I'm surprised my backside isn't chaffed, I spend so much of my time sitting on the fence. I am one of life's 'don't knows' really.
I'm not sure whether I'm a Christian, a humanist or an agnostic. Apparently I need to condemn homosexuality to be a Christian; I can't bring myself to join an organisistion that (a) doesn't believe in God and (b) has Claire Raynor as its president, so I can't be a Humanist; and so maybe I'm an agnostic - God knows what I am.
I'm not quite sure of where I stand on many of life's important issues. Most importantly (to me) I'm not sure whether I'm bringing my children up correctly (do I expect too much of them (sometimes I think I do), do I expect too little of them(sometimes I think I do - like every time Michael leaves the table without asking to be excused), do they see too much TV, do I pressurize them into reading too much, do I pounce too heavily each time I see them express the slightest bit of interest in anything (this is the mother who bought her 20 mth old daughter a trampoleeeny type thing today because she likes jumping and I can see her being a future olympic gold medalist trampoleeeeeny type person (do they do trampoleeeeeeeening in the olympix???. I mean sport is really not my thing, but at this early stage I really think it might be hers and I'm out to enable and encourage....)
Food and nutrition - read widely on this subject, but still don't know whether brazil nuts are good or bad for you
Jobs: would like to contribute to the family income(and will have to at some point as dearest husband will retire in the not too distant future and I must, by then, be earning a crust) but want to be home when the children are, in order to provide them with motherly tlc and a square meal (if I can be certain of what a square meal constitutes)
Keep fit - not quite sure what to do about this one (but my dearest internet friend Supergroup7 is on the case! - thank blog for that!)
The World In General: I REALLY don't know. To what extent are we manipulated by the media? To what extent is any Government so power crazy that they would convince us that we are in grave danger from terrorism / bird flu / AOB just so that they can supress us all / hide truths / pass repressive legislation?
Do I fret about all this? Not really. Yes and no. Sometimes.
But hey. What can you do?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
P.S did anyone else loose count of how many brackets I opened and should therefore have closed in that third paragraph????!!!!
I lost count, but that's OK.
I was hoping you would bring this up on your own blog so that I wouldn't have to hijack a thread on someone else's blog. I want to be clear that the Christians you're talking to about homosexuality are espousing a certain version of Christianity that many, many other Christians do not agree with. There are many Christians who do not believe that the Bible has to be 100% factual to be true. In fact, John over on Hammer's blog has gone over this more than once. I hope that you will reread what he has to say here
And I'd also like to recommend a fantastic book that I hope will help you sort some of this out over and against all "you must believe exactly x,y,z or you're not a Christian" foolishness. It's called The Heart of Christianity by Marcus Borg. I was especially moved in my own life by his reminder that this idea of Biblical inerrancy (everything in the Bible is 100% fact) is a relatively modern concept...in the past Christians believed that the Bible was true, not necessarily factual. There's a big difference. We have thousands of years of tradition to back that up, whereas only a little over a hundred years of this nonsense that the Bible is fact (the earth was created in 7 days, dinosaurs and humans coexisted, etc.)
I am a Christian and a pastor and I believe that all sexuality is a good gift from God, whether that be homosexual or heterosexual. And it is to be used as all of God's gifts are...in a life-giving and loving way. To state that God created some of us heterosexual and some of us homosexual, and that I am to celebrate my heterosexuality with my life partner, while homosexual persons are to ignore and squelch their sexuality is arrogant and sinful.
This means that others will believe that I am not Christian. That's fine with me.
I think that because you show concern about raising your children right, you are far more conscientious than 99% of other parents out there. I imagine that you're doing an awfully good job. I think that the trampoline was an exhibition sport at the Olympics one year, but that it never made the cut to become a real sport.
You're right...what can you do?
Does my bum look big on this? I'm right on that fence there with you, but maybe on different subjects. Only 'cos your's never occured to me!
I make like an ostrich with religion, I haven't explored it, I just believe the bits I like!
