Continuing on, Chan says on page 136:
“My thoughts are not your thoughts.” It means we think differently! He hasn’t asked us to figure out why He does the things He does. We can’t. We are not capable. Our thinking is inferior to His. Let’s not think that spending a bit of time meditating on the mysteries of the universe places us on a level that allows us to call God into question. Our God is not a person who is slightly more intelligent: His thoughts are infinitely higher than ours. Knowing that the gap is so large, shouldn’t we put our energy toward submitting rather than analyzing? It is natural-no, it is expected that there will be times when you won’t figure Him out.”
From p. 135.
“the fact is Scripture is filled with divine actions that don’t fit our human standards of logic or morality. But they don’t need to, because we are the clay and He is the potter. We need to stop trying to domesticate God or confine Him to tidy categories and compartments that reflect our human sentiments rather than His inexplicable ways.”
From p. 136 again.
“It’s incredibly arrogant to pick and choose which incomprehensible truths we embrace. No one wants to ditch Gods plan of redemption, even though it doesn’t make sense to us. Neither should we erase God’s revealed plan of punishment because it doesn’t sit well with us. As soon as we do this, we are putting God’s actions in submission tour own reasoning, which is a ridiculous thing for clay to do.”
From p. 162, another prayer.
Forgive me , Lord, for wanting to erase all the things in scripture that don’t sit well with me. Forgive me for trying to hide some of your actions to make You more palatable to the world. Forgive me for trying to make you fit my standards of justice and goodness and love. You are God; You are good; I don’t always understand You, but I love You. Thank you for who You are.
Finally (for now) this from p. 162.
“First, God is love, but He also defines what love is. We don’t have the license to define love according to our own standards and sensibilities.”
I’ll add more as I have time, but mostly go read the whole book.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
1. Chan says... God has the right to do WHATEVER He pleases.
Okay, no one disagrees. It's part of being God is that God can do as God pleases.
Does this mean that God will ask you to cut up a baby into 15 sections and feed those sections to the family dog? Does this mean that God will rape you? Does this mean that God will ask you to commit atrocities?
Most Christians (I believe) would agree that, no, God WON'T do those sorts of things because those sorts of things are against God's nature. God CAN do whatever God wants, being God. But there are some things that most Christians agree God WON'T do.
Agreed?
2. Chan says... He closes the introduction with a prayer that we should all spend more time praying.
“God, I want to know what is true.
Okay. No one disagrees. This is what we do at my church and in my family and in the circles we travel. I'm sure it's what you pray at your church as well.
Agreed?
3. Then Chan engages in some speculation...
“What if? What if God decided to do this? What if God, as the sovereign creator of the universe, decided to create “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction”? And what if He did so in order to “show His wrath” and “make known His power”? And what if it’s His way of showing those He saves just how great His glory and mercy is? What would you do if He chose to do this? Refuse to believe in Him? Refuse to be a “vessel of mercy’? Does that make any sense? Would you refuse to follow Him? Really? Is that wise?
WHAT IF God "tells" you to rape a puppy or eat a baby. Would you refuse to follow that voice? Yes! Why? Because God won't ask us to do evil. This is a fundamental Christian truth. IF we THINK we hear a god saying "DO this evil thing," we can safely know that it is NOT THE GOD of justice, mercy and love because such behavior is not in God's character.
4. Chan engages in some distracting thinking, saying...
“What if is a probing question that forces us to face our inflated view of our own logic? It’s another way of asking just how high is my view of God.”
ONE WAY of looking at it is to face our inflated view of our own logic. BUT, another way of looking at it is, ARE we being true to God's ways as revealed by God to humanity? God has revealed God's nature to us in God's Word, in all of creation and in our very hearts and minds. We can KNOW that killing babies is a moral wrong because the Bible tells us so and our very own conscience confirms this. And so, EVEN IF an "angel" or EVEN IF "god" appears to us asking us to kill a baby, we can safely know that this is not of God because it is contrary to God's nature.
This is what I'm hearing Chan grievously ignoring thus far, based on these few quotes. Does he deal with this angle at all??
