A response to Life of a Christian College Student

Hey Derek, I appreciate you visiting and commenting on my blog.

First, there are some things I want to clarify (my fault, I didn’t make them clear). My note title “I am NOT open minded” has to be read in the context of my intended audience. I originally published this note elsewhere for a Christian audience and when I put it on my general blog, I did not say that. My point was to those who accept the Bible, I believe these are some things we must believe if we truely believe the Bible. If you would, lets say, convince we that my presuppositions are incorrect (God exists, the Bible is true, ect.), then I would of course have to change those beliefs. So, I am open for discussion, but I believe that what I believe is true and therefore won’t change.

You said “Life of a College Christian is full of other little niggles that make it difficult to read, like Justin’s “rules” which request that people “refrain from posting links to non-Christian websites” (I suppose he won’t be linking back to this article…), and his highly moderated commenting system — which effectively makes his website an echo chamber.”
The context of those rules is to limit self promotion and so I do not send people to sites where I cannot know everything they will say. I am not censoring the actual information though. If somebody wanted to take a particular point that they had learned from the website that they could not link to, then they could do so. I have no problem with this. It just means that those commenting on my blog have to work a little harder. That is what I call a good discussion. It is better than “here is my site”, “well MY site is better.” Don’t you agree?

You said “First off, I don’t respond well to Biblical proofs - especially those that don’t prove anything. His verse reads, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.””
The problem with what you said though is you in essense skipped over my first statement. Creation proves the Creator. Romans 1:20 backs it up, yes, but it was not my “proof” of the statement. The statement itself is the proof. If you look at a building, you know there was a builder. It is self-evident. It is axiomatic. You do not need faith to believe in a builder. You do not need to go back and look at records or to have seen it happen before either. All you need are eyes that can see and a brain that works. You do not need faith to believe in the Creator that created creation. You only need faith if you want to trust that Creator to save you.

You said “This verse essentially suggest that since something exists, we can come to no other conclusion than “The God of Christianity created it.”” The verse is in the Bible, of course. However, when you combine scientific knowledge, the self evident creation, and the conscience, the God of the Bible is the only possible God. We can discuss this further later if you’d like, but there is enough to chew on for now. First you must admit the possibility of God’s existence.

1) I believe the Bible is completely inerrant in context. Leviticus was the laws written for the Jewish people at that time.

It is the woman’s choice today to wear a covering or not (or have long hair) as a covering is not necessarily symbolize the same thing in our culture as it did in the Corinthian culture. See http://www.gotquestions.org/head-coverings.html

As for Jesus being intolerant, see John 14:6. That does not mean he is not loving. In fact, God is love. Plus, my statement on hate needs to be taken in proper context. For instance, I love life, therefore I hate murder.

2) I actually already have several negative comments on my blog… look on the various postings…

3) You proved nothing with your statement here. Creation still proves a Creator whether you like it or not.

Wow, these questions are much easier to answer than I thought the questions you’d ask would be.

1) First off,,let me say that “apparent contradictions” are helpful to prove the Bible’s case. It shows that there was not a mass conspiracy to “get the story right”. Now, let’s go through your listed apparent contridictions.

Color robe question - Potential answer at http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=146

Who carried the cross? - Answered at http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm#049

Contradictions in the Bible—Why Are They There?

The Bible has many seeming contradictions within its pages. For example, the four Gospels give four differing accounts as to what was written on the sign that hung on the cross. Matthew said, “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (27:37). However, Mark contradicts that with “The King of the Jews” (15:26). Luke says something different: “This is the King of the Jews” (23:38), and John maintains that the sign said “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews” (19:19).

Those who are looking for contradictions may therefore say, “See—the Bible is full of mistakes!” and choose to reject it entirely as being untrustworthy. However, those who trust God have no problem harmonizing the Gospels. There is no contradiction if the sign simply said, “This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews.”

The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27). - from Way of the Master.

As far as “extra books”, lets get you believing the settled 66 as truth and then we can concern ourselves as to why other books are not to be included. One step at a time, ok?

There are some genuine Christians who do not believe the story of Noah’s ark literally. They and you can still be saved, so I encourage you to read the gospels. However, I personally believe this story can be believed literally. You have some common misconceptions about the story. For example, you say “I hope you’re aware of the millions upon millions of different insects, bacteria, rodents that Noah would’ve had to herd onto his ark.” However, that is not what the Bible says. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-and-ark Please read all of it, but some of the things you mentioned are specifically referenced under the heading “How Could Noah Fit All the Animals on the Ark?”

As far as the love thing, let’s leave this alone. Christianity is a belief system of love. If you get saved, we can discuss what I meant. Until then, it’s not particularly relevant.

2) Glad this one is settled. Number 3 will now become number 2.

