After my recent post about Islam, there was extensive discussion in the comment section. I realized that I should state my position on Islam more clearly, and I’m currently working on an article that does that, as well as comparing Islam to Christianity. Unfortunately, this week has been insanely busy, and I haven’t yet had the time to finish it.
In the meantime, I’d like to say a couple of quick things about religion in general. Basically, people need to read the book. I don’t think we can say “I’m ok, you’re okay” and still assert that there is objective truth. But, I must say that if no one isn’t even holding to the fundamentals of their faith, what is the point? This applies to modern, “moderate” Muslims who continue to argue that Islam is a “religion of peace.” The fact of the matter is (as I will put forth in my upcoming article), Mohammed was interested in establishing and maintaining an earthly empire. Thus, violence was - and is - necessary to fulfill the commission of Mohammed: expanding and maintaining theological and political power. Those who claim to be Islamic pacifists are plainly contradicting the goals and purpose of their founder. Like Christians who do the same, Muslims who claim to be “OK with other world religions” are compromising their own faith. If other faiths are “just as good” as yours, then what can yours possibly be worth? I’ll deal with this concept more soon.
Shifting the focus to Christianity, there are many “progressive theologians” that are creating an entirely new religion but continuing to masquerade as Christians. True followers see this for what it is: apostasy, dishonesty and damnable heresy. But sadly, many are enticed by the concept of “open minded”, “non-judgmental” spirituality. It’s a free country, and people are entitled to believe what they want to believe. However, it must be said and understood that this is not Christianity. It is not what Jesus taught; it is not what his apostles taught, and it is not what primitive Christians believed and practiced. Sure, “times change”, but truth doesn’t.
Of course, this is nothing new. Spiritual “leaders” have been adulterating the truth for centuries in one way or another, often with dangerous subtlety. I suppose subtlety is passé, because many so-called “Christian leaders” are now blatantly forsaking articles of faith in order to pursue their own desires. Today on CNN.com I see this headline:
Booze lands gay bishop in rehab
Are you kidding me? That sounds like the start of a bad joke, does it not?
Like Muslims who are willfully ignorant of their own leader’s purpose and writings, so-called Christians knowingly forsake theirs. Groups like the Episcopalians, the Unitarians, and the United Church of Christ (to name a very select few) have completely abandoned the Bible and are promoting a product of their own imagination. It is simply not Christianity.
Without fail, I will be called narrow-minded, judgmental, etc.; yet, I am not making judgments according to my own ideas and desires. I am simply pointing to these groups’ departure from the book they claim as their guide. Jesus said, “…the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48).
These apostate groups would try to justify or explain their behavior. I am sure that they would argue that they are somehow still in accordance with God’s will. It just doesn’t fly. Here’s an example:
A “Homosexual Bishop”
Homosexuality is a hot-button issue in and out of the church, and there are several practical, secular cases against it. However, for the sake of time and space I’d like to deal with it according to the Scriptures solely.
One of the favorite comebacks from so-called Christians who want to justify homosexuality is this: “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality!” This is fallacious to the core, as there are many things Jesus did not directly condemn that we know to be wrong. For example, Jesus did not condemn bestiality or child molestation. Does that mean Christians should be free to pursue those desires? Obviously not. Ultimately, Jesus was not silent on the matter. His specificity concerning what is an acceptable human relationship logically excludes any alternative. Note his words in Matthew 19:4-6:
Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.
People are willing to use logic every day, but when it comes to honestly reading scripture it seems they abandon all rationality. Jesus details God’s design for a human sexual relationship. This description is specific, and logic tells us that Jesus did not need to spend the next hour detailing what “Male and Female” does NOT include. It’s common sense. He also didn’t need to call out homosexuality in particular because it had always been wrong and his audience was well aware of this (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). The apostle Paul reiterated this idea in Romans 1:26-17 where he calls homosexuality “shameful” and “against nature.”
