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

No thanks, I think I'll clean my house and eat chocolate instead. I've been there and done that, and I do find it a little weird that fundies think that a random assorment of ancient goat-herders are "god"...but fascdinatin' it has ceased to be. :-)
 

I reckon. ... Ol. MA was complainin' that libs had quit comin' around his place. I figured I'd oblige him.
 

ER, You're a very naughty boy :-)
 

Yes. Yes, I am. :-) ... Somebody inside the tent has got to keep the "orthodox" majority on their toes.
 

Poor god. All that writin' must lead to one helluva writer's cramp.
 

Since you evidently noticed at least my first first comment there, perhaps you could actually take the time to respond to the content of my comments, either here or (preferably) back at Marshall's.

I will reiterate that Jesus Christ affirmed the authority of Scripture to the smallest penstroke, and -- as I argued in my follow-up comment -- He even implicitly affirmed Scripture's divine authorship.

If you were a militant atheist, I wouldn't find it the least bit surprising that you sneer at the idea that God authored the Bible.

But you profess to be a Christian.

You profess to be a follower of Jesus Christ, so I do not understand why you have such contempt for those who accept at face value what Jesus said about Scripture.

A post like yours, ER, makes me think that you don't have a very firm grasp on what Jesus taught. At least, it makes me hope that's the case, because the alternative is that you're in such complete rebellion against the Messiah you claim to follow, that you sneer against those who you know are actually trying to mold their beliefs to His teachings.
 

Howdy, Bubba.

I was just ignoring you over there. Since you popped in here, I'll play -- a little.

First, it just floors me that you and others seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that I am not alone in my thinking on these things. I mean, really: Y'all look at me as if I were a lonely hellion in rebellion! LOL. We are many. We are as sincere in our apporach to Christian faith as you are.

The following is from www.religioustolerance.org:
xxx

Beliefs of religious conservatives: Many believe in three inter-related principles, that: The Bible is inerrant -- free of error;
Its authors were inspired by God; and
The Bible is the word of God and reflects accurately the will of God.

Further, many religious conservatives believe that the Bible is to be interpreted literally, unless otherwise indicated. Some passages are evidently intended to be interpreted figuratively, symbolically or metaphorically rather than literally. For example, in Chapter 1 of the Gospel of John, Jesus is described as feeding 5,000 people with bread and fish. Later in that Gospel, Jesus is recorded as saying "I am the bread of life" (John 6:35). He obviously does not imply that he is a loaf of bread. He appears to mean that he is "the source and sustainer of eternal life." 1 Similarly, when Jesus is recorded as saying "I am the vine, ye are the branches" (John 15:5) he does not mean that he is a literal vine.

Many mainline Christians believe that the Bible contains the will of God, but that portions do not.


Many liberal/progressive Christians believe that the Bible was written by individuals in ancient times who were promoting their own evolving spiritual beliefs, but who were severely limited by their tribal culture and by their lack of scientific knowledge. Many liberals believe that it is important to recognize that many biblical passages contain factual errors and that many do not reflect the will of God. They reject what the Bible's authors have to say on topics such as genocide, origins of species and of the universe, human slavery, the suppression and oppression of women, treatment of persons with a homosexual or bisexual orientation, religious intolerance, torturing prisoners, the death penalty, treatment of religious minorities, spanking children, executing non-virgin brides, and other laws and actions considered immoral by today's secular and religious standards.
xxx

Now. As to your repeated question regarding what the Bible says Jesus said about the Law, the smallest pen stroke, etc.

If he said that, wasn't he referring to the Law? Not the O.T. as a whole? And didn't he say that the Law, to the smallest pen stroke, would stand until it was "fulfilled"? Isn't it a pretty standard Christian notion that Jesus Christ, by his lfe, death and resurrection, did, in fact, fulfill the requirements of the Law? Not that that, and the notion of blood atonement itself, isn't debatable, in light of the biblical depiction of God's dismissal of burnt offerings as missing the whole point of faith?

Anyway, thanks for coming over. There's you some things to ponder. Feel free to continue. But realize that I choose to respond to that I choose to respond. Sometimes your approach to conversation just makes me tired when I know we doin't see eye to eye on the big stuff -- it bores me to tussle over the little things.
 

Oh, Bubba, I forgot to say explicitly: Count me among "Many liberal/progressive Christians" above.
 

ER, I know that there are other self-professing Christians who reject inerrancy, and I have no problem believing that many of you are quite sincere in doing so, but numbers and sincerity do not prove that your position is remotely valid for those who claim to follow what Christ taught.


About Matthew 5, Christ didn't just affirm the Torah: He affirmed the entire Jewish Scripture, claiming that He didn't come to overturn "the law or the prophets."

Christ taught that not even a penstroke would pass away "untill all is accomplished," but it is quite impossible to argue, plausibly, that this occurred during His first coming. For one thing, Jewish Scripture includes quite a bit that is eschatological: it predicts His first coming as the suffering servant AND His second coming as the judge of all creation.

For another thing, Christ's affirmation of Scripture is explicitly eschatological:

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." - Mt 5:18, emphasis mine

You could argue that Jesus has fulfilled the moral requirements of the law -- but here I believe "law" is shorthand for the "law and prophets" in the prior verse, and Christ hasn't yet fulfilled all messianic prophecies -- but, even if that's what's being implied here, heaven and earth haven't passed away. QED.


But my argument doesn't focus solely on Matthew 5. It includes the numerous occasions where Christ settled arguments by appealing to Scripture -- e.g., "It is written" -- and passages like Mark 7 where Jesus implicitly affirms Scripture's divine authorship by treating as equivalent "Moses' command" and "God's word."

Everything Christ taught regarding Scripture points toward its inerrant authority and divine authorship. There is nothing that Christ taught that could be invoked to justify a denial of inerrancy or divine inspiration.


This is hardly an inconsequential matter: I do not think that the question of the Bible's authority or authorship determines whether an individual is saved, but it is absolutely crucial to the issue of Christian doctrine.

