Sunday, September 21, 2014
Answers for Dan
I a long meandering and, at this point, fairly incoherent comment thread elsewhere I asked Dan some questions. Dan, shockingly, asked me some in return. At the time I was too busy to respond with anything more than "I'll answer your questions when I can.". Given the direction the thread took, I chose to answer said questions here so as to avoid causing any more confusion over there. This way, I can do what I said I'd do, as well as preempt the "You never answer my questions" whine. So here are the questions copied from the other thread.
Dan; “Do you think it is provable that God exists?”
Me; Yes, I believe that it is possible to prove to a reasonable person to a reasonable degree of certainty that God exists. I suspect that what I consider to be a reasonable degree of proof will not be acceptable to you, but I do believe it to be provable.
Dan; “Do you think God sometimes commands (commanded) people to destroy whole nations, including children and babies?”
Me; I believe that the OT records instances where God commanded people to do all sorts of things that seem, by our standards, to be strange or unreasonable. I believe (as do you) that God is God and that He can do what He chooses.
Dan: “Do you think God created the world in six days, ~6,000 years ago?”
Me; Let me preface this by saying that God is God and He is capable of engineering His creation any way He chooses to. With that said, after spending some time looking at this issue a while ago I came to the conclusion that I believe that it is possible that God literally created everything is six literal days, and that the text of Genesis supports this view. I also believe that it is possible that the six days were not 24 hour days, but undefined periods of time. Personally I believe the important phrase is “God created”, the rest is just details. I find it strange that Christians have no trouble affirming that god created everything from nothing, but quibble about how long it might have taken. To be blunt, I can live with either option, and don’t get too worked up about it. As to the age, I am perfectly comfortable with a God who can speak the universe into existence being able to create said universe with the appearance of age. I see no reason to believe that God’s power to create is somehow limited. Personally, it’s not a topic I get too worked up about. But thank you for presuming that you knew more about my views than I do.
Dan; “Do you think originally there were only two people, a literal Adam and Eve?”
Me; I see no reason to doubt the existence of a literal Adam and Eve. I also see no reason to presume that God stopped after Adam and Eve. I know it’s repetitive, but I believe the “God created” is the important part; I’ll quite comfortable to leave the details to God.
Dan; “Do you admit there is no data to support any of that, and in fact, data which would contradict it?”
Me; So
Dan; “Do YOU think we can say, “I know as a matter of fact that God’s opinion on abortion, war and homosexuality are…”?”
Me, I think that we can say that the Bible is the primary means for God to communicate what He wants to humanity. I further think that we can read what the Bible plainly says about topics such as sexuality, marriage, war, and life. From that I believe that one can reasonably conclude that God has given us some guidelines about how best to live in a way that pleases Him. I think we also see the results when people behave in ways that seem to be at odds with what pleases God. Given that it seems reasonable that one can discern God’s “opinions” on any number of topics. Of course it’s not demeaning at all to refer to God’s standards as “opinions”.
Dan; “Do you think it is possible to know perfectly what God’s Ways are on some topics?”
Me; I think that it is possible to know what God’s ways are on a number of topics. I think it is also possible to use the principles that inform the topics that are clearer, in order to come to reasonable conclusions on those which are less explicit.
Dan; “Which topics?”
Me; I’d suggest that there are a number of topics on which scripture is reasonably clear, and that there are principles that allow us to construct guidelines on others. As to a list, I see no reason to provide one, as it will just encourage you to nitpick about what is or is not on the list.
OK, I did what I said, and answered your questions. I am pretty sure I can predict your response to my answers. So, while I may or may not allow you to post comments, don't expect much beyond the answers I've given. I know I probably can't prove any of this to your satisfaction, and I don't care. I also know that your recent stance that the Bible is NOT the primary source of knowledge about God will preclude any sort or rational conversation about any of this.
So, if you expect anything more from me, I expect that you will make an actual argument to counter what I have said supported by the same level of proof you expect of others. If you won't, don't be surprised to see your opinions disappear.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Do we make things too hard?
2 Kings 5
Naaman Healed of Leprosy
1 Now Naaman was commander of the army of the king of Aram. He was a great man in the sight of his master and highly regarded, because through him the LORD had given victory to Aram. He was a valiant soldier, but he had leprosy.[a]
2 Now bands of raiders from Aram had gone out and had taken captive a young girl from Israel, and she served Naaman’s wife. 3 She said to her mistress, “If only my master would see the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy.”