2) You said “What my argument served to do (and which until you show me otherwise, it did) was demonstrate that the logic “creation proves the creator” doesn’t stand up to examination by its own rules.” If you are attempting to use logic, then you are using a self-defeating argument. Logic helps Christianity. See http://www.proofthatGodexists.org

After you do that, here is the answer to “who made God?”
To one who examines the evidence, there can be no doubt that God exists. Every building has a builder. Everything made has a maker. The fact of the existence of the Creator is axiomatic (self-evident). That’s why the Bible says, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). The professing atheist denies the common sense given to him by God, and defends his belief by thinking that the question “Who made God?” can’t be answered. This, he thinks, gives him license to deny the existence of God.

The question of who made God can be answered by simply looking at space and asking, “Does space have an end?” Obviously, it doesn’t. If there is a brick wall with “The End” written on it, the question arises, “What is behind the brick wall?” Strain the mind though it may, we have to believe (have faith) that space has no beginning and no end. The same applies with God. He has no beginning and no end. He is eternal.

The Bible also informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called “eternity.” God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.

Because we live in the dimension of time, logic and reason demand that everything must have a beginning and an end. We can understand the concept of God’s eternal nature the same way we understand the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith. We simply have to believe they are so, even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrums.

1) No, that is not what I am saying with harmonizing the gospels. The Bible is never wrong. They include things that can appear to contradict if you don’t look at it carefully, however, there are no contradictions. As for who is being tricked, I would say it would be the one not knowing the God of the Bible.

Re. Noah’s Ark: For the man and dinosaur coexistence question, see http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/human-and-dino-fossils-together However, let me state in short what pretty much all of the Genesis/nonbeliever questions will come to. You will say “where is your evidence” for such and such and I will say it is the same evidence you use. You see, the earth which is the evidence, is the same for both of us. We just have different presuppositions which allow us to interpret it differently. So, if you are wrong about God, it is easy to see why you would get the creation story confused. Same thing applies to the age of the earth. There is evidence for a young earth at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp but again, salvation is my main concern - not necessarily getting you to believe my exact Christian doctrine - just the essentials.

Re: Love - you just misunderstood me. We must love. I just meant that if we love life, we must hate murder. We therefore don’t have to love EVERYTHING.

2) Creation does prove the Creator. You may not like the way you would have to come to believe. You may not like the evidence given and say its too simplistic, but what if it is true? Then you have just limited yourself out of believing the truth. Creation proves the Creator. It is so obvious.

I wish you well.

I say there are no mistakes in the Bible because there are none. Simply give me one and I will look up the answer for you. Or you can do it yourself. Searching for truth is not the enemy.

Creation proves the Creator is the great “duh” of the universe.

As far as other things mentioned, you see it as wrong through your presuppositions, but what if your presuppositions, or foundations, were wrong? No need to answer to this, but think about it.

Best wishes to you in your search for objective truth.

“The Bible is never wrong. They include things that can appear to contradict if you don’t look at it carefully, however, there are no contradictions.”

By these standards, there is no such thing as a contradiction, period: i.e. you have to toss out all standards of logical and textual fidelity to defend the indefensible. When one passage says 5 men, another says 5 hundred, and the excuse is “oh, well the 5 men passage doesn’t say there WEREN’T 495 other men there, does it” you know you’re grasping at straws.

Bad, if you want to find “errors” in the Bible, you will. If you are looking for truth, you can find it.

To Justin: Until recently, I believed the same things you keep saying: the Bible is literally, inerrantly, provably factual. But here’s the thing–factuality and truth are not the same thing. Give up the struggle to reconcile Biblical words with science, because they’re not going to jive. Worse, trying to shoehorn one to fit the other cheapens both of them. I believe that the Bible is true, in that it tells the story of how humans can and should relate to God. There are beautiful poems, stories, images, and proverbs in that Book. The factual literal “truth” you, and so many other Christians, fight and fight over is relatively meaningless, and all the fighting does is turn people off and make Jesus seem like a path for ignorant, pigheaded literalists. And no offense, but the flexible relativists in the New Church don’t appreciate the extra work literalists put in our paths to love and social justice.

I believe the Bible literally, but to me that is just the same as saying I take God at His Word. When will it stop if you go tdown that route Sara? Is Jesus the only way you believe?

I take God at His Word, too: it’s people I take with a grain of salt. The Biblical inerrancy theory is a recent development. Martin Luther didn’t believe it. Neither did Calvin, or the great popes of the past. Jesus didn’t believe it, because the Jews never had a problem with contradiction in their Scriptures.

I believe that God has a message for people, and that people interpret that message along their own lines of belief, their own biases, and their own agendas. It is not improbable–in fact, it’s explicitly stated–that Paul and James disagreed on how to interpret Jesus’s message. The differences in the Gospels evince the differences in interpretation, in bias, between the apostles. So I don’t see taking the words of God spoken through men with a grain of salt, aware of the specter of prejudice or misinterpretation, as a bad thing. I see it as a healthy respect for a God who is not partisan, not biased, and not hateful. *People* are like that–hence the trouble with the Crusades.

People interpreting the Bible to fit their political and social agendas and “justifying” their actions by pointing to particular Scriptures as proof just aggravates the issues at hand. Namely, if you try to take the entire Bible literally, that means you have to accept the fact that there are four different accounts of Jesus. There are two different accounts of Creation, with two different timelines. There are obvious allusions to mythologies other than Judaic. There is a sudden, inexplicable shift in the way both God and the devil are portrayed halfway through.