There is no rational case for Homosexuality. The Bible plainly teaches that it is sexual sin; that is that. Yet, CNN tells us that a Homosexual Episcopalian bishop is now in rehab. Is it clear how loony that is?
I originally intended to deal with the concept of “priests” and “laity” as well, but this has become quite long. Briefly, there is absolutely no New Testament authority for a “clergy” of any kind. This concept was an innovation of the Catholic church, who have traditionally held Peter in the highest esteem of all the apostles. It’s interesting to note that Peter wrote that all Christians make up the priesthood, with Jesus Christ as High Priest (Hebrews 2:17; 3:1; 4:14, etc.).
Much more can be said on these matters, but for the sake of space I’ll stop here. The point is, if you desire to be a Christian, you are subject to the tenets of Christianity, namely the New Testament of Christ. If you practice something else, you are something else. Makes sense, doesn’t it?
27 responses so far ↓
1 futuregeek // Feb 15, 2006 at 8:36 pm
2 Questions:
Do you believe the world is 6000 years old? The Bible says it is.
Do you believe the bible was written by God, or by people who were directly in contact with God?
2 Aaron // Feb 15, 2006 at 10:31 pm
show me where the Bible says its 6000 years old. i bet you cant. besides, its not a scientific text anyways. in some regards, its not even a history book. but thats a huge discussion.
the Bible was written by the hands of men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. the passage we tend to quote is from the 2nd letter written by Paul to Timothy, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (3:16,17). No one would ever doubt that the Bible was written by human beings, nor claim that it was written by God himself. It’s a joint effort.
3 José // Feb 16, 2006 at 6:24 am
Ahhh
My friend Jacob, No doubt you have much intellect in you and you profoundly respect and defend your own tenets of faith.
My big problem with the Bible is the many “versions” of the word of God or Jesus. The difficult situation of any Christian sect is to truly define what was really written because so few is actually known of Aramaic Christian thought, we today have only interpretations of what was “maybe” said or written. Thus, to be fair how can any sect expect my complete faith when they can’t guarantee me Truth.
Science has obviously proven that the earth and space is much older than any religon can claim to know. That is a fact and many people need to live with that. The Old Testament should be used as an anecdotal tool not actual truth, Though the New Testament contains more facts, it too can not claim truth.
Religions should be used as tools of reason not as strict rules of living or judgment. I truly enjoy these debates from you Jacob, you are well prepared in your arguments nd very open to discussion.
In ending my real opinion is that any religion that is based upon a prophet or prophets besides one deity tends to smell very political, which in turn can be dangerous when focused in a certain light. Real truth, real divinty should be found only in the human soul not in some aspect of what someone else may have said.
I leave you all readers to find reason and peace.
4 futuregeek // Feb 16, 2006 at 11:09 am
Perhaps more to the point, do you bible believers think that gays should be put to death?
After all, that is one thing that the bible is consistent on, from the old testament to the new. Romans 1:31 - 32.
5 Jacob // Feb 16, 2006 at 11:36 am
Futuregeek, let’s “get to the point.”
Under the Levitical law homosexuality was punishable by death. We are not under “law” in that sense, today (See Romans 6:14-15).
Paul says in Romans 1 that such behavior is “worthy of death”, but that is not a command to put them to death.
In fact, all sin is worthy of death (Romans 6:23), and we have all sinned (Romans 3:23). Thanks be to God that by His grace and mercy we can escape our due penalty.
6 José // Feb 16, 2006 at 11:54 am
FutureGeek
Good call on the Romans verse. I’m kind of surprise by that verse being in the New Testament after the Old Testament states the 10 Commandments of God, of which one particular speaks of Thou Shall Not Kill.
Which kind of puts Christians in an uncomfortable position of not directly being able to kill because it is a sin and yet they are told also that homosexuality is a sin deemed worthy of death. Ahh, the hypocrisy continues.
