by Jacob Bronowski.

Abelard, I feel, would be happy with self-defeat. Progress is achieved by self-defeat: That is, the whole idea of Science. Were it not for self-defeat, we would be still swinging in the trees.

Dear All, am I making sense to you? Aslan and I are having docking.

Approaching word limit… I will wait a few hours before I continue.

BOAZ_David, Yes, I saw your post on the other thread. I notice you haven’t bothered to respond to my comments there.

Your argument re female autonomy,or lack thereof, is specious. The power relationships between the state and individuals apply just as much to males as females. The law doesn’t let males do whatever they like and only exercise power over women. And “the law” is not comprised solely of men – there are some women there as well, or hadn’t you noticed? (Not nearly as many as there ought to be, but we’re working on it.) And as for females having no autonomy vis-a-viz individual men, as I said on the other thread, I don’t need the protective relationship of any male anywhere, and I’m sure the same goes for many women.

Maybe if you stopped being so pompous with your comments, Fiona would feel less inclined to call you names.

This is an active little thread - so I will add my view - Christian beliefs should guide the individual to know right from wrong in the Macro sense.

They should not be used to direct the individual in deciding what right from wrong in the micro sense because such micronistic analysis will invariably be subjective.

Relying on the Bible, a loose reinterpretation of a chain of handed down opinions on “Gods Word”, is not going to help – especially when vast tracks of said book have been massaged to suit a particular agenda and other tracts deliberately omitted by the same “agenda shapers”.

Quite honestly anyone who thinks a Christian “revivalism” is likely in politics or any other arena is having a hallucinogenic moment. Organised religions have proved their inadequacy to manage their own affairs ethically – God help us if they think they can ever aspire again to manage the country.

Leaving this post with a bit of one of my heroines Dear Margaret Thatcher to ponder on – a woman who aspired, achieved and stood as a beacon of Morality and lucid thinking -

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.” – you won’t get those values from a bunch of God botherers.