4 Naaman went to his master and told him what the girl from Israel had said. 5 “By all means, go,” the king of Aram replied. “I will send a letter to the king of Israel.” So Naaman left, taking with him ten talents[b] of silver, six thousand shekels[c] of gold and ten sets of clothing. 6 The letter that he took to the king of Israel read: “With this letter I am sending my servant Naaman to you so that you may cure him of his leprosy.”
7 As soon as the king of Israel read the letter, he tore his robes and said, “Am I God? Can I kill and bring back to life? Why does this fellow send someone to me to be cured of his leprosy? See how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me!”
8 When Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn his robes, he sent him this message: “Why have you torn your robes? Have the man come to me and he will know that there is a prophet in Israel.” 9 So Naaman went with his horses and chariots and stopped at the door of Elisha’s house. 10 Elisha sent a messenger to say to him, “Go, wash yourself seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed.”
11 But Naaman went away angry and said, “I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy. 12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Couldn’t I wash in them and be cleansed?” So he turned and went off in a rage.
13 Naaman’s servants went to him and said, “My father, if the prophet had told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when he tells you, ‘Wash and be cleansed’!” 14 So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times, as the man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and became clean like that of a young boy.
Last Sunday this was the text of the sermon, and it got me thinking. I went past the obvious things to the simple.
I was struck by Naaman’s attitude toward the offer of healing; he was going to get exactly what he wanted, free for the asking, but he got angry. Why? Well, he wanted healing, but he wanted it to be difficult. Or impressive, or whatever his mind thought it should be. Instead he gets, “Go wash in the river”.
His servants tell him “If he’d asked you to do something hard you would have been done by now, go wash you idiot”
He did, and it worked.
Isn’t this like us?
How often do we pass up what’s right in front of us, because we want it to be more difficult? Is this why we have folks that think they can work their way into God’s kingdom? Is grace really too easy?
These are all good questions, but what really struck me is how this applies to how we read and interpret scripture.
How often do we skip over the plain meaning of the text, because it’s just too simple? It seems as though we just aren’t satisfied to read and accept the text as it is. We need Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic dictionaries, concordances, interlinears, and all kinds of other tools to look for something beneath the surface. I’m not saying these things are bad, nor am I saying that there aren’t layers of meaning in the scriptures. What I am saying is that I think that we’re afraid of the simple. We want there to be complexity. We want that feeling of discovering the hidden meaning. Like Naaman, we want it to be harder than it needs to be.
Personally, I think it has something to do with our desire to be in control, but I’m not sure that’s the entire story.
Which leaves one question. Why?
Naaman Healed of Leprosy
1 Now Naaman was commander of the army of the king of Aram. He was a great man in the sight of his master and highly regarded, because through him the LORD had given victory to Aram. He was a valiant soldier, but he had leprosy.[a]
2 Now bands of raiders from Aram had gone out and had taken captive a young girl from Israel, and she served Naaman’s wife. 3 She said to her mistress, “If only my master would see the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy.”
4 Naaman went to his master and told him what the girl from Israel had said. 5 “By all means, go,” the king of Aram replied. “I will send a letter to the king of Israel.” So Naaman left, taking with him ten talents[b] of silver, six thousand shekels[c] of gold and ten sets of clothing. 6 The letter that he took to the king of Israel read: “With this letter I am sending my servant Naaman to you so that you may cure him of his leprosy.”
7 As soon as the king of Israel read the letter, he tore his robes and said, “Am I God? Can I kill and bring back to life? Why does this fellow send someone to me to be cured of his leprosy? See how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me!”
8 When Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn his robes, he sent him this message: “Why have you torn your robes? Have the man come to me and he will know that there is a prophet in Israel.” 9 So Naaman went with his horses and chariots and stopped at the door of Elisha’s house. 10 Elisha sent a messenger to say to him, “Go, wash yourself seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed.”
11 But Naaman went away angry and said, “I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy. 12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Couldn’t I wash in them and be cleansed?” So he turned and went off in a rage.
13 Naaman’s servants went to him and said, “My father, if the prophet had told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when he tells you, ‘Wash and be cleansed’!” 14 So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times, as the man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and became clean like that of a young boy.
Last Sunday this was the text of the sermon, and it got me thinking. I went past the obvious things to the simple.
