Bill Nye To Debate Creationist At Creation Museum February 4th (1 Viewer)

[DrJ]

I'm going to put this right here: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/

“We find they are getting less fit in the ancestral niche over time,” Lenski said. “I would argue that citrate users are — or are becoming — a new species.”

I thought about posting that, but, it's way over the Dr's head.

We're still waiting on this one. Unless they managed to create some new species in a lab...

They already have. And we can clone stuff too. Its almost like were playing god. O

Get back to me when the bacteria turn into fish or birds.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I'm going to put this right here: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/

“We find they are getting less fit in the ancestral niche over time,” Lenski said. “I would argue that citrate users are — or are becoming — a new species.”

I thought about posting that, but, it's way over the Dr's head.

We're still waiting on this one. Unless they managed to create some new species in a lab...

They already have. And we can clone stuff too. Its almost like were playing god. O

Get back to me when the bacteria turn into fish or birds.

LOSER!!!

 

[proninja]

I think that, for the most part, people seem to think that YEC = Christianity, and they simply don't know enough about it to know that it's not only ridiculous, but not remotely required by Christianity.

Are there other parts of Genesis where belief might be required by Christianity? Some mention the gap theory where the first couple of verses of Genesis could span millions of years accounting for the likely older age of the earth. The Bible tracks the years of "man" from Adam, the first man, to Jesus. It isn't thousands of years. Does that say anything about the discovery of human remains that are dated several thousands of years old, plenty of years beyond the measure of time between Jesus and Adam?

Do you feel like the belief in Adam and Eve is required by Christianity? Or do you allow room for people existing before Adam? Do you think that would create any problems in terms of defending the validity/accuracy/inerrency of the Bible? Or do you believe Christianity allows for the entire book of Genesis to be symbolic in nature (at least in terms of creation and the flood, etc.)?

Those are some big questions. I don’t feel completely qualified to answer all of them, but I’ll briefly explain where I land on some of these issues.

There are two main issues at play here - inerrancy and literalism. If you try to defend inerrancy with a literal reading of the bible all the way through, you’re going to have a really bad time, or else you’re going to end up checking your brain at the door, talking in circles without making much sense, then strutting around like you accomplished something like we see Ken Ham do. That’s bad. I can’t do that. The bible is composed of different types of literature, not all of which are meant to be taken literally.

As far as inerrancy, I’ve been reading some Barth lately, and while I’m not ready to affirm his doctrine of inerrancy, I’m a lot closer to that than I am affirming the CSBI, or to say the general view of modern evangelicalism. Briefly (though I assume you know this), Barth states that the bible is a book written by man, inspired by God to be used by the HS to reveal Jesus to the reader. Absent the holy spirit present to reveal Christ to the reader, it is simply a book written by some guys a long time ago.

The literal Adam is something I’m open to one way or another. I have always affirmed a literal Adam, mainly because it’s what I’ve been taught in my sort of evangelical sort of reformed church. Scriptures outside of Genesis stating that sin entered the world through one man seem to point to a literal Adam. But, if I am to take Genesis as an overall creation narrative rather than a point by point detail, it’s hard for me to then in the same work state that a literal Adam is absolutely necessary - I do strive to be consistent. So I'll answer this a solid "I don't know enough to have an opinion."

This big ball we sit on is part of general revelation. The reformed doctrine of election points to God revealing himself in creation so that no man is without excuse. Most Christians who are reformed in their soteriology will affirm this. However, when science reveals something about creation, they don’t consider this to be man exploring revelation in a different manner. To me that is completely in conflict. If we are to affirm creation as revelation, don’t we have to then point to what science is doing and consider that on some level to be exploring God’s revelation to man?

Now, general revelation (or science, imo) shouldn’t trump special revelation (bible). But, they shouldn’t be in conflict. If God has revealed himself to us in multiple ways, these two cannot be at odds, or else God is in conflict with himself, which we can’t have. What I do think science can do to faith is to shape how we read particular portions of the bible. If God has revealed something like evolution to us very clearly through general revelation, then it seems silly to try to force a literal reading of Genesis, as this is in my opinion forcing God to be in conflict with himself. The worst mistake we can make with scripture is to try to assume we can easily figure out what it means when it isn’t clear on a particular subject, because then we put our own opinions over the text. Fortunately, scripture is crystal clear on the important part - the gospel narrative - but in matters of things like law, morality, and creation it does not always speak clearly, and if we exegete in a dogmatic way and aren’t open to where we are wrong, all we are doing is superimposing our own beliefs on the bible. Barth said “The Fundamentalists says he knows the Bible, but he must have become master over the Bible, which means master over revelation... I consider it just another kind of natural theology: a view of the modern man who wants to control revelation.” I don’t want to consider myself master over revelation, so I must constantly consider the fact that my interpretation of any particular scripture or doctrine may be wrong.