Bringing up children. Well, I'm doing my best to instill good behaviour, manners, honesty and generally being 'nice' children. I am failing on another point though. They don't really get opportunities for 'doing stuff'. They don't have swimming lessons, music lessons, sporting interests, any of that, because we can't afford it and I want to be home with them rather than providing for their interests. Selfish, I know.
As far as I can remember, Brazil Nuts are good for you. Good fats, for a start and then there's probably things like selenium, or zinc, which are good for you. Do you like them? Eat them! Like anything else, in moderation.
Walk. even before we ditched the car, I walked at least 2 miles, 3-4 times a week. Doesn't sound a lot and even if it has a slow effect on your weight and tone, it's fab for your mind!
'Part from that, I know narthing!
"Apparently I need to condemn homosexuality to be a Christian"
Well, piffle to that (and other rude words as well)! As Mary Beth said, that's just one small group, albeit a loud one. In any case, you go to an CofE church, and the CofE has a long and proud tradition of not making its mind up, but instead accepting people where they are.
I've got to agree with you about Claire Raynor, though!
pax et bonum
Thank you
Thank you, thank you.
What can I say? One copy of "The Heart of Christianity by Marcus Borg" is now winging its way to me courtesy of Amazon (which meant that I just HAD to buy "Innocent Traitor" by Alison Weir at the same time in order to qualify for free delivery - shucks). I will read Marcus Borg first though.
Thank you for your advice. I am looking forward to reading the book and I am enjoying exploring and debating these issues of faith.
Ruth,
Marcus Borg is not a Christian. You will find that "The Heart of Christianity" denies that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. If you are seeking a book that will parrot the views of Mary Beth and John, pehaps that will do. I beg you not to read it until you first read "Knowing God" by J.I. Packer. He is an Anglican who is very respected, and this landmark volume is wondefully written, as well as, unlike the assertions above, based in Biblical and historical Christianity.
What is required to be a Christian? to deny yourself, to take up your cross daily, and follow Him. You do not have to condemn homosexuality, because He already does. That issue is not even close to central! Your task is to critically examine yourself, confess and repent of your sins, both of action and attitude, and come to him in humility seeking the salvation from your sins that is borne of the grace of God in Christ.
From Mary Beth:
in the past Christians believed that the Bible was true, not necessarily factual. There's a big difference. We have thousands of years of tradition to back that up, whereas only a little over a hundred years of this nonsense that the Bible is fact (the earth was created in 7 days)
Creation in six days is not a historical Christian belief and doctrine? This blog could not hold the historical references to six day creation! Not only is it written as truth and fact by Moses,(1500 BC), it is presented as truth and fact by Philo (Jew, born 20 AD) ), Justin Martyr (90 AD), Rhodo (186 AD), Candidus (190 AD), Appion (190 AD) Basil the Great (370 AD), Ignatius (160 AD), Irenaeus (190 AD), Victorinius, Origen (200 AD) Augustine (350 AD), Clement of Alexandria (3rd century), Thomas Aquinas (1250), Calvin(1500s), Arminius(1500s), Luther, Spurgeon, Henry...the list is endless before 1900.
You may disagree with interpretation, authority, morality, etc - but if you lie about something definitively evident and demonstrable, your lie will be exposed!
You have been lied to, Ruth, to push an agenda.
Those who seek after God will be attacked by the enemies of God. These enemies are not anyone here, but spiritual: For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. (Eph 6:12)
I and my wife are praying for you earnestly, Ruth. God bless you!
You don't have to condemn homosexuals to be a Christian. It's not a prerequisite.
However, being willing to accept the truth as it is regardless of how hard or easy it is to live up to, or how politically correct it is or not.... now that has always been part of being a Christian from the very beginning of the Church.