7 futuregeek // Feb 16, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Given the consistent treatment of homosexuality throughout the bible, why can’t I interpret it to mean that homosexuals should be put to death? I mean, its right there in black and white - the old testament says kill homosexuals, the new testament says that homosexuals are worthy of death.
Sounds to me like we should round them up and put them all away. After all, its an abomination in the eyes of god, and we can’t have that. Really, I think homosexuality is the root of all our problems today, and proof that the last days are upon us (2 Timothy 3:3.
If you are going to be a biblical literalist, you might as well go all the way, right?
8 futuregeek // Feb 16, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Aaron,
If you look at the story told in the bible, with genealogies, you will come up with 6000 years, give or take a little.
9 Aaron // Feb 16, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Lets look at some translations of verse 32 here to see your faulty “logic” (as if logic and reasoning were the utmost principles in knowledge and understanding):
New International Version: Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
English Standard Version: Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
New American Standard Version: and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
New King James Version: who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
now, for those of you who understand that critically important in any communication, particularly discourse written approx. 1900+ years ago, we’ll look at the CONTEXT:
Verses 18-23 of the same chapter state: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”
It is in the context of humankind redefining or lacking to acknowledge his creation in the form and image of God that we lose our identity. It is with this understanding that Paul explains that without a proper concept of God, and thus an improper view of ourselves and the natural order of creation, men and women were led into the confusion of unGodly sexuality.
Now, if you read verse 18 that i quoted above, you read that the wrath of God is towards all ungodliness and unrighteousness [imperfection]. is is said ungodliness that led towards homosexuality, etc., but that the wrath of god is towards all those who sin, and consequently are deserving of death. Namely those mentioned in verses 29-31:
“29[Those] filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”
This judgement to take place was a very strong Jewish concept of “The Day of the Lord” which is found throughout the Old Testament. Paul says in the very next chapter [of which there is no chapter division in the original letter] that: “4Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.”
God has not destroyed creation because his kindness and mercy, but there will come a day when his righteousness will consume sin like a flaming fire.
Nowhere is there even a suggestion that people should kill homosexuals. As my 12th grade physics teacher used to say, “sorry bout yer luck!”
10 Aaron // Feb 16, 2006 at 1:08 pm
btw, biblical genealogies aren’t timelines of history. sometimes when it says, so and so beget so and so, that doesnt mean that they were parents or directly following in the lineage. another faulty argument.
11 futuregeek // Feb 16, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Right, so you are picking and choosing what you take from the bible.
If you can give up the literal interpretation of the bible when it comes to timelines, why can’t you give it up when it comes to homosexuality?
After all, we are talking about the words of men here. Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality himself. You are taking the words of Paul as if they were the words of god himself - they are not.
The bible is rife with contradictions. I don’t see how you can accept that some things in the bible aren’t true (the age of the earth), but continue to insist that other things are absolutely true.
12 Aaron // Feb 16, 2006 at 2:53 pm
your straw man arguements continue to prove your ignorance. the word rendered ‘beget’ in the ancient hebrew allows for leniency in interpretation. it could mean ‘to father,’ but it is also legitimately rendered ’cause to exist or occur; produce.’
besides, the culture of the ancient Jews of 2000 BC and before was less concerned with strict historical accuracy so far as lineage/timelines so far as presenting story for didactic purposes. if you approach such an ancient text in a 21st century, rationalist, literalist paradigm, you will fail.
Now, you said, “Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality himself. You are taking the words of Paul as if they were the words of god himself - they are not.” What matter would it make if Jesus said them. You obviously don’t believe him God. Or is he?
The Bible is an interesting compilation of texts the world has never seen and will never again. It is not an answer book. It is not a history book (our sense of history). It is not a scientific book. It is 66 books/letters written by men to other men across multiple millenia that chronicle the dealings of God with His people.
