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

Ya know, I'll bet a LOT of fundies quietly troll gay blogs. Makes sense, actually.
 

Neil says, and I don't know why he doesn't put it here ... OH, right. It's that courage thing. Silly me:


"p.s. your comment on the post dedicated to me is kinda homophobic. What would be wrong with visiting the blog of a gay person who comments at your site? You owe Alan an apology.


"Regards,

"Neil"


No. I meant you're probably in the closet and living out your fantasies, Ted.
 

Neil spat:
” . . . Jesus seminar . . .”
What a double idiot for looking to those super-frauds for any truth about Jesus."

You are correct, I must be a double idiot for bringing anything searching for the authentic Jesus into this level of exchange, if indeed "exchange" it can characterized. Maybe next time I'll use Albert Schweitzer's
"Quest for the Historical Jesus" to make the points I normally make using the Jesus Seminar. It is just that his summary of the 19th Century search of German theologians for the historical Jesus is considered out of date by many. And of course those familiar with his work know that his conclusions were and are controversial. I assume, perhaps wrongly, that even Neil cannot claim Schweitzer to be a "super-fraud".
Oh and Bubba, I looked at the 38 pages detailing the Jesus Seminar methodology again tonight in their book, "The Five Gospels". I didn't find the criteria you mention on the other thread as one of the things they claim that they did. I assume you have a secondary source for that statement. As for giving detail explanations as to why they made the decisions they did, I think if you read "The Five Gospels" you will find a detailed explanation for each set of votes and result there of, for each of the 1500 quotes by Jesus they considered and argued about.
Although, I don't advocate accepting their results uncritically, I do think they add a usable dimension to the search for understanding and knowledge in which I am engaged.
I do confess to being somewhat disingenuous in bringing up the Jesus Seminar in the first place, in that I did so as I though I were casting my net to see if I could drag up any of those 153 mystical fish mentioned in John, and so I did.
But I have to once again agree with Neil, I am a double idiot for playing with the catch. But help me Lord, for I am weak.
 

Ha. Neil's appearance is a rare example of havin' a fish jump up into the boat with ya while yer checkin' a trotline.

Neil has sworn off comin' around here. Good. And if Bubba has any shame whatsoever, he's embarrassed at having been defended by the likes of Neil.

We'll see, on both counts.

BTW, I just skimmed Alan's blog lookin' for the salacious content Neil promised. Found none. Not surprised. Eh, what's a passel of lies when one is defending one's concept of the Bible?

With friends like this, God don't need no enemies.
 

ER said:"BTW, I just skimmed Alan's blog lookin' for the salacious content Neil promised. Found none."

It was probably on one of the other blogs he reads.
 

What're the chances that Neil and Bubba are the same person?

Bubba's writing is stilted, like someone trying hard to stifle his personality, which Neil has in spades.

Bubba always agrees with Neil, but sometimes takes heat away from Neil, in kind of a bad cop, good cop deal.

Bubba has no blog and no link.

Both have an affinity for misusing the tools of logic -- and both LUV to the "straw man" nondefense when things get untidy: "J'accuse!"

Bubba is always there to give attaboys to Neil on generalities. And Neil is always there to give props on sidebars and odd specifics, which he lets Bubba bring up.

Neil showed up literally minutes after I mentioned his blog in the other post, and Bubba disappeared.

Someone who is better at finding similarities in word use and phrasing should closely inspect each of their writing over time.

But I think Neil is a big fat liar. Wait, I mean I think Bubba is a big fat liar. Well, shoot, I don't know which of 'em is the organ grinder and which is the monkey, but the Neil-Bubba thing is an act.

I'm sure Neil revels in his ruse! He has set up, and maintained a classic didactic dialogue.

But he tipped his hand when he showed his ass. Which makes him contortionist as well as a ventriloquist.

Maybe I give Neil-Bubba too much credit.
 

Wow. I have been reading Alan for a while now, and have yet to read anything like what Neil wrote. I can't imagine anything like that, except perhaps in jest. Even then, I'm not sure what's "hypocritical" about it - Alan is a gay man, and um, finds guys attractive. Commenting on his interest in seeing other men would be perfectly within his purview. If Neil's uncomfortable with that, that would be Neil's problem.

As for whether or not one can be a Christian and support gay marriage - I kind of think that's a no-brainer. The imposition of certain elements of Christian teaching upon an already existing institution is similar to the invention of Christmas and Easter and other "Christian" holidays by reinterpreting pagan festivals. Enough about that, though.

My questions is simple - what was Neil doing? What was he thinking? I don't know if he showed his ass, but he certainly did open up a can of worms, if not necessarily the closet door.

BTW, ER, I never thought I'd see the day when you'd get so judgmental on Neil. I thought that was my job. . .
 

OK, I just did what I should have done in the first place - I went and read the comment thread this was lifted from. Very interesting, if somewhat ignorant on occasion, from Bubba, and while I think Alan might have been assuming too much (I didn't get a whole lot of hate from Bubba's original comment, but I'm not gay, either), the general tone was interesting if occasionally heated.

I do like the way these little discussions go. Someone types something, and it's like the gate opening at Churchill Downs - "and they're off!" As for the Bible supporting monogamous marriage - perhaps these inerrant Biblical scholars might have noted that Isaac and Jacob both had two wives, and Abraham, our most ancient faithful ancestor, had both a legal and what would be referred to now as a common-law wife. The kings of Israel and Judah had multiple wives, and like in China, the children of different wives were duly noted to keep the line of succession clear. I'm not sure when monogamy entered the picture, because two Biblical prophets, Hosea and Ezekiel, are called by God to marry prostitutes and turn them out as symbols of the inconstancy of the chosen people. I suppose that doesn't count, though, because all this was in the New Testament, and these were all perfidious Jews, right?

Trying to figure out what the Bible teaches us about anything other that God's undying, eternal love for us is a fool's game. Trying to get clear moral teachings from a book that encourages genocide, emasculation, incest, and even deceit in the name of God - one's mind boggles at how all those circles are squared, compasses are boxed, and they sleep at night.
 

"All this was in the New Testament" - OK, so I just invalidated my own argument because that should read "Old Testament".

All I can say in my own defense is - oops.

By the way, as a sort of LOL, the word verification is TOEFL - test of English as a Foreign Language.
 

ER:

To pick up a point or two from that earlier, now-closed thread, I don't believe I'm casting aspersions on your faith by referring to you as a "self-described Christian."

My point was not something like "you describe yourself as a Christian and yet I disagree with your assessment."

It's this: you describe yourself as a Christian and yet you reject the reliability of the most authoritative records of who Christ is, what He did, and what He taught.

My intent was not to suggest that your faith is inauthentic, but that this position regarding the Bible is untenable.

I stand by that suggestion for a variety of reasons. The claim that Jesus is specifically the Christ hinges on the veracity of the Old Testament messianic prophecies: saying that only the "gist" of the Christian message is in the Bible "where the devil is in the details" undermines the trust one can have in those prophecies and, therefore, in the identity of Jesus as the Christ. You offer no criterion by which we could possibly sift out the message of Christianity from all the many errors you think are in the Bible: indeed, I don't think you could offer a reasonable such criterion. And, implausibly, you talk about seeking the truth but then reject the necessity of there being an authoritative revelation of the truth.

That you do all this -- going so far as to speculate that Matthew only vaguely recalled what Jesus taught and "went to Scripture to give it the spin he desired", suggesting that you are a more reliable authority on what Jesus actually taught than the Apostles He personally chose -- does stand in stark contrast to your frequent invocation of Christ's name to denounce other Christians you don't like.


Again, my intent was to suggest that your position regarding the Bible is untenable.

