Believing the Bible: A Place To Start or Stop?
February 5, 2009 by iMonk
Let’s say you’re sitting around talking with a group of friends, some of whom are Christians and some aren’t.
A subject comes up; for example, marriage. People share their stories, their thoughts, their accumulated wisdom.
After a moment, one of the Christians present begins to speak. He speaks longer. His tone is different. He’s quoting verses…and more verses.
There’s a sense of finality and authority to this talk. You can sense a reaction, even before anyone says anything.
Some present are annoyed. Some are angry. Some want to move on to a topic as far away from the Bible as possible.
Then another Christian speaks. This person validates that the quoted verses are crucial and important for Christians to understand. But this person raises questions. She interacts with the scripture AND with the comments of the other participants. From ideas in the verses- like submission, for instance- she asks the group to explore what submission might mean in a non-abusive context?
The room relaxes a bit. This Christian wasn’t authoritative. She wasn’t ending the discussion. She was continuing it. She was curious. She didn’t have all the answers, but still had questions. She wanted to listen to others; to hear their insights and experiences.
Somehow, this second Christian seemed to think Christianly, but to think differently. The scripture was the beginning of her thought process; a place to launch out from, not just a place to stop.
Of course, when the evening is over and everyone is walking out to their car, the first Christian stops the second, reads her more verses and suggests she may not be a Christian.
(I know….that was ugly. I’m sorry.)
Here’s my thought. It seems that for some people, the Bible is the end of the thinking/exploring process, while for others it is not the end, but a place from which to continue learning, thinking and exploring. For one the Bible is a very short anchor; for the other, a kind of map.
One kind of Christian seems to feel that the Christian life is “lived” by accumulating Bible passages and talking about them frequently and loudly. (Yes, blogs were made for this kind of person.) This is called “honoring” the Word of God and “living the Godly life.” As a long-time observer, this looks less like living the Christian life and more like turning it into a particular kind of activity that bookish, obsessive, aggressive types are very good at.
The other kind of Christian arrives at the Bible, gains bearings, affirms truth, then launches out into the many different worlds that are part of human experience. They aren’t accumulating verses or listing them in long diatribes, but they are living in such a way that the meaning of the Bible’s message is put into practice.
The other day, a young earth creationist challenged me, as they have done many, many times before. The challenge is always the same: why don’t I take the Bible as seriously as they do? (I’m an old earth/old universe guy.)
Now, by “taking the Bible seriously,” they mean get to the answers by getting to the verses, establish the meaning of the verses and stop there. If you go any further, you’ve abandoned the authority of the Bible and are making a dangerous mistake.
But what if the creation passages are a starting place for my own encounter with the world? Can I study science and still say I believe those passages? Can I believe them if the record of God’s creation leads me to believe in an old universe? Does a person have to stop with the Biblical material at its most literal and then only affirm science that affirms those verses?
I don’t think so. I believe that thinking and living Biblically is far more than stopping at passages and saying “this far and no more.” I prefer to say “This is my map of what matters most in creation, and from here I will read the record of creation and rejoice in what God has made.”
I’m not going to worry if a conclusion seems to bring me to more questions or to a need for more study and more light. I won’t make my faith and my experience into an “either/or” where I have to ignore my mind to believe God’s Word. I’m not going to act like I have arrived ahead of everyone else because I believe Genesis 1-3.
I especially won’t believe that God wants me to know the Bible, but not know literature, relationships, beauty, work, sacrifice, science, art and service. I will approach all those things as a Biblically thinking Christian, with a grid of God and the Gospel giving cohesion and hope to all I experience and encounter.
I want to suggest that “Bible study” that amounts to an obsessive concern with what the Bible says and no more is not the way we live the Christian life. If we know God and the Gospel, we should raise our sails in the winds of human experience, creativity and discovery, expecting God’s truth to be there as well.
I experience this frequently. I will teach a poem or story and realize I am in the Biblical world. I will sense in human brokenness the Biblical story. In a thousand ways I see the face and compassion of Jesus. In explorations and discoveries I see the marvel of God’s power and detail in creation.
None of these thing take the Bible away from me. I take the Bible with me into these parts of my life. I take the Bible, its “map” of reality and truth, its message of hope and most of all, its Gospel of redemption, resurrection and a new world begun in Christ.
Is the Bible a stopping place or a starting place for Christian thinking?