Literal isn’t always the best. Discernment is key. “Well who gets to discern it then?” I hear you ask. Well, in all fairness, those who study it fairly. I wouldn’t begin to argue a scientific argument concerning whether the earth is 6000 or 6 billion years old. I have no idea. But both are compatible with Christianity in my humble opinion so long as they allow for the creation of man and woman in the image of God as recorded by Scripture. That is an area that should be taken literally. The ancients who wrote about the creation and time wrote from a prospective devoid of scientific inquiry; and so when they write about the creation, it needs not mean literally 7 days.
And believe it or not, not everyone out there is a radical fundamentalist who seeks to supress societal progress. I dont even aim to “convert” you with these petty arguments. I’m a human, and I’m flawed. Perhaps my arguments are flawed too! I would never ask you to swallow Christianity. Its flawed and silly and corrupt. But Jesus, thats where I become passionate. The embodiment of God who died to bridge the gap created by our rebellion.
13 Jacob // Feb 16, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Futuregeek: I do not pick and choose what I take from the Bible. If I have done so, then please indicate where and how.
As for the age of the earth, you are correct that genealogical timelines imply that the earth is around 6000 years old. There could be other factors to consider in that estimate, but if that is what is implied by the Bible’s account, I am willing to accept that. What evidence do you have to indicate that the world is billions of years old? Carbon dating? It’s extremely interesting to me that the scientific community continues to accept carbon dating when it has been shown (time and time again) to be grossly inaccurate. The truth is, evolutionary science NEEDS the earth to be billions of years simply because evolution is so mathematically improbable. It’s funny that secularists and humanists criticize Christians for so-called hypocrisy and dishonesty when the scientific community fudges whatever is necessary in order to uphold the doctrine of Darwinism.
We are not just talking about the words of men here. As both Aaron and myself have stated, we are talking about words “breathed” by God. With regard to Jesus “not explicitly condemning homosexuality,” I pointed out in this very article why such reasoning is irrational. When a command or instruction is given explicitly, alternatives are ruled out implicitly; this is common sense. Jesus said that we are to worship God, does that mean that we can also worship Vishnu or Zeus because he did not explicitly condemn those gods? Obviously not.
This is a favorite: “The Bible is rife with contradictions.” It’s so easy to say, isn’t it? Please share some if you’ve got ‘em.
Once again, I accept that the Bible is true, period. Clearly we have to exercise common sense when reading and interpreting it; after all, we expect as much from 10th graders reading A Tale of Two Cities. Why would we expect any less for God’s word?
14 futuregeek // Feb 16, 2006 at 11:55 pm
Well, I had a great reply but it went to computer heaven when I tried to post it. I’ll try again.
Aaron:
I don’t see how I am creating a straw man. You are telling me that some things in the bible should not be taken at face value. So how do we decide what to believe and what to dismiss?
Jacob seems to hold the opinion that if Jesus said it, then we should believe it.
So: Jesus did not say that homosexuality is wrong. Jacob says that it is implied, and since Paul said it, his claim is strengthened.
But can we really assume that Paul is speaking for Jesus here? What are the criteria for deciding what is valid and what is not?
And how do we know that what Jesus said wasn’t changed, or even erased from the Bible? After all, we know for a fact that it took a few hundred years for Christians to decide what books would go into the bible. What happened to the stories and the texts in that time?
Furthermore, a human can interpret the bible to mean just about whatever he wants. So how do we decide what is the correct interpretation? I could say that all homosexuals should be put to death. How am I any more wrong than Jacob when he says that homosexuality is a sin, or a progressive Christian who believes that homosexuality is OK with god?
After all, some Christians justified slavery and genocide by using bible verses. I’ve got a good post on that here.
So were those Christians wrong? They would say it is an abomination for a black person to marry a white person, on a par with homosexuality.
BTW, I’m not trying to convert you to Atheism. I’m not even an atheist. I’m fine with Christians, and from what I saw of your blog I think you’re probably an alright guy. But really. Is homosexuality as bad as, say, murder? Is it as bad as starting wars? Is it as bad as stealing?