But let's just suppose that my intent was to disparage your faith. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I mean to question your fidelity to Christianity.

Your calling Neil an "idolator" is AT LEAST AS BAD.

You're now demonstrating that no personal attack is beneath you. And it's equally clear that you cannot tolerate any criticism yourself, no matter how measured and no matter how substantive.
 

Re, "Commenting on his interest in seeing other men would be perfectly within his purview."

That's kinda what I thought. Empty harrumphing on Neils' part there.


TOEFL -- hoot!
 

OH, but what about it? I think Neil is "real," -- hee hee, gratuitous! -- but is Bubba his online doppelganger?
 

Hey, how the hell did I get involved in this? I'm neither a fundie nor a gay-basher. And I certainly don't share any of Neil-Bubba's feelings.

My suspicion is that Neil is like so many gay-hating men who thrive on bloodying their knuckles on another man's head because of his sexual preference: Deep down, they're jealous of the "out and proud" gay man, because their secret fantasies involve similar sexual desires.

The difference is Neil attempts to use scripture as his weapon. Isn't that blasphemy?

It's as if Neil is not only a member of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., but he's also a Deacon. His views and viewpoints are surely making Fred Phelps proud.

That, in itself, is a clear-cut example of why Neil's comments should be dismissed by normal-thinking people ... and the rest of us who post on ER's blog. :-)
 

Geoffrey, you write, concerning the Old Testament, "I'm not sure when monogamy entered the picture."

I am. Genesis. Eden.

God didn't create two women for Adam.

Of course inerrantists acknowledge that many OT figures were polygamists. Moses was a murderer, and David was an adulterer, too, but the Bible's description of these men's lives is not a commendation of every aspect of those lives.

It's worth noting that polygamy frequently got OT figures in trouble, from the Patriarchs to Solomon, whose idolatry was apparently a consequence of his polygamy. Noah and his sons were all monogamous, and the Law's view of polygamy is at best similar to its view of divorce, which Jesus explained was a concession to man's sinfulness.

Trying to figure out what the Bible teaches us about anything other that God's undying, eternal love for us is a fool's game. Trying to get clear moral teachings from a book that encourages genocide, emasculation, incest, and even deceit in the name of God - one's mind boggles at how all those circles are squared, compasses are boxed, and they sleep at night.

Very simply, if a person believes that the Bible's moral teachings are either incomprehensible or reprehensible, I don't see how that person can trust the Bible's message regarding God's love. If looking to the Bible for answers about every other question is a "fool's game", so too is looking to it for reassurances about God's love.

The militant atheist's disregard for the entire Bible is at least a somewhat coherent postion.


drlobojo, J.P. Holding offers an online summary of why I said what I did about the Jesus Seminar, here.

They dismiss sayings that are Christian...

In the words of the Seminar: "Sayings and parables expressed in 'Christian' language are the creation of the evangelists or their Christian predecessors...The Christian community developed apologetics statements to defend its claims and sometimes attributed such statements to Jesus." (pp. 24-5)

...and sayings that are Jewish:

The Seminar puts it this way: "Words borrowed from the fund of common lore or the Greek scriptures are often put on the lips of Jesus." (p. 23)

At its core, these and other efforts to find the supposed "historical" Jesus engage in gross question-begging to remove from our understanding of Jesus any claims to be divine and anything that would go along with those claims, such as miraculous signs or the claim to be able to forgive sins. It's question begging because Jesus really, historically could have claimed to be God and performed miracles.
 

Summary to this point:
Neil is an organ grinder.
Bubba is his sock monkey.
Neil cruises gay web sites and gets them mixed up in his mind.
Neil sees ER as "homophobic".
Those commenters on ER's blog are phonies.
ER is an idiot.
Drlobojo is a double idiot.
Drlobojo agrees he is a double idiot.
ER has a position on the Bible that he defends and occupies that Bubba says he can't defend or occupy.
ER doesn't respect Neil.
Neil denegrates ER.
GKS chastises ER for taking over his attacks on Neil.
Bubba use conotative insults and then denies they are such.
Drlobojo is having coversation with himself about the effacy fo the Jesus Seminars and the search for the historical Jesus.
Bubba believes that ER is demonstrating that no personal attack is beneath him.
Teditor indicates that people like Neil are:"... they're jealous of the "out and proud" gay man, because their secret fantasies involve similar sexual desires..."
Neil has not yet responded to the thread he inspired.
OK, take it on from here.
 

Bubba, I have to say the reiteration of the Bibliolatrous position that "If you don't believe the Bible about (insert whatever tired horse one is beating), then how can you trust it on anything?" line is refreshing.

If you want to read the Bible that way, all well and good. I don't, and see no way it could be without becoming self-refuting. I'm not sure how polygamy was presented in a bad way in the Old Testament. Nor do I see how the slaughter of innocents by the invading Hebrew people, the rape of Bathsheba by David, the emasculation of an entire city, and the rape of Lot by his daughters is presented in a negative way (except, perhaps, for the last one, which is presented as the genesis of the traditional foes of the ancient kingdom of Israel).

If one wants to present a series of logical syllogisms as the basis for how one reads the Bible, all well and good. If another comes along and says those syllogisms are based on factual, or interpretive, or some other inaccuracy, one might want to reconsider how one reads. Or one could say the person making those assertions doesn't know what he or she is talking about. Or, one could simply ignore them. TO make the ridiculous, and unbiblical, claim that the Bible presents polygamy in a bad light, or other immoral acts undertaken in the name of God as actually evil - that's an insult to one's intelligence.
 

"What would be wrong with visiting the blog of a gay person who comments at your site? You owe Alan an apology."

First of all Neil, I can take care of myself. If I think someone owes me an apology, I'll ask for it. And you're the very LAST person who should be telling anyone else that they owe ME an apology, you disgusting hypocrite.

"No. I meant you're probably in the closet and living out your fantasies, Ted."

Indeed. You can always tell the closet cases. No one is more fascinated by homosexuality than someone who so desperately wants to hide their own orientation.

As for what I write on my blog, it's wide open, the archives are there for anyone to read at any time. If anyone wants to see my rather witty and amusing anecdotes about what I observe in gay culture, they're free to read it at any time.

Neil has obviously spent lots of time reading furtively my blog looking for things to be titillated about, but I'm sure that's completely because he's totally ... you know ... straight.

For example, if I write about a bunch of guys going for a midnight swim at a gay campground and it's cold out, is it some sort of salacious sexual deviancy to comment that, in cold water all men are created equal? Or is it a joke? Neil with his perverted mind, is desperate to see the worst in everything, at the same time is clearly repulsed and excited by such things, given that he believes he has such vivid recall of what I write on my blog.

If he really has a problem with me (and isn't too much of a pathetic coward) he's welcome to comment at my blog any time he pleases. Unlike his blog, I don't ban people.

I do seriously hope and pray that one day Neil will work out these problems of his before he ends up another Larry Craig. His behavior is so stereotypical gay closet-queen that he's become a parody of himself.
 

This however,

"Yeah, I love hearing guys like him teach me about the biblical view of human sexuality. "

Is probably one of the more honest comments Neil has made.
 

Geoffrey, it's not idolatrous to argue this, that the position that Bible is deeply untrustworthy about God's moral law undercuts the Bible's authority on God's love.

I didn't say that the Old Testament explicitly paints polygamy in a bad light: only that its laws approach polygamy in the same way it approaches divorce (which Jesus explained was a divine concession) and that quite a few instances of polygamy led to problems for those OT figures.

I'm not sure how polygamy was presented in a bad way in the Old Testament. Nor do I see how the slaughter of innocents by the invading Hebrew people, the rape of Bathsheba by David, the emasculation of an entire city, and the rape of Lot by his daughters is presented in a negative way (except, perhaps, for the last one, which is presented as the genesis of the traditional foes of the ancient kingdom of Israel).

