What's done is done, and this puppy's done. Visit me over at Pearls & Lodestones
Join...
...Conservation Club!
Help protect and own one
one of the world's oldest
and rarest trees...
..::Legend::..
Black= Mastered
Green= Learning
Orange= Struggling
Red= May never master but having fun
This list is by no means comprehensive
"I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing."from the mind of... Eric | 1:36 PM
64 Comments:
Leftist hatred is permeating the blogoshere as the news spreads.
1. EL, I owe you an apology. I apolgize for calling you a name.
2. I fully expect to see the Rev. Falwell at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. I think he'll be at the kids table, with a bunch of others, but I've no doubt he'll be there. Peace on him, on his house, and on the little bluehairs who thought he was the cat's whiskers.
3. Bird, my redheaded redneck stepgal, got engaged last week. The hairy-legged boy she's fixin' to get hitched to is a purdy good feller -- for a dadgum Yankee. Congrats freely accepted.
Congratulations freely given. May God richly bless them both.
Apology accepted.
Somewhat tickled to see implied canonization is such an informal affair among the Protestants.
Canonization? No, not in the Catholic sense. Sainthood, according to scripture is ascribed to all genuine believers in Christ irrespective of any 'miracles' performed by them. Which means I am a saint. Imagine that! Me! ER is a saint, Daddio's a saint. Ms. Green is a saint... Catholicism notwithstanding.
Still, What I heard on CBS last night at the last segment was anything but 'canonization'. CBS eulogized his life for much of the first 10 minutes of their broadcast then stripped him before the nation and declared, "Behold the man!"
But if Protestants choose to speak fairly of him despite his personal missteps in this life, they do well. No one can say he didn't try to live the Christian life. And I firmly believe his achievements in this life were the result of Christ IN him.
Well, of course, some Christians say he didn't live the Christian life. They say that most of the positions he espoused were, in fact anti-Christian. I'm generally among them. But, I can't judge his soul, and I have the decency to let the body cool and get in the ground before saying too much about that.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"some Christians say he didn't live the Christian life."
So much for that mote/beam thingy, eh?
Newsflash!!!
ER had the decency to apologize for calling me a name I didn't appreciate... a comment I promptly deleted.
No name-calling, please. Please argue your point without resorting to name-calling. Either our points have merit enough to stand on their own... or they don't.
Passion is wonderful. Passion is GREAT! But passion that seeks to denegrate (even that which has the appearance of such) belongs at the kids table.
Besides which, I don't want this post becoming an ideological slugfest. To allow it to become such would be disrespectful to Mr. Falwell... whatever our likes or dislikes concerning his legacy.
----
Now...
Out of courtesy to Daddio, whom I love as a brother in Christ, I'm taking the liberty to repost one comment, edited by me, to reflect what I think would have been more appropriate. This is not a slam on Daddio. His point is valid, but in my estimation his delivery was not.
"...some Christians say he didn't live the Christian life."
What was that about the kid's table at the Marriage Supper?
Newsflash!!!!
Some Christians have reported that [ER], pastor of an internet congregation attended by the most diverse of adherents of leftist philosophy, doesn't live the "Christian life".
Other Christians have reported that [ER's] message, "Take the Word of God seriously, but not literally", testifies to his lack of faith.
__________________________________
Reposted by Blog Administrator.
Edited for name-calling, not sarcasm. Sarcasm is fine.
Altered portions are bracketed.
:-)
Re, "most diverse"
Haven't you heard? Diversity good.
Indeed, Dad fairly and accurately characterizes my mantra, which is shared by many, although probably not in Dothan, Ala., or Toadsuck Ferry, Ark.:
"I take the Bible seriously, but not very literally."
Why? I've read it.
Oh, and I absolutely do assert that I have NO faith in the superstition that the Bible is "inerrant" or "infallible," and I disdain the conflation of the wonderful concept of "the Word of God" with the writings now known collectively as "the Bible."
All of which is off topic.
I just had to check for myself... seems there is a place called 'Toad Suck Ferry' somewhere 'round Little Rock.
There's a few strangely named places in these parts too...
The March 1st tornados brought to light to the presence of a little place called "Screamer" just a little ways down the road from "Echo". There's also a place called "Slapout". Down in the panhandle of Florida there's a little place called "Two Egg"
Off-topic as well.
Hey, there's a Slapout near, but not quite in, the Oklahoma Panhandle.
And, I have driven through Sweet Gum Head, Fla.