5. Chan said...
Our thinking is inferior to His. Let’s not think that spending a bit of time meditating on the mysteries of the universe places us on a level that allows us to call God into question.
No one is saying we can perfectly understand an infinite God. Which is WHY we shouldn't second guess basic morality. "Yes, yes, I KNOW that generally speaking, it's wrong to kill babies and rape puppies, but MAYBE GOD is wanting us to do this...!"
NO! God does not want us to engage in evil. This is fundamental Christian ethics.
6. Chan...
“the fact is Scripture is filled with divine actions that don’t fit our human standards of logic or morality. But they don’t need to, because we are the clay and He is the potter.
This sounds more like nihilism rather than Christianity. IF we have gleaned an understanding that SOMETIMES it is good to do what is fundamentally evil, THEN OUR UNDERSTANDING is off. To give up and say, "well, I'm sure god must want me to rape that puppy and kill that baby..." is moral and ethical nihilism, NOT Christianity.
Yes, we are not capable of totally understanding an infinite God, but that does not mean we ought not use our God-given reasoning. God forbid! That could lead to all manner of evil in God's name.
7. Chan...
“It’s incredibly arrogant to pick and choose which incomprehensible truths we embrace.
No, it's not arrogant. WE ARE CALLED TO SEEK GOD'S WAYS. It's basic adult Christian meditation, contemplation and study. We ARE CALLED to use our reason and NOT blindly follow fools or our own foolish nature.
Craig...
I’ll add more as I have time, but mostly go read the whole book.
I'm not especially impressed by his reasoning thus far. I see no compelling reason to read a book that contains more of this.
Chan appears to be endorsing a very shallow, emotion- and culture-based approach to "growing" in faith. And, of course, "growing" would be the wrong term to use in reference to an approach that endorses NOT seeking God's ways, but accepting blindly what is spoon-fed to us by other mortals telling us, "THIS is the right meaning of this passage."
Does he ever get any deeper into his thinking? WHAT OF our call to "come, let us reason together," our call to follow in the demonstrated steps of Christ? What of our God-given reasoning and respectful debate about how best to interpret a passage and handle disagreements? Where does he address that, or does he at all?
These comments go to the heart of my issues with Dan T regarding passages he tears out of the Bible. He likes to say that he doesn't remove anything, but if one dismisses a passage as being "un-God-like" or contrary to other passages, or not to be taken literally without any explanation for why the passages are in there, well, it is clear that Dan is judging God against his own standards for how a loving and perfect God should act, rather than understanding the God that is described in Scripture. His claim is that it conflicts with the Bible's description of God as loving. But the question remains, how many such passages are needed before we can legitimately ascribe such characteristics to Him? I think it is pretty clear that there is a plethora of such passages that makes it mandatory for one to do just that.
The whole issue is akin to a father of a less than perfect child. The child might require some discipline, but it doesn't mitigate his love for his child.
Or any human being who is forced to defend his life or the life of another, either in street crime or in war. Does his willingness to engage in such violence suggest he is a violent, less than loving human being? Of course not. It is merely a matter of doing what must be done.
In this same way, God has engaged in taking human life in a variety of ways, either by miraculous act or by having His Chosen People do it for Him. Human life is His to take if He so desires, regardless of our ability to understand why.
In a similar vein, God has allowed that which is not perfectly aligned with His Will due to the imperfect specimens with which He has to deal. Therefor, He has tolerated behaviors that we might find reprehensible and beyond our ability to fathom a reason.
None of this makes God any less than the perfect God of love and justice, or the God of perfect love and justice, simply because we might not "get it".
Dan, however, rejects it because he doesn't get it, and feels his notion of God's character is accurate. But it is only close to accurate by rejecting that which the Bible describes as acts and commands of God that trouble Dan.
Wow! Due to personal issues that I needed to resolve in the middle of my previous comment, I see that Dan has taken time to respond. At a glance, I can see he is engaging in the same sort of dishonest/illogical arguments so typical of him.
"Does this mean that God will ask you to cut up a baby into 15 sections and feed those sections to the family dog? Does this mean that God will rape you?"