But if you think we're discussing "little things," then shouldn't you be more tolerant toward those Christians who disagree with you on what you think are such minor issues?

"In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love."

It's arguable that you're not showing those of us who disagree with you a great deal of Christian charity. Either way, if you really believe inerrancy and inspiration really are minor issues, you should give others breathing room to disagree with you.
 

What the heck do you think we're doing? We're disagreeing! And I've not made one judgment about your walk with Christ! Neil has, to his shame. You have, too, in the past, to your own.

BTW: "but here I believe" -- that says volumes. There, I do not.
 

I actually saw that thread, as I had to get Marshall's URL for a link in a post I was writing. I read your comment, and just knew heads were exploding. I haven't been back, refuse to do so, but thought Neil's reaction so typical - I can't quote him directly, but it was on the order of "Your position is the position of a non-believer" or something to that effect - that I figured the round-robin was about to commence.

Jewish tradition holds that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, David wrote the Psalms (except those whose authorship is directly stated), Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, and the various prophets wrote their own books. Christian tradition gives authorship of the Gospels to those whose names are appended, Pauline authorship to the letters he wrote (and a couple others, including Hebrews), and Johannine authorship to the Revelation. Was the Bible inspired by God? Christian tradition affirms that, certainly. Written by God? No.

Compare to Muslim dogma that the Holy Q'uran was dictated to Muhammed by the Archangel Gabriel at the express command of Allah, the all-merciful, and one sees the difference, and the odd position someone like Mark is in.

I am not trying to be contrarian here, but I do have a question for you, because it is something with which I wrestle, and your take would help. At least in St. Paul's letters, there are very specific discussions on sexual ethics, gender roles and relations, and other practical matters that feature prominently in conservative Christian circles. The clarity of the pronouncements on issues of personal ethical conduct is stark, even if - I believe, anyway - Paul is talking about how Christians are to conduct themselves in a world of loose, even licentious, social mores including sanctioned Temple Prostitution (a big money-maker for Rome, to be sure). Since we live in times markedly different, even if there is a certain social acceptance of looser sexual mores than in previous generations (I do not mean that earlier generations did not engage in Biblically denounced sexual practices; I only suggest we recognize this reality and accept it more readily than earlier generations), how do we reconcile our own social mores and the demands of life of the ekklesia as outlined by St. Paul? I suppose this would not be limited to issues of sexual ethics and gender roles and relations, but could also include general social relations, help for the poor, relations within the Church between those of different socio-economic strata, etc.
 

If you were a militant atheist, I wouldn't find it the least bit surprising that you sneer at the idea that God authored the Bible.


Oh, I dont think you have to be militant - just healthily sceptical - afterall, you dont have any real first hand experience of any god authoring anything. We could discuss all sorts of problems with a literal wiew of the bible, but I dont really feel the need to get into how absurd that is - if you dont get it, you never will.
Just out of interest though, when jesus said he was a door, do you really think he was saying he was made of wood and had a handle? Do you really think he was taken to the top of a high mountain and shown all the kingdoms of the world? (if you do, then the bible must be saying the earth is flat)
 

Oh and Bubba - no eating shellfish now: http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
 

Billy,

The belief that Scripture is inerrant does not entail the belief that every passage should be interpreted literally: inerrantists do NOT deny the obvious fact that the Bible contains figurative language. We just believe that the truth behind the figurative language is trustworthy: when Christ proclaimed that He is "the way," we don't (and shouldn't) conclude that He meant that He is a paved road, but we do believe that the claim means that He provides the exclusive means to salvation -- "no one comes to the Father except through me" -- and we believe the claim is true.

Inerrantists don't insist on a clumsy literalism, and a truly healthy skepticism wouldn't argue against such an obvious strawman.

And, speaking of strawmen, there is no persuasive argument that, say, opposition to homosexual behavior on biblical grounds requires Christians to cling to kosher dietary regulations. On the contrary, there are many reasons to dismiss as juvenile the argument from shellfish.

- In the Old Testament, the word describing the two acts are different, and the penalties (death or exile, vs. a few days of being unclean) are substantially different.

- In the New Testament, Jesus Christ tightened the implications of God's laws regarding sex -- teaching that mere lust is as wicked as adultery -- but He also taught that what we eat "does not defile."

- Further on in the New Testament, Peter's vision that opened the early Christian church to Gentiles ALSO clearly implied that kosher dietary restrictions were no longer binding.

- And, in the concluding chapter of Hebrews, the writer who spent so much time arguing that Christ's sacrifice superceded the Jewish system of sacrifices (another crucial part of old-covenant ritual) gives a list of ethical commands; among them are the command to keep the marriage bed undefiled AND the command not to worry about dietary regulations because they "have not benefited those who observe them."

I don't begrudge any non-believer for being skeptical about the Bible's authority and authorship. I do however believe that the sneering that ER tends to display is the sort of thing that IS limited to more militant non-believers, those who not only do not believe, they also mock those who do.

You're apparently a non-believer, Billy. I think the evidence in support of Christianity's central claims is stronger than you probably imagine, but I'm not surprised you don't accept the Bible's inerrant authority and divine authorship.

Erudite Redneck, on the other hand, is a Christian who presumably believes that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate who died and rose again, and who claims to worship and obey Christ as Lord. Our best records of what He taught shows us that He affirmed Scripture's authority to the smallest penstroke and even implied its divine authorship.

Why ER doesn't accept the Bible's authority and authorship, and instead sneers at those who do, confounds me. His stated faith in Christ ought to lead to His believing what Christ taught about Scripture.


Geoffrey,

I personally think that saying God "wrote" the Bible isn't the most precise and elegant way to say that, as I would put it, He inspired the Bible and authored it.

But I seriously doubt that, because Mark used a less precise word, he somehow believes that the Bible wasn't also penned by its human authors, e.g., Moses, David, Isaiah, Luke, Paul, and John.