Taking the Bible literally, for each and every word, cheapens it because you end up twisting its words to make them fit together. Instead of trying to change the Bible to make it fit my preconceived notions of Who and What God is, I try to take it as a record of how people have tried to relate to God. That way I’m not trying to make God in my image, but instead I’m trying to learn Who God is in and of Himself. As Anne Lamott says, “You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”

Sara, that is frankly balony. Call for references.

References for what, the idea that inerrancy is new?

Or that I can follow Jesus without having to adhere to every single word of the Bible?

Anyway, think about the inerrancy theory for a minute. Let’s think about it logically. Inerrancy relies on the theory that God sovereignly guides each and every person who translates the Bible into a perfect translation. That leads to the idea that I could sit down and try to translate the Bible into, say, Italian. Many Christians would say that God would sovereignly guide my hands and not allow me to make a mistake while translating. That is their reasoning for “the modern translations of the Bible are also inerrant.” Except that I am really, really crappy at Italian. So would my translation still be perfect? Or what if I tried to translate it into Mandarin, which I do not speak at all? It is possible that whatever texts God gave to Moses and David and James were perfect, 100%; that does not mean that translations and reinterpretations of such texts would also be perfect. As I said, it is only when people get into the equation that I start to have doubts.

I am thinking, now, that you’ve seized on my mention of Martin Luther. It is true that once he left the Catholic church, he laid claim to inerrancy as a rebellion against the human–and therefore fallible–popes. But until then, as a Catholic, Luther held the same beliefs about the Scriptures as the Catholics of the time did. The Catholic Bible includes the Apocrypha, and as such accepts the variants of Jesus and His life included therein. Such a choice in Scripture indicates little interest in forcing the factual issues with the Bible to agree with one another. Catholics believe that the Bible is infallible in that it is the ultimate authority on matters of salvation and faith. However, they make no such claims about its factuality in, say, the timeline of creation, or the number of people Jesus appeared to after He was resurrected.

There are phrases in the original texts that cannot be translated into only one meaning–that’s the beauty of languages like Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic. Since there is no certain way to tell how the original text was intended, translating turns out to be a mixture of educated guessing and adhering to tradition. Even “updating” versions like the KJV yields huge alterations, since English has changed so much. How much more so, then, might ancient Hebrew or Aramaic have changed in the thousands of years since the Bible was first produced?

I would here point out the drama surrounding inclusion of Mark 16:9-20, which is well-known to have been tacked on at a later date, but I don’t know enough about it to argue critically and well. Instead, let’s talk about the Torah. Jewish scholars have always divided the Scriptures into words of God versus words about God. Words of God–the Torah alone–are holy and sacred. Words about God–everything else–not so much.

Finally, let’s look at the Scriptures in another way. Why are there over fifty different editions of the Bible in English? Why is each one different? Why do the verses that differ from “translation” to “translation” change drastically? If the Scripture is supposed to all be read and interpreted exactly the same way, then there is no reason to use an alternate translation. Heck, look at the difference from one book to another! There is no way to reconcile the differences in, say, Judas Iscariot’s death without twisting one account to fit another. To do so is to purposely change the meaning of the text to fit what you want. That, to me, is more wrong than simply saying “Some things in the Bible don’t match, but it’s still a good Book full of truth.”

If you refuse to listen to my logic, check out The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which affirms that if Biblical inerrancy does apply, it only applies to the original Scriptures as written by Paul, etc., not to modern translations of such. The Wesleyan and Methodist faiths believe that the Bible is the authority on matters of faith and belief, but they’re not so much focused on whether the timelines match. Why? It doesn’t matter. It’s not a big deal. They know that the Bible has been translated by people who may or may not have injected their own beliefs into it to further an agenda. Isaac Newton wrote a whole dissertation on the knowledge that the Scriptures have been corrupted by well-meaning writers who add “clarifying” words to support their own conclusions. Kevin Lewis wrote a brilliant article on the literalist doctrine called “On the Heresy of Literalism,” in which he notes, “Biblical literalists engage in a seductive form of idolatry” (i.e., bibliolatry).” That is, by placing the text of the Bible over the power of Jesus, literalists become idol-worshipers, placing words over a living and powerful God. Oh, and you might look at Understanding the Bible - Stephen L. Harris, especially his points on the Bible in a changing world and his accounts of the history of Biblical literary criticism.

[...] « my pinky doesn’t bend that way ugh ugh arguments ugh 8 June 2008 Check this page out. I come in at the bottom of the comments, trying to be nonargumentative at first and then just [...]

Sara, for clarification, here is what I believe about the scriptures:
The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

So you choose not to respond to my actual words, but to instead sum up your beliefs about the text in question?

Unless I am worshipping paper, I have not idolized the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God so looking to His Words and trusting His promise that they will not pass away brings glory to God.

P.S. Hebrew children can read the language of years ago just fine.