Don't mean to go off topic, especially on this thread commemorating the life of Rev. Falwell, but I must ask ER, just what parts of the Bible would you describe as "errant" or "fallible"? As far as I know, there's been nothing that has proven any parts of it wrong, and though I don't mean to say that it means it's always right, it IS a point in it's favor.
Also, I'd like clarification on this: "... I disdain the conflation of the wonderful concept of "the Word of God" with the writings now known collectively as "the Bible."" This seems to suggest that you have some other source aside from the Bible for "the Word of God". What would that be?
Marshall, since the ideas I espouse are not original to myself, meaning that sources are freely available online to anyone, I suggest you look them up.
I'm sorry, but this is so silly it sort of fried my brain: "As far as I know, there's been nothing that has proven any parts of it wrong."
And, please, don't conclude that I'm "anti" God. I'm not. But I do not worship the Bible, which is idolatry, nor do I worship my own understanding, which is even worse than idolatry.
If you want to see some general stuff about what I'm about (but NOTHING sums it up for me), then go to www.ucc.org.
Or go here:
www.godisstillspeaking.org
This comment has been removed by the author.
ER,
'bout wet myself from laughter after reading your last response.
Oh.The Delicious.Irony.
As it happens, I'm Council President and Board of Elders Chair for a United Church of Christ congregation. I'm well aware of the less than faithful leanings of the denomination. It's a matter of great concern. And it is highlighted by the very God Is Still Speaking campaign to which you referred. This thinly-veiled pro-homosexual marketing ploy suggests that the term "God is still speaking" means He's "evolving" and "telling us new things" all the time if we just listen, darn it. And this is really an easy thing to tell oneself once one has determined that "I take the Bible seriously, but not very literally." With this phrase, one enlarges the gray areas to a more suitable expanse providing more space for more options not covered by existing standards and values; adjusting the right/wrong scales as needed. And that very Book, the credibility of which is now diminished by your measure, the written and visible representation of the Word of God you no longer believe is tied to it, suggests His Will for us and His message of good and evil is a bit more fixed in nature. A tad contradictory, wouldn't you say?
But this does help my understanding of how your brain could fry at the reading of that statement of mine. You trash the source of our knowledge of the God of Abraham so it stands to reason. But my point was that in the areas of archeology, history, anthropology and other disciplines, there is great support for the credibility of Scripture, particularly NT Scripture. None of those same sciences ever provided anything to suggest something in the Bible was false. So what parts do you believe are "errant" or "fallible"? And how do you support your case? If you've consciously decided to ignore or disbelieve(?) specifics based on your belief in a fallibility obviously inherent in the Bible, aren't you indeed worshipping your understanding over the teachings of the Bible. You're certainly making the teachings take second place to your understanding.
As to looking up freely available sources for the unoriginal ideas you espouse, what would those ideas be exactly?
I posted this already but out of respect for EL, I have self edited it, and deleted my comment. No name calling, right?
ER just said, "I can't judge his soul, and I have the decency to let the body cool and get in the ground before saying too much about that."
However, while Falwells body was yet warm, ER said:
"What sparked Bro. Falwell's heart attack?
He finally actually read the Sermon on the Mount.
Scared him to death.
--ER"
Both of these seemingly contradictory statements come from the same person. The first was in this comment thread, the second, on his blog. Don't you think they show him to be just a tad hypocritical?
Art, I have asked ER that same question many times. He refuses to answer. My point is and has always been, who has the right and/or knowledge of God to determine which parts of the Bible are true and which are not? Who is the final arbiter, if not God? See, this is where ER gets stuck. He obviously interprets the Bible the way he thinks it should be. But if he were to say that his interpretation of the Bible is THE correct one, he is placing himself on an equal plane with God, or possibly even re-creating himself as God. And even ER won't go that far.
My position is that if any part of the Bible is not true, then it throws suspicion on all of it, and you might as well throw the whole kit and kaboodle out. We have to believe all the Bible is true. otherwise it has no credibility at all for anyone. It is (and possibly this is what ER believes) just a book, with nothing that sets it apart from sany other, say...The Q'uran, or "Dianetics", or "Grimm's fairy tales".
So go ahead and ask him which parts are true and which parts aren't. He won't give you an answer.
"My point is and has always been, who has the right and/or knowledge of God to determine which parts of the Bible are true and which are not?"
Eric, with your permission on this off-topic line, just one quick comment?
Is it not true that we ALL recognize that parts of the Bible are allegory? That parts are parables? That parts are hyperbole? That parts are history-but-not-history-as-we-write it necessarily?
They had different writing styles and conventions. Just because the Bible describes a six day creation does not mean that we must interpret that to mean six days, right?
