Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Well written and I think I would also have to agree.
mr bbs
 

It was an interesting perspective. And by "interesting" I mean "non-Christian and incoherent." I'm surprised you endorsed it.

Example: Anyone who equates slavery as described in the Bible - not to mention the guidelines God provided - with U.S. style slavery is either woefully uneducated on the matter or deliberately maligning the Word. Also see http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/What_God_Says_About_Slavery

And you have to be rather ethnocentric to claim that the Bible isn't pro-women.

Sadly, his is a pretty common view held in the church. It isn't new, though - people have been paraphrasing Satan for thousands of years ("Did God really say _______?").
 

Neil,

So if my beliefs are exactly in line with yours, I'm non-Christian and incoherent?

I read Geoff's piece. I thought it was thought-provoking and based on strong opinion. I agreed with much of it, but not all. So I'm non-Christian and incoherent?

That's a pretty harsh level of your reality you are placing on others. I think it's also a pretty wrong level of all reality.

But that's just me.
 

Neil said: "And you have to be rather ethnocentric to claim that the Bible isn't pro-women."

A good example of the variation of positions within the Bible is its viewpoint of women. If you want mysoginous verses and positions they are plentiful in both the Old and New Testaments. If you want to show that women were leaders in the New Testament, that too can be found. On the role of women, the "Bible" as a whole is somewhat bi-polar. I guess it depends on which of the voices you hear. <]:)
 

Twas an excellent post.

Neil, I was wondering, can you demonstrate to us even one single way in which what Geoffrey said is "non-Christian"?

And by "non-Christian," I don't mean "disagreeing with Neil's opinion," but rather, "disagreeing with Christ's teachings."
 

The thing that gets me is I honestly don't know any liberal Christian who insists that fundamentalists stop reading the Bible literally. Not even Spong does that. But I don't know of any fundamentalists who do not insist that one must read it literally if one is a "real" Christian.

The problem, I reckon, is when we non-literal-Biblicists dare to enter any conversation regarding Christian life whatsoever with fundamentalists. They can't help themselves; they attack.
 

E.R., your self parody was delightful. Almost as good as Geoffrey's post "To Craig."

Seriously, why do you all never quit with the "Biblical literalists" pejorative? By now you should know that isn't true.

I realize it makes it easier to dismiss our views but it is rather sloppy. We know there are different types of literature in the Bible - history, poetry, illustrations, etc. Believing God breathed it all doesn't mean we take it all in a literal fashion.

And if you know it isn't true but trot it out anyway then that isn't very charitable.
 

Similar to when biblical literalists say that you don't love the bible when you merely interpret it differently than them, right? It's not very charitable.

Neil, I'd suggest that if you don't want to point out how Geoffrey's post was "non-Christian," then it would behoove you to withdraw the comment. You wouldn't want to come across as bearing false witness.

That's bad for business, you know - breaking one of the Big Ten in your defense of the Bible as you understand it.
 

Hi Teditor,

"So if my beliefs are exactly in line with yours, I'm non-Christian and incoherent?"

No. I didn't say that. I said his post was incoherent and non-Christian.
 

And I'd reckon the reason that we sometimes refer to "biblical literalists" is because that's one term they use for themselves.

It's not an aspersion, just a descriptor - with the full acknowledgement that "biblical literalists" don't take each and every line literally. The parts that they think are "obviously" metaphor, allegory, etc, they take as such. But the other parts which are "obviously" to be taken literally, must. MUST!

THAT'S what I mean by biblical literalists.
 

"Similar to when biblical literalists say that you don't love the bible when you merely interpret it differently than them, right?"

No, that is just another deception on your part. We pointed out how inconsistent your alleged belief that it is God's Word with your rejections of portions you don't like and insertions of things you do like.

If E.R. wants to delete my comment he is welcome to. I gave two examples already. I could spend all afternoon parsing Geoffrey's man-centric beliefs but I don't think it would be time well spent.
 

You gave two examples of what MIGHT be considered his incoherence, if we're generous. You gave zero examples of how his essay was "un-Christian."

That is a serious charge. If you can't support it, then you have borne false witness against a brother in Christ. That is a serious thing to do.

As is to say that I'm being deceptive. Unless you have some proof of my deception, rejections from and insertions into the Bible, I'd ask you in the name of Jesus to quit casting aspersions and speaking lies about your brothers in Christ.

I'd hope you'd reconsider.

Peace.
 

"Unless you have some proof of my deception, rejections from and insertions into the Bible"

Well, I could go through the examples from all the comments you've posted on my blog (60 in the last week alone), but then that would generate even more comments. And frankly I've had enough of that.
 