Bibliolatry: Now you’re purposely misunderstanding–sound familiar? You know as well as I do that idolatry is the placing of anything before God, the valuing of anything more than God, and the assignment of Godly power to anything that isn’t God. Giving that power to a Book, no matter how wise or old or revered, is idolatry. The Bible is a Book; it is not a living, willful God Who loves you. The Bible is a collection of words. Ascribing to it the power and intelligence and worth of God is making it your idol, your god.

Hebrew: Maybe, maybe not. Years ago, yes; thousands of years and an entirely different culture, well, that might be an issue. As I said, all languages change over time. In Jesus’ lifetime, almost no one spoke Hebrew. Everyone spoke Aramaic or Greek. In the KJV translations, the Hebrew they used was a modern form, much newer than the language in Genesis, etc. Even today, anyone who speaks Ancient Hebrew–not Modern, but Ancient–is making guesses. The Scriptures written in Ancient Hebrew have no vowels. DVD is the word we call David; maybe that’s not his name. Look at it this way: the modern Hebrew word for “caterpillar” has three letters. Just for arguments’ sake, since neither of us speaks any form of Hebrew, let’s expand it to be CTRPLLR. Reading that word, it’s likely that it’s “caterpillar,” but not 100% certain. Take a word like “needle,” which would be NDL, or “house,” which would be HS. That could be anything. Even the Name of God is susceptible to this problem: YHVH is the word we now call Yahweh or God, but in Ancient Hebrew that might not be the case.

Either way, you’re still not answering 85% of my statements.

Ahem. I apologize, Justin and Derek, for bringing up a personal matter in an improper forum. I spent a little time looking at your (Justin) blog and noticed your repeated condemnation of and unkind remarks about LDS, and instead of commenting at the source I mentioned it here. For that I apologize. Please disregard that comment for this discussion; I will repost it in the appropriate place. Derek, if it’s not too much trouble and you don’t mind, would you please remove my comment about LDS? I just don’t want the discussion to spin off into that area without your consent or intent. Thanks.

Exactly! Even if you look before Jesus, to the Minor Prophets (who, by the way, are my favorites), there are verses everywhere about lawfulness versus true faith. In Micah 6:8, one of my favorites, the prophet says, “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” Not persecute. Not decry. Not harass. Not condemn. No. That is not what true Jesus-followers want, or do, or hope for. That is the pattern of behavior that leads to complaining about our brothers and sisters in Christ, to ignoring the need for social justice around us, and slaughtering others (literally and metaphorically) for whatever reasons seem good at the time.

Clarifying:

The Bible, as I said to Justin, is a Book. A wonderful, rich, revered Book, but a Book nonetheless. I put my faith in a God who is alive. I learn to pattern my behavior after Him–after the example He sets me every day, and the examples of my most trusted friends, and the examples of heroes of the faith and those I hold in high esteem. I don’t follow the letters in that Book over the message God has for me, because the Book is made of pages and ink, and the God I choose to follow is alive, living around and within me, and how could I try to ignore Him to listen to the words printed on a page of dead trees?

Birds of a feather… If you are open minded, I suppose you could try putting your presuppositions aside. There are no contridictions in the Bible.

You are refusing to answer any of the claims I have made.

Birds of a feather–I will not respond to your repetitions of empty phrases until you respond to my words. Now who’s stubborn?

I suppose this is the love you say you are filled with coming out?

I just realize that nothing you’ve said had any substance. For example, what that you have said warrants a response?

Alright. Fine. You baited me into coming and talking to you again. However, joke’s on you: you lie. I never said anything about being filled with love. That’s you who said that. “Christianity is a belief system of love,” amirite? Moving on, I will take the liberty of quoting myself.

“[Your] lack of response to me means something.

A) He is sick of the debate–which seems unlikely. He’s one of those that goes out of his way to discuss the Bible with people, and has links to “back up” his claims.

B) He knows I’ve bested him–possible, and not unlikely. However, calling me “close-minded” and scurrying off are hardly the best way to concede defeat.

C) He refuses to discuss the Bible with a woman–I can’t think of any other reason he offers complete (if flawed) responses to the comments made by the other, male participants in the discussion and refuses to reply in a germane manner to mine.

So, what is it? Is he a sexist, or just aware that he can’t win this argument?”

I have offered you miles and miles of ground to cover with me. Want me to summarize, so you don’t have to put forth the same effort to answer me that I have put forth in answering you (namely, struggling through your poorly-typed messages to figure out what it is that you’re saying)? I will do that for you.

1. The Bible is a Book, not God. God is God. Ascribing to the Bible the traits of God is idolatry.

2. The Bible has been translated and “updated” and corrected thousands of times, therefore it is unlikely that the Bible is 100% perfectly factual.

3. Trying to wedge the Bible into science–or vice versa–is bad for many reasons, one of which is the truth that they are not going to fit together, and trying to force them to do so cheapens both.

4. (quoting myself again) “Some things in the Bible don’t match, but it is still a good Book full of truth.”

To Justin, RE: your comment on my blog.

Then explain to me precisely how I have framed your point of view, other than taking you at your word about believing the Bible to be inerrant.