As a Catholic, I accept that homosexual tendencies exist within others. These people are being called to a life of devotion to God ( as are ALL human beings). They are to chose to use their sexuality in a responsible manner ( as are all human beings). They are called to chastity ( as is everyone who has not been called to the vocation of marriage which exists to be open to new life. Being open to new life as a married couple does not mean that you must have as many children as possible before menopause. Married couples are called to be responsible with the gift of fertility and to follow God's call as to how many children are born. They may not ever have a child at all, but they are always open to life.)
The whole main crux to "family" is it's definition, and why it exists: We bond as male and female to create new life, and provide that new life with a stable unit. People can love each other deeply at any time. I do not belittle the love expressed by people for each other, but it cannot create new life. Even with all of the new technology available today, only the interaction of a male and female can create new life. There cannot be a possibility for a child when a male has physical relations with a male, or a female with a female. Therefore these people cannot explore this aspect without going against the nature of their bodies. This is also why the Catholic Church stands so firmly against Birth control.
To a Catholic, the bible isn't 100% factual, but it is 100% believable. The bible is inspired by God, and one needs to rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the deposit of the faith in the Church, to be able to understand what is being said in the Bible, and how it applies to life.
One of the most interesting things that I learned when I studied archeology was that archeologists have found the majority of the items/cities/ artifacts that have been mentioned in the Old Testament. That's pretty accurate information for writings that were once scattered in various places, and written over thousands of years by a multitude of authors. The books of the New, and Old Testament that make up the Bible that we use today were pulled together after the death of Jesus Christ ( near 400 AD) by my birth patron saint, Saint Jerome. He dedicated 30 years of his life to create the Vulgate translation of the Bible in Latin. ( which is still in use today). Legend has it that he pulled a thorn out of a lion's foot, and it remained loyal ( like a pet) to him for years. COOL!
I too, am praying for you to find truth! There is no greater gift that we can bestow on others, than to pray for their souls, and for the discernment of truth for all of us.
There is no version of Christianity but the true version. The idea that "There are many Christians who do not believe that the Bible has to be 100% factual to be true", is an anti-biblical view, in of itself. There are no mistakes, no lies and no erroneous passages to leave us wondering about anything pertaining to our salvation!
Because the Bible is inspired, it is also inerrant. This means that the Bible is without error, in the original documents and that everything that it addresses is without error in fact or understanding.
In case God's Word itself isn't proof enough, here are a few of the numerous things it says that are scientifically accurate:
-The spherical shape of the earth (Isaiah 40:22).
-The earth is suspended in nothing (Job. 26:7).
-The stars are innumerable (Gen. 15:5).
-The existence of valleys in the seas (2 Sam. 22:16).
-The existence of springs and fountains in the sea (Gen. 7:11; 8:2; Prov. 8:28).
-The existence of water paths (ocean currents) in the seas (Psalm 8:8).
-The water cycle (Job. 26:8; 36:27-28; 37:16; 38:25-27; Ps. 135:7; Ecc. 1:6-7).
-The fact that all living things reproduce after their own kind (Gen. 1:21; 6:19).
-The nature of health, sanitation, and sickness (Gen. 17:9-14; Lev. 12-14).
-The concept of entropy-that energy diminishes (Psalm 102:26).
Additionally, no archaeological discoveries have ever proven anything in the Bible wrong. It is accurate as a historical record.
Here is a fun game to play for your own knowledge. Choose any Bilical verse, and then give your interpretation. Then, go to Psalm 22:11-18, and read aloud and slowly. What did those verses describe?
Interestingly, Psalm 22 was written by David approximately 1000 B.C. and 600 years before crucifixion was invented by the Phoenicians. Imagine that! Explain out that is possible if the Bible is not inspired, and is not a literal and completely true text? Mistakes? By the very Creator of the universe? The Word of God is infallible and there are no mistakes..
Peter 5:1-3, "Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock."
It is pretty clear, in this verse and many others, that the pastor and the elders of the church of Christ are charged with a huge responsibility to teach the Word.
Personally, I find those who have the duty of being a pastor and then lead people to a false gospel, to be committing a very grave sin. For they have stood upon the Bible and discounted the validity and the inerrancy, for which they promised God and humankind they would uphold, testify to, and witness to.