Just because Jesus told us to lop off our hands if they offend us, doesn't mean we ought to do that literally, right?
Just because the Bible tells us unequivocally to kill disrespectful children doesn't mean we ought to do so.
We ALL have the right and responsibilty to rightly interpret the Word of God. Being fallible humans, we sometimes will get it wrong. We'll take something literally that ought not be taken literally. We'll make something allegorical that ought to be taken literally.
We ALL have that right and responsibility, friends. This is not a point on which we disagree. Perhaps you'll disagree with the parts that ER or I take literally and vice versa and that's fine, but we all have to figure out by God's grace with our God-given reason. It's all we can do.
Amen, to you, brother Mark. God IS the final arbiter. ER and I think nothing less.
For the record, I and ER (if I may speak for him) take every TRUTH of the Bible as literal, by God's grace.
I apologize, Eric, for helping to go off-topic, but this is just one attempt to address this line that already exists.
Peace.
talk about going off topic...
i can't tell yall' how many times i was called a "dadgum yankee" when I lived in Alabama the Beautiful. some of the best times of my life, though.
There are several aspects of the Bible that show it is not inerrant.
These include factual errors:
* 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 93:1 state that the earth is immobile; yet it not only revolves and orbits the sun but is also influenced by the gravitational pull of other bodies.
* Leviticus 11:6 states that rabbits chew their cud.
* Leviticus 11:20-23 speaks of four-legged insects, including grasshoppers.
And contradictions:
* In Genesis 1, Adam is created after other animals; In Genesis 2, he appears before animals.
* Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 differ over Jesus's lineage.
* Mark 14:72 differs from Matthew 26:74-75, Luke 22:60-61, and John 18:27 about how many times the cock crowed.
* 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 differ over who incited David to take a census.
* 1 Samuel 17:23,50 and 2 Samuel 21:19 disagree about who killed Goliath.
* 1 Samuel 31:4-5 and 2 Samuel 1:5-10 differ over Saul's death.
* The four Gospels differ about many details of Christ's death and resurrection (Barker 1990). For example, Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19 have different inscriptions on the cross.
* Matthew 27:5-8 differs with Acts 1:18-19 about Judas's death.
* Genesis 9:3 and Leviticus 11:4 differ about what is proper to eat.
* Romans 3:20-28 and James 2:24 differ over faith versus deeds.
* Exodus 20:5, Numbers 14:18, and Deuteronomy 5:9 disagree with Ezekiel 18:4,19-20 and John 9:3 about sins being inherited.
Inerrantists are familiar with these and find rationalizations for these and other errors and contradictions, but they are unconvincing. The rationalizations merely make the point that what the Bible seems to say is not what it means, which defeats the whole concept of scriptural inerrancy.
Mark: The Bible is all "true," taken as a whole, when one recognizes and respects the sources, the intentions of the sources and the limitations of the sources. The devil is in the details, many of which are not accurate. And as for the Falwell dig: It was a joke, son, a joke. I've been raking people over the coals for outright hate exhibited for Falwell in a few places, including
www.bitchphd.blogspot.com. I consider Bitch a bloggy buddy, and her post on Falwell was very snarky, but rooted in his own nefarious words and actions -- but many of her commenters are truly hateful.
Dan: You speak for me well.
Marshall: Glad to meet you. My view of the UCC is that it is large enough for both of us and our respective congregations.
Sternumdrill: Good start.
So, El...let me get this straight...one person is allowed to degrade another by implication (Toadsuck Ferry)...and I can't call ER "Reverend Redneck"?
Really?
He didn't actually use the term "hillbilly" in a derogatory way though, did he?
That's okay then.
Can I at least call him a bigot for implying that I am a lowly ignorant hillbilly as he did so subtly?
And a hypocrite for calling others bigots?
Did you miss that, EL...or what?
LOL!
Dad, give me a break. I know you live somewhere in central Arkansas, and I know that Toadsuck Ferry sounds funny, so I used it.
If' Id've wanted to insult you, I would have felt no need to conceal it.
Besides that, I'm as hillbilly as you, ya redneck! Born in Fort Smith, Ark., and raised in the toehills (just below the foothills) of the Oklahoma Ozarks. I just scrub up good.
Oh, and I encounter anti-rural bigotry all the time, myself. I'm sure not gonna use *that* agin' ya.
Hey, I need some balance today at my place. Y'all come take the Political Compass test and see where you stand. Just TRY to keep from attacking all my regular peacnik lefy readers!