I also doubt that he believes that the Bible was dictated to these writers in the way that Mohammed claimed about the Koran.

But if you think he's being quite literal about God's "writing" the Bible, you could ask Mark to clarify what he means.


About Paul's ethical commands, I'm not sure who you're addressing, but I do believe that those commands are authoritative and, therefore, still binding on Christians today. It certainly appears that Paul thought he was teaching authoritatively: look at II Thessalonians, for instance, and the way he gives essentially military commands to the church, equating the Apostles' tradition (paradosis) with God's own word (logos).

How do we apply what he taught? There's a temptation to be overly rigid, which leads to legalism; but there's an opposite temptation to be so eager to bend his teachings to modern mores that we no longer follow those teachings in any meaningful sense. I personally believe that reasonable, faithful Christians can disagree about (at least) some of the specifics in applying Paul's teachings.

HOW we should apply Paul's teachings, is a tough subject. WHETHER we should apply Paul's teachings, should be a no-brainer for all Christians.

I would be interested in ER's take on your question.
 

Re, " when Christ proclaimed that He is "the way," we don't (and shouldn't) conclude that He meant that He is a paved road, but we do believe that the claim means that He provides the exclusive means to salvation -- "no one comes to the Father except through me" -- and we believe the claim is true."

Bubba, you and I agree on this point, as far as it goes. Not just because the Bible says that Jesus said it -- but because it's the whole shebang, testified by the gist of the Christian Scriptures, O.T. and N.T. as whole, and by the testimony of the church throughout the ages. Not just those words, which may or may not be a literal translation of what he literally said, because they almost surely are a paraphrase of what a bunch of people remembered that he, or some of his earliest followers, said. In any case, Jesus is the Way. That's the central, and only truly important, doctrine, IMHO.

Now, I don't sneer at y'alls' insistence that the Bible is the sum total of what God and the church has to say. "God is still speaking" is more than the UCC slogan: It means that God is God, not the Bible, not the church, not any -- not any! -- interpretation, not even those within the pages of the Bible itself. I scoff. What I sneer at is the insistent that I either must adhere to every, or even most, views that y'all have about the Bible and its place in the faithful life, or be branded a heretic.

Y'all do consider me a heretic. And I consider y'all idolators. That's not just name-calling. Those are real markers, labels with meaning. Now, I don't mean,m by saying someone is an idolator, that he or she isn't a Christian, or saved, or pick your term; and, I don't suggest that you all just sit down and hush. I think y'all do mean, when you say I'm heretical, that I am not a Christian, am not saved, pick your term, and that I really should sit down and hush. Every time you or anyone else refer to me as a "professed Christian" or a "false teacher," you're judging men and announcing that you have the authority to judge me and drum me out of the tent. You. Do. Not.

As for Geoffrey's question, I'll answer it after I ponder some more. Unlike some, I don't think I have all the answers, and I don't pretend, or feel a need to pretend, to have answers at the ready all the time.
 

ER, I do not believe it's the case that that you have never made "one judgment" about anyone else's walk with Christ.

Neil accused you of heresy, yes, but you accused Neil of literal idolatry. He believes that you're a false teacher, but you believe he's worshipping a false deity. If you think Neil should be ashamed of his behavior, I cannot understand how you're proud of your own.


Look again what I wrote, where "here I believe" something you don't believe:

"You could argue that Jesus has fulfilled the moral requirements of the law -- but here I believe 'law' is shorthand for the 'law and prophets' in the prior verse, and Christ hasn't yet fulfilled all messianic prophecies -- but, even if that's what's being implied here, heaven and earth haven't passed away. QED."

My point is, even if you're right that Jesus was referring to His fulfilling the moral requirements of the Law, He ALSO clearly referred to the end-times: "until heaven and earth pass away."

You cannot persuasively dismiss Matthew 5's record of what Jesus taught about Scripture as something that was fulfilled by the time of His Ascension and can now be ignored: heaven and earth have not passed away.


For that matter, you haven't really addressed, AT ALL, my other two points, that Jesus frequently appealled to Scripture as a final authority -- "It is written" -- and that, as in Mark 7, Christ implicitly affirmed Scripture's divine authorship when He equated Moses' command with God's word.

If you do have a substantive argument for why Christ really didn't teach the Bible's authority and divine authorship, I would like to start seeing it.
 

BTW, look again at what it says above above "Many liberal/progressive Christians believe ..." It goes beyond whether the words in the Bible are inspired, which I believe they are, or factual and accurate to the smalles pen stroke, which I do not, and I cannot. I cannot because there is none good, but God in heaven, quote unquote. And I cannot because not only do I realize human beings penned the words, but I find the idea of the original documents being "autographs" preposterous because I disagree that God, even, is the "author" of Scripture. As I've said before, the Scriptures, to me, are sacred because of their place and role in our sacred history as the Body of Christ -- not because of their alleged origin, or authorship, in the sky (speaking figuratively.) They are authoritative because they are.
 

Bubba,

Inerrantists don't insist on a clumsy literalism, and a truly healthy skepticism wouldn't argue against such an obvious strawman.


I have come across inerrant literalists before - was just wondering if you are one, so its not a strawman as such - such positions do indeed exist.

And, speaking of strawmen, there is no persuasive argument that, say, opposition to homosexual behavior on biblical grounds requires Christians to cling to kosher dietary regulations.

Except that you said this:

" will reiterate that Jesus Christ affirmed the authority of Scripture to the smallest penstroke"
I presume you are referring to the law (Matt 5:15).

This appears a self contradiction.

- In the Old Testament, the word describing the two acts are different, and the penalties (death or exile, vs. a few days of being unclean) are substantially different.


Simple question - does god call eating a shell fish an abomination or not? Are you saying that because breaking one law requires exile that it is somehow OK to break it?

but He also taught that what we eat "does not defile."


So, contrary to Matt 5, the law doesnot stand for ever?