Hi Ruth!
I'm not going to use your blog to argue with Hammer and RT, and to have them insult, condemn, and belittle me. I'd love to have further discussions with you via e-mail. If you'd like the same, there's a link to my e-mail address in my profile on my blog. I'd love to hear from you!
First of all, Ruth - if you don't want any more of this here, just say the word. I'm sure we'll all respect your wishes.
Hammer,
"If you are seeking a book that will parrot the views of Mary Beth and John, pehaps that will do."
AARRRGHHHHHH!!!!!!!
How many times do I have to repeat, and repeat, and repeat - I AM NOT A LIBERAL. It is perfectly possible to disagree both with you and with the liberals. The breadth of the Christian faith is not limited to evangelicalism or liberalism. Try approaches like catholic, liberation, orthodox, pentecostal, postmodern, neo-orthodox etc. etc.
And why on Earth do you want to stop Ruth reading about the diversity of opinion within Christ's Church? Your personal approach to Christianity is not the One True Way - that is Christ alone. If Ruth wants to learn more about the ways in which people follow Christ and understand Christ, more power to her. You know what you believe to be true. Trust God, therefore, that He will reveal Himself to Ruth in the ways that are meaningful to her.
More to the point here, though - do you really think (given the tone of Ruth's posts) that browbeating her yet again with your own narrow interpretation of "Christianity" (and, yes, this is aimed also at RightThinker) is actually going to achieve anything? Read what Ruth's saying, and you'll see very clearly that it is precisely this attitude that is closest to driving her away from the Church and from Christ.
FWIW, I found Knowing God tedious in the extreme. So tedious, in fact, that I've no recollection of whether I agreed with what Packer wrote or not! Books I'd suggest as worth reading (and actually readable!) include GK Chesterton's Heretics and Orthodoxy (both short and available for free on the web!), Post-evangelical (edited by Dave Tomlinson) for an analysis of some of the reasons why people leave evangelicalism, and The Meaning of the Miracles by Jeffrey John, for an introduction to ways of reading the miracles that show the depth of meaning in them. Julian of Norwich might be good, too, or one of the other mystics.
Rightthinker,
"Because the Bible is inspired, it is also inerrant."
Please, stop. To anyone outside neoconservative American Christianity, this doesn't even read like a logical statement, the disconnect is so large. And trying to prove that the Bible is a science textbook? Puh-lease!
More to the point, though, this is all totally irrelevant to Ruth's post. If you haven't got anything constructive to say, say nothing.
I'm very sorry that this has come across as so angry, but I am very annoyed.
pax et bonum
"Please, stop. To anyone outside neoconservative American Christianity, this doesn't even read like a logical statement, the disconnect is so large. And trying to prove that the Bible is a science textbook? Puh-lease"
I was demonstrating that the authors had knowledge of scientific situations, long before the community had understood these.
I also seem to always forget that you, somehow, are given divine knowledge over and above Scripture. Us simple-minded American's couldn't POSSIBLY understand what John, of super divine intelligence can understand...I also forgot passages that convey the alpha and omega truth of Jesus and the completeness of His Word were false...what they really should have conveyed is that "only intelligent British people with disregard for literal and inerrant truths of the Bible are smart enough to know the truth." (whatever that may be, since it waivers and changes like the ebb and flow of the sea...whatever works for whoever it works for)
I feel badly for those meek-minded, and those lacking great intelligence, who read the Word, pray for clarity, and lack a big church (where two or more or gathered in my name...)to tell them what it REALLY means-if this is me, then Praise God! If I lack the supreme intelligence to "interpret" the Word of God in such a matter that leaves little left of His Word, then so be it. I'm right with God. My heart, my soul, my committment and the life changes I have are evident of the Holy Spirit living in me! My life is Jesus Christ with little room for all else-not the other way around. That is my testimony.