You limited me to your selected three options, none of which are appealing to the outsider looking in. I refuse to play your game. Thank you though. Most of your questions could be answered at http://www.gotquestions.org and carm.org

You are not reading my words, obviously.

The first set of numbered points were my personal speculations about why you refused to answer any of my arguments coherently when you readily answered Derek and Bad (among others) with actual arguments.

The second set of numbered points were a synopsis of my statements to ease any difficulty you may have had in answering my questions.

I have in no way restricted your position beyond your own beliefs–namely, that the Bible is inerrant. Therefore, your options are only limited by what you choose to believe. I cannot and have not limited anything about your choices in this discussion.

Why, I am forced to wonder, do you refuse to either read my words or answer them? Obviously, you haven’t been reading anything I’ve been saying, since you have failed to post any sort of germane response. The closest you’ve come to that part of having a discussion was oversimplifying the idea of bibliolatry and incorrectly equating modern and ancient Hebrew.

In what ways can I continue to simplify and condense my theories to facilitate your understanding, respect, and proper discussion with me?
(in case you do not read this site anymore, I will repost this in your blog and, in accordance with your rules, will not post a link to this discussion or to my own site. Thank you in advance for your response and–hopefully, at last, your respect)

Point 1 - I agree, although I would say that the Bible is God-breathed and the Word of God.
Point 2 - The Bible is the Word of God and as such is 100% factual. Translators are people and can make mistakes. However, with numerous transcripts and preservation of them (perhaps by the power of God), a good team of scholars can give you a very accurate translation. There is no major doctrine affected in an iffy area of translation today.
Point 3 - The Bible does not merely contain truth - it is trith without any mixture of error. You simply gave a statement so my responce is sufficient.

There is no obligation for me to respond again, but I might if I decide I want to use my time in this way.

P.S. Please do not post on my blog something unrelated to the topic.

I am amazed–despite your tone, you actually made an argument. Good for you! Of course, had you read my original arguments rather than the extremely abbreviated points that I numbered, your arguments would have been better or at least, hopefully, more respectful. You say you were in debate–you know that a simple statement with no qualification is not an argument. It is a sentence. Logic or evidential documents or backing quotes from an expert in the field–those tools help construct stronger arguments that are far more likely to convince your audience. And your goal here is, I seem to remember, to convince those with different beliefs that they are wrong and you are right. Therefore, you seem strangely reluctant to convince someone who disagrees (me) that your viewpoint is correct. Strange.

Now to the meat of your comment:

Again, had you read my original words, you would understand your points and the arguments you are trying to rebut therein. Each of my points connects to the other–they’re interconnected, the best kind f arguments. (Side note: in your point-by-point summary, you skipped number three.) As such, I will discuss your words as a whole.

You probably ignored my mention of “On the Heresy of Literalism,” Kevin Lewis’s stellar essay on the topic at hand. Allow me, instead, to briefly quote it.

“The drive for certainty in a skeptical age is more dangerous to our faith than we might suppose. It leads away from ‘faith’ to a calculating ‘belief’ not satisfied with the promises of God but restless to prove, verify, and guarantee those promises with scientific precision.”

The gist: faith is supposed to be without proof. Belief is what we feel about gravity, not God. Gravity can be proven–God cannot. God can only be experienced through personal, individual interaction. Gravity can be measured and categorized by human hands and our meager tools. God cannot. Literalists, like yourself, are in fact insisting that the text in the Bible “proves” God, or that our existence is undeniable “proof,” or that wrapping up all of science and Biblical text will yield “proof.” God exists outside of our proof, outside of our science and our crappy little electric tools and our terribly inadequate brains.

God tells Job that He created the world. He tells Moses that He created “man’s mouth, the mute, the seeing and the blind.” He, through an emissary, tells Mary that He loves her and has a plan for Her. He tells the disciples that Jesus is His Son, in Whom He is well pleased. He tells His friends that He will come back someday, and that when they die, He will see them in a beautiful afterlife. We have a ton of information about God, straight from His own words! Why, then, is there a movement to pin Him down beyond these truths? Why does God have to be anything beyond what He has described Himself as? Who are we to ascribe anything to God He didn’t say to us already?

That is what literalism does. God said, in Job, that He created the world. He didn’t say He created it in seven twenty-four hour periods, or in what order it went, or how precisely He did it. Literalists want to lay the magnificent miracle of creation out on a flowchart. God is not in a flowchart, and He probably doesn’t like our clumsy attempts at dissecting Him. God says that He created people, and He loves them. People. Not Jews–although He does say He has a special purpose for them–not Gentiles, certainly. Not blacks or Greeks or Arabs or Americans or rich or poor or men or women. Not Christians or Muslims or atheists or Baha’i. God created people. God loves people.

Literalism holds that we, the creation, can know every aspect of our Creator and His works, that we can know precisely how and when and where and why we were brought into this existence. Literalism holds that God loves people who follow His rules, and hates those who do not. Literalism holds that God fits in a Book, that all we know about God paints a complete portrait, that a feeble human mind can comprehend a Being Who exists outside of time and space and upon Whom the laws of science and logic have no bearing.