I was struck by Naaman’s attitude toward the offer of healing; he was going to get exactly what he wanted, free for the asking, but he got angry. Why? Well, he wanted healing, but he wanted it to be difficult. Or impressive, or whatever his mind thought it should be. Instead he gets, “Go wash in the river”.
His servants tell him “If he’d asked you to do something hard you would have been done by now, go wash you idiot”
He did, and it worked.
Isn’t this like us?
How often do we pass up what’s right in front of us, because we want it to be more difficult? Is this why we have folks that think they can work their way into God’s kingdom? Is grace really too easy?
These are all good questions, but what really struck me is how this applies to how we read and interpret scripture.
How often do we skip over the plain meaning of the text, because it’s just too simple? It seems as though we just aren’t satisfied to read and accept the text as it is. We need Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic dictionaries, concordances, interlinears, and all kinds of other tools to look for something beneath the surface. I’m not saying these things are bad, nor am I saying that there aren’t layers of meaning in the scriptures. What I am saying is that I think that we’re afraid of the simple. We want there to be complexity. We want that feeling of discovering the hidden meaning. Like Naaman, we want it to be harder than it needs to be.
Personally, I think it has something to do with our desire to be in control, but I’m not sure that’s the entire story.
Which leaves one question. Why?
Monday, November 28, 2011
Presbyterian type thoughts
This weeks sermon was on the Samaritan woman at the well. When the "you have had 5 husbands and the man you live with now is not your husband" part came up, we got an interesting take. I dare say that most of us assumed that the woman was promiscuous, or loose, or that she was the problem. However, the suggestion was made that this might not be the case. What if she had been abandoned by these 5 men, and the guy she was living with was her only means of support? True, there is really no textural support either way, but it certainly gives a new perspective on her reaction.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Apology
I'd like to do something that doesn't happen very often here in blog world, and that is apologize.
For reasons that really aren't relevant, nor something for public consumption, I have been less pleasant that I normally try to be.
Unfortunately Dan has been the target of much of my less than civil responses.
So Dan, I'd like to apologize for my tone of late.
We disagree, but I've been more disagreeable than necessary.
I'm sorry.
For reasons that really aren't relevant, nor something for public consumption, I have been less pleasant that I normally try to be.
Unfortunately Dan has been the target of much of my less than civil responses.
So Dan, I'd like to apologize for my tone of late.
We disagree, but I've been more disagreeable than necessary.
I'm sorry.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Lutheran type thoughts.
Yesterday was one of my Lutheran Sundays, and as such they were celebrating Christ the King Sunday.
The text the pastor preached on was Matthe25:31-46, the sheep and the goats. While I was listening I had a couple of thoughts.
The first is a result of a bunch of research I did on that chapter a few years ago. Simply put these parables are primarily about judgment. To boil it down, at some point Christ is going to judge us all and some are going to spend eternity with Him, and the rest are going to spend eternity in a decidedly less comfortable place.
The second is so simple I think most of us just look past it. Many will use the sheep and goats to justify what is called the "social gospel". Essentially, if you feed the poor, clothe the naked, etc, you'll get into heaven. Now, before the lynch mob comes out let me say that not only are these things good things that we are called to do, but I actually participate in them myself. Back to yesterday. As the pastor was preaching I was struck by a really simple thought. The judgment had already taken place. The sheep were separated from the goats first thing. The sheep weren't saved because the did certain things, the did certain things because they were saved. The first words Jesus says to the sheep are;
"34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world."
Clearly these folks were "in" long before they actually did anything.
It doesn't seem like it should be this simple, and maybe it's not. But the more I thought about it the more it makes sense. Whatever we do is in response to God's grace in choosing the sheep, not as a means to get chosen.
Anyway, just some post sermon thoughts.
The text the pastor preached on was Matthe25:31-46, the sheep and the goats. While I was listening I had a couple of thoughts.
The first is a result of a bunch of research I did on that chapter a few years ago. Simply put these parables are primarily about judgment. To boil it down, at some point Christ is going to judge us all and some are going to spend eternity with Him, and the rest are going to spend eternity in a decidedly less comfortable place.
The second is so simple I think most of us just look past it. Many will use the sheep and goats to justify what is called the "social gospel". Essentially, if you feed the poor, clothe the naked, etc, you'll get into heaven. Now, before the lynch mob comes out let me say that not only are these things good things that we are called to do, but I actually participate in them myself. Back to yesterday. As the pastor was preaching I was struck by a really simple thought. The judgment had already taken place. The sheep were separated from the goats first thing. The sheep weren't saved because the did certain things, the did certain things because they were saved. The first words Jesus says to the sheep are;
"34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world."