"this is all totally irrelevant to Ruth's post. If you haven't got anything constructive to say, say nothing" I didn't realize I hadn't said something constructive. I always thought witnessing the gospel of Jesus Christ was a quite positive thing to do.
"First of all, Ruth - if you don't want any more of this here, just say the word. I'm sure we'll all respect your wishes." I won't speak for Ruth, because I also want to respect her wishes, but her comment, "I am looking forward to reading the book and I am enjoying exploring and debating these issues of faith", indicated to me, at least, that she was willing to discuss matters of faith. Given that I believe the books she was recommended are false and heretical teachings, I was doing just what YOU recommended-and that is offering her an alternative point of view. Afterall, you and Mary Beth said it best-"the Christians you're talking to about homosexuality are espousing a certain version of Christianity that many, many other Christians do not agree with". Honestly, "our kind of Christian" are pretty rare, indeed.
I'll be done now, except for any defense of myself against personal attacks. The Word of God stands on its own merit. A person needn't be a Biblical scholar, nor a Christian who is sympathetic to a world view to be saved. They need Jesus Christ, a humble heart and spirit, and a never-failing book in front of them.
Marybeth-
There are many Christians who do not believe that the Bible has to be 100% factual to be true.
If the Bible is not 100% factual, then that means there are things in it that are false. If that were the case, then none of it can be trusted and it is all up for debate as far as which parts are factual, and which parts are not. How do you decide what is factual, and what is not, and what gives you the right to choose which parts are factual? This is relativism- you choose the parts you like and discard the rest. The Bible is either all true or it’s not- there’s no in between.
As Matthew 7:21-23 puts it there will be many, many “christians” who will not enter the kingdom of heaven because they never truly repented and trusted in Jesus: “many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in they name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” The road is narrow and many, many who think they are saved are not.
in the past Christians believed that the Bible was true, not necessarily factual. There's a big difference.
Please explain this difference, because I’m not sure I understand. If something is not factual, then the opposite of “not factual” would be fictitious, and if something is fictitious, it is therefore NOT TRUE. So how can the Bible be true if it is not factual?
this nonsense that the Bible is fact (the earth was created in 7 days, dinosaurs and humans coexisted, etc.)
So, are you calling the Bible nonsense??? Why are you limiting God to someone or something we can even begin to comprehend? If God said the Earth was created in 6 days (not 7), why is that so hard to believe? Do you think God not capable of this, or are you an evolutionist? He could have created it in an instant if He so desired, and for you to doubt these examples as fact shows your lack of faith. Science and Christianity are not opposed and you don’t have to throw all logic out the window to believe the truths of the Bible, that’s not what I’m saying, but there is an element of faith, as well. Here is why God put things in the Bible that are seemingly “nonsense”, as you put it:
1Corinthians 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.
He did this to humble us, and silence our own human wisdom and pride.
I believe that all sexuality is a good gift from God, whether that be homosexual or heterosexual. And it is to be used as all of God's gifts are...in a life-giving and loving way
What exactly do you mean by stating that our sexuality is to be used in a “life-giving and loving way”? If I have sex outside of marriage in a “loving way”, am I not sinning because I am exercising God’s good gift? How is homosexual sex ever “life-giving?” Please help me understand what you mean here.
Ruth-
Please read these passages from the Bible as a clear warning to you so that you will not be led astray and deceived:
Regarding the book by Marcus Borg and anyone who supports his theories:
1 John 2: 22-23 & 26
“Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he that acknowledges the Son has the Father also. These things have I written to you concerning those who try to deceive you.”
Marybeth and all commenters-
John is not the only one annoyed, but I am annoyed and disheartened for reasons other than just the issues we're debating. I am frustrated that Marybeth begins discussing a hot topic and throws out controversial comments and then retreats into her shell when confronted with challenges. A discussion about the truth should be open and in the light, not hidden behind the scenes and only given one side. If Ruth doesn't want this on her blog, fine, come over to ours to debate where we are more than open to accept challenges- the truth always wins out in open discussions. Discussing things behind closed doors is not necessary for those whose position can withstand the scrutiny of the light.