Further on in the New Testament, Peter's vision that opened the early Christian church to Gentiles ALSO clearly implied that kosher dietary restrictions were no longer binding.


Paul seems to have a different opinion of peter concerning that (Gal 2:11-16)

However, what paul thinks does not argue for the inerrancy of the bible. All we can say is that paul disagrees with the levitical laws.
Now, you may argue these laws are given in a cultural context (and many have). That however causes problems of its own for the bible.


- And, in the concluding chapter of Hebrews, the writer who spent so much time arguing that Christ's sacrifice superceded the Jewish system of sacrifices (another crucial part of old-covenant ritual) gives a list of ethical commands; among them are the command to keep the marriage bed undefiled AND the command not to worry about dietary regulations because they "have not benefited those who observe them."


Again, this does not argue consistency.All it is saying that laws given in the OT have become superceeded - I though god defined what is good - does that mean he changes his mind?

A coomon christian position is that the law still exists, but you are no longer bound to it to be saved. That is the difference in the 2 - unless you want to start up a salvation via deeds position (this is one of the reasons I'm not a christian - the fact you cant agree and yyou all use the bible).

Personally, I'm more concerned about the use of an old book to tell you what is right or wrong. Many christians have a real problem with homosexuality. I have never heard a convincing argument as to why it is wrong.

I think the evidence in support of Christianity's central claims is stronger than you probably imagine, but I'm not surprised you don't accept the Bible's inerrant authority and divine authorship.


I think you will find that it is not :-) Incidentally, are you a young earth creationist?

His stated faith in Christ ought to lead to His believing what Christ taught about Scripture.


That line of though only works if you assume that the bible is the definitive word on Jesus. My impression is that ER believes there is also a human influence to the bible. I agree with him on that - I just disagree about the extent :-)
 

ER, I see we posted pretty much simultaneously.

Personally, I don't know whether you are saved or not, and I don't presume to judge you on your final destination when I write that I believe you're teaching false doctrine. Nor do I believe that you ought to be silenced: just rebuked, as Christ Himself taught regarding false teachers.


But I do wonder. You write, "Jesus is the Way. That's the central, and only truly important, doctrine, IMHO."

Suppose a self-described Christian flat-out denied that doctrine, however you mean to define it.

How would you respond?

Would you (accurately) describe this false teacher as a false teacher, even though you deny that moral obligation to others?

Every time you or anyone else refer to me as a "professed Christian" or a "false teacher," you're judging men and announcing that you have the authority to judge me and drum me out of the tent. You. Do. Not.

Or do you let even that false doctrine slide?


Christ's assertion that only God is good means that no one can save himself, but I don't see how this assertion precludes the possibility that God can guide humans to write inerrantly. I do appreciate your getting to what Jesus taught, though.

You write that you disagree "that God, even, is the 'author' of Scripture."

The problem is, ER, you disagree despite what Christ taught.

In Mark 7, Christ criticized people for clinging to the "tradition of men," that is, the traditional teachings that were human in origin. The only logical reason He would make this criticism while simultaneously upholding Moses' commands is if what Moses commanded IS NOT ultimately human in origin.

Christ even equated what "Moses said" with "the word of God."

By criticizing tradition for having human origins while upholding the authority of Scripture, Jesus Christ told us all we need to know about the ultimate author of Scripture.
 

I will give my take on the whole "Word of God" issue, and point out it is stolen from a much more voluminous writer than myself, theologian Karl Barth.

Drawing on the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel, Barth insists the phrase "Word of God" refers to Jesus Christ. When in worship we refer to "hearing the word of the Lord", we are referring to the Holy Spirit moving within us to discern what it is that is said through the words, not in the words themselves.

In the end, the Johannine writings are pretty clear that the Way, the Truth, and the Life, as well as the Word are not literal axioms, nor propositions whose content is inarguable. Rather, these words refer to Jesus Christ as the fully realized manifestation of God. This means our understanding of these "words" is not linked to other words, but to Jesus Christ himself, crucified, dead, and risen.

Thus, to read Scripture as the "Word of God" in the sense in which you and others refer is not just a category error; it is, as ER points out, idolatry. This has nothing to do with your ultimate disposition before the Throne of God, because I also believe that is God's work, not mine or yours. Error isn't fatal or final.

But it is error, for all that.
 

What Geoffeey said.
 

Re, "If you do have a substantive argument for why Christ really didn't teach the Bible's authority and divine authorship, I would like to start seeing it."

I'll refer you to what Feodor said on this in the other thread, as regards the O.T.

As for the N.T., it didn't existt at the time Jesus is said to have said whatever he said and jots and tittles and pen strokes. It just didn't. And the only way to make it apply to the writings that didn't yet exist, that we now call the N.T., is to use some kind of time warp sort of voodoo that msut, ultimately, rest with the politicians and self-promoters at Nicea and the opportunist Constantine -- and while, God obviously can use any old scoundrel for his purposes, I ain't buying the claim that the wtitings in the Canon are the last words on anything.

Keep in mind, Bubba, that I do reserve the right to change my mind -- as God God's self did regarding the fate of Ninevah. (Yes, Billy, God does change God's mind.)
 

Ugh, why on earth do you people bother with cretins like this?

Last time I lurked over to one of their blogs, some dipsh*t was threatening physical violence. I believe the phrase was something like taking a "rifle butt to the brainstem" of "libtards" or something equally uplifting and intelligent..

And these are people you actually dignify by engaging?!?

Oh, and as I remember, not a single one of their ilk could muster even so much as mild disagreement with the sentiment.

Now, you may think that sort of BS is just an idle threat. And, while I'm not actually worried, mainly because I'm pretty sure it would take a forklift to get their doddering fat asses out of their piss-stained Barco loungers. Even so, that's the hate in their hearts, and you're trying to "keep them on their toes"?

Seriously?

SERIOUSLY?!
 