While over there, note that most of 'em are to the left of me, and more libertarian than me. Be mean to 'em and I will authoritarianly kick y'alls' butts out the door.
:-)
Daddio: I was under the impression you were proud of your Ozark heritage. Besides which, ER didn't attach a "Reverend" to "Hillbilly"... that would have been mocking. I'm not ashamed of my own hillbilly heritage (mountains of West Virginia), though I readily admit I don't like having to tell folks I live in Alabama. It's not my home state, and it DOES have a bad reputation, however much Lynyrd Skynyrd objected to Neil Young's appellations.
MSU Gal-- I haven't heard anyone down here use the label 'Yankee' in quite a while... years in fact. When were you last down here?
Sternumdrill said:
Inerrantists are familiar with these and find rationalizations for these and other errors and contradictions, but they are unconvincing. The rationalizations merely make the point that what the Bible seems to say is not what it means, which defeats the whole concept of scriptural inerrancy."
And since you won't be swayed whatever I say... I won't waste either of our time.
Dan: I get your point. I add to it this.... Truth does not cease to be truth simply because it is presented in allegorical terms, or in the form of parables. Only a fool would take allegory as literal truth. But it is generally assumed that readers who have mastered the art of language have the ability to differentiate between the different forms... The valley of dry bones is obviously allegorical, to whom does it refer? Israel... the Gospel of Luke makes no mention of a Crown of Thorns, but does that mean the other three Gospels are therefore suspect? Not hardly.
Inerrancy is not locked up in the literal; it encompasses the figurative, the allegorical, the parable, the metaphor, the simile...
There're too many people straining at gnats who seem to have no trouble at all swallowing camels.... I think I read that somewhere.
As long as that's not a literal camel we're swallowing...
I like that line - "inerrancy is not locked up in the literal" and as long as we're saying
"Truth does not cease to be truth simply because it is presented in allegorical terms, or in the form of parables. Only a fool would take allegory as literal truth."
about the Bible, I can agree with you. I certainly try my hardest by God's grace to take each and every truth of the bible literally. As I'm sure you do. And none of us take each word literally because to do so would just be wrong.
That's all I was saying: We're in agreement on that notion at least, if not what to take literally and what to take allegorically or as a story-that-ought-not-be taken literally.
I thank God that Falwell took literally the command to be there for the least of these and that Falwell then assisted addicts and single moms. Honor his memory by following that example of love rather than some other examples that displayed less-than-love.
I am not a redneck but I am not a pretentious elitist, either. I am a ordinary Patriotic Christian American, with equal parts culture and coarseness. I would have to say I am right dead on in between a redneck and ...
What exactly would the opposite of redneck be? Whatever it is, I am between the two.
Mark, ol' buddy, since you apparently never see my answers to your pointed questions, I'll repeat your question and my answer:
Mark: So go ahead and ask him which parts (of the Bible) are true and which parts aren't. He won't give you an answer.
Me: The Bible is all "true," taken as a whole, when one recognizes and respects the sources, the intentions of the sources and the limitations of the sources. The devil is in the details, many of which are not accurate.
TAKE it or leave, but please quit claiming I never answer your questions. I've given similar answers before; you just don't like 'em, so you don't see 'em, apparently.
I'm a little ahead of Jethro Bodine in my education level, ER, but I fail to see any answer there yet also. If that is the answer, I think you missed the question.
Then you don't want an answer. You want agreement, and that you will not get. For details, see Sternumdrill's list above, for a start.
"I was under the impression you were proud of your Ozark heritage. Besides which, ER didn't attach a "Reverend" to "Hillbilly"... that would have been mocking."
Okay...I don't think this has been made straight, as I suggested we try to do.
I am proud of my hillbilly background, traditions, existance. But what has that got to do with anything? The mockery was apparent to me (Gosh, EL, you really didn't recognize the subtle mockery?). He intended it to be derogatory regardless of his pious denial.
Like the high-school bitch at the prom who gets caught dissing her best friend and when confronted says, "Who...me?" (Eyelashhes fluttering, head tilted sideways).
You can believe his weak denial if you want to...as for me...I clearly read his intent.
He has always and continues to think himself above us lowly conservative "fundies", you know.
That's why I attach "Reverend", and "The Right Reverend" to his name. When he acts like he's walking on water.
Please do not delete that title when I use it again, EL. It is part of my message when I respond to certain comments made by the dear Reverend.
It's relevant. It's contextual. It's deliberate.
If you delete the title, pleas....delete the whole post.
If the Reverend Redneck does not like it...if his little old feewings are hurt by my using it....well...tough.