First off, any question suggesting what God "will" do is silly if it isn't something the Bible states that He will do. So, Dan like to play in the most extreme end of the hypothetical pool and pretend such splashing about is legitimate debate. It isn't. No one amongst our group of blogging debaters has ever suggested that God will or might command anyone to do anything like cut up a baby or that He would rape anyone. We have only defended those passages that have stated what God DID do as informing us of His nature. It's kind of a straw man-type argument that Dan erects to make a point he can't otherwise defend: that the passages that trouble him are legitimate records of actual events, including God's part in them.
More later....
Marshall...
He likes to say that he doesn't remove anything, but if one dismisses a passage as being "un-God-like" or contrary to other passages, or not to be taken literally without any explanation for why the passages are in there, well, it is clear that Dan is judging God against his own standards
BS. I'm enaged in Bible study and see NO RATIONAL OR BIBLICAL REASON to take YOUR hunch as to what YOU THINK the "correct" interpretation is as a very good hunch. I much prefer my own hunch, which seems logical, is rational given what we know about the real world and what we know about ethical, moral behavior and which is internally consistent. The problem with YOUR hunches, Marshall, is that they lack internal consistency.
That I disagree with your hunches is NOT to say that I'm judging God by my own standards. That's just false, it's BS and it's poor reasoning, not to mention poor exegesis.
IF one says, "Look at that parable - it MUST be a factually literal story OR OTHERWISE you are removing God's truths from the Bible..." one is not responding rationally. IF the story was written as a parable, then it is important to READ it as a parable. IF a story is written with hyperbole, then it is important to READ it as hyperbole. Pointing out that a section does not appear to be a literal text, but rather symbolic in one way or another, that does not diminish the Bible.
What you all continue to fail to wrap your mind around is DISAGREEING about a writing style is not equivalent to dismissing the bible, ignoring the Bible, or judging God by our standards. Craig, I expect more out of you than that sort of inch-deep reasoning. Surely you see the big hole in that argument, don't you?
I believe that your responses support the point that Chan is making.
Each and every response you have given is focused on how it looks to YOU.
"Does this mean that God will ask you to cut up a baby into 15 sections and feed those sections to the family dog? Does this mean that God will rape you?"
This is fairly typical of your style, make up some bizarre heinous thing and suggest that God might command someone to engage in that behavior.
"Does this mean that God will ask you to commit atrocities?"
This means God is God and He gets to define right and wrong.
"But there are some things that most Christians agree God WON'T do."
Are you suggesting that God is bound by what "most" christians agree to.
"Then Chan engages in some speculation..."
No, actually he asks some questions, Questions that you are unwilling to even consider, let alone answer. So, then you trot out the tired, useless, stupid "rape puppies" load of crap. That's some deep thinking there.
"Chan engages in some distracting thinking, saying..."
Fascinating that you consider thinking about how you relate to God distracting. To each his own.
"This is what I'm hearing Chan grievously ignoring thus far, based on these few quotes. Does he deal with this angle at all??"
This is why I suggest you read the entire book (actually since you doubt his understanding of God's love perhaps his first book as well) because it seems as though you have chosen to interpret these remarks through some sort of preconception you have. Yes, he does deal with your concerns quite effectively.
"Let’s not think that spending a bit of time meditating on the mysteries of the universe places us on a level that allows us to call God into question."
And yet you seem comfortable doing exactly this.
"This sounds more like nihilism rather than Christianity."
Actually it sounds more like trusting God than nihilism. Again, you make my point. If it doesn't pass the Dan "smell test" then it must be wrong.
"“It’s incredibly arrogant to pick and choose which incomprehensible truths we embrace."
Actually it is. There are some incomprehensible truths that you embrace (for example, we are all saved by grace), yet others you reject (the necessity of a literal resurrection). Just as it would be arrogant to claim to comprehend grace, it is also arrogant to accept grace and not accept the whole of God's incomprehensible being.
"I'm not especially impressed by his reasoning thus far. I see no compelling reason to read a book that contains more of this."