John 3: 19-21 "and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."
Mrshammer--
I am frustrated that Marybeth begins discussing a hot topic and throws out controversial comments and then retreats into her shell when confronted with challenges.
The comment I made was to Ruth, not to you or to Hammer, or to anyone else, for that matter. Had Ruth made her e-mail available I would have e-mailed her. Looking back, I should have just invited her to e-mail me in the first place. I didn't post my comment for purposes of "discussion" with you (though I'd hardly call it a discussion when I share my thoughts and hear "You're wrong"). I posted my comment because I had something worthwhile to share with Ruth. As I recall, her original post said nothing about asking for a debate.
You and I have very different views of the Bible. Mine is steeped heavily in my religious tradition...yours is steeped in yours. You are not going to change my mind (I can guarantee that, because 15 years ago you and I would have agreed on every single statement you've made)...I'm not going to change yours.
I'm tired of having so much that I post or comment turned into proof that I'm not a Christian. If you don't like what I have to say, don't read it.
John,
I apologize for implying that you are a liberal. That was not my intent - what I meant was that the cultural issues I am sure Borg addresses - homosexuality, female priests, and religious pluralism - are far more in line with what you and Mary Beth have said than what I do. I promise to try be more clear in the future! You are my favorite person to discuss topics with, and I have no desire to call you names or dissuade you from the discussion.
I have to take a stand, however, on the divinity of the Son of God. No one who denies Jesus Christ is God in the flesh is a Christian. Even with that, I did not tell Ruth NOT to read it, but to read a Christian book first. I read books that are not by Christian authors all the time - but I do not read those that intentionally promote an anti-Christian philosophy. Honestly, John, I am truly surprised that you think that a book denying the Incarnation is Christian! As far as Packer goes, your prefernce for his writing style is your own, which I do not share. What we can both agree is that it is not heretical, and that it had been a popular book for 20 years.
My comment was relevant because Ruth is searching for spiritual answers. As far as I can tell, she doesn't want to learn more about heresy, but about the core Christian beliefs that you and I seem to share. I have no issue with the books you selected...
I also don't like it when someone lies about the church. Of course, I don't think you are defending that!
MB-
I understand your original comment was to Ruth, not to me. However, when I see someone I care about being led astray and she's searching for truth and is recommended a "fantastic" book that is filled with lies and a false sense of what Christianity is, I will not let it go. That is where the debate started, not that Ruth intended to have this post turn into a debate, but you begged it to become one by your comments and recommendation.
You still haven't answered any of the questions I asked, but I don't expect you to.
Hi Ruth!
Having read that debate, I feel like someone has just beaten me round the head with a big book...
Go John!
Love xxxx
...and I was _so_ hoping for a debate about brazil nuts!
Seriously, I don't mind you continuing this conversation here - blogs are an open forum for debate as far as I'm concerned (unlike, for example, your own living room, where you might feel inclined to call a halt to tensions and offer everyone another glass of sherry).
I shall not contribute to the discussion, I'm afraid, as I've nothing intelligent to say on the subject (roll on 'the brazil nut argument' - I'll be in my element there)!
I am sorry, though, if I have started a debate that has in any way turned upsetting for people or become out of hand. That wasn't my intention. I'm a useless 'chair' and certainly can't adjudicate!
(Actually, on that subject, who _could_ adjudicate??). A Christian would inevitably side with one view or the other and be biassed; an atheist would think we were ALL bonkers!!)
Ruth- I SO appreciate your sense of humor! It's a nice addition to a discussion of this sort! Thanks!
MB- I would like to address the comment you made about your 15 years of enlightened revelation that I have yet to experience. It seems your years of liberal seminary education and reading books by Borg and the like has led to a cynical view of the Bible and away from the childlike faith Jesus tells us we should have:
Mark 10:14-15 "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it."