Dave – I have to admit to liking the Harry Potter series, so, yes, I agree that Bishop Kallistos Ware does look and sound a bit like Dumbledore. Now to make sure he does not eat the wrong flavor of magical jelly beans!
To the rest – One of the advantages of believing in Holy Tradition and in highly respecting, and actually reading, the Early Church Fathers is that it also provides quite a perspective on the range of acceptable Biblical interpretations. There are many things over which the Early Church did NOT pronounce itself and left open to belief various possibilities. Creationism was one of the matters on which they did not pronounce themselves.
One can cite Early Church Fathers on both sides of the issue. There are some who are clearly young-earth creationists. Meanwhile, there are others who clearly are not, and see the early chapters of Genesis as painting a vast poetic panorama. Some even went as far as considering it to be an extended allegory.
What did they seem to agree on? That there was nothing before the beginning except God. That God did not manipulate an existing something but created de novo. That, in some way, God created Adam and Eve. That it is God who is in control of his creation; it is not independent of God. That God will deal further with his creation at the time of the Final Judgment. That regardless of your belief about those early chapters, it did not impact the historicity of the later chapters or the truth proclaimed in them.
However, unlike too many modern young-earth types, the Church never condemned or harassed or despised or thought less of those who were not young-earth believers. That is a lesson that is worth learning.
“My stance is clear, that once we relegate part of the Bible to “fiction that illustrates a real world need” then there’s no reason not to lump it all there.”
I’m curious as to commentary on this one:
1 Kings 7 23
“Then he made the sea of cast metal. It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.”
And
Joshua 10:12-13
“At that time Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,
“Sun, stand still at Gibeon,
and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”
13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.
Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.”
I can come up with all kinds of ways this appeared to Joshua to happen, especially given the rocks from the sky in the previous verse. But to say the sun literally stood still? As a friend of mine said, “relative to what reference point?”
I’m more and more convinced that YEC-or-nothing-ism is an attempt to believe in magic, rather than God. The Bible itself becomes nothing more than an artifact or talisman – it’s mystical book that, thanks to God’s ancient magic, tells only the Truth on every page. I don’t care how you want to theologize it, that’s magical thinking. The Bible isn’t supernatural. It doesn’t have to be magically true about science or the End of the World in order for us to follow Jesus.
No wonder it’s only a hop, skip and a jump from that to “spiritual warfare” – warring angels and demons in the air around us who influence our lives, a concept any ancient pagan would be familiar with.
>I do believe that God inspired all of Scripture. I also believe that God inspired C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien.
I do believe God sent you here to show me that I will never, ever in a million years be Catholic.
Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow.
Patrick — I have no problem with the warfare-in-the-air. Theologians don’t go far enough with that. I believe that angels are involved with every process, both spiritual and physical. The pouring out of the bowls by the angels of Revelations could very well be the proliferation of pollutants and greenhouse gases we are producing ourselves, causing the very calamities prophesied.
It’s not magical thinking or literal Scriptural cosmology the Bible is getting at — it’s Spiritual focus, I think.
im — Before I couldn’t be Catholic and you liked C.S. Lewis.
What changed …?
“The Bible isn’t supernatural.”
I don’t think you mean that. Don’t you mean rather that it isn’t magic? If it’s inspired by God, then by definition it is supernatural.
“No wonder it’s only a hop, skip and a jump from that to “spiritual warfare” – warring angels and demons in the air around us who influence our lives, a concept any ancient pagan would be familiar with.”
Spiritual warfare in the NT relates to an experience with which I personally am familiar — the individual and corporate fight to be obedient to God against my/our own sinful nature and circumstances. Paul’s metaphorical weapons are totally apt. He makes clear that this fight has a spiritual dimension with real spiritual beings.
If our Pentecostal friends take it to excess, it is a matter of degree rather than kind (with exceptions*). I might blush at the idea walking through houses holding up a cross “binding the strong man,” but I prefer that to the view that there is no struggle at all, at which point the faith is reduced to a nice self-help program at best.
*The exception being when one attributes all one’s sins to the demons rather than one’s personal choices. This can lapse into the most insidious kind of Gnostic dualism.
“One can cite Early Church Fathers on both sides of the issue. There are some who are clearly young-earth creationists. Meanwhile, there are others who clearly are not, and see the early chapters of Genesis as painting a vast poetic panorama. Some even went as far as considering it to be an extended allegory.”
im — I guess Eastern Orthodox is out, too.