"You gave zero examples of how his essay was "un-Christian.""

Actually I said "non"-Christian, in that it was not a traditional Christian view of Scripture.
 

Ha! Neil, why would I delete anything? You speak for yourself.
 

Neil said:

Well, I could go through the examples from all the comments you've posted on my blog (60 in the last week alone), but then that would generate even more comments. And frankly I've had enough of that.

Right, it's much more godly to stick with unfounded assertions and lies.

That's what's really interesting about this whole biblical literality thing excercised by some - it leads to some folk engaging in some horribly ungodly practices in defense of their ideal of godliness. Interesting, but sad.

======
They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, and boastful.. they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these things but also approve of those who practice them.

~Romans 1

Reading ALL of Romans 1 is pretty instructive, instead of picking out a few lines...
 

Ah, yes. Speaking of Romans....
Romans 1:20
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Is Paul saying that since the creation, all men have clearly seen God's eternal power and devine nature and has understood (God?) from what has been made (in nature?). Therefore men have no excuse (not to worship, follow, honor, etc. ??? God) because they have known God (since creation).

So why were there so many ways of worshiping God prior to Abraham or Christ?

Even now Niel, in this one narrow area, how do we know for certain what is non-Christian?
 

Neil writes, "I realize it makes it easier to dismiss our views but it is rather sloppy....."

Oh, the irony. Of course, if one does take the Bible seriously, believes it to be the authoritative revelation of God to man, if one does read the various forms of literature contained therein as intended, *but* if one disagrees with Neil then one is labeled a deceiver, a "wolf in sheep's clothing", a false teacher, a "Dalmatian theologian", etc.

Neil, I realize that this name-calling you use so often makes it easier to dismiss others' views, but it is rather sloppy. ;)

I'm still trying to figure out how the original post was "non-Christian." It's certainly no more "non-Christian" than extra-biblical doctrines like inerrancy.
 

"So why were there so many ways of worshiping God prior to Abraham or Christ?

Even now Niel, in this one narrow area, how do we know for certain what is non-Christian?"

I'm not sure I understand the questions. People have made up their own ways to worship God since Cain until the present day.
 

Alan, just one comment for you: Using a label properly isn't name-calling. If Dan uses his special definition of literalist then I'll take it in that spirit, but it is rather confusing.

People disagree with me on all sorts of non-essentials and I never use those labels. I'm really liberal that way. I use them accurately on those who deny the essentials of the faith. But you knew that.
 

Folks, folks, cherry pickin what verses you want to live by and scraping the rest will get you in the same place that living by the State and Federal laws you agree with and violating the rest.
IN HELL!
 

Well, that might be overstating it.
 

And which essential of the faith am I denying, Neil? Is it another one of those essentials not found in the Bible?

Or would that be asking you to back up your accusations with evidence, which you don't need if you're into faith-based Neilism? Neil hath spake. Thanks be to Neil...?
 

Neil hath spake. Thanks be to Neil...?>

There you go again Dan. You did that same thing to Bubba. What does that have to do with dialog?
 

Man. I'm really glad I was too busy today to wade into this quagmire, which I really didn't meant to create.

Re, "E.R., your self parody was delightful." Neil, I have no idea what you're referring to.

Neil, regarding "descriptors and Re: "I use them accurately on those who deny the essentials of the faith."

If you really believe that belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible is an essential of the faith, well, 1., you're wrong, and 2., your're wrong. You've made the Bible itself part of the godhead, which is, in fact, a form of idolatry, which makes belif in such something akin to magic. Voodoo at least.


Mom2, "dialog" ended right here, with Neil his own self. He quotes Dan, then slams him:

"Similar to when biblical literalists say that you don't love the bible when you merely interpret it differently than them, right?"

No, that is just another deception on your part. We pointed out how inconsistent your alleged belief that it is God's Word with your rejections of portions you don't like and insertions of things you do like.


ER here: Calling it deception implies that Neil knows Dan's heart, which Neil does not, and to call Neils' belief in "God's Word" "alleged" to his face in the face of his own assertion is to call Dan a liar.

This is the stuff wars are made of. The Reformation involved several wars. We are in a Second Reformation.

Bring 'em, on. Screw "radical Islam". Fundamentalist Christian are at rhetorical war with the rest of us. Bring. It. On.
 

And Jesus wept.
 

All this stuff over my little blog post? I am blushing underneath a beard that needs trimming. . .