Literalism, inerrancy, and those who uphold them are trying to take the mystery out of faith. They–you–are trying to end Christianity as a faith system and instill in it a religion, a factual ten-point statement of what they all agree to and why, complete with proof and charts and graphs and a photo of God just as they always pictured Him.

Ironically, Justin, what we are doing (what I am trying to do) here is almost impossible. I am trying to open your eyes, to show you that God is bigger than your Book. God is bigger than your consciousness. God is bigger than you or I or anyone in the history of existence can even begin to glimpse. Literalism and inerrancy force people to close their minds to the truth and mystery and magic of God. Instead of trying to catch a glimpse of the God Who loves them and created them, literalists walk around with blinders on, looking only for proof proof proof of a god (capitalization intended) that they can categorize and comprehend. It is futile, wrong, and dangerous to work yourself into a lather over a god that agrees with you all the time, a god that can be pinned down and explained and picked apart and made perfectly comprehensible to everyone. That god exists to serve you, not the other way around.

Working from your tiny little assumptions, your doctrinal regurgitations, and your tone and actions toward others, why would anyone want to follow that little god you’ve created for yourself? The God I love and try so hard to get to know better is so much cooler and more interesting! I can’t ever understand Him, but I just love Him so much it’s okay with me.

Can you back up these two statements that you made about those who believe God at His Word (you called it literalism)?

1) Literalism holds that we, the creation, can know every aspect of our Creator and His works, that we can know precisely how and when and where and why we were brought into this existence.

(I do not believe this)

2) Literalism holds that God loves people who follow His rules, and hates those who do not.

I am not saying I know everything, but I am saying that we can know some things if the Bible clearly says it.

P.S. You seem very emergent. I think you’d enjoy this blog. Try it out at http://teampyro.blogspot.com/

So, we’re narrowing the whole idea to these two points, then?

Fine.

Literalism holds that all a person needs to know about God can be found in one Book, the Bible. You, for example, believe that no truths about God (or “facts,” probably) can be found in, oh, The Book of Mormon, or the Qur’an, or the teachings of Buddha, or the Baha’i way. Literalists believe that the Bible is the One True Source Of Information–Factual, Verifiable Information–About God. Therefore, literalists believe that all a person needs to know about God, they can know, because it’s right there in the text. It needs little or no translation, little or no translation, and is literally 100% factually accurate.

Regarding Creation, if you take one or both of the two Genesis accounts as fact, then you do in fact believe that you know precisely how we were created. That is a pretty standard tenet of belief in Christian congregations today.

You are a decent (not the best I know) example of the problem with the literalist doctrine. Your attitudes toward LDS, atheists, and people who disagree is at best condescending and at worst outright rude. Many people who are perfectly sweet to those who agree take Jesus’ command to be in the world but not of it as a cue to blast the world for being evil. Literalists and hardcore inerrancy followers justify their and your distaste for differences by citing the Old Testament stories of David and Joshua wiping out whole races of people, Jesus and the money changers, and the deaths to come in the end times. You think you’re a Biblical hero when you call the LDS a cult, or call atheists too proud to see God, or twist and narrow anything I say so you don’t have to answer me or even think about what it is I am trying to show you.

I certainly hope that you will now respond to what I actually said, the meat of my comment, and maybe the reasons you chose to give good answers to Derek, an answer to Bad, and blow me off or choose one line to answer. Thank you for your response.

Sara, the honest truth is that I admittedly have little patience from emergents. In fact, I have asked my friend Luke Pigott to perhaps deal with your questions (he says he used to be emergent himself). Good day.

Derek–by “good” I really was implying that you received a response in keeping with the discussion, a response that attempted to stay on the topic you presented and answer your questions. As opposed to the answers to my questions, which have been silence, purposeful misunderstanding, disrespect, and a refusal to read my words.

Justin–what? You have “little patience” for fellow followers of Christ? I’m not even LDS, no, I attend a Southern Baptist church (and have my whole life), yet I don’t merit your patience or respect? Aren’t we supposed to at least try and love our fellow laborers for Christ?

Addendum (don’t know why it didn’t show up):

While I disagree with you on many points, I am in no rush to shut you up or end the conversation. I want very little more in this life than to learn everything I can from everyone I meet, and you intrigue me. I love you as a brother in life and in Christ, and I am trying to curb my anger at your behavior in order to better show you that love. I feel outraged and betrayed by many of the things you say to and about your fellow Jesus-followers, as well as to and about the other people in this world. None of that, though, causes me to lose patience or feel disgusted or hate you. I don’t understand your statement, and am profoundly disturbed by it.

“I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” - Ephesians 4:1-6

Sara, if you consider the LDS view of salvation to be Christian, then I cannot consider you a Christian. You seem to be emergent.

Holy Cow!!! (that means a lot comming out of a “Mormon”) I do not have the time yet to read all this conversation, but I wish I could have rung in eariler.