“But to say the sun literally stood still?”
To say that a man actually physically rose from the dead? And had called several other people back to life?!
Why is it reasonable to believe the Almighty creator of the universe is capable of doing one, but not the other?
DD
This thread nearly immediately became all about creationism, young earth, and Genesis. Why? — Urban Otter
Because Young Earth Creationism IS now The Gospel, that’s why.
Christ got thrown under the YEC bus some time ago.
The thing is, neither of them seem to understand that the Bible is written in words, and words require interpretation. You just can’t say, “The Bible says!” and stop, as if that settles the matter. — Urban Otter
Someone I overheard at a party was Army Intel in Iraq. He spoke of talking to Iraqis and how even the most educated and Westernized seemed to have this “wall in their mind”. You could reason with them only so far; sooner or later you would reach a point where “you could see the wall slam down in their mind”, after which there was only “IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! AL’LAH’U AKBAR! AL’LAH’U AKBAR! AL’LAH’U AKBAR!”
Saying “The Bible Says!” and stopping (which settles the matter) is just the Christian version of this same dynamic. The wall in the mind slams down, after which there is only “SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE!”
Thanks for a great topic Mr. Imonk.
Looking at Christ’s life and ministry, can anyone be convinced that He teaches us to go out and assault people with our KJV study bible ?
Or to share The Good News without first having love, compassion and a genuine interest in the people we are evangelizing ?
Your example #2 is a great illustration of using honey to encourage people to be curious about CHrist. Curiosity opens ears and hearts.
Example #1 , the Vinegar Model, a great way to create mistrust and closed minds. Example #1 is the self-important CHristian that “forces Religion on everyone” .
DaveD, you wrote,
You misread badly.
You’re begging the question. You’re assuming that your interpretation of the creation account is the truth. So anyone who isn’t agreeing with your interpretation you can then dismiss (as you have done with my attempts to engage you with substantive questions and arguments) as false. The problem is you haven’t made a convincing case for the criterion you’re using to ascribe “true” to the meaning of Genesis 1-3. And judging by your repeated assertions of what we must believe about Genesis 1-3, I have inferred that your criterion is that the creation account must be read as documentary description. Do you agree?
Sorry, can’t get over it. If I’m riding in a car with you and you insist that a “Stop” sign says “Turn left now!”, I’ll keep trying to correct you even if you tell me to stop playing word games. Being clear and precise with words helps communication and might actually lead to progress in understanding one another. You (and others) are throwing lots of words around that you are using in confused and obscuring ways, especially ‘literal’ and ’symbolic’.
In point of fact, I do read the creation narrative literally, and I’ll not relinquish that term to anyone who happens to mangle it out of all recognition. I also believe that Genesis 1-3 tells the truth about divine creation. What I do not believe–and I stand with Augustine, the Church Fathers, and wiser Christians than me–is that I’m entitled to read more into the narrative, and especially not that it tells us the means of creation, beyond “God did it.”
On the subject of the literal interpretation of Scripture:
Paul wrote — “yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written…” Rom. 3:4
And what is sometimes printed in red, so as to confer special literal interpretation, the words of the Word of God Incarnate, “What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.” Mat. 10: 27
He didn’t say, “What someone heard whispered in his ear thousands of years ago, was written down by someone else, then copied numerous times over the Centuries, and then was preached and interpreted to you by a televangelist, that you proclaim from the housetops.”
No — He said what He said and meant just that.
Again — “Let every man be a liar, but God be true.”
No — I’m not outside on my roof right now.
The Bible is like a telescope. If a man looks through his telescope, then he sees worlds beyond; but if he looks at his telescope, then he does not see anything but that. The Bible is a thing to be looked through, to see that which is beyond.
— Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887)
“Surf, Still waiting for that “really” special revelation you must be receiving [cough, cough, cough…]”
Benji — Just click on my handle, and look around.
Josh,
I have used no confusing terms.
The word literal means: “in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not FIGUARATIVE or METAPHORICAL” That is how I read and understand the Creation account. I have mangled nothing. You don’t get the option of “relinquishing” anything to me as you never had a grasp of it in the first place. Yet, you have obsessed over that word while steadfastly [Mod Edit} ignoring the point.