Don't be patronized by his e-mail whining.
Give me my voice.
Now *that*s whining. Brava!
Dad, you can take it or leave it. Toadsuck Ferry is funny, and that's all I meant by it. Don't be tho thenthitive, ya big thilly.
SHEESH.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Look. All of you. I don't want to muzzle anyone. I just want good honest debate devoid of personal attacks. And guess what!? I don't know what to delete and what to let stand. I've never tried to do this before, which is why things got so heated and nasty around here. Folks take offense, it seems, at the littlest of things just as quickly as at the larger more blatant of things.
Thanks for your explanation Daddio. I still don't like it, but only because I know it get's ER's goat up. I'm just trying to be a 'moderator'... I'm bound to tick a few people off in the process.
Having said all that, perhaps name-calling isn't such a great litmus test for civility.
How does one judge the intent of someone elses heart in the written word?
Be honest and up front about it.
My use of "Reverend Redneck" was intentional and I admit it.
The good Reveren's continued insistance that his remark was innocent is dishonest and underhanded.
Just want the record to be straight.
All of us who read here understand the mentality and the commenting style of the Reverend Redneck. We all recognize his effort to create tares among the wheat. Anyone who does not acknowledge the obvious intent of his staement is being patronized, imho.knsopfg
You deleted me for calling Dad a girl?
EL, you *are* struggling to know what to let in and what not to!
Note: the subtlety to which I referred was mu use of "Brava!" directed to Dad. "Brava" is how Italians cheer a female performer, as opposed to "Bravo."
LOL and hooty-hoot.
Oh, sigh. "Toadsuck Ferry" rescinded. Insert "Hogeye," which is up near Fayetteville, Ark., which sounds just as funny. :-)
Does anyone understand how tiresome it is for me to see post after post turn into a ..... I'm at a loss for words...
Indulge me, please. Try arguing for or against the issues without resorting to pettiness. If you must attack do it with flair and style. If you must defend do it with scathing wit... but polite wit.
An occasional 'touché' would be equally nice.
Well, at least I'm smiling' as I type, lettin' Daddio just rooollllll off like water off a duck's back -- why, a duck in Cottonwoods Slough. (That's in Arkansas, too.)
Hee hee.
BTW, there's a Devil's Slough in my home county -- which will surprise none of y'all who think me danged to heck. :-)
Off to mow my jungle now.
Every one of the so-called discrepancies/errors listed earlier have been addressed time and time again and negated, but those who want to believe the Bible is not really THE Word of God will always ignore this and use the same ol' same ol' list again and again. Because if they admit that it is inerrant and infallible they'll have to look at themselves in a mirror and examine their false religion that they've made for themselves so they can feel good about their sins.
Whatever you say, Mom.
My point is, and has always been, I don't need need the superstition of believing that the Bible is infallible, and I don't need the magic that comes with such a totem, because the Holy Spirit of God Him-Her Self has irrevocably touched my heart and my life.
If the Bible were proven, without a doubt, to be BS, my faith in God through Christ would not be shaken, because I have met Him on my own road to Damascus.
Like Paul, I don't need approval from other brothers. Jesus is bigger than me, and He's bigger than you. :-)
Oops! I called Ms. Green Mom!
Sorry. They sound alike. My bad.
ER,
Your last makes the least sense of all. If the Bible was proven BS, your faith in God through Christ would also be BS. In fact, it would be even more so since the source of our knowledge of God is no longer credible. It would be like maintaining the earth to be flat now that we know differently. It would have no true value for you to believe in that which is PROVEN false. You could believe the teachings make sense and have benefits, but to believe in God or the deity of Christ would be foolish.
Yes, the UCC is large to accomodate many. Unfortunately, it has lowered the bar, so to speak, as to how it ministers to those it welcomes. It puts the souls of some in jeopardy by not being as clear as, say, a Jerry Falwell might be, or even someone like, say, Christ.
Sternumdrill(?),
Checked out almost all the offered tracts to see if your point is valid. It's not even close using these examples. Observe:
Example 1: Doesn't necessarily refer to the earth's orbit. It is literary license. Psalm 93 goes on to say the seas lifted their voices. Does water speak?
2: Leprosy was a term used for many skin maladies. Cud may be a similar term, but I'll concede for lack of motivation to really research at this time.
3: Grasshoppers was included in a list of insects that hop, not how many legs it has. It was an example of those one could eat.
4: You're plainly reading Gen 2 improperly. I can see how it might be misconstrued now that you've posited the example, but before that, I never considered that the garden and the animals weren't already there. I doubt most would, either, unless they're trying to make the larger case as you're doing.