In other words, don’t you Christians have something better to worry about?
15 futuregeek // Feb 16, 2006 at 11:57 pm
As for the age of the earth, you are correct that genealogical timelines imply that the earth is around 6000 years old. There could be other factors to consider in that estimate, but if that is what is implied by the Bible’s account, I am willing to accept that. What evidence do you have to indicate that the world is billions of years old? Carbon dating? It’s extremely interesting to me that the scientific community continues to accept carbon dating when it has been shown (time and time again) to be grossly inaccurate.
Jacob, you just lost any and all credibility with me. C’mon. Do a little research.
I’ll be back with more.
16 futuregeek // Feb 17, 2006 at 12:26 am
Alright Jacob, I take my previous comment back and apologize.
Now give me your evidence that carbon dating is flawed.
17 Aaron // Feb 17, 2006 at 1:14 am
it seems to me like you’re biggest qualm w/Christianity has to do w/the interpretation of Scripture and how judiciously it is done. this is the crux of all of Christianity. all agreement and dispute centers around this collection of documents.
Now, as I stated before, interpretation of a certain passage of Scripture depends heavily on many facets: author & his/her background, audience, culture, time-period, genre, style. If you want to talk about a specific section or book we can do that. Its too widespread to make too many generalizations other than the fact that the Bible primarily records God and his history with Israel, and subsequently the church.
So, with regard to particularly evangelicalism, which i dont suppose to represent in its entirety, but as a result of my history am affiliated with, Scripture remains the primary means by which life, spirituality, etc. is dealt with. But quite frankly, as you say, who can read Scripture and determine what it really means properly. Everybody comes with presupposed ideas and concepts.
This is where I really appreciate the Methodist faith, particularly the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which states that “the living core of the Christian faith was (1)revealed in Scripture, (2)illumined by tradition, (3)vivified in personal experience, and (4)confirmed by reason.”
In theological terms it refers to Prima Scriptura, which simply means that our primary source of spiritual understanding is the Bible, but viewed through the lens of tradition, personal experience, and reason.
If for example someone attempts to make the arguement that slavery is Scripturally permissible because Paul says “slaves obey your earthly masters,” the collective church community, not bureaucratic church governments, must look at what Scripture is telling us, in light of our tradition (failure so far as southern plantation owners are concerned), personal experience (that all human beings hold value), and reason (intrinsically valued beings should not be treated as property to be bought and sold). in light of those considerations we would hastily declare such arguements foolish.
The defining issue of our times is homosexuality, and this is a huge hornets nest we open up. I’m not unwilling to go there, but want to make a few caveats as the discussion heads that direction. (a)no one person can speak for the multitude of diverse opinions that fall underneath the umbrella of Christianity, (b)unfortunate as it is that the actions of a few reflect negatively on the whole, there are many within the church that do not hate homosexuals nor see them fit for execution any more than ourselves, and (c) though many do not hate, the most vocal of us have dealt poorly with the issue thoroughly lacking in love. and for that i ask your forgiveness.
thats all for now.
18 Aaron // Feb 17, 2006 at 1:39 am
i lied, i have one more thing to say specifically concerning your question as to if we have better things to be doing besides crusading against homosexuality.
Christians tend to be rather shortsighted. If we see something that flies blatently in the face of what we call holiness and we don’t particularly struggle with it, it becomes an easy project. I say this not in anyway to excuse homosexuality, which is conicedentally a lot more complex an issue than we’ve given it credit for in the past. I think its a perverse corruption of human nature and God’s created order.
That being said. The world is riddled with sin: pride, consumerism, poverty, wars, racial inequality, marital infidelity, etc. And the goal of the church should not be to campaign against such sins in a spirit of self-righteousness, but rather provide a place of healing and reconciliation with God in all facets and geographical locations of life.