You accuse me of adding things to the narrative.[Mod edit] You are the one defending the idea that even though the Bible says “then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” it doesn’t really [Mod edit] mean that. What it means is that over billions of years monkeys turned into man. One is literal, the words mean what they say. The other view means that the account is not an accurate portrayal of how man came to be but is representative or is symbollic [sic] (allegorical,emblematic, figurative).
These are dictionary definitions and thesaurus entries for these words. [Mod edit]
If the Creation account does not mean what it says (dirt, hand, breath) and the events did not happen at least close to the way described, why believe Jesus’ life, miracles, death and ressurection when it is just as likely to be inaccurate and simply illustrating some idea?
Science says that those things can’t happen either, so why not relegate those to the level of metaphors and good examples? I can’t get much more clear than that. I’ve said so repeatedly but you ignore the point to try to prove how much smarter you are than I.
You won’t answer it though. [Mod edit]. There has been no “substantive questions and arguments” just ways to not answer: Did God form man with His own hands or not? If you say “Not, because some scientists say so.” the next question is “Why believe in the ressurection, most scientists say that’s not true either.”
DD
DD:
Pretty much the most personally insulting post I’ve ever allowed on here, and that with a record amount of editing. Don’t try again, because you are done in this thread. Since you’ve called your conversation partner about every insulting term I can think of short of profanity, I don’t know why he would answer you.
For the record, I’m certified to teach AP English. You make the following equation:
“symbolic (allegorical, emblematic, figurative)”
In the study of literature, symbolism is not allegory, not is it “figurative.” Each of these terms has its own use and contribution. Each is used in the Bible. Check the book of Psalms for many examples.
I read one commenter say that he considered Gen 1-3 metaphorical, which would mean, by the way, that he considered Genesis 1-3 to be an image that describes something completely real.
Example: Robert Frost refers to “leaves that curled up and hissed.” The leaves are real. They aren’t a snake, but the metaphor of a snake describes an aspect of the real.
Now, we’re done for this thread.
ms
I do need to read slowly, so thanks for that reminder.
The name’s ‘Joel’, btw.
I’ve ignored no point. I’ve challenged you justify your assumptions. I’ve claimed you’re begging the question. You appear to be unwilling to so. That’s fine, you’re free to do so, but reasoned discussion ceases. You are the one claiming to have the answers. So I ask simple questions, like is the creation narrative intended to be read as a documentary description. You seem to think it is. I think that it is a mistaken way to read it, because Genesis 1-3 doesn’t present itself as that kind of narrative.
You ought to read what I’ve written to you more carefully. I didn’t say that you had added things to the narrative. I said (implied) that you had read more into the narrative. You keep insisting that to be faithful to God and the Bible we must believe that Genesis 1-3 teaches the means God used in creating. But I don’t think you’re listening to what the text actually says–literally, right there in black-and-white on the page, taken at face value–because of the kind of information you derive from it. Great theologians have made the same mistake, too (Luther deriving geocentrism from Joshua 10 and Eccl 1:5), so I’m not calling you stupid. You’re just wrong about the claims you’ve derived from Genesis 1-3 (like Luther was about Josh 10). I’ve given you the reasons I think you’re wrong. Would still be glad to go over those if you’d like.
No. (Do I win a steak dinner?)
You’re wrong because the Bible doesn’t say God made Adam with his hands.
God doesn’t have hands. Jesus said God is spirit (Jn 4:24). Paul says that Jesus himself is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15).
Imonk, you seem to be on the mark. Too many people try to make the Bible an end rather than a means to an end. Once they understand the Bible they are satisfied. However, to understand the Bible is not necessarily to know God. God wants the Bible to lead people to discover God. It is not just a history book or a science text. It is a relational story of how God has interacted with humankind over centuries. It was not intended to be used as a club to strike down heretics or unbelievers but to reveal God’s hand in people’s lives to the end of enjoying relationship with God that leads to transformation of life to a life that never ends. The Bible is one resource to help seekers find that life and that relationship. Let’s appreciate if for that purpose.
“This thread nearly immediately became all about creationism, young earth, and Genesis. Why? — Urban Otter
Because Young Earth Creationism IS now The Gospel, that’s why.” — Headless Unicorn Guy
Yes, I’m beginning to see that now. I had no idea how important YEC has become until I stumbled onto this site. Boy have my eyes been opened.