5: Can't properly elaborate in this space.
6: A small discrepancy irrelavant to the larger theme. A more current example would be suspects giving perfectly exact testimony being less credible than suspects giving slightly different testimony. In other words, the four Gospels matching exactly would not only suggest collusion, but would be redundant.
7: Same as 5.
8: Different Goliaths. Note that in 1 Samuel David is a boy and the Phillistines are fighting Saul and in 2 Samuel it's a different battle and David is King and one of his men kills the other Goliath.
9: No problem here, except the first describes him fallen upon his sword, and the second says it's a spear. Geez, that really sells your argument.
10: Same as 6.
11: Almost the same as 6, but after hanging himself, the rope could have broken and then the guts spilling out part. Weak, but more than possible.
12: Leviticus gave the Israelites the Law. Noah was a righteous man not requiring such restrictions and rituals. Plus, the Law came down after the Israelites decided they needed an earthly king. Noah had no such desire.
13: My reading shows that faith and deeds go together. Those tracts say so as well.
14: I just plain didn't look these up. At this point, it's clear that your examples are lacking as points of support for your argument. Those to which I provided a clear response were all off the top of my head and quite easy to explain. The others are just a bit more involved and require more time and space than I've already used (sorry EL). What's unconvincing is the use of these as support for your argument. As stated by our host, such discrepencies don't subtract from the infallibility of the Bible. A comma out of place is hardly worthy of comment and differing descriptions from different people don't either.
OK, I'm done now. Don't want to be accused of monopolizing the converstation, right Dan?
Marshall, I just don't see it that way. You've never actually *experienced* God's grace, and have only read about it? You don't see the creation calling out in witness, and have only heard about it? It all really does just boil down to just what the words in the Bible say, and only that, and nothing actually spiritual-supernatural? Then, you're saying that even Paul's conversion was illicit? I don't get you at all. Have you met God, or have you just read about Him?
The very concept of "lowering the bar" to admission to the church, or faith, is repugnant to me. Jesus lowered the bar to hell. How anyone dares to raise it back, how anyone dares do anything other than literally and figuratively throw open the doors and get out of the way of those who would come to the Cross, to God, astounds me. Jesus saves. Let him.
Es todo.
believing the Bible is "superstition"? God is a Him/Her?
You and I do not worship the same Jesus.
"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."
"Our FATHER, Who are in heaven..."
"A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful witness speaketh lies."
Never, EVER said the Bible was supersition. Ever. I said, and say, that beieving it is inerrant, infallable, etc. is superstition. As far as worshiping Jesus: His example was to pray to God, and to worship God. Jesus's command was "FOLLOW me."
And for the umpteenth time: To conflate the Word of God with the Bible, which is the main deliverer, along with the Spirit, OF the Word of God, is to confuse things -- not that the Bible itself doesn't confuse things itself in John 1:1, which speaks of the Word, which is NOT a reference to ... itself.
Oh, yes. The Bible is CLEAR on EVERYTHING.
Not.
ER,
I was merely responding to your statement. What I feel, believe or have experienced is irrelevant. YOU stated that if the Bible was proven false, your faith would be the same due to your having your own "Damascus road" experience. So I put it to you this way: which came first, your experience, or your awareness of Christianity. If it's the former, you must have been raised in a cave out in the desert. Barring that, just how much about Christianity did you already know? My point is that the Bible, being our source of knowledge about God, influences our perceptions because it's so pervasive within our culture. Even if you aren't raised being totally immersed, it's hard not to have some understanding of Christianity. So, even if you were raised amongst atheists, you'd still have an idea of to whom it is you should be praying for guidance if life put you in a position of needing it.
Without the Bible, you'd have far more grounds for dismissing Christian tradition because without a written text, which has remained unchanged for centuries, legend and myth would definitely develop and one can only imagine how different the faith would be. It might have even died out. Without the Bible, would we have had more Pauls experiencing visitations, or would such contact have ended in the same way at the same time with the difference being no one was writing anything down?
If you had a Damascus-like experience, how informing was it? How real was it? Was it just a strong feeling, or did you hear the voice of Christ? Or was it the Father, and did He remind you of the Trinity?
I don't mean to disparage your faith or how you say it came to solidify within you. My point was that you can't gauge your "epiphany" unless you had a miracle experience. Short of that, the Bible played more a part in your current level of faith than you think and shouldn't be taken as lightly as you've made it seem you do.