From feeding a family who’s struggling to make ends meet, to campaigning against the atrocities in Darfur, or even the abortion and homosexual issues, the church’s stated aim is to re-establish God’s order on the earth through the work of the Holy Spirit. And this we do with the very real tension of much grace and mercy and the holiness and righteousness of God.
I hope that makes sense.
19 futuregeek // Feb 17, 2006 at 8:28 am
Aaron,
t seems to me like you’re biggest qualm w/Christianity has to do w/the interpretation of Scripture and how judiciously it is done. this is the crux of all of Christianity. all agreement and dispute centers around this collection of documents.
Let’s just say I have a complicated relationship with Christianity, and with all organized religion. It looks to me like a mind control system, if not created by men, exploited by men for personal gain. In other words, faith in itself is not a bad thing - but people kill each other over religion, and that is bad.
My problems with Christianity only start when it becomes irrational and destructive. Faith by itself does not lead to irrational and destructive behavior. Broad proclamations by self proclaimed leaders generally do cause destructive behavior.
This is where I really appreciate the Methodist faith, particularly the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which states that “the living core of the Christian faith was (1)revealed in Scripture, (2)illumined by tradition, (3)vivified in personal experience, and (4)confirmed by reason.”
Sounds good to me.
The defining issue of our times is homosexuality, and this is a huge hornets nest we open up.
Is it really? What about terrorism, or the fact that around half of the world’s populatin lives on less than 3 dollars a day?
a)no one person can speak for the multitude of diverse opinions that fall underneath the umbrella of Christianity,
Well, that’s what this whole comment thread is about, isn’t it? Jacob seems to think he can define proper Christianity. Are you supporting him in that, or not?
Now, if you want, I will debate with you about whether homosexuality is evil or not.
Thank you for the rational debate so far.
20 futuregeek // Feb 17, 2006 at 10:06 am
Jacob: do you believe that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second?
21 Aaron // Feb 17, 2006 at 12:05 pm
a few notes:
a) i dont think the whole terrorism thing is as big as its made out to be. or at least theyre doing a good job containing it. or its not really affecting me. one of those 3.
b) i concede that world poverty is just as, if not larger a concern for the world, especially the church. i let my evangelicalism get away w/me
but they’re both important.
c) now concerning the nature of things and their corruptibility. if something is inherently good, that is supposing that there are contrary negative things that acts as a counter-balance. you concede that religion/Christianity is not a bad thing in and of itself, and yet bad men corrupt that which is good for personal gain. with that i take no issue.
and that saddens me, because the actions and words of a few reflect unaccurately the whole. but let me propose this. suppose you’re in a hospital, bleeding, and are near death and the only doctor trained to operate on you lost his vision for why he entered the health field, perhaps he never had one. Perhaps all he cares about is making the big bucks so he can live in a cushy house and drive an Italian sports car. You would still, go to him regardless of his poor motives, lack of vision, etc.
My point is this. The church will always be flawed and imperfect and broken. But its the church that Christ has relegated his mission to. While there is no excuse for us leaders in the church not to attempt to train and mentor future leaders to become leaders who reflect the ministry of Christ, one cannot dismiss the mission on account of the failings of those who carry it. But the call to the true church is echoed in Paul’s letter to Ephesus:
“I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call– one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”
22 Jacob // Feb 17, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Futuregeek: Yes, I believe that light travels at 186,000 miles per second. This is a predictable setup. I am aware of the argument that “if light travels x distance over x time, and stars are x distance away, then the earth must be at least x years old.” The problem with this (and any other purely naturalistic argument) is that it IS purely naturalistic. Does it really follow - if I believe God created this universe from nothing (including light, itself) - that the speed at which light travels throws a kink in Creation? If God created things with a purpose, then it only makes sense that they should serve that purpose from the moment of creation. And, if we are dealing with an all-powerful Creator, isn’t it a bit silly to limit His potential based on that which He created?