Which is why I went to great pains to point out that these are small parts of a larger whole and that context is important.
"Chan appears to be endorsing a very shallow, emotion- and culture-based approach to "growing" in faith. And, of course, "growing" would be the wrong term to use in reference to an approach that endorses NOT seeking God's ways, but accepting blindly what is spoon-fed to us by other mortals telling us, "THIS is the right meaning of this passage."
Since this book is not about "growing in faith" in the least, it would seem you've already jumped to a grievously wrong conclusion. Further, since he spends time in his introduction (which I quoted) suggesting that we need to let go of exactly the blind following of tradition that you mention, it seems as though you've once again jumped to an incorrect conclusion. Perhaps a more careful reading of the first post might have cleared this up for you.
"Does he ever get any deeper into his thinking?"
No Dan, why would a man with a seminary education (MDiv, pastor of a church, president and professor of a college, and his co author with a BA in Bible exposition an MDiv and a PHD in New Testamentas well as first century Judiasm) get any deeper in the course of a book. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to judge.
"WHAT OF our call to "come, let us reason together," our call to follow in the demonstrated steps of Christ?"
Since, like most books, this one is limited in subject matter he chose to focus on certain elements of the topic. Specifically what does the Bible say about hell. He does quite clearly deal with what Christ says about the topic.
"What of our God-given reasoning and respectful debate about how best to interpret a passage and handle disagreements?"
I believe he deals with our "God given reasoning" quite well in one of the excerpts I quoted. Suffice it to say that whatever "God given reasoning" we have is OUR reasoning, not Gods. He does suggest that if "we are putting God’s actions in submission tour own reasoning, which is a ridiculous thing for clay to do.”. The bottom line is that although we are created in the image of God and He has given us numerous gifts (including reason) those gifts are corrupted by sin and desire.
Once again, we see your focus on HUMAN REASON not on the sovereignty and nature of God. You put your trust in "God given reason", I'll put mine in the God who gave the reason.
Again, perhaps actually reading the book in context would give you a better sense of what Chan is saying. So far you seem to have drawn some seriously wrong conclusions.
Dan,
I'll let you last comment to Marshall stand for now. In my view it comes very close to the type of comment you criticize others for at your site. As well as being off topic. In this area i will try to be as liberal as possible.
Whether you see it or not your writings over a period of several years can lead folks to the same conclusion as Marshall.
Bear in mind no one has called you crazy or anything of the sort, Marshall has made an inference from the totality of your writings that sees to be a reasonable inference.
"IF one says, "Look at that parable - it MUST be a factually literal story OR OTHERWISE you are removing God's truths from the Bible...""
The problem with this "example" is that no one in this discussion is or has said anything remotely like this. For you to suggest that this is even a reasonable example borders on being "false, it's BS and it's poor reasoning, not to mention poor exegesis."
The fact that you appear to continue to understand what the position of those who hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible is doesn't speak well for your "God given reasoning".
"What you all continue to fail to wrap your mind around is DISAGREEING about a writing style is not equivalent to dismissing the bible, ignoring the Bible, or judging God by our standards."
What you continue to fail to understand is that you are misrepresenting the nature of the discussion.
We are not disagreeing about style, we disagreeing about content. I'd rather not go back over this again, but if I must I will.
"Craig, I expect more out of you than that sort of inch-deep reasoning. Surely you see the big hole in that argument, don't you?"
First of all you seem confused, at the beginning of this comment you were addressing Marshall, when did you lose track of who you were talking to. The biggest hole I see is that you don't seem to grasp the other side of the argument. So, if you would please do your best to accurately represent the arguments of those who disagree with you, I'll ask Marshall to do the same.
Craig...
Each and every response you have given is focused on how it looks to YOU.
And what of YOUR Bible study, Craig? Is YOUR bible study based upon how the Bible looks TO YOU or to ME?
ALL of our Bible study is based upon looking at the Scriptures and striving prayerfully and carefully to see God's will, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.
What else is there, Craig?
Come now, let's not be petty.
Craig...