I think there's a good bit of question begging here, particularly in the assumption that the conquest of Israel involved the killing of "innocents". The Old Testament certainly didn't present them as such.

But more than that, the Bible is absolutely clear in its condemnation of David's adulterous rape of Bathsheba and the murder plot that followed. God's prophet Nathan delivered a message of His judgment to David in II Samuel 12.
 

Time for a humor injection. Enjoy:

http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2007/10/27/
 

Sorry for the multiple posts ER, but I thought you'd like to see this since you're an Okie, and since the comments are closed on the Kern post...

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080312_1_A13_hThey04584

Apparently she lied about getting death threats.

Anyone else completely and totally not surprised?
 

Re Kern: Aspiring to be a martyr is nothing new. I must be a real bummer when nobody will take you up on it.
 

I can't believe that "shrinkage" has arisen in theis thread -- and I don't mean what they call it when cattle lose weight during transport.
 

OK. I first put this is at about 8:30 a.m., but it got ate. So ...

Bubba-Neil, you are a riot. I denounced no one until last night. Neil-Bubba has been asking for it for a long time, then he drew blood, and now he can kiss it.

Would somebody else please set Bubba-Neil straight on the particulars of why he's wrong in his assertions of my take on Scriptural authority? And hoe the Bible is NOT the only testimony to the Christness of Christ. And how the O.T. is a great place for a "completed Jews," as they're called, to look to make sense of the holy intervention by the divine that we all call Jesus, but not necesarrily so much for a non-Jew? Thanks. I do have to work for a living.

Oh, and on me being "JUST AS BAD." Maybe. But I never claimed to be good. And I've held my tongue -- or, two typing fingers, for a long time. Neil, and anyone else, who keeps God locked up in the Bible is an idolator. The funny thing is it wouldn't take too much looking to find a BIBLE verse or two to back that up.

Y'all have at it. Work is a doozy today -- so much that I brought 2 cigars to have here on my desk as the carrots at the end of the stick!
 

"I can't believe that "shrinkage" has arisen in theis thread -- and I don't mean what they call it when cattle lose weight during transport."

While I would love to take credit for that, alas, Neil was the one who brought it up originally. (Color me "So-Not-Surprised.") ;)

"Neil-Bubba has been asking for it for a long time, then he drew blood, and now he can kiss it."

Yup, there I was, just going along, minding my own business, when Neil/Bubba storms in hissing and spitting about me. His creepy obsessive fascination with me and my "lifestyle" gives me the willies.

On the upside, I am TOTALLY going to be using my new nickname "Super-Phony" whenever possible. That's Mr. Super-Phony to you! As Rick James might say, "I'm a super-phony, super-phony....I'm super-phoneeeeeeh"

Dammit... We have to stop writing Neilbubba's name or he'll appear, like the Candy Man. (You know, because "a friend" will email him about what we write here ... yeah, right.) We should just call him HWMNBN from now on, like Lord Voldemort.

Important Note: I am not, in any way comparing Neilbubba with Lord Voldemort. I would never do such a thing. That comparison would be completely unfair ..... to Voldemort. LOL
 

First off, Alan, you are both witty and vicious, like Paul Lynde with a good script.

As to Bubba's reply, specifically the presentation of the resident's of Palestine prior to the Hebrew invasion and any alleged innocence on the part of those about to meet the wrath of the Holy Sword of the Holy People (they didn't have the Holy Hand Grenade yet), all I can say is this - when the Bible recounts that entire populations were slaughtered, not just men, but women, children, the old folk, cattle, etc., I think it fair to say that one or two innocents were caught in the drag net.

Since we're on the subject of innocence and the Bible and morality, let me just add that Bubba's point (while I respect ER's position that Bubba and Neil are one and the same person, I refuse without further proof to make such a connection) about the Bible and "God's morality" misses what I was attempting to say. I am not arguing that God's morality is superior to human morality. It is clear from the Bible there are times that God is a pretty immoral, small-minded creature. Indeed, in Numbers (I believe), Moses rebuked God who was having a hissy fit over another "murmuring" episode and was going to abandon the children in the wilderness. And God repented of his anger. No, my point is quite different. My point is this - our current crop of moral scolds and tut-tutters about all things moral, whether it be sex, bad words, sipping a bit of alcohol, or viewing the unclothed female form (or unclothed male form, for that matter, shrinkage not included) ignore the fact that the Bible actually says quite little about these kinds of things, except to note that the most prominent figures in the history of the faith were not only subject to such failings, but sometimes these falterings and stumblings became part and parcel of the history of the faith.

The overriding message of the Bible, for this humble sinner, is simply this - God's love for us continues even in the midst of our "immorality" precisely because God doesn't really care all that much about such things. We were created and deemed very good to include the freedom to make bad choices, and do bad things. I do believe that says a lot about who we are as children of God.

Am I implying that we should ignore morals? Obviously not. I am only saying there is no Biblical basis for getting all church-lady on people who make mistakes. God used Moses even after he killed someone. God stuck with the people after they followed divine decree and destroyed the entire population of the city of Jericho. Since we have some so-called Christians (I am not saying Bubba is one, but as he is of the same type - all fundie and Bibliolatrous) who argue that we have a divine mandate to kill all those Muslims we can't convert (kind of like al Qaeda in reverse), I think they have a far better Biblical argument than those who insist that such a position might be a tad . . . immoral.

By the way, drlobojo, I wasn't taking ER to task for what he said about Neil. I was trying to be humorously ironic, because he has chastised me in the past for some of the intemperate things I have said. I have no problem with what ER said; I'm just wondering why it took him so long to do it.

And, on a final note, may I just say that I love it when bigots lecture the rest of us on how prejudiced we are. Neil telling ER he needs to apologize to Alan, and Bubba insisting he doesn't hate "teh gay", but we obviously do because we joke about such things pretty openly - it's like living in opposite world. While I don't know if Neil is a classic closet case (sorry, Alan, that was funny, but I refuse to sign on to that petition), but the general fundie obsession with all things gay, while claiming to be disgusted by it is kind of weird.
 

Geoffrey, I appreciate the benefit of the doubt regarding ER's theory that Neil and I are the same person. We're not.

However, I reject your suggestion that my defending myself from the suggestion that I hate gays is unjustifiable lecturing about other people's prejudice. If someone thinks that the position that homosexuality is immoral is equivalent to hatred for homosexuals, he is prejudiced.


You write, "It is clear from the Bible there are times that God is a pretty immoral, small-minded creature." If you hold that position, I still don't grasp how you can be confident in God's love for us.

Or, if you think that God really isn't immoral and small-minded and thus reject the Bible's characterization of God (as you understand it, with which I would probably not agree), then I don't see how you think the Bible is a reliable source regarding His love.

The overriding message of the Bible, for this humble sinner, is simply this - God's love for us continues even in the midst of our "immorality" precisely because God doesn't really care all that much about such things.

I disagree. The cross demonstrates both God's love for us and His hatred of sin. Jesus prayed that the cup would pass, and it did not.

Jesus affirmed the moral standards of the Old Testament, even teaching that lust and hatred are as immoral as adultery and murder. God's concern for justice and holiness prevented Him from offering grace on the cheap: it's offered as a free gift to us, but it cost Him plenty.
 

I'd probably say the Cross demonstrates Jesus's love for others, and for God, and is the Very Example of the least among us becoming greatest -- mroe than it says about sin. Which is NOTHING, unless you are a Jew in need of a Supreme Sacrifice to assuage your angry God. Sorry, I'm not Jewish.
 

ER, your basis for that particular view on the cross is, what, exactly?