Children don't have a problem believing the "nonsense" in the Bible, they simply hear God's word and believe. They don't re-interpret it, doubt it or question it, and that is the faith that we are to have. So, your comment that I initially took as an insult I will instead take joy in because I want to have the faith of a little child, for such is the kingdom of heaven!
MrsHammer,
"If the Bible is not 100% factual, then that means there are things in it that are false."
The problem here is the distinction between different kinds of truth - an issue that Hammer and I have been discussing of late. The distinction that MB is drawing is that "true" and "factual" are not equivalent concepts. Facts are a very small portion of those things that are true - truth encompasses wisdom, myth, relationship and many other forms of knowing that cannot be reduced to facts.
Another way of looking at it is this (which is actually at the heart of a lot of the problems here). The opposite of "truth" is not "error". The opposite of "truth" is "deceit". It's only when we start to think that facts are all that matter that we can make this mistake. So, the Bible is not a collection of facts, and saying that the Bible is true is not the same as saying that it is scientifically accurate - which it plainly isn't. Indeed, to try and maintain that, because the Bible is true it must therefore be factual on every issue that it deals with is to make a mistake that no age before our own could possibly have made - because no age before ours has elevated facts to this level.
Notice that this is not at all a difference between evangelicals and liberals. Both groups treat fact as supreme - the difference is merely in which set of apparent facts they privilege.
So, to return to the sentence I quoted above, you've missed the point, I believe. The question isn't whether the Bible is factual (it clearly isn't). The question is whether it is true. I suspect that you'll want me to substantiate that statement about factuality, so here's an example: the story of Jacob, Laban and the sheep. Laban tries to trick Jacob out of his earnings by declaring that Jacob will get the stripy or spotty sheep - Jacob then places sticks by the watering hole that he's made into stripy or spotty patterns. The sheep lust after the sticks and, as a result, bear stripy or spotty offspring, to Jacob's benefit. This is not a factual description - it is not a fact that placing sticks in front of sheep will change the patterns of their offspring. However, it does convey the truth that God was taking care of Jacob. God gave Jacob his earnings despite how Laban twisted and turned - but the factual description offered is incorrect. The passage is counterfactual but not deceitful.
"The Bible is either all true or it’s not- there’s no in between."
The Bible is all true - it is not all factual. It cannot possibly be all factual, because large portions don't even pretend to be. Poetry and prophecy and wisdom and apocalyptic are not factual forms of literature. Their meaning is not to be found in the facts prevailing at the time.
"The road is narrow and many, many who think they are saved are not."
Indeed. But that doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically one of those cast out! The narrow road is following Christ, not one particular doctrinal system.
"If God said the Earth was created in 6 days (not 7), why is that so hard to believe?"
This really isn't the place for a huge debate on this, but here's a thought for you. The evidence within Creation - the apparent ages of rocks, the size of the Universe, the erosion of coastlines, the radioactive dating of air in ice cores, and more and more - all of this shows that the Creation appears to be vastly older than the 6000 or so years that the Bible covers. There are only two possible explanations for this. First, that God created the Universe to lie to us. Second, God didn't create the Universe in precisely the way the Genesis stories run. The first possibility is repugnant to Christianity because it requires the material world to be deceitful - and God said that it was good. This fundamental tension within the theology of Creationism has never, to my knowledge, been satisfactorily dealt with. The second possibility requires the Genesis account to be non-factual - not untrue, please note, just non-factual. As I've said above, the stories convey deep truths of all sorts entirely independent of their factual nature. (I'll also point out that your husband isn't a young-Earth creationist, so he accepts that the biblical accounts of creation aren't factual!)
Some stories require a factual basis to tell us anything - if there was no such person as Jesus, there would be no Gospel. But the creation stories don't have to be mechanically precise in the same way. We know that there is a world; the story is telling us why it is and what it's for. Just as the Gospels don't tell us all the facts about Christ - they make a careful selection of the facts so as the tell the truth about Christ.
pax et bonum
Hammer,
"No one who denies Jesus Christ is God in the flesh is a Christian."