As to lowering the bar, the UCC has, like the Episcopalians, become heretical in their beliefs about homosexuality. This is an example of what I was referring to about lowering the bar. They are a welcoming denomination, but no more so than most others, with the exception that they don't expect everyone to repent of their sins, as evidenced by their open and welcoming policy. Most every denomination welcomes sinners but expect them to repent. Not so the UCC. So yes, open wide the doors. Let those who enter understand that they do so on God's terms, not their own.
And no, I don't care to get into a discussion about the Biblical position on homosexuality. I'm quite fagged out on that debate for a while, thank you very much. And if we haven't strayed from the topic by now...
Me neither. I reckon that if the church in general hadn't been so damnably wrong in the past about welcoming "others" -- slaves, Indians, blacks in general, women in leadership, and now homosexuals in the very pews -- I might not be so ready to dismiss the prevailing view within the church in general today regarding homosexual oreintation. But the church *was* wrong on those other others, and it based it all on Scripture. To its eternal shame. I'm not taking that chance, personally, today, with the slaves-Indians-women of our time. No way. If I err, I will err on the side of Grace. Totally. It's clear that in the argument over whether it's a "lifestyle" or a biological pedisposition, I, for lack of credible evidence either way, choose predisposition -- and that, brother, was its own epiphany in my faith life, which, like the rest, you may take or leave. :-)
Peace! It's the Lord's Day.
Ah, the predisposition angle. We are all predisposed to some sinful behavior. That hardly equates to skin color and gender. But predisposition alone of course doesn't disqualify anyone from salvation, nor does acting on it if one repents. The UCC does not speak of repentence from homosex behavior. It says it's OK. That's heresy, because the Bible clearly prohibits it. It does not prohibit slavery in the same way. In fact, I don't recall any mention of it other than how we should treat our slaves or how slaves should behave for their masters. (Please cite the passage if I am mistaken.) Any call against it is implicit. There is absolutely no Biblical justification for racism. It's just plain corruption of Scripture. The same goes for the treatment of women, particularly for Christians.
But this discussion is not where I wish to go. I will say that it does relate to comments I made in another post about the impact of a sincerely held belief that is totally contrary to Scripture. So in my opinion, such a sincerely held belief may be viewed at Judgement as idolatry, since the God of the Bible doesn't agree, or perhaps due to your faith, something not held against you. Quite the poser, no?
I'm a poser? Well, that wadn't very nice. Beats bein' called a viper or a whited sepulcher, though, I suppose.
Ah! You meant "poser" as in a provocative, baffling question. But, you do seem to enjoy provocatively using words with dual meanings, you silver-tongued devil. I applaud your way with words, what I've seen of it anyway.
Thank you, ER. Your comments of last show great...um...erudition.
"My point is that the Bible, being our source of knowledge about God," This is one of the things that confuse me about fundamentalist christians. They assert the primacy of the bible over everything else, even the universe itself. For I've always thought that the best way to understand a creator is to look at the creation. Especially when the creator doesn't communicate clearly to the viewer. If scientific inquiry declares the universe to be billions of years old, and human history only thousands, then maybe the point of creation is not just humanity.
Great point, BenT! In fact, this is the crux of issue for me.
I think they are afraid of what a sober look at the evidence will tell them. As Thomas Jefferson said, the followers of the different religious sects "dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight."
There are exciting and deep mysteries to be solved. But I cast my lot with evidence and reasoning and not with superstition and mutual excommunication.
That was Jefferson's opinion, and perhaps he had good reason at the time to feel that way. But the fact is that Christianity provoked scientific study rather than shunned it. Look at the early scientists and researchers and you'll find most to be believers as they sought to understand God's Creation. Indeed, without Christianity, there's a good argument that most of what we call science would never have come about. None of the other religions fostered the kind of curiosity beyond living within the tenants of their faiths and discoveries came about almost exclusively by pure chance or accident.
Today's Christian does not fear science whatsoever. More to the truth is that those who cling to the religion of science fear Christianity and God. They are far more dismissive of Christianity with less legitimate reason than are Christians of science. Perhaps it's a matter of confusing what you think about fundies and Christians with what is more accurately a defense against those who seek to eliminate all vestiges of Christianity in order to gain license to do whatever their own religion of the self might dictate.
Sternumdrill speaks of overwhelming evidence for evolution. Yet it's not as overwhelming as some would demand we believe, just as AlGore believes his evidence is overwhelming. There is legitimate arguments against the evolutionist, yet there are many within the faith that have no problem with the possibility of evolution being God's vehicle for bringing about His Creation. Personally, I'm ambivalent on the subject, save any outright crap put forth. God does not dwell within His Creation and is not subject to it's physical laws. Thus science is limited to at best finding circumstantial evidence for or against.