Now, I know this has problems too, and I’m a small step away from making the bible depend on what men dig out of the dirt, which is a pretty big issue. I think that, however (again I’ll echo Barth here), the bible’s primary purpose is to speak to the life and work of Christ, and his life, death, and resurrection is the central point around which the entire book rotates. The bible’s goal is not to tell us how old the earth is. The bible’s goal is to witness to Christ. Christ and his work is the one thing that I will be dogmatic about. The rest? Man, there’s so much I don’t know. I’m not near confident enough in my knowledge to start answering the tough questions you asked with any authority.

Thoughts?

I just found this quote from St. Augustine that I love.

"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture."

 

[El Floppo]

I think that, for the most part, people seem to think that YEC = Christianity, and they simply don't know enough about it to know that it's not only ridiculous, but not remotely required by Christianity.

Are there other parts of Genesis where belief might be required by Christianity? Some mention the gap theory where the first couple of verses of Genesis could span millions of years accounting for the likely older age of the earth. The Bible tracks the years of "man" from Adam, the first man, to Jesus. It isn't thousands of years. Does that say anything about the discovery of human remains that are dated several thousands of years old, plenty of years beyond the measure of time between Jesus and Adam?

Do you feel like the belief in Adam and Eve is required by Christianity? Or do you allow room for people existing before Adam? Do you think that would create any problems in terms of defending the validity/accuracy/inerrency of the Bible? Or do you believe Christianity allows for the entire book of Genesis to be symbolic in nature (at least in terms of creation and the flood, etc.)?

Those are some big questions. I don’t feel completely qualified to answer all of them, but I’ll briefly explain where I land on some of these issues.

There are two main issues at play here - inerrancy and literalism. If you try to defend inerrancy with a literal reading of the bible all the way through, you’re going to have a really bad time, or else you’re going to end up checking your brain at the door, talking in circles without making much sense, then strutting around like you accomplished something like we see Ken Ham do. That’s bad. I can’t do that. The bible is composed of different types of literature, not all of which are meant to be taken literally.

As far as inerrancy, I’ve been reading some Barth lately, and while I’m not ready to affirm his doctrine of inerrancy, I’m a lot closer to that than I am affirming the CSBI, or to say the general view of modern evangelicalism. Briefly (though I assume you know this), Barth states that the bible is a book written by man, inspired by God to be used by the HS to reveal Jesus to the reader. Absent the holy spirit present to reveal Christ to the reader, it is simply a book written by some guys a long time ago.

The literal Adam is something I’m open to one way or another. I have always affirmed a literal Adam, mainly because it’s what I’ve been taught in my sort of evangelical sort of reformed church. Scriptures outside of Genesis stating that sin entered the world through one man seem to point to a literal Adam. But, if I am to take Genesis as an overall creation narrative rather than a point by point detail, it’s hard for me to then in the same work state that a literal Adam is absolutely necessary - I do strive to be consistent. So I'll answer this a solid "I don't know enough to have an opinion."

This big ball we sit on is part of general revelation. The reformed doctrine of election points to God revealing himself in creation so that no man is without excuse. Most Christians who are reformed in their soteriology will affirm this. However, when science reveals something about creation, they don’t consider this to be man exploring revelation in a different manner. To me that is completely in conflict. If we are to affirm creation as revelation, don’t we have to then point to what science is doing and consider that on some level to be exploring God’s revelation to man?

Now, general revelation (or science, imo) shouldn’t trump special revelation (bible). But, they shouldn’t be in conflict. If God has revealed himself to us in multiple ways, these two cannot be at odds, or else God is in conflict with himself, which we can’t have. What I do think science can do to faith is to shape how we read particular portions of the bible. If God has revealed something like evolution to us very clearly through general revelation, then it seems silly to try to force a literal reading of Genesis, as this is in my opinion forcing God to be in conflict with himself. The worst mistake we can make with scripture is to try to assume we can easily figure out what it means when it isn’t clear on a particular subject, because then we put our own opinions over the text. Fortunately, scripture is crystal clear on the important part - the gospel narrative - but in matters of things like law, morality, and creation it does not always speak clearly, and if we exegete in a dogmatic way and aren’t open to where we are wrong, all we are doing is superimposing our own beliefs on the bible. Barth said “The Fundamentalists says he knows the Bible, but he must have become master over the Bible, which means master over revelation... I consider it just another kind of natural theology: a view of the modern man who wants to control revelation.” I don’t want to consider myself master over revelation, so I must constantly consider the fact that my interpretation of any particular scripture or doctrine may be wrong.