Yes. But Borg doesn't do that, as I understand it. Also, it's absolutely essential not to mistake differences in language for differences in belief. It can be very difficult when two groups use different words to express the same truths (or the same words to express different things), and this can lead to them mistakenly believing that they believe different things. But all that's happened is that they're using different words.
pax et bonum
Try googling "are brazil nuts good for you" ;-)
(The answer appears to be yes - apparently just one brazil nut contains your daily requirement of selenium).
John,
We have been discussing fact and truth,and especially that words have meaning. "Fact" must be a subset of "truth", and if something meant to be factually true is factually untrue, then it is altogether untrue.
The straw man you create is that we claim all of the Bible is meant to be literally interpreted, which of course it is not. There are things in the Bible that are true that are not literally true, because they are not intended to be. Prophetic language, poetry, wisdom literature and apocalyptic literature are examples of these. The Torah is none of these. Specific example - "Thy neck is as a tower of ivory", Song of Solomon 7:4. Obviously her neck is not a tower, but poetic language is intended to be metaphorical.
Similarly, as you have done in the past, you choose a descriptive passage and make it prescriptive to attempt to disprove Biblical accuracy (as well as inventing animal lust for reeds, which is just weird). The operative verse would be, "And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted. (Gen 30:39)"
Jacob put his selected animals in front of the reeds which he placed at the water, which is where those animals would mate. The animals they had were spotted, etc. However, words mean something. There is a reason that it does not say, "because they saw the rods, they came forth..." - because it wouldn't be true. Jacob thought it was a good idea, and God made the result what he desired - but we are not told that mating landscape changes genetic makeup.
More about words meaning things. The opposite of truth can be error, and it can be deceit. If you honestly believe that England's GDP is greater than the US's, and you tell me so, are you being deceitful? No, you are merely in error. If you know that England's GDP is less and you tell me otherwise, that is deceit. Thus, the opposite of truth can be error or deceit.
I am not an anything-earth creationist. I believe in a literal 6-day creation because there is no internal evidence that tells me that the creation account is meant to be anything but factual. However, I have not settled on the earth's age because I also do not see internal evidence that the accounts of the generations of man are specific and direct father-to-son descriptions. I do not see any reason to insist that "X begat Y" means Y was X's son, though it probably often means that. Thus, I do not see that we are given a timeline of the earth in the Bible.
That is an issue we can disagree on - I even understand why many have trouble with a 6-day creation. What I can't tolerate is when someone claims that a literal 6-day creation is "not a historic Christian position"", when it "factually" is!
"The narrow road is following Christ, not one particular doctrinal system."
Of course - but "following Christ" means something, and it is surely more than simply saying you beleive in Jesus.
Notice that this is not at all a difference between evangelicals and liberals. Both groups treat fact as supreme - the difference is merely in which set of apparent facts they privilege.
I'm glad you recognize this. Because you have made that clear, I'll let off commenting on these issues here in Ruth's blog, as that is the very subject of the series I will begin to post in about five minutes!
Ruth,
You reacted very happily to news that you could get a book that would tell you what you seemed like you wanted to hear. If you are merely seeking that, I understand. However, if you are seeking to know the God who became a man in Jesus Christ, would you please consider ordering the book my wife and I have both recommended to you?
"God's friendship with men begins and grows through speech: His to us in revelation, and ours to Him in prayer and praise. Though I cannot see God, He and I can yet be personal friends, because in revelation He talks to me." - J.I. Packer
Yes, Hammer. I will. I'll read both. Thank you for this.
Ruth
I have to say that, if you want a good introduction to evangelical thought, Packer's a good place to go. Particularly because he wrote this book over 30 years ago, which means that the evangelicalism it describes is mainstream mid-20th century evangelicalism and is largely untainted by neo-conservatism. He does have his flaws, but you could do a lot worse. Unfortunately, we seem to have lost our copy, or I'd say you could borrow it!
pax et bonum
Post a Comment