If you would like to demonstrate how Jesus' claim to be the Christ stands without the authority of the prophecies about Christ from the Old Testament, go right ahead.

If you would like to demonstrate how the Old Testament has no value for non-Jewish Christians, go right ahead.

Neil, and anyone else, who keeps God locked up in the Bible is an idolator. The funny thing is it wouldn't take too much looking to find a BIBLE verse or two to back that up.

You misconstrue the inerrantist position. It's not that all of who God is is contained in the Bible, it's that the Bible contains nothing but truth on the subject of who God is. Everything in the Bible is true -- it's not that everything that is true is in the Bible.

But if you can find a Bible verse or two that repudiates the notion of the Bible's inerrancy, go right ahead.


I expect that these claims are as empty as your theory about the likelihood that Matthew 19 contains "spin" rather than a reliable record of what Jesus actually taught.
 

I do so love these meaty conversations. I think I shall respond to Bubba (who claims he is Not Neil) over at my own blog, if for no other reason than I don't want to waste space here.
 

*groan* at least I can thank Neil that I found this blog!

I actually found a few I like from commenters on his.

And I have to admit I keep going back to the candy store hoping for something new...but there isn't anything really. Same old stuff, with the same flaccid reasoning, only more rote and uninspired for all the repitition.

You know how you used to like Hersheys when you were a kid, but every year it just seems waxier and waxier, as if they just add *that much* less chocolate as time goes on.

That's the Neil experience for me. Seemed like something different, but just the same old jazz in the end.

Don't worry, ER, you won't have to kick the candy store habit eventually, it will kick you. You just get tired of the monotony.

Just don't let him get you riled. It just leaves you feeling foolish that you could have cared about anything he said, and that you got so suckered by the nice reasonable guy act.

Let him go his way, and you go yours. Right now, you are just feeding the persecution complex.
 

Heck ER, I'll testify that your biblical position is so near the norm that it is disgustingly mundane :)! If anybody here is a heretic they surely can't out heretic me, I'll betcha.

For example, as far as the Old Testament goes, the only reason that Paul in the earliest of our Chrisitan works started referring back to the OT is so that when he snuck in his new Greek Mystery Religion based on the Jewish Messiah he could tie it to the Hellenistic Jewish Diaspora. The Christ was pre-distributed within the OT, so he could use those predictions of his god-man coming rather than any of the mythological structure of the god-man or son-of-god found in the Egyptian or Greek traditions. When you look at the first recorded sources of "Christian" writings you will find that they come out of the Greek speaking/literate Diaspora located in Tartus, Antioch, and Alexandria, all hot beds of one or another god-man-died-resurected deities. Indeed When Paul-Mark-Mathew-Luke quotes the OT, they always quote the Septuagint which was the Greek translation created by Ptolemy Sucor(the Savior) for his Library in Alexandria. We know this because there are numerous mistranslations from the original Hebrew in the Greek Septuagint that show up verbatim in the Greek New Testament.

As far as the Jewish world is concerned the OT, their version, is their own tribal God speaking to them and no one else. It is their book and they don't believe in this Christian Jehovah that is taught on Sunday mornings across America. Indeed a Christian- Jehovah is an oxymoron.

Of course Paul's new religion didn't quite developed the way he envisioned. Only a few Jews within the diaspora embraced it and the Ebonites in Israel changed it into their own thing and drove Paul nuts. So he dusted off his sandals towards them, disavowed their need for the Law of Moses and went on his way. But even then, by the second century he wasn't linear enough for those who embraced his outer simple message of the mysteries, so they, the soon to be orthodox branch, basically forge some more letters by him having him disavow his own positions. Even the Evangelical Conservative Seminaries teach that today.
So, now that, Bubba, Neil, whom ever, is a radical position. Which of these REAL points would you like to discuss? Want to do some real theology rather than your Wednesday night Bible study stuff? Let's go.
 

Per your previous post...

ER: "Red flag warning: ANY allusions cast upon ANYONE's Christianity will be deleted without comment."

Will you hold yourself to that same high standard, Mr. Spitzer?

Or is hypocrisy the order of the week?
 

Well butter my butt and call me a biscuit, haven't had such a wet blanket reaction since I borrowed Carlos Hickey's pet skunk and took it on aa leash to a school dance as my date.
Sorry about the outburst there ER.
Won't happen no more.
 

ER posted the following in Geoffrey's blog, and I think it is better answered here:

Casn't type.

Heree;

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8:38-39

How this doesn;'t trump all isd beyond me. aND A LITTLEE IROnic, it beeing the use of a a verse meant to refutee the use of verses.

But there it is.

It wouldn't be ironic, it would be self-defeating. Nevertheless, I don't see how Romans 8:38-39 has any bearing on the idea that God can communicate and has communicated to us through inerrant, authoritative written revelations. Nor do I see how this passage has any bearing on the idea that we should consult the Bible.

You would have to show that the Bible attempts to separate us from God's love. It doesn't: it documents how God's love is revealed and assures us that God's love is real.
 

"The Message"? That's not a bible.... It's a paraphrase. Huge difference, ER.

Talk about 'adding to,' and 'taking away!'
 

EL, show me where I've expressed douybt about anyone's Christianity.

And, if I thought that any form of the Bible was inerrant, a paraphrase might bother me. But I don't. because it's not, and do it doesn't. The gist is all that matters, and the gist is in all of 'em.

Y'alls' long scrolls are makin' you stumble, and it really is a sad sight.
 

I'm not speaking for ElAshley, but in the blog entry for this thread, you called Neil an idolator who's "a walking, blogging example of how NOT to be Christ-like."

That certainly seems very close to questioning his Christianity, and is (as I said) at least as objectionable as my referring to you as "self-described Christian."

Again, my comment wasn't to cast aspersions on the authenticity of your faith, but to highlight the seeming contradiction between it and your position on the authoritative texts that explain our faith. If the reason for your comment wasn't to question the authenticity of Neil's faith, you should probably make that clear.


About your approach to the Bible...

The Gospels are clear that Jesus Himself approached Scripture as it then existed (i.e., the Old Testament) in a manner that is not consistent with the idea that "the gist is all that matters."

Though you speculate that the Gospels are unreliable on this point, you've offered no reason for us to be persuaded by that speculation. You have offered no reliable standard by which we can determine which of Christ's sayings are trustworthy. And you have offered no reliable guide about how to separate the authoritative "gist" from what you think are the erroneous details.

I don't think you can offer us any of these things, but I don't think such reasons, standards, and guides exist.

If you can prove me wrong, I would ask you to do so.
 

Bubba. I don't care whether you are persuaded or not! I am NOT trying to convince you OF anything or persuade you to DO anything. About your own approach to faith and the Bible, I mean.

As for my own, they ARE my own, and many, many others. ... Ya know, I'm past caring, actually, whether I and others like me pass muster in yer book. Hmmm. In fact, I'm sure I don't care.

Re, "The Gospels are clear that Jesus Himself approached Scripture as it then existed (i.e., the Old Testament) in a manner that is not consistent with the idea that 'the gist is all that matters.' "

One, the Gospels are clear about NOTHING.

Two, I disagree, obviously. Jesus took the Scriptures he inherited as a Jew and blew their doors off as a -- OK, as "the" -- divine. The idea that he clung to jots and tittles the way you do is nuts.
 

Re, "an idolator who's "a walking, blogging example of how NOT to be Christ-like."


He IS an idolator if he thinks the Bible is inerrant, and that all idea and interpretations of God and the Christian life can be crammed into it. You, too.

But see, I don't mean to say that he isn't a Christian. We all idolize something.

AND, I'm not worth a damn at being a Christian a lot of the time. The fact that I point out directly that Neil was being an asshole says nothing about the fundmental status of his relationship with God, i.e., his Christianity.