Derek,
Thank you for being open to expose yourself to views on these spiritual things on your Blog, on your time, and I must say you do a good job of balancing your comments but hold true to your convictions. I respect that and will probably not attempt to “Convert” you. I like discussion as well. I make my point and hear other points and our paradigms change, then we get to see our faiths through new eyes as it were. Again thank you. (I do hevealy moderate but I allow any comment directlly effecting the current post, as long as it doesn’t get to offensive)

Sara,
Right on!! you have a well defined and studied understanding of these things, you also seem more adept to sharing your views without utilizing the blanket statments that pready much say, “I’m right and there is nothing you can say that will change that.” or, “It is because it just is.” Thank you for backing up your reasoning with accual evidances like historiacl events or behavior of a group that we all can look up and relate to.

Justin,
It was said before and I must rephrase it: Give it up, if you cannot find a different way to show support for you opinions than at least answer the questions posed to you.
It is most irritating to read a langthy diolouge where someone dilibratly ignores questions and basicly requires answers to their own to finish their point. Also when this is not the place to go off on another topic you push it to that topic. Poor play. Just as I am about done critisizing you all I look up and see Justin you posted this: “Sara, if you consider the LDS view of salvation to be Christian, then I cannot consider you a Christian. You seem to be emergent.”

Justin, If you consider Christianity to be so exclusive as to consider other followers of Christ not to be christian, (i.e. Sara, just because she considers another gorup to be christian) then you my friend anr not a christian in the true form of the term. In fact this act of exclusive christianity was emploied in the 1930’s and 1940’s, and was in Germany the power of the NATZI Party. They considered only a select group to be christians, that is how they moved against their own people. You are not a NATZI, are you? Why do you employ the same ignorance and arrogance that only people who agree with your views of christianity are christian?
You need to figure out how to define Christianity.

Derek, Thanks again,
-D

Derek,
I agree with this advice. I was hoping to make the point that someone who follows the teachings of Jesus found in the New Testamant of the Bible, (generally called Christians) should not be so quick to say someone else is not a Christian, no matter how they preceive christianity to be. I do not wish to get into the debate of proving one is a christian, but the practice emploied by Justin here and on many other Bolgs is one that in accuality tares down what Christianity stands for. The leader and “anointed one” of the Christian faith teached more tolarence and kindness to others than he has expressed in his statment of “I don’t consider you a christian…”

I just wanted to point out to him what that sounds like and how easy it is turned against him.

Thank you,
-D

Thank you for the link I was able to read a little on it and I think that Law stands well, but in this case it is yet not to that point. I used the reference as historical evidance of where Justin was heading with his statment of exclusivity in the Christian Cult. (and yes I am a christian)

Til’ next time,
-D

Oh, dear. I go off to my honeymoon and return to see Godwin’s Law in full force. Sigh.

Moving on, then, I suppose? Justin has ostensibly given up and left disrespect and incoherency in his wake. I am disappointed and sad.

Justin, you are obviously passionate about your beliefs–until someone points out the problems with them. Faith is supposed to be tested, friend; “Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.” (James 1:3)

I am not attacking you, or God, or the Bible. I have high respect for the Book, as far as it goes. Why do you refuse, then, to talk to me, a fellow Jesus-follower, about the Scriptures, about the world, about the astounding Being we follow? How can you refuse an opportunity to practice the greatest attribute Jesus taught us–love? How can you refuse to discuss the words you hold so highly? If this is something you truly believe, something you’re passionate about, why give up?

Again, I remind you of Peter’s exhortation, “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.”

Sara, what do you want to talk about?

I feel that too many of us are just trying to “Win” a argument here. I will put it to all of you this way. I am ready to accept the truth. If I preceive these spiritual things wrong then please attempt to correct those perceptions. If my arguments are off based then point out the flaws and we can come to a better understanding and hopefully a better possition to make our arguments/defences for our faith, choices or perspective.

If we do not test, or try our faith/beleifs then when we face the real fire they will not temper well and we parish in them.

-D

Justin: I want to talk about the differences in our beliefs, and the dissimilarities in our doctrines. I want to talk about the way the Bible is and should be treated–and the way we do and should treat our fellow human beings (not to mention our brothers and sisters in Jesus).

I also would appreciate an explanation as to your disrespect of Derek and Bad and me throughout our discussion, but that issue is less pressing. I would like to talk about the questions I have raised along the way, and your reasons for avoiding them. I would be interested in hearing your interpretations of your behavior and beliefs, as long as you reciprocate the respect.

What do you want to talk about?

ditchu: You might be interested in the Apostolic Compromise, when the apostles got together and argued out the way Christianity would be, at least for the first bit. It’s very interesting–somewhere in Acts, although the precise location has slipped my mind.

I’ll have to search it out. Thanks.
-D

Hey Sara,

I will try to spend some time with you now lovingly. I really am working on this so I hope you will appreciate it. I cannot promise I will have time to work on responding much, but I likely will this week because I am off of work.

Ok so as far as similarities and disagreements in doctrine, I think we agree that the Bible is a wonderful, rich, revered book.