The biggest hole I see is that you don't seem to grasp the other side of the argument.
Brother Craig, I LIVED the other side of the argument for at least the first 30 years of my life. I grasp quite well, thank you, and, as noted, I find this line of reasoning and Bible study an inch deep and about 2 feet wide.
IF Chan has something substantive to say, quote him. If this is the best that he has, color me unconvinced.
When I study the Bible I do my best to remove my prejudices and biases from how I deal with the text. It often puts me in the position of not personally liking what I read, yet acknowledging that whether I like it or not, or whether it seems fair to me or not isn't really the issue.
"Brother Craig, I LIVED the other side of the argument for at least the first 30 years of my life"
If this is the case then why do you do such a poor job of articulating the positions of those who you disagree with.
As far as Chan, I told you earlier that I didn't want to go this route, and it seems I was proven correct.
You have (mis) read some excerpts and decided that this gentleman (who could rightly be described as a scholar) is too shallow for you. If you don't have the time, aren't willing to put forth the effort, or don't have the spine to read the whole book don't expect me to spoon feed it to you.
Tell you what, you read the book, write a devastating critique then we'll talk. I can't take you seriously when you've so mis-characterized the excerpts you've read.
Why do you shy away from anything that might challenge your hunches? Broaden your horizons, it's good for you.
Brother man, I've BEEN down that road before, read the book and seen the movie. I've probably forgotten more about the traditional conservative Christian position than you've ever known (maybe not, I don't know you, but the point is I'm WELL-versed in the traditional writers and positions.)
Craig...
When I study the Bible I do my best to remove my prejudices and biases from how I deal with the text...
And of course, Craig, I would ASSUME you do this, or strive to do it, anyway. AS DO I. THAT is the problem, the suggestion that I/we are somehow clinging to our previously held presumptions while you all are "removing your prejudices" just smells of BS. I don't make that charge of you because I would assume it's false and I'd expect the same grace and respect in turn.
Craig...
It often puts me in the position of not personally liking what I read, yet acknowledging that whether I like it or not, or whether it seems fair to me or not isn't really the issue.
Me, too. And yet, I strive to go where the text leads - and more importantly, where the SPIRIT leads because the TEXT without the SPIRIT is dead and empty. As it happens, it has led me AWAY from my comfortably held presumptions of my cultural upbringing, so clearly, I HAVE gone where I felt the Bible leads, otherwise, I would NOT have changed my positions as I have. Changing positions - especially some of the DEEPLY held convictions of one's youth - does not come easily and it is not something someone necessarily likes, is it?
As to the suggestion that I read a book written by someone whose excerpts haven't captured my attention and whose forebears I have quite likely already read, I just don't have time for that sort of thing.
Have you read the books of John Howard Yoder? Glenn Stassen? Borg? Eberhard? Gish? If not, is that an indication of intellectual wimpiness that you haven't read these? Or an acknowledgment that you have limited time to invest in reading whole books by folk with whom you disagree?
For my part, I've read and re-read and listened to Dobson, Ravenhill, Graham, Hanegraaff, Colson, Swindoll, Wesley, Lewis, Moody, Smalley, Bounds, Tozer, Edwards, Finney, etc, etc. I've been where you are, or someplace close to it so I am in no great hurry to re-read yet another book from that tribe.
"Brother man, I've BEEN down that road before, read the book and seen the movie. I've probably forgotten more about the traditional conservative Christian position than you've ever known"
Arrogant much?
"(maybe not, I don't know you,"
The arrogance meter drops considerably here.
"but the point is I'm WELL-versed in the traditional writers and positions.)"
And yet you seem to be unable to articulate them accurately. Why is this?
"Have you read the books of John Howard Yoder? Glenn Stassen? Borg? Eberhard? Gish?"
No it's an indication that I've read other books by folks I don't agree with. I have read enough of Borg to know that he's not bringing anything much to the table.
"I've been where you are, or someplace close to it so I am in no great hurry to re-read yet another book from that tribe."