In the meantime (for José, particularly), I’m putting together a few thoughts on Bible interpretation (and honest interpretation of any written work). I am supremely concerned with consistency and honesty, as I’m sure you all are. The criticisms leveled at Bible interpretion are neither consistent nor honest.
That, and some documented examples which establish the gross fallibility of carbon dating.
More to come…
23 futuregeek // Feb 18, 2006 at 1:05 am
Jacob,
I’ve been thinking about this and I’m really not sure how to continue.
If you allow for the possibility that god created the universe as is 6000 years ago, in the face of all observable evidence, then what marker do you have with which to judge reaity?
How do you know God didn’t actually create the world five seconds ago?
Or, how do you know that your faith is not actually inferior to Islam? Or to Mormonism?
I mean, all you have is a book and your faith. I could take a book of fairy tales and declare them to be true, and I would have as much ground to stand on as you do.
Naturalism, as a limiting factor on science, doesn’t demand that we give up faith in God. The existence of god is outside of a naturalistic science. Just because I can look at the evidence and see that it is most likely that the universe is a few hundred billion years old doesn’t mean that God didn’t create the universe.
On the other hand, biblical literalism demands that you give up a scientific perspective on the world, or else face serious conflicts in your knowledge.
I recommend that you start a new thread with a new post… I think this one might be getting played out.
I don’t think you can disprove carbon dating, or prove that the world is 6000 years old. But go ahead and try.
24 little cicero // Feb 18, 2006 at 10:37 am
Future Geek, you must, when honestly analyzing the faith in God, have an understanding of the fact that God has no concept of what we know as time. Though time is a universal dimension, God is not in the Universe, He is over the universe, so this dimension has no bearing on him. That it is He who reported such stories as Creation, we should remember this in his reports of chronology. He never said “X years ago” because the year is a conjuring of mortals, so any concept of the measurment of time is of the prophets’ creation.
Thus, if you are judging the book of faith’s validity based on such understandings, they are mere estimations of mortal man based on the reports of a higher being. In this context, we keep in mind that the Bible is written by God, but edited and abridged by mortal man, so caution should be taken in its interpretation. Just keep in mind that the more perfect the interpretation, the closer we come to Truth, which is in deed, found only in the word of God.
25 futuregeek // Feb 18, 2006 at 10:58 am
Little Cicero,
You are right. And I am not arguing against the existence of god. I am arguing that we can’t take the bible literally.
Jacob seems to believe that we should take the bible literally, despite its obvious flaws.
As I have said, just because astronomy, physics, geology, etc all point to a universe that is billions of years old doesn’t necessarily mean that God didn’t create the universe. Speculation about God’s existence is outside of science.
It does mean that we should probably lose the old idea that God created the universe 6000 years ago.
It seems to me that we can accept that our knowledge of God is imperfect, without losing faith in God. The bible was written thousands of years ago, and our understanding of the natural world has changed. Why can’t our understanding of morality change too?
As I have pointed out, our understanding of slavery has changed and it is no longer accepted.
26 little cicero // Feb 18, 2006 at 11:25 am
No, I believe that we can take the Bible literally, but we cannot pretend that it is supposed to be an accurate map of time and space, because these things are alien to God, therefore he would not have spoken of them. God is all knowing concerning more important things, like human nature, morality, and all other things in the universe, so on these things we have only to be cautious in interpreting words. Words have a great deal of meaning in our language- the difference between “do not kill” and “do not murder” is astronomical when discussing capital punishment, for example, but God did not concern Himself with such frivolous details, as important as they may have been. He spoke Truth. So, outside of being cautious of semantic disputes, we must try not to interpret the word of God for our own needs, which is moral relativism. If we do this, we are taking the place of God as we rewrite, in effect, the Bible.
The solution, then, would be to stand by Hebrew translations of the Old Testament, and Greek translations of the New Testament when interpreting the Book of Faith.
27 futuregeek // Feb 19, 2006 at 3:47 pm
I’ve got some biblical contradictions listed in a new post.