Bubba so fully enters into the ink of the New Testament that he emerges on the far side, before there was a corpus of New Testament writings that present inspired reflection on their experience of Jesus Christ (most not in person) in light of "the scriptures" (interesting that they are in the plural).

He establishes himself in that first Christian space - in contradiction to his theological stand in the eighteenth century - a judaizes Christian life, a move that Paul railed against. Judaizers were those who taught that Gentile Christians needed to follow the Law completely in order to be Christians in the right way. This included circumcision, dietary restrictions, sexual restrictions, and many other things. Paul so opposed these requirements that he argued with the Apostles in Jerusalem including their leader, James the brother of Jesus.

But not only does Bubba Judaize Christian life, incredibly (literally) he goes on to Judaize Jesus himself. For Bubba, Jesus is no longer the one to whom the scriptures pointed but the one who cant change scripture because God wrote it. Since God wrote it and Jesus cant or wont change it, then we also have the loss of the incarnation.

When Jesus argues in Mark 7 with "traditions of men," it is not any and all teaching, built up through the centuries as tradition that many groups held, especially the Pharisees, that Jesus opposes. He is objecting to the motivations behind some teaching that lets people off the hook in their call to love - in this case to love their father and mother. This is why he can go on to lay down a principle that is opposed to the written text of Moses but not the spirit of Moses clear to those who interpret with a loving heart: "nothing that goes into a person from outside can defile him; no it is the things that come out of a person that defile him" (Mark 7:15).

This is not Mosaic Law as given. This is applying the spirit of Mosaic Law as an interpretation of its intent.

Jesus fulfills the Law is in his own person and passion, and in this teaching he models and gives sanction to interpreting the scriptures according to love and community.

When Bubba gives the okay to shrimp, he interprets scripture. When he separates unclean menstruation from men lying down with men, he interprets scripture. When he reads Jesus as recorded in the Gospels and Paul in his letters, he breathes easier because he thinks he does not have to interpret scripture. But all he does is gloss over the way in which scripture tells us that is not only okay but unavoidable to do so.

Paul, himself, seems to be able to turn Moses a different way:

"Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them." But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) "or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming..."

Romans 10

Somehow, I don't think Bubba had this in mind when he exhorted us to apply Paul's teaching.
 

Re, from Geoffrey, "how do we reconcile our own social mores and the demands of life of the ekklesia as outlined by St. Paul?"

I have nothing profound here. But, since all we have is one side of the conversations Paul is having with his audiences, what we have is incomplete by definition. The entire meaning of the statements he makes and the "commands" he gives are lost to us because the meaning of anything said in response to a question extends to the question; and with that context lost, I don't know how Paul's writings can be seen as much more than glimpses of glosses of ideas he without doubt explicated more fully in his preaching.

Also, Paul's writings indicate that he was a hothead who often doubted himself -- so how can anyone insist that what he wrote can be more than a glimpse into some, but not all, of the earliest thinking of the church? As a writer, I see his writing as prone to hyperbole, as well, and I keep that in mind when I think of the complicated extrabiblical construct that has grown up upon the biblical reference, by Paul, of flying up to meet the Lord in the air.

As for the rules of living Paul writes of, I sse them as good places to start, in some ways a floor of behavior and attitude, but certainly not any kind of straitjacket for other structures and offices the church, or churches, might come up with.

Finally, unless I've missed something, Paul wrote his letters as letters -- not as holy writings, or Scripture -- to specific peoples in specific places at specific times in response to specific issues. Of course, since they're the earliest writings we have, we ave to stand over his shoulder and read his writings and ponder them and meditate on them and try to figure out how, and whether, they can be made to apply to use today. But tha's not to say they're the end-all, be-all in any case.

All off the top of my non-seminary-trained churchman's head! :-) Well, I did ponder on it some.
 

Alan, why? Becaue these are the kinds of peeps from whom I sprang. I would be remiss -- and, I think, actually, ignoring a big part of my calling, if I have one -- if I just turned my back on them and walked away.
 

Your choice.

But your efforts, and those of Geoffrey, Dan, etc., have reaped amazing benefits so far, haven't they? Oh, right ... they haven't. They have only become increasingly belligerent, stupid, and hateful.

There are some people who simply aren't worth it.
 

:-) Only God knows the heart.

But I do understand how you would see them as beyond ... redemption, for lack of a better word.

The really weird thing is I'm drawn almost equally to engaging atheists. WTH is that all about?
 

Ultimately the difference is how God's authority is made know.

Bubba, Neil, Marshall, et al, have the ink which tells women to be silent and slaves to obey. (They also have a Protestant theology un-renewed after the eighteenth century, but they don't recognize that.)

For me, I have the scriptures as interpreted by the saints, those in heaven and those on earth. Since I am called to be part of that body, and since that body declares itself to be fallible, my part is to likewise bring experience, reason, spiritual work to the community and live in the world by the light of what we find there to be centrally focussing. I find scripture to be much clearer to me when women speak, too, slaves are free, the gay man and woman lead us in prayer and the Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, et al are invited and give invitation to break bread in brotherhood.

One can guess where I believe Christ lives and speaks and teaches.

Now, of course, given the disagreements within the body of Christian saints, I have to choose which assortment of groups seem closest to Jesus' commandment to love. Some of the others seem to me to be at a little more distant. And some are on the dark side of the moon, a place where the cross speaks by itself, sufficient, but without the Incarnation or Easter, Pentecost or ecumenism.
 

Billy, I'm personally somewhat agnostic about the details of creation. I don't believe Genesis requires belief in a creation that took literally 6 24-hour days, but I also don't believe science does (or even can) disprove such a creation. Science assumes the universe is a closed and predictable system, but one can never prove that assumption scientifically.

I have never met any Christian who is a complete literalist, and I'm frankly suspicious of any claim that you met a Christian adult who actually believes, for instance, that when Jesus taught that His followers are salt and light, He meant that they are literally bioluminescent sodium chloride. If you have met someone who believes that, he's in a miniscule minority on a far fringe of Christian belief.