Bubba, do you work for a living? Yer wearin' me out.
 

Hell Weel behind me, I got a little time to get caught up.

From Bubba...

Re, "It's this: you describe yourself as a Christian and yet you reject the reliability of the most authoritative records of who Christ is, what He did, and what He taught."

I do not. I question the reliability of the record of the ARGUMENTS made and INTERPRETATIONS asserted in the Bible as to who Jesus of Nazareth is.

Re, "My intent was not to suggest that your faith is inauthentic, but that this position regarding the Bible is untenable."

Untenable? Indefensible? Hardly. I'm defending it quite well, although haphazardly -- obviously, since you've not convinced me I'm wrong. Untenable? No. Pick a better word for what you mean. "Wrong" is fine.

Re, "The claim that Jesus is specifically the Christ hinges on the veracity of the Old Testament messianic prophecies ..."

Yes. If one accepts them as prophecies, and not a ready source for the second-earliest Christians to proof-text Jesus of Nazareth into the Messiah they were looking for.

Re, "undermines the trust one can have in those prophecies and, therefore, in the identity of Jesus as the Christ."

Only if one's faith in He who we call Christ hinges on acceptance of those prophecies. I arge that that's not necesarry for one to follow Jesus, i.e., to be a Christian. Trust is essential to it; but those specifics are not.

Re, "you talk about seeking the truth but then reject the necessity of there being an authoritative revelation of the truth."

I do not. I reject your assertion that the Bible is the ONLY revelation, such as it is, and I disagree, I'm positive, on the definition of "authoritative," since to me it has nothing whatever to do with inerrancy or infallibility. It is authoritative as the source for the thoughts that most, but not all, of early, but not the earliest, Christians had concerning Jesus of Nazareth and their encounter with the Divine.

Re, "That you do all this -- going so far as to speculate that Matthew only vaguely recalled what Jesus taught and 'went to Scripture to give it the spin he desired' ..."

Speculation is all I have. And it's all you have.

Re, "suggesting that you are a more reliable authority on what Jesus actually taught than the Apostles He personally chose ..."

I am an authority on nothing buit my own walk with Jesus.

Red, "does stand in stark contrast to your frequent invocation of Christ's name to denounce other Christians you don't like."

Rarely have I denounced anyone. I did call Neil out for being a jerk without due provocation.
 

Teditor: I was making a smart-alecky reference to Ted Haggard. :-)
 

Re, "witty and vicious, like Paul Lynde with a good script."

LOLOL. Dang, that's a good line.
 

Bubba, I think it was out of line for you to lift a comment I made on another blog and put it here. If I'd've meant to put it here, I would've.

But, the etiquitte (sp?) of blogging is evolving. But I'd really rather you didn't do it again. Thanks.
 

ER:

First, I do work for a living. I'm just a fairly fast typist.

And, I'm sorry you took offense to my reposting your comment from Geoffrey's blog and replying here. I don't think it was out of line. Because your comment seemed more germane to this thread, and because I'm not interested in starting two parallel discussions with you, I decided to answer the comment here.


Now, I understand your positions are your own, but I do think you have a responsibility to your Christian brothers to defend your position if you're going to attack us as idolators for holding different positions. If you're not interested in defending your position, don't attack the contrary positions of others.


Ultimately, I think you misunderstand the doctrine of inerrancy.

He IS an idolator if he thinks the Bible is inerrant, and that all idea and interpretations of God and the Christian life can be crammed into it. You, too.

Inerrancy doesn't entail the belief that all truths about God are contained in the Bible: it's only that everything the Bible does contain, is true.

What you describe can be better labeled as something like "comprehensiveness". I believe the Bible is inerrant, but I don't believe it's comprehensive.

In fact, the Bible is clear that it isn't comprehensive: John writes that he couldn't possibly include everything Jesus did, Jesus teaches that only the Father knows the hour of His return (and therefore that knowledge isn't recorded in the Bible), and in the Revelation John is revealed things that he's explicitly told not to share.

You criticize inerrancy partially because it doesn't appear that you have a completely accurate concept of what it means.


About how Jesus affirmed the Old Testament, you write:

One, the Gospels are clear about NOTHING.

Two, I disagree, obviously. Jesus took the Scriptures he inherited as a Jew and blew their doors off as a -- OK, as "the" -- divine. The idea that he clung to jots and tittles the way you do is nuts.

It's utter nonsense that the Gospels are clear about nothing. It's clear, for instance, that Jesus appealed to the Genesis account of human creation in answering the question of divorce in Matthew 19. You don't question that passage's clarity: you question its authenticity.

Beyond that, your second paragraph here makes no sense in light of the first paragraph. To what authority do you appeal to argue that Jesus undermined the authority of Jewish Scripture? There is no record of Jesus' life and teachings that are remotely close to the Gospels in their reliability, so if you want to argue that the Gospels are unclear on everything, you ultimately have to conclude that we are to live in utter ignorance of who Jesus is and what He did and taught.
 

Oh, stop.

I did NOT say the Scriptures were unclear about everything. I said they are clear about nothing. That is NOT the same thing, although the matter of degrees is important.

And hey, there is plenty of information out there on the reasons why some of us take the Bible seriously, but not all of it literally. I'm not going to lead you to it.

On "idolator." I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks, as my blood pressure ebbs and flows. But I'm about as much a heretic as y'all are idolators. I'm outside the mainstream of Christianity, and so are inerrantists. The thing we need to to is quit calling one other names and accept that, like it or not, we are all, in fact, under the tent.
 

ER, would you mind explaining how there's even a tiny difference between the position that the Bible is clear about nothing and the position that it's unclear about everything? It certainly seems to me that the two positions are functionally identical.


The more I read about your beliefs -- not just a denial of inerrancy, but your attempts to sever Christianity from its essential roots in Judaism -- the more convinced I am that you are not just outside the mainstream of Christian thought: I believe your positions are outside (or very nearly outside) small-o orthodoxy altogether. We should try to be as charitable as possible, but we shouldn't sacrifice truth for the sake of cheap reconciliation, so I'm not going to pretend that the tent of orthodoxy is infinitely large.

Similarly, if you genuinely believe that inerrantists are idolators, I'm not asking you not to say what you think is true for the sake of getting along: I'm simply saying that you have an obligation to explain and justify the charge of idolatry.
 

I think you can't read.

I did NOT say "the Bible is clear about nothing"! I said the GOSPELS are clear about nothing. An overstatement. I mean they are inconsistent in their assertions of what it means to "be a Christian."

I did NOT "attempt to sever Christianity from its essential roots in Judaism"!!! I said, and say, that those roots are not essential for one to have faith in God through Christ! This is an old, old argument, and I am DONE with it.

Re, "we shouldn't sacrifice truth for the sake of cheap reconciliation ..." Of course you would think so, because you apparently think you have a handle on the truth. Where you see cheap reconcilation is probably the human form of what I deliberately call Holy Sloppy Grace.

Re, "the more convinced I am that you are not just outside the mainstream of Christian thought: I believe your positions are outside (or very nearly outside) small-o orthodoxy altogether."

I could not care less. And this is new. Congratulations. You are a straw. The kind that broke a camel's back. I have almost completely quit caring what other Christians think about me, and this little run of an encounter with you, and Neil's surprise fly-in out of the blue, are the reasons. Judgmental as Pharisees; argumentative and as particular about nonessentials as scribes. Working to keep people OUT of God's grace rather than usher them in from the highways and hedges. Daring to play the defense for One who needs no defense. It's funny, and sad. And tiresome.