I take it farther by saying it is the perfect Word of God. I base this on the premises that 1) The Bible is the Word of God and 2) that God cannot err. I believe the words of 2 Timothy 3:16 which says that “All Scripture is God-breathed…” as well as Matthew 4:4 where Jesus said “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.”

God is perfect and will not make a mistake. Therefore His Word is perfect and without error. I believe you already believe this premise and as such will not write down its apologetical defence.

Somebody might say but men wrote the Bible. I believe that just as you give credit of authorship in a letter to the person writing it and not the pen being used, we should say that God wrote the Bible and used people as a pen.

The next concern is that God’s Word is perfect, but that perhaps what we have today is not God’s Word as it was back when it was first penned. The truth is that though we do not have the original manuscripts, we do have the original text. There are thousands of manuscripts and when you put them together and compare them, you can discover what the originals said. Putting these manuscripts together lets us root out the risk of human error. God has kept His promise when Jesus said “my words will never pass away.” (Luke 21:33).

As the Bible is the perfect Word of God, I believe we should treat it respectfully as a manual for instruction, a love letter to God’s creation, a warning label for sin, and a comfort for all time to the Christian. It should be used to teach, rebuke, correct and train in righteousness.

So that is why I believe what I believe about the Bible. I hope you feel it is a respectable viewpoint.

This is a big topic so I’ll stop now. You can either pursue discussion on this or ask about something else.

Justin,
Even a pen will incorprate its own quality into the letter. If you used a poor pen to write the letter you can see the results are not exactly what you may have intended due to some ink spillage and blots and some places that the words are not clear or even blank spots where the ink did not mark the page.
People, being human and tempral have coruption in them and this coruption is transmitted into the Bible. It is human error, but at least God got his point across to his people.
-D

ditchu, remember God said “my words will never pass away.” (Luke 21:33).

Justin,
Yes he did say that but you must know that the words in the Bible are not exactly what God said, else why do the accounts of parables Jesus taught or things he said differ in the verbage? Even translating would not do this unles originally the verbage differs slightly to whom was writing. If it is the words of God strait from God then we would see no differing verbage for the same statment made at one time.

The amazing thing is that the first 5 books of the Bible were carried around for centries in a verbal lore before they were ever writen down.
This is why we have 2 creations in Genesis, and can account for some other items that seem redundant or repetitive. God’s word will not pass from this earth until the day of Judgment, and I think it will last beyond that, but the Bible was pened and translated, and transcribed by Man and as we seem to agree Man is not yet perfect and is currently in a corrupt state, this corruption does bleed into the Bible, thus it is not yet perfect. Though I do agree inspired of God.

-D

Ditchu, there are not two different creations described in Genesis. See http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194

2 Timothy 3:16 says that “All Scripture is God-breathed…” If God chose to let the stories to be told in multiple ways, that does not mean it is of God.

Justin,
Please reread you last responce here. You will find that you have just stated the oppsite to your point that “God wrote the Bible.”
“…that does not mean it is of God.”

I give you the bennifit that this was a typo (see how easy it is for us humans to mis-state something) and I understand your point. However, there are two distinct versions of the Creation in Genesis. If you doubt that start reading it from the beginning. Or are you suggesting the theory that God had created everything in spirit and that is the first story then in the “Flesh” and that is the second?

If that is your suggestion, I would commend you on taking a leap of faith and engaging your own thinking. That idea is beyond most of the things I heard from you and I’d have to take another look into it myself.

If that is not what you are getting at then you must realize that there are indeed two stories of the creation and the facts displayed there in do not match. I have offered the current scolarly reasoning for this repeatitiveness of some stories in the Bible.

Have you ever plaied the word game “telephone?” It is where you have several paople and start with a percise statment, Like “God wants you to listen to Dave.” and you wisper it into one peoson’s ear, they wisper it into another person’s ear and them the next and so forth until the final person tells the whole group what they heard. “Go Dance two lessons you have.” This is the same thing that happens when God “Breaths the word” but people are so dense that they either hear it different or think they know what God is saying so they share this message, so on and so forth. The Bible, even seperated in its original manuscripts, does not contain the exact original message. Especialy when many of these things (Mostly old testament) were carried not in text but in oral tradition for several years if not centeries. After 2 millenia since the New testimate record was first writen, we no longer posses the original documen, pened by its author, be it God or Man. All that is in existance for us to view is copies of copies of copies and so on of the original text, and then we know that much of the teachings of Christ were not written down originally but was oral tradition.

God, may have breathed it, but why do you think that man has not foulled it up on the way. There is no physical proof that Man has correctlly recorded Gods word. That is why it is so importand to rely on Faith.
-D

Justin,
God gave you a brain to use and think for yourself. Some things are plain to see as in the case that there are two versions of the creation, thus two creation myths, in the Bible contained in the Book Genesis. If you read the Book you can glean for your self where the second begins because it starts to sound redundant but if you compair them you can see they are different, and thus not entirely repeating.

I do not need a link to tell me differently when it is reason and discernment that has shown me this, also it is a lesson in Religious History studies that you should have stumbled over that revealed this truth.
-D