Your apparent position that the Bible contains inconsistencies that cannot be reconciled is addressed pretty thoroughly in existing literature by Christian inerrantists, such as in "When Critics Ask," by Geisler and Howe. I think it suffices to say that, if you want to find our best arguments, you can find them.

Hebrews teaches that the OT system of sacrifices was a mere shadow of Christ's ultimate sacrifice, and I believe that the external purity of kosher regulations are (likewise) a mere shadow of the internal purity that Christ provides the Holy Spirit He sent.

I believe that it is possible to reconcile all of Scripture without believing that God changes His mind. Indeed, Scripture is clear that God is faithful, and I don't think that's undermined by the principle of progressive revelation in general or the two covenants specifically.


Geoffrey, I don't see how what Barth wrote about John's gospel, e.g., about "the word" in John 1, has any bearing on Mark's gospel.

"You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die'; but you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban' (that is, given to God) then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do." - Mk 7:9-13

It does appear to me that Christ's use of the word logos in 7:13 is in reference to what Moses commanded.


ER, I don't believe that Jesus referenced, in Matthew 5, writings that had not yet been written, but I don't think it's irrational to apply to the New Testament the authority that Jesus gave to the Old Testament.

After all, Paul wrote that the Apostle's teaching is God's word (logos) just as Jesus taught the same thing about Moses' commands, in Mark 7. Paul commanded that his letters be read to everyone, just as one would read from Jewish Scripture, and Peter grouped Paul's letters and Scripture together.
 

The atheists who've been around here, in spite of their occasionally annoying online demeanor, are, I believe, actual real live human beings who act like actual real live human beings. There's no comparison between them and the scum I'm talking about.

Even Jesus said there's a time to shake the sand off your sandals and move on. I'm pretty sure it was after a mob of people (who remind me in many ways, not the least of which their love of violence, of MA, Eric, Mark, Neil, Bubba, and the rest of their cronies) tried to pitch Him off a cliff.
 

It's been a long time since I have placed a post here, but I want to remind Alan that I was the recipient of one of his diatribes and it was not loving! This last attempt to paint anyone else as unloving needs to be re-evaluated by Alan. mom2
 

I didn't threaten to kill you, "mom2" with a rifle butt to the brain stem.

Comparing that sort of hate-filled invective with my observation that you seem extraordinarily obsessed with my crotch is so blind and stupid that I'm surprised even you would attempt to make the comparison.

OK. No, I'm not surprised. You simply prove my point.
 

Alan, OK. If anyone threatens anyone in this here thread, I'll flex my old Texas-dancehall-bouncer muscles and toss 'em! :-)
 

Hi, mom2. Hope you catch up on the thread befoee jumpin' in ...
 

Oh, I read all the way down, ER.
As for Alan, he is the only one fascinated with his crotch as far as I'm concerned (except for his boyfriend). Murder starts in the mind and Alan is one angry, vicious mouther and what comes from the mind whether written or spoken, first came from the heart. Alan just thinks he is kinder. There is a God in Heaven that knows our hearts and minds better than Alan does. mom2
 

Meh. I think you're simply enabling them, which cannot be good for you .... or them.

Obviously you're an adult and can make your own decisions, and perhaps don't take them as seriously as I do. For my part, I think they actually mean every damned thing they write.

I do wonder what, precisely you get out of it. Most people don't set themselves up to actually dignify the rantings of people who hate them.

Anyway, I'll spare you the armchair psychobabble.

I'll be happy to contribute again on some other post when they're not around.

Later.
 

mom2, I am neither angry, nor vicious. I don't hate you nor them. I pity you. And I think you're dangerous.

I'm not the one threatening people with physical violence, mom2. Those would be *your* friends who are doing that, the very same people you didn't see fit to chastise. So spare me your phony piety.

And stop fantasizing about my crotch again, and stop hitting on me. I'm a married man, sweetie.
 

mom2, if I'd've seen your last before Alan responded, I'd've deleted it. It was out of line.

That was the first time I've ever seen you sink so low. Don't be such a bitch again.
 

Re, from Bubba, "But I do wonder. You write, 'Jesus is the Way. That's the central, and only truly important, doctrine, IMHO.'

"Suppose a self-described Christian flat-out denied that doctrine, however you mean to define it. How would you respond?"


I might ask: "What do you mean by 'Christian' and how do you understand the meaning of 'The Way'?"

If he-she said that Jesus Christ had nothing to do with anything, I'd ask, then, "Why do you self-describe as a Christian?"


Your question to me reminded me of the following:

xxx
... Walking fully in the path of Jesus, without denying the legitimacy of other paths God may provide humanity;

Matthew 11:28-29; John 8:12; John 10:16; Mark 9:40

As Christians, we find spiritual awakening, challenge, growth, and fulfillment in Christ’s birth, life, death, and resurrection. While we have accepted the Path of Jesus as our Path, we do not deny the legitimacy of other paths God may provide humanity. Where possible, we seek lively dialog with those of other faiths for mutual benefit and fellowship.

We affirm that the Path of Jesus is found wherever love of God, neighbor, and self are practiced together. Whether or not the path bears the name of Jesus, such paths bear the identity of Christ.

We confess that we have stepped away from Christ’s Path whenever we have failed to practice love of God, neighbor, and self, or have claimed Christianity is the only way, even as we claim it to be our way.

(The first of the Phoenix Affirmations).
xxx


And this:


xxx
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) He didn't say that any particular ethic, doctrine, or religion was the way, the truth, and the life. He said that he was. He didn't say that it was by believing or doing anything in particular that you could "come to the Father." He said that it was only by him - by living, participating in, being caught up by the way of life that he embodied, that was his way. Thus it is possible to be on Christ's way and with his mark upon you without ever having heard of Christ, and for that reason to be on your way to God though maybe you don't even believe in God.