DaveD, it seems that you are saying that in order to interpret the Bible correctly, you must take all the verses at face value. If it says “day” in Genesis, it must mean one 24-hour block of time. To believe anything else is to deny the accuracy of Scripture, and once you start denying part of the Scripture you might as well go ahead and deny the whole thing.
But DaveD, I can almost guarantee you that you don’t take the entire Bible literally any more than Joel Hunter does.
When Jesus said, “I am the vine, you are the branches,” do you believe that he meant, “I am a long skinny plant that twines around things”? I bet you don’t. You probably interpret this to mean something like, “I am like a vine.”
When Jesus passed the bread around at the Last Supper and said, “This is my body,” do you believe he really meant “This bread, this bread right here, it is my physical body”? You probably don’t. It is likely that you believe Jesus meant something along the lines of, “This bread, it represents my body”.
When Jesus said, “My body is real food,” do you believe that he meant, “You should chew up and swallow my physical body, just like you eat bread”? Probably you don’t. It is more likely that you believe that Jesus meant this metaphorically, not literally.
See, now the question can be asked of you: if you aren’t going to take Jesus’ words literally, why would you bother taking anything else literally? Why not just arbitrarily decide for yourself what verses are true at face value and which are metaphorical, allegorical, hyperbole, or poetical speech?
And then it could be asked of you, “If you aren’t going to take Jesus’ words to mean exactly what he said, when are you going to start believing him?” Then you would be in the same position that you have put old earth creationists or evolutionists in. You would be trying to explain that not every word in the Bible is to be taken at face value, not even the words of Jesus. Then you could be accused of failing to follow Jesus because if you really followed him, you’d “BELIEVE WHAT HE SAID!”
I think you must see the problem here. You can’t believe that others of having a deeply flawed Christianity because they don’t take Genesis literally when you yourself do not take the entire Bible literally either. If you allow the possibility that the Lord himself did not intend everything he said to be interpreted literally, you have to allow that God might not intend for Genesis to be interpreted literally either.
I’m new here and I’m enjoying the points of view.
I find it interesting how some people want the Bible to be more than what it was intended to be. (yes,I believe it’s the inspired word of God) Under the insporation of God, the Bible is a book writen by people of faith for people of faith. It may just be me, but I don’t get why some people try to turn the bible into a science book. An all in one, stop when you get to this far, do not pass go, do not think any more on this topic type of book.
I just don’t get it.
Michael, I pretty much agree with you, but developed an odd feeling while reading this post. This is because a long time ago I ran across a theory of learning styles which I have found useful. Google for “The Programmer’s Stone” to find the original. I have questions about where the originator has taken it, but the original concept is at least useful for some insight. He characterizes two method of learning, dubbed “packing” and “mapping” (and the learners as “packers” or “mappers”. “Packers” tend to learn by collecting (or accumulating) little “packets” of information. “Mappers”, by contrast, tend to learn by making mental maps of information. The originator of the concept seemed to think that most people seem to be packers, and I’d have to agree with him. I’m definitely a mapper, and part of the usefulness of the concept was that it helped me understand my own differences with most people. It’s also far easier to organize teaching along packer lines than mapper lines, which makes encouraging the packer learning style very tempting.
With this in my background, you can probably imagine my feelings while reading this post. You’ve essentially ‘mapped’ (sorry, couldn’t help it) the above concept into two models of Christian interaction, even to the point of using some of the same terminology.
In my mind this leads to a few questions. How much does some of what we see to be ’spiritual’ differences basically boil down to things like this differences of learning style thing? I can see a lot of parallels – lots of packers have no idea that any other learning style is possible, which easily leads to thinking the mappers are just being rebellious. Complicating this, “Why?” in the mouth of a packer may very well be rebellion, refusing to accept the particular information packets that are being directed at them, while “Why?” in the mouth of a mapper is likely to be an attempt to gather more information to improve their mental map of the information packets being directed to them, to make it easier to remember.
On the other side, mappers are likely to be tempted to castigate packers as ignorant or inferior, to ” baptise” mapper thinking and make those who don’t (or, in some cases, can’t) use it second class citizens.
I wonder how God feels about these two Christians? Of course He loves them both, but what is His take on all this? OK maybe a silly question, but a starting point.