And, I have NO obligation to explain or justify my assertion of idolatry -- because it is NOT a "charge," it is an opinion. I'd suggest that you give at least a little consideration as to how anyone could suggest that you and other inerrantists are idolators. I'm not making it up out of thin air.

The way you read what you want to into my words makes me wonder how you could possibly be so hard-shelled about biblical inerrancy, if you read what you want into everything you read.
 

ER, in this one thread alone, you've called Neil "a walking, blogging example of how NOT to be Christ-like", a shame and an embarassment to his ministry, a phony, a loser, a liar, a jerk, and an asshole.

("With friends like this, God don't need no enemies.")

You've repeatedly called both of us idolators and now compare us to Pharisees and scribes.

Maybe I'm just reading what I want into all that, but I don't think you're in any position to call anyone else judgmental.
 

Yes, I am. I'm in the same exact position that YOU are.

Which is NOWHERE without God's Grace, ignorant except for God's revelation (tut-tut! revelation comes in the Bible, and elsewhere, I'll grant; it's that the whole of the Bible is revelation that I deny); and utterly without hope apart from Christ.

You and me, bud. Two peas in a pod. I neither look up to you in admiration nor down on you in judgmeant. I look OVER to you as your brother.

And you can't stand it.

Same with Neil. And he can't stand it either.


Hey, be a neighbor: Participate in more than one thread.
 

BTW, there you go again, not reading.

Re, "in this one thread alone, you've called Neil 'a walking, blogging example of how NOT to be Christ-like' ..."

Yes. Reread his rant, recall that it came out of the blue. Note that on the "70 percent" post at his place, even he acknowldged that he'd never called any an idiot before, indicating he knew he'd gone over the tope, for him. But read carely how he mischaracterized my complaint about the "lady" who expressed her "opinion" on homosexuality (Rep. Sally Kern). And, his summation of our encoutner. He lied.


Re, "a shame and an embarassment to his ministry ..."

No. I said he wasd a shame and embarrassment to Kairos. Which is bigger than him -- not "his ministry." And I said that, knowing what I know about Kairos' ecumenical apporach, the pledges participants make to that end, *and* knowing how Neil slams every denomination, and every shade of every dedomination that dares see things differently than himself.


Re, "a loser ..."

Yep. Anger meeting anger.


Re, "a jerk ..."

Ditto.


Re, "an asshole."

Ditto ditto.
 

I have no problem with your "looking over" to me as your Christian brother. My problem is that this proclamation of brotherly fellowship frequently alternates with venomous bile.

I look OVER to you as your brother.

And you can't stand it.

Any person who was sincere about the first sentence wouldn't be so quick to type the second sentence.
 

Oh, bull. The day "Christian brother" means "be nice" is the day we all go to hell. :-)


Re, "My problem is that this proclamation of brotherly fellowship frequently alternates with venomous bile."

It goes around and it comes around. I hate to quit talking about Neil, but y'all are closer to one another in outlook than I am to either one of you -- but you know as well as I do that almost any straying from the Neil Way is met with ridicule, judgmentalism and, increasingly, plain meanness.

Neil says X.

ER says, "Not necesarrily. Y."

Then the fur flies, I get callred a heretic, and the bile rises on both sides, and from now on I'm prolly gonna use the I-option anytimne I get called an H!

I wish you'd go back and count up how many times you said to me "I don't see." That's a tell. Either yer blind, or you haven't looked, or yer unwilling to see. Or, you've looked, and you see nothing. But to keep insisting that I SHOW you is just annoying. No. None of the basis for my thinking is hidden (I have a gfew Gnostic tendencies, but not that one!) except for my own exprerience.

:-)
 

Ha. I meant to say: I hate to KEEP talking about Neil ...

LOL. Ya know, he said I had an obsession with him. I confess it, sort of.

I've said before, in all seriousness, that I think if I have a calling to ministry, it's to two different camps: The fundamentalist who so venerates the Bible as to border on idolatry, and the Church Alumni Society, Spong's term for those who have tuned out, turned out and disappeared because they can't believe any longer in what they have decided are fairy tales.

God is bigger than, and able to cut through, both kinds of artifice -- but he chooses to use people to do it.

Maybe I'll look back on these encounters someday and see that I was learning the hard way how to fail at my calling. But, with failure comes learning.
 

ER, if you've explained yourself so thoroughly, it should be easy for you to point out where, for instance, you actually defended your speculation that Matthew inserted into his Gospel those passages that you don't happen to like.
 

I didn't say I'd explained it, or defended it. I said the thinking is out there. Go look it up yourself.

Oh, why bother? If you start with the premise that the Bible is inerrant, that the "autograph" originals were dictated to the writers, who faithfully wrote it down, as an article of faith, then there is no amount of merely human scholarly information or discussion that can get through to you.

But really, if you think the Gospels are "reports," in the way we understand the term, or that they represent "history" as we understand the term, how do we even continue the thread?

The writer we now call "Matthew" wrote an apology, an argument, an editorial, a work of interpretation. As such, there is good reason to suppose that he went to the Scripture of his day to find writing to bolster his assertion -- and granted, that of his fellows -- that Jesus was the messiah as foretold in Scripture. Just like people today go to Scripture to back up their assertions and interpretations.
 

Again, you misunderstand inerrancy. Inerrancy does not mean that "that the 'autograph' originals were dictated to the writers," rather that the Holy Spirit guided them while not trampling on the personality of the individual writer.

I grant that, like the other Evangelists, Matthew wrote his Gospel with a specific purpose in mind, but it does not follow that he falsified his account of Jesus' life and ministry by attributing to Him things Jesus did not do or say.

I'll also agree that Matthew's position was that "Jesus was the messiah as foretold in Scripture."

What I wonder is, do you agree with that position or not? On the one hand you seem to approach the Old Testament as a "ready source for the second-earliest Christians to proof-text Jesus of Nazareth into the Messiah they were looking for."

On the other hand, when I draw the obvious conclusion from statements like that and suspect that you're trying to sever Christianity from its essential roots in Judaism, you object to that characterization in no uncertain terms.

Now, I'm not asking whether it's necessary for a Christian to believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, I'm asking whether you think it's true that He is the Jewish Messiah.

If you do, then I fail to see how Matthew's goal undermines the reliability of his Gospel.

If you don't, then you should be a lot more honest about your opinion of Judaism.
 

It is a wonder that people whose native languages are different ever learn to communicate.

...


Re, "rather that the Holy Spirit guided them while not trampling on the personality of the individual writer."

No, it means more than that. God guides me in my own writing sometimes. But it's not inerrant. So inerrancy means much more than that: It means fricking inerrant.


Re, "it does not follow that he falsified his account of Jesus' life and ministry by attributing to Him things Jesus did not do or say."

The concept of "falsifying" a piece of writing didn't exist at the time. The author of Matthew would have felt totally comfortable attributing specific "made up" words to Jesus, if the gist of it was subsubstantiated by the community of believers. And he would have felt comfortable turning to Scripture to bolster it. ... That is not "falsifying" in the sense that we understand the term.


Re, "Now, I'm not asking whether it's necessary for a Christian to believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, I'm asking whether you think it's true that He is the Jewish Messiah."

Can't say. I know it's true that the earliest Christians believed that he was. I also recall the great row between the first Jewish Christians and the first Gentile Christians. The first Jewish believers, at first, wanted to make the Gentiles
Jews first, then Christians. You'e trying to get me to concede to something that doesn't matter to me, which is a very similar sort of thing.


Re, "I fail to see how Matthew's goal undermines the reliability of his Gospel."

This is one thing I'm glad you fail to see. Because I don't say Matthew is unreliable, for what it is -- a sacred example of one of the earliest attempts to explain the encounter with the divine. And I don't think that questioning why the author wrote exactly what he did is an attempt to undermine it. It's an attempt to see ti for what it is -- not what I, or anyone else, wishes it to be.