(Frederick Buechner, in "Wishful Thinking")
xxx
 

ER, in this thread, Alan has called us conservatives violent, fat-assed cretins and hateful, inhuman scum, even implying that we have the mentality of Christ-killers, and he called mom2 blind, stupid, and obsessed with his crotch.

If what mom2 said was low, what Alan's been saying is at least as bad.
 

My call.

Alan is a gay man and one of my online friends. mom2's remark, "he is the only one fascinated with his crotch as far as I'm concerned (except for his boyfriend)," coming from her, was a specific, direct, loaded, explosive, personal insult; it was out of nowhere; and it was just a shitty, smart-ass thing to say.

My call.
 

Bubba, Alan was pointing out there is no equivalence between the things directed at him - and myself, I might add - and what he has said. That you cannot see there is no equivalence proves Alan's point.
 

Well, I've said my piece and don't want to take this thread off topic for the rest of you, since it's clearly so productive...

But let me clarify for those in the cheap seats, bubba, I gave specific examples of that hate (and that was just one, I tend not to hang out with you and the Amerikan Descent crowd, so I'm sure there are plenty more threats of violence and clear statements of hate), No one here has disproved, denied, refuted, nor even repudiated.

Truth hurts, eh?

Complain all you want, I'm not the one talking about rifle butts to the brainstem like your cronies.

As for mom2, her every comment to me, regardless of the topic of the blog post or comment thread, has something to do with me being gay. From that single minded obsession, I can only assume she's hot for me. ;)

Now back to your regularly scheduled bubba-whine-fest already in progress...
 

I will admit it. I went and read the whole comment thread. I was shocked by Feodor's appearance, and laughed out loud when Marshall actually completely missed his point.

Big surprise there.
 

Yea and verily, I, too, was shocked -- shocked! -- at Feodor's appearance. Could this be a case of pseudo-identity theft? :-)
 

How would you know, Geoffrey. You and "points" rarely know each other. Perhaps you could force yourself to visit and tell me what point I missed. Then I could have a laugh, too, as I explain again how you've again missed it. (I've noticed how you and Alan like to get together and "laugh" at those with whom you no longer have the spine to confront.)

"America's enemy within!

Respect for their arguments?

Pshaw! Better a swift rifle-butt to the brain-stem!"

-one 'Al-Ozarka'

This rhetorical hyperbole is Alan's example of just how violent we are. Alan and Geoffrey both like to suppose their own bad attitudes are less than what they perceive on right wing sites. Well, I'll concede Al-O's remark is over the top. But I don't engage in the habit of deleting anyone's comments and let the reader decide on the cut of a commenter's jib. In fact, the only comment I've ever deleted was one of Mark's, a guy with whom I usually agree.

And here's why that is: I like the back and forth, the give and take, and even, depending upon whom and how, I like the snark and wise-ass comments. This is why I lamented the departure of the pants-wetting lefties from my blog. They've not the spine for it. As frustrating as Dan Trabue can be, I've always given him props for his persistence and resolve. It's of conservative quality in fact. Not so with Geoff and Alan, who claim WE are the hateful ones. (For my part, my presence at this hallowed blog, or lack thereof, is based on circumstance more than a conscious decision to avoid or engage. I simply don't always have the time.)

Sorry to be so off-topic, ER. Do what you will with this comment. I just wanted to present the comment over which Alan wishes to paint all of his former conservative opponents. He's so hateful!
 

No prob, MA.

But al-Ozarka is a maniac. Needs help.
 

Since I'm dragged in here by Marshall, I shall repeat, once again, why I no longer visit, post comments, etc.

I have made my positions clear, as clear, at least, as I can. You, on the other hand, simply dismiss my words, and claim I mean something else, attribute feelings and motivations to me I do not have (Bush-hatred is a common one), and have expressly denied, even as you insist over and over I do, in fact, have.

Afraid of you? Pshaw. I find you laughably idiotic, you, Mark, the whole bunch of you, except for al Ozarka who is a truly psychotic individual.
 

Over the top? Over the top??

I love how easily such extreme malice is dismissed. By folks on both sides, I think. Some of us have seen the effects of that sort of hate ... up close and bloody.

Remember, it isn't just this guy's crap. No one -- no one -- called him on that. Because, as we all know, they not only agreed with it, but were cheering him on, I'm sure.

Spine. Cowardice. blah frakin' blah blah blah.

MA, by my admittedly back of the envelope computation, 99.99999999999% of the web does not link to you MA, does not comment on your blog, and probably isn't even aware of your existence. (Lucky them! I envy them!) That doesn't mean that everyone on the planet is a coward, nor that they're spineless, just that they have better things to do than banter with you and your kkkohort.

I can't help but notice you don't link to my blog, nor have you ever commented. (That is NOT an invite to do so. Please don't sully my blog with your BS.) That doesn't, in my mind, make you a coward. Yet you assume because I don't link to you, nor comment on the train-wreck you call a blog, means that I'm a coward.

I don't yap back at my neighbor's nasty little yappy dog, but that doesn't mean I'm actually afraid of the little ankle biter.

No, it just means I have taste and an abiding belief that consorting with real evil lessens those who do so.

In the immortal words of Weird Al Yankovic: "I'd rather clean all the toilets in Grand Central Station with my tongue than spend one more minute with you."
 

ER, you will notice that I didn't defend mom2's comment as above-board. I simply noted that Alan's comments were at least as bad.

The fact that he's your friend doesn't change that. The fact that he's gay doesn't change that.
 

So what? You didn't condemn it. No gold star for you. And, only in your fevered mind was Alan's comments about a type of people "as bad" as mom2's direct, personal, unprovoked, chicken-shit, homophobic, hateful insult.
 

ER, Alan didn't comment about just a "type" of people. By name, he suggested that Neil, Marshall, myself, and others have the mindset of Christ-killers.


While I'm on the subject, Alan, writng that "truth hurts," also writes that he tends not to "hang out with [me] and the Amerikan Descent crowd."