I would think God must love Christian A for his faith. His faith in the Word of God. His faith that the Word will unlock hearts and transform people – after all it did so for him, so why not others? Maybe Christian A has some tragedy in his life, and felt swallowed up by a whale like Jonah and now it’s time to shout the truth to the citizens of modern Nineveh. This is raw, simple faith, and God must love that, after all, isn’t this what we are asked to do? Proclaim from the rooftops. Nothing lukewarm and wishy washy here.
I would think that God also must love Christian B for her wisdom about how best to communicate the Bible. Maybe Christian B is like Paul – trying to be all things to all people. Starting from the outside perspective.
Are Christians A and B, just different parts of the Body of Christ or is one right and the other wrong? Or is it the same body part only in better shape, or maybe a little more wrinkled and gray.
It seems to me that while belief in a young earth isn’t required in order to be a Christian, belief in Intelligent Design is.
If evolution occurred, but without an intelligent force behind it, then Genensis and christianity have no basis.
If there is no intelligent force behind evolution then you have to embrace pantheism if you still want to be religious.
NOVA will broadcast an exposé on Intelligent Design on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 on your local PBS station.
The documentary centers around the Dover trial, a fairly recent US District Court of Pennsylvania opinion which, in essence, ruled that Intelligent Design is Christian fundamentalist creationism merely by another name.
Adam the Catholic,
You asked why people tend to try to make the Bible as a science book. I think that one reason is that they were taught that way. I remember when I first was taught the theory of evolution, that my Sunday School teachers couldn’t help me correlate it with what I was learning in school. Nor could my mother. The main response that I recall is “Believe it, its the Bible.”
Other, more speculative reasons, could be fear of the unknown, fear of science and the intellect, and the idea that the body and the physical world is a second class citizen. The only first class citizen is the soul/spirit.
To Oloryn,
I had not heard of the diffence in learning styles, expressed that way. I will remember it, hopefully, and I am sure that I will find it useful. Thank you
“It seems to me that while belief in a young earth isn’t required in order to be a Christian, belief in Intelligent Design is.”
Any person who believes in God believes in the concept of “intelligent design,” but that is not the same thing as affirming Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. ID is not a valid scientific theory. It is at best a philosophy about science. The difference is analogous to that between methodological naturalism (science) and metaphysical naturalism (philosophy).
This gets back to the modernist downfall of upholding scientific rationalism as the only real arbiter of truth. It is so pervasive that a lot of us Americans have no idea that there is any other way for our brains to work. Once people are ensnared in that trap, then of course they need a scientifically provable God to maintain belief. ID is just YEC 2.0. Once it falls apart as just a ‘God-of-the-gaps’ theory, they’ll either fall back on a shred of something else (theistic evolution?) or just become atheists.
I think the notion God being an ‘intelligent designer’ is way too limited. He’s much more than a Super Engineer of Everything. He seems to me to be more of an artist and story teller than a designer.
Evolution by design seems to be a very inefficient system, by mechanical standards. Evolution as an art, however, is so sublime it blows my away.
How do you design love?
Anna A,
I was taught differently growing up. My dad was a biologist and taught all of us kids that if God created the world and all the scientific laws. It’s imposable for science to disprove the existence of God. But he also pointed out that that didn’t meen science would proove his existence eather.
We use to talk about why science may not proove God’s existence if it could not disprove it. I haven’t wrapped my brain around it, but he has alwase said it has something to do God being outside of time. Usualy by this point I’m picking my brain up off the floor.
I don’t think the big problem is going with “Believe it, its the Bible.” I think the problem is with people not understanding what “it” is. This is getting long so I’ll use an example to make my point. Today we understand the phrase “It’s raining cats and dogs” to meen a whole bunch of water is falling from the sky. 2000 years from now will people debate how literal to take that phrase?
Adam the Catholic,
The culture that is so very concerned about young earth creationism, etc. is the kind of evangelical one where I used to live. My best girl friend is still very much involved with that kind of thinking, ie. that if God did NOT create the earth in 6-24 hour days, then that causes the whole Bible to be discredited.
If you were born and raised Catholic, I can understand your confusion, because it doesn’t seem to be on Catholic screens at all. (Just one of the many differences that I noticed when I converted.)