I am not surprised that Neil called it "non-Christian" (as opposed to un-Christian). Since defenders of chattel slavery used various passages in both testaments to defend the institution, I really do not think Neil has anything pertinent to add. As for the question of supporting women, the Bible is contradictory on that subject, but as feminist biblical scholars have been pointing out for a generation, even the best face hides horrible masks of violence, even terror. Added to this are millennia of Christian theologians describing women as somehow less than men mentally, spiritually, or otherwise. Sometimes worse (one medieval churchman, I forget whom, referred to women as "ordure and vomit"). Hardly encouraging.

For the most part, though, I am more than flattered, even a bit embarrassed, by all this. I thank all those who came and read what I wrote, and voiced support. For Neil, I can only say that my attitude is much like Barth's toward Schleiermacher - I look forward to heaven when we can both laugh at how much we both got wrong. Until then, however, I believe that we should desist from mutual aggravation.
 

mom2 said:

There you go again Dan. You did that same thing to Bubba. What does that have to do with dialog?

I try dialog quite patiently for quite a while. When the attacks and bald-faced lies keep coming, I resort to ridicule. Sarcasm with the purpose of pointing out that, believe it or not, neither Neil nor Bubba are all-knowing.

A rather mild but well-earned response when people keep ridiculously insisting they know my thoughts better than I do.

But you know what? I think maybe I'll make a change. For those who are interested in honest dialog, that's always my first preference. But for those who persist in misrepresenting my position, I'll do no more dialog. All I'll say is:

"That is a bald-faced lie."

They can prove me wrong by providing support for the unsupported positions, or they can back up and tell me they must have misunderstood me and ask some clarifying questions, either of which will result in continued dialog.

But continued lies will only get the "bald-faced lie" retort. You can't dialog with those who insist on twisting your words with the (false) god-like belief that they know best what you think.
 

On a lighter, yet very real note (unless you consider this the false experience of a heretic who refuses to put the almighty Lord our God into little safe and categorized boxes) let me tell you of an experience I had, where God used His own words in a creative and unorthodox fashion :

About 20 years ago, in my early twenties, while I was going to a fairly conservative Baptist church in Germany, I decided, for health reasons and with full personal conviction, that I should start working out at a gym.
At that time, and in that particular denomination, the idea of body building, or working out was a big no-no, as the Bible clearly warned against a focus on the self, and pointed to the end-times when people would be "lovers of self" etc. I knew that if I started there would be a number of people who would question my walk with God, my credibility as a Christian, and be worried that I could lead others onto this false path.
So I prayed, and laid this dilemma before God (at that age I still cared about what other Christians thought of me and my christian walk), and after begging for something I could say when confronted, I felt that He was telling me to read Proverbs 31 for the answer.

Now this was one of my favorite chapters and I felt I knew it inside out, and being the sinful human that I am (thinking I'm smarter than God) I basically told Him that that was really dumb, and that there were no verses in that section about lifting weights.

But God being God, He nudged me again and lo and behold, what did I find? The verse
"She girds herself with strength
And makes her arms strong" v.17 (NASB)
I still laugh when I think of it, and to this very day I love His sense of humor, His total freedom in using what is His in the first place, and there hasn't been a single question I've asked Him directly that He hasn't answered in some way or another.
 

Niel said: "I'm not sure I understand the questions"
They really weren't that hard.

Well, what about these questions?

If "literalist" is a pejorative term and a not appropriate one to use in your case, would your prefer inerrantist, or rigorist, or exclusivinist? Perhaps they are all wrong? How about "Bible believing Christian", but that would equate you with me. I'm a Bible beliving Christian, but I don't seem to share your beliefs about the Bible. For example I belive that much of the current New Testament has been messed with by scribes and churchmen throughout history, but still retains enough core truth that Jesus's message is still there. I also beleive that the Old Testament is one of the most problematic elements of orthodox Christian belief in that it is an attempt to use the book of one religion to validate another. Yet I believe Gods speaks through much of the Old Testament be it Elohim or Jehovah. So what would you call me? Sometimes you tell what you are by what you say others are. A point you yourself have made above, sort of.
 

Karen, that is a GREAT story, and experience. God has to have a sense of humor. I also have said for years that God has to have carpel tunnel syndrome from having to repeatedly keep me between the ditches of life!

Drlobo, I think Neil may very well not understand plain English that uses words as they come, and not as jargon or with baggage attached.

For example, I may refer to the Bible as the Word of God, meaning it in the colloquial sense, meaning that it does have most of the generally acceptd stories that the Church has about Jesus, and it does have the O.T., which is part of our religious heritage.

But Neil says "Word of God" and means something radically different than a mere metaphor, which I see as the very label attached to the false idol of an "inerrant," "infallible" Bible.

And it just goes downhill from there.