I don't actually frequent that blog very much at all. Google suggests that I've commented there only once, almost a month ago.

If Alan's complaint is with the content of that blog, to which I do not belong and which I very rarely visit and almost never comment on, he probably shouldn't include me in his complaint.

Truth sometimes hurts, but -- as a minimum requirement -- it should be true.


As it is, having seen Al-Ozarka's comment, I think that it really is excessive, but -- again -- Alan is hardly any better with what he's written here.

Alan has no problem calling us hateful cretins and violent scum, questioning our humanity, accusing us of a Christ-killing mindset, invoking the Klan, and even suggesting that we are "real evil."


Thank God Alan didn't call us false teachers, ER, because that would really drive you batty.

Apparently.
 

Bubba, You are so full of yourself, I don't know how you can fasten your pants. That's enough.

Thus ends the sidebar of mom2-and-Alan, although Alan may have the last word if he chooses.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

For Geoffrey, because it touches on the point of the post at my blog that started all of this.

You haven't made your positions clear. I often have to spend too much time just getting you to understand the point of the discussions. So if I dismiss anything, it is only those comments that are irrelevant to the point of the discussion. It's hard enough staying on point as it is. I don't think I'm oblidged to let anyone steer the conversation at any time for any reason, even though it tends to happen. But as I said, you too often just don't get the point, so you off-point comments are dismissed as the irrelevant distractions they are.

To deny you hate Bush is hard to buy based on comments you've made regarding the man. But I'll concede the point (though you sure don't have nice thoughts for him), if you'll concede it's used more for describing the general attitude of libs toward the guy.

Afraid of me? You don't know me well enough, having never even met, to be afraid of me, but you are afraid to engage. "Laughably idiotic" is no more than whistling in the dark. Scare-dy cat.
 

There is an operational principle in psychology that a critical belief of a person, when they are faced with factual disapproval, is more deeply entrenched when they follow a perversely self-reinforcing feedback loop that causes the believer to more firmly embrace that critical belief the more that they encounter contrary proofs.

So, ER, rots of ruck.
 

Damn blogger, ate my response to you, drlobojo. So, never mind. Suffice it to say only that if I have a calling to the fundies, it ain't to change their mind: It's to be a Christian pain in their ass-urance.
 

MA, re: "If I may, just another response for my man, Alan: ..."

You may not. Sorry. As I said:

"That's enough.

"Thus ends the sidebar of mom2-and-Alan, although Alan may have the last word if he chooses."


That was meant to everyone.

Back to topics at hand now, if anyone still cares after this explosion of anger, pettiness and chicken-shittery.
 

If you don't mind a little remark from outside your little fratricidal Christian brotherhood: it's seems pretty clear the politics come before the theology, which struggles mightily to catch up- and this is probably on both sides. When I noted ELAshley approvingly citing the savagely atheistic and rationalist - but libertarian right wing - Ayn Rand, it was a moment of clarity that probably came late to me only because of my sweetly naive nature.
 

TStock, you're dead-on right, this did turn fratricidal.

And, re: "seems pretty clear the politics come before the theology, which struggles mightily to catch up" -- true! At both extremes sometimes. I am shocked and saddened when my fellows and fellowettes at my infamously liberal church bash fundamentalists as "not Christian" as when I hear rightward brethren say the same about lefty Christians.

And, in the heat of the moment, I can be as scalding as anybody.
 

Zealotry is a malstrom that pulls all of the Zealots being into it.
All zealots, are oblivious to how nonzealots see them.
 

It's not unlike addiction in that regard.
 

Science assumes the universe is a closed and predictable system, but one can never prove that assumption scientifically.


Strawman!

What does that have to do with wvolution. This is a defensive position that you have taken here. There is a consilience about approaches that show evolution. That is an important fact - be it the fossil record corroborating radiochemistry or comparative genomics corroborating morphological studies.
I can thow your cokmment back to you - you can not show god authored the bible? People lie afterall don't they? You weren't there at creation, so you dont know do you. In fact, by that standard, you have no logical reason to be a christian instead of a muslim or atheist. By your standards, nothing is knowable.

As for literalists, your lack of comming across them does not mean they are not there. There are even flat earthers out there(not many, but they exist).

I dont know what inconsistencies of mine you spot regarding the bible. I'm just pointing out the problems in yours and how other christians disagree.
Quoting hebrews does nothing to demonstrate what jesus thought about the law - and remember, you are the one takim Matt 5 out of context to claim that Jesus was endorsing the whole of scripture. Even if he was, that still does not show that god authored the bible. As I say, that raises som many questions.

Alan, if you guys dont take these folk on, they will try and use thier well funded propaganda machine to influence how people think. BTW, I'm human regardless of your endorsement.

Feodor - shouldn't you be fasting and flagellating yourself somewhere? :-)

ER, I'll try and read your testimony in a day or 2. I have been thinking about my antitestimony for a while. if you are interested, I'll let you know if I ever get round to writing it.

I was only popping by. I cant really be bothered debating the inerrantist. It is as futile as debating a presuppositionalist whose only mantra is god exists.
 

Howdy, Billy.

(To all, Billy at first was responding to Bubba.)

Re, "if you guys dont take these folk on, they will try and use thier well funded propaganda machine to influence how people think."

Well, they have every right to try to influence how people think, what they think, etc. As do I, as do you, Billy.

And, I would seriously love to read your deconversion story, or your antitestimony, or whatever.
 

ER, I don't have much time, but I just want to set the record straight. Evidently, someone made a post pretending to be me that you say you deleted, because I see the last one I made is still there. This has happened to me before and shows the depth of deceit displayed by some that disagree with me. They think it is fun, but it is just a lie to post something under my tag that I did not say. mom2
 

No mom2, I deleted one by Marshall Art (MA), after I said Alan could have the last word if he wanted it. Sorry for the confusion. It woukld be best for asll if you would start a Blogger account so only use can use your handle.