Maybe this has been tried already — if someone has info on it please let me know –
The Intelligent Design case where the court ruled that ID couldn’t be taught in science class because it was philosophy and not science was based on the argument that the existence of God could not be scientifically proven. I believe a case could be successfully argued in a court of law that the Darwinist Origin of Life theory is also philosophy and not science. In order for it to be science there must be more than one example of the process repeating itself, and preferably many examples. There is only one planet that we know of that has generated, supported and/or sustained life. It is therefore not science that life on earth was generated randomly by natural forces.
A successfully argued case would either relegate the Darwinist theory of the Origin of Life to philosophy class with ID, or both would have to be taught side by side in science class.
Surfnetter
Yes indeed! Plus, quantum physics would have to leave the science classroom too. They have some pretty wild theories. Multiverses, anyone?
When was it that philosophy stopped being refered to as a science? I know it use to, but I have no clue when it stopped.
Philosophy is a humanity in any college curricula. Anyway, we/re talking the physical sciences. And quantum physics is based on repeatable results only. The theories are based on those results.
But one example of empirical results never a science makes. They only have one planet, my friends. One planet, no science ….
Unless, of course, someone on this planet has succeeded in creating lifeforms out or inert organic material.
Don’t think they did that one yet, either ….
Mr. Spencer,
I could not find a link to email you so I post this assuming you will moderate it. Forgive me if you think it’s out of line.
I understand that it is your blog and therefore you can do with it what you like and ban who you like. However, you have publicly slandered my name by accusing me of something I did not do. I responded to him in the tone I perceived him responding to me…yet only one of us got called out.
You said “Since you’ve called your conversation partner about every insulting term I can think of short of profanity…” I went back to read my posts just to see what names I had called him. If I had resorted to simply shouting insults, I need to repent. It is NEVER (well, almost never) my intention to insult people without being in kind.
I found “arrogant” in my Feb. 6, 4:17 post which I don’t believe was aimed at him specifically, but the whole host of those who take the attitude described that Creationists are “anti science” or “nuts”. I did accuse him of playing word games, because he liked to focus on my use of one word while ignoring the rest.
I accuse him of word games again latter.
You have publicly slandered my name by accusing me of something I did not do. I responded to him in the tone I perceived him responding to me…yet only one of us got called out.
“I’ll keep trying to correct you even if you tell me to stop playing word games.”
“and I’ll not relinquish that term to anyone who happens to mangle it out of all recognition.”
“DaveD, I should simply retreat into my erroneous, flippant, game-playing ways and let your serious declaration stand without further challenge.” The sarcasm wasn’t insulting at all.
Referring to my arguments as “questionable”, “waiting to fall like a single line of dominoes.” “begging the question” Certainly, these weren’t insulting.
However, my responses were.
David DeVore
Anna A,
Speaking for myself and from what I’ve seen, but not for every Catholic. I’m not all that concerned with the “how” God did it. I just care that God did it.
If the world took only six days to make. Thats great! If God took six billion years to make the world. Thats great! I don’t care that much about how God did it. I’m just prase his name he did.
But some say this way or that way goes against the Bible. Maybe. All I know is that most people don’t understand Shakespeare. The english is too old. But at the same time, a book that is 4000 years old(give or take). Everyone clames to understand a translation of that 4000 year old book.
Interesting post
I have a feeling that what you are talking about relates to the Nicolaitan Spirit spoken of in Rev:2:15 , This is especially timely as today I was at a gathering where a prophet (who has twice before prophesied judgment over the church which came to pass) prophesied that this spirit is now under judgment, world wide. Church be warned
Regarding the young/old earth issue I wondered about that until one day I just prayed for God to show me the truth, then shortly after I started stumbling over all sorts of scientific evidence for a young earth
A couple of years ago The Chalcedon Foundation ( I believe ) did a study where they polled 10,000 pastors and 10,000 secular scientists on their belief in evolution, believe it or not more pastors believe in evolution than secular scientists
“then shortly after I started stumbling over all sorts of scientific evidence for a young earth”
I and some friends went looking and came up empty. Well we did find a lot of claims but they were all suspect at best and just plain wrong most of the time. But that was what I and some others found.
Do you have a link to somewhere that I could see what evidence you’re refering to? I suspect that iMonk doesn’t want this thread to devolve into a list of science arguments.
First thing to keep in mind about Intelligent Design:
Are we talking ID, the heir to a 400-year-old tradition of Natural Theology? Not so much science as a philosophical foundation for science?
Or…
Are we talking ID (nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean know what I mean), the latest coat of camouflage paint for Young Earth Creationism?