Re, "you should be a lot more honest about your opinion of Judaism."

NIP IT. Do NOT suggest or imply, even in such a conditional, that I am being less than honest. I am being as honest and a straightforward as I can be.
 

Er, you made the following statement.

“The concept of "falsifying" a piece of writing didn't exist at the time. The author of Matthew would have felt totally comfortable attributing specific "made up" words to Jesus, if the gist of it was subsubstantiated by the community of believers. And he would have felt comfortable turning to Scripture to bolster it. ... That is not "falsifying" in the sense that we understand the term.”

I am curious as to what you mean by this statement and where one could find documentation for it. I have seen some fairly recent scholarship, which argues that oral cultures do a better job of accurately transmitting information that cultures based on writing. I'd appreciate some direction.
 

ER, inerrancy does not mean divine dictation, and a great many Christians who affirm inerrancy do not believe that inerrancy means that the human writers' personalities were suppressed.


You "can't say" whether you believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah? I don't see why not. It's not a difficult question.
 

Dadgum it, Bubba, I mean "I don't profess to know"! "I don't know"!
 

Re, "inerrancy does not mean divine dictation ..."

Whatever. Inerrancy is clear enough. Sufficient unto salvation? Yes. Inerrant. No! To make the claim is, in fact, an act of idolatry, since a basic plank of Christian theology, across the centuries, is that nothing that human beings are involved with producing can be perfect.
 

Hidy, Craig.

You ask about oral cultures. I was talking about literacy -- the act of writing the Gospel of Matthew -- and the concepts of "facts" and "accuracy" then as opposed to now.

But here's a link to an academic article in the academic Oral Tradition Journal that might have something along those lines. It's from 2002, which is very recent, in an academic publishing sense:

http://journal.oraltradition.org
/files/articles/17i/Kelber.pdf
 

And bow, surely. somewhere in this metro area of a million, there is a green beer with my name on it. :-)
 

Bubba, you labor under the mistaken apprehension that ER, or me, or Neil, or you, are in the midst of an argument in which one of us is right and the rest of us are all not only wrong but on our way to eternal perdition. You might well be right, or Neil, or ER. Shoot, I might be right.

I have no interest in convincing anyone that what I believe is the truth. You do, for whatever reasons. You have no interest in just listening to other people. You have to tell them how they are not only wrong, but ultimately, irretrievably wrong. That is why I tire of these kinds of things. Not that we talk (or type) past one another. Rather, one side wants to argue, and the other just talk, and since I didn't come to argue, I do wish you would just stop. As this is not my web log, I cannot ask you to do so. I can, however, say that I have failed to read anything you have written that would convince me that Christianity is a religion worth believing in. In fact, you have shown pretty clearly that I would be much happier without your version of Christianity, or your type of Christian, anywhere near me, my family, or my life.

Luckily, God works with me differently than God works with you, so that's OK.
 

I find myself increasingly feeling the same way, and thinkjing the same thing. If Christianity is primarily a set of beliefs, then ... well, keep it. Where's the genesis of communion with God in THAT?

Eh.


Let the record reflect that 1 hour and 17 minutes since I declared my intention to procure a green beer, I'm back home -- and said ber was a 15-minute drive away.

Tonight is one of the "amateur nights." Safe back here at the house with my critters is the best place for ER!
 

Geoffrey, I thought I was quite civil in our brief conversation at your blog, so I'm quite surprised to see you write that everything I've written convinces you that you would be far happier without my type of Christian anywhere near you.


ER, about inerrancy you write:

To make the claim is, in fact, an act of idolatry, since a basic plank of Christian theology, across the centuries, is that nothing that human beings are involved with producing can be perfect.

First, this strikes me as an actual argument. That's fine by me, and I appreciate the substance behind the conclusion that inerrancy is idolatrous, even though I disagree with the substance.

However, it may be bad timing to present an argument like this right when Geoffrey is trying to tell me that I'm the only one here who's the least bit interested in explaining and defending one's positions.


Anyway, I believe that historic Christian theology is that no merely human work can be perfect. If the original autograph manuscripts of the Bible cannot be perfect because humans were involved, it seems to me that, logically, Jesus could not have lived a sinless life because He was human.

I reject that line of thought. Jesus lived a perfect life because He was both fully human and fully divine. Because God could live a perfect human life by incarnating a man, I see no inherent idolatry in believing that God could create a perfect text by inspiring a select group of men.

To suggest that God couldn't inspire men He created to write an inerrant set of texts to communicate His message is to render God less than omnipotent and to put Him in a box that's unworthy of Him.


No, Christianity isn't primarily a set of beliefs: it's a relationship with God. But that relationship can be less than what God intended if the individual hold beliefs about God that are not true.

It seems to me that you believe beliefs matter: hence, your repeated assertion that Biblical inerrancy is idolatrous.

There are politicians who try to sell themselves as being beyond labels, and it soon becomes clear that what they really want is unanimity behind their positions. I think I'm seeing the same thing here: you're oh-so-above questions of mere doctrine and yet you have no problem telling people whose beliefs differ from yours that they're guilty of idolatry.
 

Bubba! You really can't rwad!

GKS said: " ... anything you have written that would convince me that Christianity is a religion worth believing in. In fact, you have shown pretty clearly that I would be much happier without your version of Christianity, or your type of Christian ..."

In attempting to repeat it, you said: "everything I've written convinces you that you would be far happier without my type of Christian ... "

You simply cannot equate those two statements! In the sense he used it, he meant "nothing ... can convince me ..." to be happy ... not "everything" would make me less than happy!


What we have here is a failure to communicate.


For the record: When I quit gainin anything from my conversation with ya, Bubba, I'll end it. GKS does not have the background with fundamentlism that I do, and so is less patient with it. Rock on, dude.


(But seriously: If you don't engage me on other posts, I will drop ya like a hot piece of lead. 'Cause it means you don't want to engage ME, but only those things I say that you don't like or agree with. And that gets real tiresome.)

Come on! What about the war? Peace? Read the other threads. Engage, or be gone.
 

In the first place, Bubba, I see nothing uncivil in saying that your presentation of your beliefs is unattractive to me. I was merely being honest.

In the second place there is a big difference between explaining to other what we believe, and defending those beliefs. I have no interest in the latter. Why should I? Arguments convince few, piss off most, and are only fun for those who set the rules of the argument in the first place. I was quite clear that my original intent was to explain my own beliefs and listen to others, but became embroiled, without my consent, in a series of arguments over who was right and who was wrong, a question I have no interest in pursuing. Since you continue to think it important, please go on, but you only show how utterly you misunderstand my position.

Simply put - I don't care what you believe. Nor I do I think it has any relevance for me. I could not subscribe to such a set of beliefs even if it meant that I was eternally damned. I would not wish to be a part of a belief system so truncated, so bereft of compassion, intellectual merit, or grace. Oblivion would be far preferable.

Finally, I think it only fair to add that, I also care as little for doctrine in general as I do for fundamentalism in particular. I think doctrine is a way of caging the Spirit, and the Spirit will not be caged. I studied theology in graduate school, and can recite chapter and verse on all sorts of doctrinal issues. I simply no longer see them as relevant to my life of faith - a real, living, breathing faith in a God so much bigger than either of us can imagine. Rather than pretend I can imagine such a thing, I have surrendered all pretense, and am living in the trust and hope that God is not only bigger than I can imagine, God is bigger than you can imagine, too.
 

I think you presume entirely too much, Geoffrey, if you think I'm not awed by by the immensity of who God is, of His love for us, of His holy justice and almighty power. For me, who God is only begins with the Bible; it doesn't stop there.