"If scientific inquiry declares the universe to be billions of years old, and human history only thousands, then maybe..." then maybe it took that to provide the ideal time and environment for man to thrive. Doesn't negate anything. But the statement is telling. What fear do some have regarding the status of mankind in Creation? Why do some insist on lowering man's postion in the pecking order? They must be aware, as are Christians, of man's inherent sinfulness but can't bring themselves to say so in those terms.
My statement, "My point is that the Bible, being our source of knowledge about God," refers to the use of Scripture to judge the "revelations" of our "epiphanies" such as that which ER speaks of. As to our behavior and our understanding of God's Will for us, it is ineed our source of understanding. There is no other.
"None of the other religions fostered the kind of curiosity beyond living within the tenants of their faiths and discoveries came about almost exclusively by pure chance or accident."
Not true at all. Science and mathematics have flourished under many other religions, and have at times been repressed under Christianity. For example, in the middle ages, science and mathematics were preserved and flourished in the Arabic world, while they slid backwards in much of Christiandom. And the opposite has been true, as we see science languishing today in much of the Muslim world. This is not to praise other religions or disparage Christianity, but your claim is baseless.
"Why do some insist on lowering man's position in the pecking order?"
I don't. I believe we are by far the most advanced species when it comes to reasoning, language, and several other mental capabilities. In other ways we are not so advanced. The real question is, why do some insist on raising man's position to such unjustified heights? It is fear of not being immortal, not being the center of the universe, and not being the object of creation.
"More to the truth is that those who cling to the religion of science fear Christianity and God."
Nonsense. Science is based on evidence, reasoning, and rationality. There is no "religion of Science." Scientists are skeptical people who are open to new ideas and explanations for the phenomena they observe, but do not accept them without ample evidence. Science is methodical, repeatable, and the best known way to generate reliable new knowledge. If you get cancer, do you go to a doctor or faith healer? I go to a doctor. I have no fear of Christianity or God- only some of their followers. I was raised in the UCC, BTW, and bought into the whole bit for quite a long time.
For an interesting (and evidence-based) discussion on why some people (like Daddio) are irrationally distrustful and fearful of science, see here.
Finally, if you really looked at the evidence, you wouldn't be ambivalent about evolution. It's as sound a theory as the earth going 'round the sun. But some fear its implications, and will thus never accept it. If you want to see outright crap, see what Daddio or Tug or Mark write on the subject. "Maybe Satan put those fossils there!" What superstitious rot.
If you want to believe evolution is the method of God's creation, that's fine with me. There is no evidence for or against that claim. But there is abundant evidence- from biology, geology, cosmology, and other disciplines- against biblical inerrancy.
Solomon, I'd like to hear the story of your leaving Christian faith -- if you have.
It's remarkably similar to Christopher Hitchens' story, but his telling is much more eloquent than mine. He and I disagree on Iraq and many other issues, but not on this one.
It's not a question of evidence, though, is it. There are scientists who look at the data and feel it points to a creator. You might disparage them, but I'd wonder on why that would be. Why is your explanation for the data more correct than the explanation of another scientist. You have faith that your explanation is correct, until you find more evidence that you can use to support it. Now your faith grows. But perhaps that new evidence also bolsters the other scientist's assertions as well. Back to the search for answers. In the meantime, you will keep the faith. Your religion of science is that faith that sustains your belief in "other than creators" until there can be no doubt. That is what is meant by the religion of science.
As science is repeatable, how's that Big Bang thing going? The best that can be hoped for thus far is a suggestion of possibilities. That's about as good as the evidence suggests. And the best possibility can be blown out of the water with the next discovery.
I think you're mistaken about the extent of Arab science. Islam preaches that one needs nothing more than the Qu'ran, so they haven't been reading much else until recently. And despite what some Christians have done to stifle discovery, it doesn't negate the fact that the lion's share of discovery was a result of Christian curiosity. They went looking for explanations. Yeah, there are those who fear science, but there are those who fear the possibility of God's existence. That He might reside outside of creation makes Him hard to prove and that doesn't sit well with the atheist scientist.
But, I'm not a scientist and I am limited in how I can debate such things. I have read quite a bit from both sides of the discussion and don't find secular stuff compelling next to a learned Christian's rebuttal. All in all, I find it a pointless debate. I don't think you can use the physical laws governing the universe to prove or disprove the existence of the Being that created the laws. Such a strategy would be insufficient.
Post a Comment
<< Home