“believe it or not more pastors believe in evolution than secular scientists”
Of course you have to define the term. Evolution is one of the most overloaded terms in the US just now. Similar to health insurance. Very few people in the general population who use the term are referring to any form of insurance. What they really mean is health CARE.
Wow Michael another excellent post, you’re on a roll.
When you described the second Christian I thought of St Francis De Sales. He was reputed to be especially charitable and empathetic in speech.
Surfnetter,
http://reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/gee_vos/gee_vos.trueandtruth.pdf
I hope you will consider taking a look.
Grace to you,
Benji
This thread nearly immediately became all about creationism, young earth, and Genesis. Why?
Perhaps because Secular Humanism has become the Other that Protestants compare themselves to?
I’m probably butchering some of what I’ve read in Alistair’s “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”, but it seems that Protestants at times have a tendency to identify themselves by what they’re not. In the early years, it was “We’re not Roman Catholics”. Nowadays, in Western Christianity, it’s “We’re not secular humanists” (which is perhaps why it is now easier for us to be friendly with the Roman Catholics). And given how integral Darwinism is to secular humanism, belief in YEC becomes a definite “I’m not a secular humanist” badge.
And if this is so, perhaps what is called for isn’t putting down the YECs, or defending them, but concentrating on putting our focus, not on the things on earth that we’re not, but on the One we’re called to follow.
Benji — I looked — don’t know why — but I looked.
Does the guy who wrote that know exactly what kind of a pin that the myriad and precisely numbered angels were dancing upon in antiquity? %~)
Wow. I made it all the way to Feb 9, 9:05 PM. IM: That was a long ride.
Unfortunately I need someone to explain to me, a common, confused wanderer whether this dog ever caught it’s tail?
T.O.
Incidentally. The article that started this all out was quite enjoyable. I have savored watching your theories play out in the discussions ensuing.
As a young Christian. I have a really difficult time considering myself to be as worthy of God’s grace as many of you seem to be. Surely I cannot be as worthy as the Christian wordsmiths who have earned my respect throughout this blog.
Yet I continue to struggle in spite of the arguments. It seems to me that regardless of whether you are Young World, Old World, etc. The fact remains, the bible is for the educated and the uneducated, alike. It is written for the common person as well as for the uncommon person. The word of God does not come with a study manual. Interpretations of the bible, including ancient translations of the text are all creations of man, not of God. Our opinions are fallible and errant.
The bible is the word of God, to me. It was intended for me. It was intended for you. If the word of God causes me to repent, seek Christ, seek only to do God’s will, there is no manner of commentary that will come between me and my understanding of the word of God.
I have a lot to learn about the bible, yet I have hope in the promises God has made. I have faith in Christ, and I know what is required of me. I have faith that God will complete the work he has begun in me.
This being said I will probably never understand the entire bible. This is of no consequence to my salvation. God does not need to reveal Himself to me in order for me to have faith he created me.
Stay with me here. I am trying to bring it full circle. From my humble perspective, it would seem that many of you are so tied up with rhetorical positioning that you missed the point that even though man’s heart heart is always sinful all of the time, you were able to learn enough of God’s word to leap out into the world of this blog to boldly attempt to defend your understanding of God’s word it as if it belonged to you, alone.
The bible, therefore, may currently be your anchor, but at some point, you will fall, and it will become a starting place.
I, for one, thank God every day for this.
Tim O
I herd a quote once that went something like “God is shallow enough for children to wade in him and deep enough for scholars to dround in him”
Emerging Catholic — It is quite paradoxical, isn’t it? The task is to be a free thinking spiritual being and yet it seems we have these men (and some women) of the Magisterium who seem to spend much of their time deciding for us what we can and can’t think.
I am of the mind of Joseph Campbell on this, when he compares religion to a marsupial pouch “womb with a view”; the Goal is to one day leave the safety of the “pouch”.
Or, as is oft heard in 12-Step circles –
“Religion is for people who are afraid of going to hell; spirituality is for those who have already been there.”
Dave D:
>You have publicly slandered my name…
Actually, you didn’t use your name till this post, so that’s a fail.
Nothing he said to you was personally insulting, but what you said to him was. You’re free to disagree.
Moderating my blog comments isn’t slander. I’m the umpire. You can argue balls and strikes as long as I want to put up with it.
But no one came to the game to listen to the argument.
ms