But, it does begin there: I do believe that God revealed Himself inerrantly through the Bible, and the Bible is the authoritative foundation for what we know about God.

I'm curious to know precisely what beliefs of mine you think are so lacking in compassion, intellectual merit, and grace.
 

OK, Bubba. I just read yer last:

Re, "If the original autograph manuscripts of the Bible cannot be perfect because humans were involved, it seems to me that, logically, Jesus could not have lived a sinless life because He was human."

Not unless you are now backing down from the assertion that (I assume) you maintain that Jesus is utterly unique in cosmic history.


Re, "I reject that line of thought."

Good. I thought you might.


Re, "Jesus lived a perfect life because He was both fully human and fully divine."

Yes. I'll accept that as a premise.


Re. "Because God could live a perfect human life by incarnating a man, I see no inherent idolatry in believing that God could create a perfect text by inspiring a select group of men."

And that is precisely where you're house of cards falls. Jesus was the unique Son of God, Son of Man, and the very bridge betwen God and man, or he was not. If the Apostles were likewise, then Jesus loses his uniqueness. And so do the Apostles. And so does our shared faith.


Re, "Because God could live a perfect human life by incarnating a man, I see no inherent idolatry in believing that God could create a perfect text by inspiring a select group of men."

I do. Because, according to this, and according to orthodox Christianty, Jesus of Nazareth was not "a" man -- He was "THE" man, the Secind Adam. Right? To compare Him with any other man is another case of sloppy idolatry.


Re, "To suggest that God couldn't inspire men He created to write an inerrant set of texts to communicate His message is to render God less than omnipotent and to put Him in a box that's unworthy of Him."

No. It's no more rendering God impotent than the idea that God crammed himself into the man Jesus, or that Jesus, fullGod-and-fully-man, whatever that means exactly, sent himself to hell itself for the redemption of some.


Re, "you're oh-so-above questions of mere doctrine and yet you have no problem telling people whose beliefs differ from yours that they're guilty of idolatry."

BULLSIT, Bubba. Just BULLSHIT. I'm above nothing, ESPECIALLY questions of doctrine! What do you think I'm doing right now? I'm engaging DOCTRINE. And I do NOT tell people with beliefs different from mine that they're guilty of idolatry. I tell people who appear, to me, to be engaged in idolatry, that they seem to be idolators.

There is one Perfect expression of God's Godness in human experience: Jesus of Nazareth, who will call Christ. That's it.

And as I've said to EL, if the only Christ you know is the one you've read about is the one written about in the Bible, then I don't see (!) how you can know any Christ but the one you've read about.

Here's an example of the difference: Lots of people have read about tornadoes. Only those who live through them KNOW TORNADOES.
 

ER, I have been reading your other blog entries; I just haven't had anything to say about them, generally. When I do, I comment, as I already have here.

And, for the second time, I believe you're trying to tell me that functionally equivalent phrases are (somehow) dramatically different. I don't think they are, but I am open to correction; as it is, I don't grasp your explanation for how my summary of Geoffrey's comment was some gross misstatement.

If you're just picking any nit you can find, I can easily return the favor and start pointing out your numerous typos.


About inerrancy, I absolutely agree that Jesus Christ is unique.

Jesus alone is God Incarnate. Jesus lived a perfectly sinless life: the Bible's writers were not sinless (see, e.g., the lives of Moses, David, Peter, and Paul), but they were inspired nevertheless to write perfect documents pointing to Christ.

Jesus alone purchased our redemption, but the Bible's authors inerrantly documented that purchase.

The problem with your denial of inerrancy is that the Bible does document that Jesus Himself treated Scripture as inerrant and authoritative. If the Gospels aren't trustworthy on this point, as well documented as this point is, it's hard to see how we could trust the Bible about anything it says about Jesus.

Yes, Jesus is the Second Adam, but I will remind you that we're taught this not only (or even primarily) by tradition, but by Paul's letter to the Romans.


(It is an odd thing, that as confident as you are that Jesus is the man, the Second Adam, fully God and fully man, you're just not sure that He's the Jewish Messiah. I suppose it's just sheer coincidence that Isaiah 9:6, for instance, prophesied the Incarnation.)


About your denial of God's ability to inspire an inerrant Scripture, and my claim that your denial limits God, you write:

No. It's no more rendering God impotent than the idea that God crammed himself into the man Jesus, or that Jesus, fullGod-and-fully-man, whatever that means exactly, sent himself to hell itself for the redemption of some.

Your analogy misses the point. To affirm the Incarnation and Crucifixion is to affirm God's omnipotence, but to deny that God is even capable of inerrant inspiration is to deny that omnipotence.


There is one Perfect expression of God's Godness in human experience: Jesus of Nazareth, who will call Christ. That's it.

Well, Jesus certainly seemed to think much more highly of Scripture than you do. I agree that Jesus is the one perfect expression of God's divinity in human form, but the Bible isn't human: it's text.


And as I've said to EL, if the only Christ you know is the one you've read about is the one written about in the Bible, then I don't see (!) how you can know any Christ but the one you've read about.

Here's where you and I agree and disagree profoundly.

I believe the Christ we encounter is more than what the Bible records, but you think the Christ we encounter is different than what the Bible records.

Christ experienced isn't just what the Bible records, we both agree. But I still believe that what the Bible records is authoritatively true (just not comprehensive), and you apparently think otherwise.
 

That last paragraph could have been phrased more clearly.

We both agree that experiencing Christ doesn't just involve what the Bible records. But I still believe that what the Bible records is authoritatively true (just not comprehensive), and you apparently think otherwise.
 

ER,

Thanks, i'll check it out. I thik it is interesting that there are well educated people who have studied this type of thing and who have come to the completely opposite conclusion from you. Do you dismiss their eforts or do you just disagree with their conclusions?

Craig
 

Re, "About your denial of God's ability to inspire an inerrant Scripture,"

I MADE NO SUCH DENIAL OF GOD'S ABILITY!!!!!!!!

I doubt that he DID, since for God to do so would be so far outside God's usual M.O. of revelation/explanation, or utterance of God's self.


You, Bubba, have demonstrated time and again, just in this thread, your inability, or unwillingness, to take human word at face value! Which makes me doubt ANY interpretation you may have of any of the very human words that are in the Bible.


Re, "Christ experienced isn't just what the Bible records, we both agree. But I still believe that what the Bible records is authoritatively true (just not comprehensive), and you apparently think otherwise."

NO! NO! NO!

TRUTH IS NOT ACCURACY IOR INERRANCY OR INFALLIBILITY!!!
 

Here are some verses for you to ponder, Bubba.

And I provide them NOT because "they're in the Bible" and therefore are unassailable, but because Paul wrote the words, and no one of any repute disputes it:


Romans 14:

4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

7For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

8For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

9For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.


THE END
 

Well said. Strange to see those words from someone who insists that those who dare to believe that the Bible is inerrant are idolators for doing so.

Since this is going nowhere, I'm bowing out.
 

Un mas:

Craig, re: "Do you dismiss their eforts or do you just disagree with their conclusions?"

You presented no conclusions for me to disagree with, so I don't know what you're asking. I wasn't talking about thre reliability of oral tradition, which is what you asked me about, and I have said nothing whatsoever about oral traditions.

Now, el fin.

Craig, come back.
 

OK, OK, just one mnore!

LOL!

Re, "Strange to see those words from someone who insists that those who dare to believe that the Bible is inerrant are idolators for doing so."

Then you're a stupid a son-of-a-bitch, Bubba.

And that's how I really feel, after this long, drawn-out, stupid-ass, ordeal or my-idea-of-God-is-bigger-than-your-idea-of-God one-upmanship BULLSHIT.

So begone, and stay gone.