So, without actually reading a significant portion of someones writings you can pigeon hole and dismiss them as "another book from that tribe". Well maybe you should update your 30 year old reading list and try something written recently. Perhaps if you read some of these folks you might see some different approaches or expose yourself to some more recent scholarship. While you seem to shy away from folks who might shake your preconceptions I've periodically go through periods where I embrace such authors. The most interesting thing I've found is that even in a case such as Brian McLaren (with whom I have major disagreements), I can find nuggets that are of great value. Maybe if you didn't write folks off quite so glibly, you to might gain some new insights. I know it's hard, but give it a try, really it's not that bad.
Craig...
yet you seem to be unable to articulate them accurately. Why is this?
You keep saying this but I don't think I've seen yet you offer ANY point on which I'm inaccurately articulating conservative positions. If you could actually point to something, we could answer that. If it's just a vague and unsupported charge, well, duly noted.
without actually reading a significant portion of someones writings you can pigeon hole and dismiss them as "another book from that tribe".
You've taken a stab at representing his position and I found some points on which no one disagrees (although the excerpts you offer make it seem as if he's doing the same strawman fallacies that we see on the blogging level) and other points which strike me as shallow. Did you leave out his best stuff?
I'm not writing him off, Craig, but I get called upon to read conservative folk regularly and while I'll gladly read excerpts, time is too precious to waste on empty text and shallow thinking if those excerpts don't raise any significant points.
I DO regularly read conservative folk (and as a matter of fact, probably still read more conservative writing than I do "liberal," just because I'm not that much of a liberal - I agree some with Borg and McClaren, but also disagree with them regularly). I just don't want to support with my money ideas that I think are less than helpful nor do I want to spend an undue amount of time on one author who is not making any great points.
One of my daughter's teachers told her, after 50 pages of a book, if an author hasn't won you over, it's fair to set it down and move on. I think that is a good rule of thumb.
"...don't think I've seen yet you offer ANY point on which I'm inaccurately articulating conservative positions..."
You continue to misrepresent the position of the vast majority of those who take the Bible literally.
"You've taken a stab at representing his position..."
False, I've thrown out a few excerpts from one book. I have not, nor have I claimed to, taken a stab at representing his position"
"after 50 pages of a book, if an author hasn't won you over,"
When you've read 50 pages, I'll buy this argument.
Seriously, the fact that you've drawn a completely wrong conclusion as to the topic of the book makes me wonder about any other conclusions you might have drawn. I would humbly suggest that you would be better able to make an accurate assessment with the context, you obviously feel otherwise. So be free, I withdraw my suggestion that you read the book.
I will say that I agree with you about not wanting to support folks with whom I disagree by purchasing their books or whatever. I usually end up borrowing or buying used to prevent that. I also usually give folks the benefit of the doubt (by purchasing a book or two) before I decide.
Dan,
I'm going to delete the posts that have gotten away from the topic such as it is. If you want to respond to any on topic questions feel free.
This is funny:
"I've probably forgotten more about the traditional conservative Christian position than you've ever known..."
Someday Dan, you'll have to present something that truly reflects traditional Christian conservatism. All I've seen so far is a previous view of the faith that was as off base as what you believe now. I've seen that you've made a reference to this to Craig, asking for examples of your poor understanding, but you don't actually say anything concrete, but have only made vague references to what you used to believe. Like your current views resemble Christianity on a superficial level, so likewise do your comments about your past suggest that your understanding then was only superficially aligned with true Christian understanding.
But, back to your usual poor defense:
"I'm enaged in Bible study and see NO RATIONAL OR BIBLICAL REASON to take YOUR hunch as to what YOU THINK the "correct" interpretation is as a very good hunch."
My beliefs aren't based on "hunches" about what Scripture says, but on what is actually presented in Scripture. I allow for a good argument that might enlighten, such as a scholarly explanation based on the original languages, but that's not what is going on here. Thus, my position IS Biblical considering it is based on what the Bible says.
"I much prefer my own hunch, which seems logical, is rational given what we know about the real world and what we know about ethical, moral behavior and which is internally consistent."
Proverbs 14:12
(12) There is a way that seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death.