Clearly these folks were "in" long before they actually did anything.
It doesn't seem like it should be this simple, and maybe it's not. But the more I thought about it the more it makes sense. Whatever we do is in response to God's grace in choosing the sheep, not as a means to get chosen.
Anyway, just some post sermon thoughts.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
No Need for a Title
"I engage in these conversations in an effort by God's grace through the leadership of the Holy Spirit to learn how and improve on doing this study the correct way and to learn from my mistakes to move away from doing it the incorrect way."
“Each time that someone suggests "well, I (hoity toity, wonderful ME) rely upon the Holy Spirit, NOT my reason, while YOU merely rely upon your flawed reason..." each time someone suggests that sort of verbal vomit, they are exposing their arrogance and hypocrisy and all-around plain goofiness, not to mention a bit of diabolical divisiveness. Stop it.”
“…you give a bullshit answer that implies YOU begin with the Spirit of God, but I/we only rely upon our reason. That is NOT of grace, it is NOT respectful. It is slimy and diabolical and excrement-filled. It is not the sort of behavior that becomes Christians.”
“Each time that someone suggests "well, I (hoity toity, wonderful ME) rely upon the Holy Spirit, NOT my reason, while YOU merely rely upon your flawed reason..." each time someone suggests that sort of verbal vomit, they are exposing their arrogance and hypocrisy and all-around plain goofiness, not to mention a bit of diabolical divisiveness. Stop it.”
“…you give a bullshit answer that implies YOU begin with the Spirit of God, but I/we only rely upon our reason. That is NOT of grace, it is NOT respectful. It is slimy and diabolical and excrement-filled. It is not the sort of behavior that becomes Christians.”
Thursday, October 20, 2011
What Beliefs Identify a Christian? #2
I earlier posted about a fellow blogger who believes that there are certain beliefs that are common to all who claim to be Christian, and that those beliefs are so common that we can assume them to be true in all cases. I previously offered evidence that would tend to dispute that claim, now I offer more. These quotes are from a pastor of a mainline protestant Christian denomination, so I guess we could assume he is a Christian.
"Did Jesus Die for the Sins of Humanity, or Not? Not."
"Adam and Eve supposedly sinned in the garden and as punishment all their descendents are infused with a shot of original sin. Since God the Father needs to have his honor restored (talk about patriarchal nonsense) he kills his Son (who in the weird Trinitarian formula is really the same guy, sort of) so that everyone on planet Earth doesn't spend eternity in hell. If anyone takes twenty minutes thinking this through they can see that the whole structure is absurd. Beginning with the fact that Adam and Eve never existed."
"The great Christian doctrines such as Trinity, Creation, Sin, Christology, Atonement, and Eschatology, are no longer great. They are shadows. They don't speak of reality on a grand scale like they once purported to do. They may fill an emotional or psychological niche here and there. For more and more people they hold little interest or suasion. The world has passed these doctrines by in the way that science has left alchemy."
To be clear, my point is not that I deny or question whether this gentleman is or is not a Christian. Nor is it a desire to define, limit, exclude, or include anyone from anything. It is simply to point out that as we look at what is called Christianity these days that there is less and less that one can take for granted in terms of commonly held beliefs.
"Did Jesus Die for the Sins of Humanity, or Not? Not."
"Adam and Eve supposedly sinned in the garden and as punishment all their descendents are infused with a shot of original sin. Since God the Father needs to have his honor restored (talk about patriarchal nonsense) he kills his Son (who in the weird Trinitarian formula is really the same guy, sort of) so that everyone on planet Earth doesn't spend eternity in hell. If anyone takes twenty minutes thinking this through they can see that the whole structure is absurd. Beginning with the fact that Adam and Eve never existed."
"The great Christian doctrines such as Trinity, Creation, Sin, Christology, Atonement, and Eschatology, are no longer great. They are shadows. They don't speak of reality on a grand scale like they once purported to do. They may fill an emotional or psychological niche here and there. For more and more people they hold little interest or suasion. The world has passed these doctrines by in the way that science has left alchemy."
To be clear, my point is not that I deny or question whether this gentleman is or is not a Christian. Nor is it a desire to define, limit, exclude, or include anyone from anything. It is simply to point out that as we look at what is called Christianity these days that there is less and less that one can take for granted in terms of commonly held beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)