What's more, what you believe can only "seem" rational and logical IF you dismiss the passages you don't like as untrue, false or some "epic" alternative to actual events. That is, if you reject them as less than accurate records of actual events. Indeed, you MUST reject them to come to your conclusions and thus, you reduce the size of the Bible by doing so, as suggested in past discussions.
"The problem with YOUR hunches, Marshall, is that they lack internal consistency."
This you've never demonstrated. Ever. Your pals Geoffie and Alan like to say I contradict myself, but they've been unable to confirm that, either, without, as you do, dismissing key points of my comments.
more...
"That I disagree with your hunches is NOT to say that I'm judging God by my own standards."
Didn't say that. My "hunches" are irrelevant to the fact, which is, you are judging God by what YOU prefer He look like rather than what Scripture says He looks like (regarding His nature and character). You do this by only viewing Him in the incomplete picture presented after rejecting the OT record of His actions, commands and behaviors. Then you look back to the OT and say, "See? God doesn't really act this way. It's against His nature."
"I much PREFER MY OWN hunch, which SEEMS logical,..." (emphasis added)
This little snippet completely and totally sums up Dan's approach to the OT.
It starts with "I", with Dan it seems to always start there.
"PREFER", not have evidence to demonstrate or have seen convincing evidence, but PREFER. I like this better than that.
"MY OWN" enough said really.
"hunch" "a premonition or suspicion" again not based on evidence.
"SEEMS" does seems really mean the same as is? I didn't think so.
RE: Accurately presenting what you believe the conservative position to be.
"I think the OT was written in King James English."
Please, oh please show me any evidence that there is any significant person or persons who actually would suggest this. Please.
"Look at that parable - it MUST be a factually literal story"
Again, please show me where anyone (credible not some random blogger) is actually seriously making this argument.
Marshall...
you'll have to present something that truly reflects traditional Christian conservatism. All I've seen so far is a previous view of the faith that was as off base as what you believe now.
You all KEEP on saying shit like this without ever once supporting it. It is swamp gas not worth smelling unless you have some support for your spurious charges.
I hope you can understand that I will ignore such brain farts in much the same way I would strive to ignore your real farts.
Marshall, off topic, made this goofy ad hom attack...
Like your current views resemble Christianity on a superficial level
My current views "resemble Christianity," because they ARE Christian.
1. We are sinners in need of salvation
2. God loves us all and wants us to be saved
3. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus
4. Jesus, who is the risen son of God who physically came to Earth, teaching us how to live by his words and actions, who was killed by the powers that be and who raised from the dead three days later.
5. We are saved by God's grace by repentance for our sins and trusting in God's grace for our salvation, striving by God's grace to walk in JESUS' steps and making Jesus Lord of our lives.
This "resembles" Christianity, Marshall because it IS orthodox evangelical Christianity.
Ad hom attacks on distract from more serious issues and are naught else but more BS.
Craig...
This little snippet completely and totally sums up Dan's approach to the OT.
Craig, I have gone out of my way to treat you as a brother in Christ, separating you in my mind from the riff raff like Marshall and Edwin and Neil, but you are engaging in grade school "reasoning" with shit like this.
YES, I USE MY REASON to understand God's Word. YOU DO TOO, or at least I hope you do, but maybe that's the problem with your type of conservatives. YOU DON'T REASON, you rely upon being spoon fed baby pablum like vomit from a momma bird's mouth.
Grow up little brothers, this sort of "reasoning" is a waste of everyone's time.
Dan,
I too have tried very hard to treat you with respect and as a fellow christian. Yet I believe we are called to point out what appear to be areas of concern we have with others. Honestly the hubris of your statement concerns me greatly. I and others have pointed out how your earlier comments have given hints of this attitude, but to just blatantly throw it out there, I'm concerned.
If you somehow object to my using your words to summarize your position, I apologize. But I thought your words were more appropriate than mine.
Your comment was quite telling regarding where you place your reason in the grand scheme of things.
You wrote it, be proud.
As for me I try to rely much more on the Holy Spirit than on my reason. You feel free to trust Reason, I'm just not that proud.
"YOU DON'T REASON, you rely upon being spoon fed baby pablum like vomit from a momma bird's mouth."
One can only assume that this is the kind of thing you meant when you were talking about going out of your way to treat me like a brother. OK
Dan,
If you really want to talk about more serious issues there's plenty from both Marshall and I that is unresponded to. Feel free.
I'll give you a freebie on what should be more important stuff.
"And what of YOUR Bible study, Craig? Is YOUR bible study based upon how the Bible looks TO YOU or to ME?"
Actually I'm more concerned with lining up my study with how the Bible, and my walk look to God. I don't spend a lot of time worrying about how it looks to me because how it looks to me isn't as important as how it looks to God. I certainly don't concern myself with how things look to you.
Now maybe you can pick something closer to the topic and respond to that.
No, I'll pass. You all have your heads WAY too far up your asses today.
So we're riffraff now. Hmmm. I don't believe I've ever been called THAT before. The insults I bear for expressing honest observations!
Dan,
When you present your little list after your faith has been questioned, it does little to defend yourself against the charge (if you wish to refer to it that way). That list is an example of the "superficial" quality to which I refer. It's not as bad as simply saying, "But I believe in Jesus!", but not by much. My "charge" is based on the totality of your words over years of blogging and debate. I continue to state that the Christ/God in whom you claim to believe is of your own making, and your position on OT passages is Exhibit A. Consider (once again):
You have taken the position that you've pretty much rejected every OT occurrence of God displaying His wrath. Every situation whereby He has acted in a manner that has taken lives, particularly where "innocent" lives were included. Even the Passover story gives you pause.
Sure, you say there is some kind of truth somewhere in those stories, some unexplained truth or some truth that is taught by, perhaps, some exaggerated tale of God acting. But without the stories, we have no example of His wrath, from which we need a Savior.
I have quickly found six occasions where God is described as "slow to anger". It doesn't say He doesn't get angry, but that He doesn't fly off the handle.
I looked in a reference for the word "wrath" and it appears 197 times in the KJV, most referring to God.
"Vengeance" is also attributed to Him. And "destroy", and of course, "smite". Many of the instances were from NT passages.
All these, and others, must be taken into account when considering the nature of God and these "violent" terms do not mitigate His love and perfect justice. This is the God of the Bible. It is the God I worship and imperfectly obey. This is the Creator who has destroyed and commanded others to destroy on His behalf, to demonstrate His wrath, exact His vengeance in a display of His anger.
What you say is against His nature is not true if an act you can't abide is described in Scripture. It obviously IS in His nature or it wouldn't have been recorded. The things you make up to make your case are never debated as being a part of His nature because they're stupid hypotheticals that don't align with any of the passages you dispute as being "epic" stories.
And of course, if the authors are claiming His words included the commands that disturb you, then they must have happened or the authors are lying about God and that is illogical to assume.
Thus, you cannot be worshiping the God of the Bible because you don't believe in that God, but one who is similar minus the attributes you believe are falsely described.
I would also wonder how one like Dan would explain the instances where archeology supports the OT. Is it just luck? Is there more "factual history" in there than you see at first glance? Are the archeologists just manufacturing evidence to support a literal OT? I guess we'll never know. I would have likes to actually get some feedback of my responses to Dan's "critique", but I guess that won't happen either.
It's really pretty weird, when you think about it. We give our opinions, and will even explain why we think someone might be an idiot or stupid (should we choose to use such terms). For my part, I'm willing to stand in as long as it takes to make my position clear and strangely, I don't see reciprocation. What I see is "let's agree to disagree" or some such, accusations of "hunches" or lack of intellect, but very little in the way of solid explanation or argument before they take their ball and go home. Sometimes, I'm accused of stubbornness and an unwillingness to consider opposing opinions. But that doesn't wash, either, as I analyze and rebut those arguments, not simply ignore, dismiss or cast aspersions on opposing arguments. I do all this with very little emotion because I am convicted in my beliefs and know they are easily defended. Why would I run?
Post a Comment