Now, I know this has problems too, and I’m a small step away from making the bible depend on what men dig out of the dirt, which is a pretty big issue. I think that, however (again I’ll echo Barth here), the bible’s primary purpose is to speak to the life and work of Christ, and his life, death, and resurrection is the central point around which the entire book rotates. The bible’s goal is not to tell us how old the earth is. The bible’s goal is to witness to Christ. Christ and his work is the one thing that I will be dogmatic about. The rest? Man, there’s so much I don’t know. I’m not near confident enough in my knowledge to start answering the tough questions you asked with any authority.

Thoughts?

I just found this quote from St. Augustine that I love.

"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture."

Really enjoyed St Augustine in college- what was this from?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There's another passage from St. Augustine that is also quite relevant to the discussion:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

In other words, if your religion causes you to talk nonsense about scientific topics, everyone will just think you're a total dunderhead and they won't take you seriously on religious topics, either. So quit talking nonsense about science.

Dude was ahead of his time.

 

[proninja]

Really enjoyed St Augustine in college- what was this from?

"The Literal Meaning of Genesis"

Didn't read the book, just found the quote poking around the innerwebs

 

[proninja]

There's another passage from St. Augustine that is also quite relevant to the discussion:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

In other words, if your religion causes you to talk nonsense about scientific topics, everyone will just think you're a total dunderhead and you'll never convert anybody. So quit talking nonsense about science.

Dude was ahead of his time.

That's gorgeous.

Here's a letter Barth wrote to his grand-niece in 1965

"Has no one explained to you in your seminar that one can as little compare the biblical creation story with a scientific theory like that of evolution as one can compare, shall we say, an organ and a vacuum-cleaner -- that there can be as little question of harmony between them as of contradiction? The creation story is a witness to the beginning or becoming of all reality distinct from God in the light of God's later acts and words relating to his people Israel -- naturally in the form of a saga or poem. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the same reality in its inner nexus -- naturally in the form of a scientific hypothesis. The creation story deals only with the becoming of all things, and therefore with the revelation of God, which is inaccessible to science as such. The theory of evolution deals with that which has become, as it appear to human observation and research and as it invites human interpretation. Thus one's attitude to the creation story and the theory of evolution can take the form of an either/or only if one shuts oneself off completely either from faith in God's revelation or from the mind (or opportunity) for scientific understanding."

 

[igbomb]

There's another passage from St. Augustine that is also quite relevant to the discussion:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

In other words, if your religion causes you to talk nonsense about scientific topics, everyone will just think you're a total dunderhead and they won't take you seriously on religious topics, either. So quit talking nonsense about science.

Dude was ahead of his time.

Wow, that's truly brilliant.

 

[Jayrok]

I think that, for the most part, people seem to think that YEC = Christianity, and they simply don't know enough about it to know that it's not only ridiculous, but not remotely required by Christianity.

Are there other parts of Genesis where belief might be required by Christianity? Some mention the gap theory where the first couple of verses of Genesis could span millions of years accounting for the likely older age of the earth. The Bible tracks the years of "man" from Adam, the first man, to Jesus. It isn't thousands of years. Does that say anything about the discovery of human remains that are dated several thousands of years old, plenty of years beyond the measure of time between Jesus and Adam?

Do you feel like the belief in Adam and Eve is required by Christianity? Or do you allow room for people existing before Adam? Do you think that would create any problems in terms of defending the validity/accuracy/inerrency of the Bible? Or do you believe Christianity allows for the entire book of Genesis to be symbolic in nature (at least in terms of creation and the flood, etc.)?

Those are some big questions. I don’t feel completely qualified to answer all of them, but I’ll briefly explain where I land on some of these issues.

There are two main issues at play here - inerrancy and literalism. If you try to defend inerrancy with a literal reading of the bible all the way through, you’re going to have a really bad time, or else you’re going to end up checking your brain at the door, talking in circles without making much sense, then strutting around like you accomplished something like we see Ken Ham do. That’s bad. I can’t do that. The bible is composed of different types of literature, not all of which are meant to be taken literally.

[SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]IMV, the case of Biblical errancy falls not because of literal readings vs. allegorical intentions of authors, but because of contradictions. Simply put, if one story does not fit with another (not nitpicking details, but content) then one of them is not true as written. So I agree that literalism isn’t really related to inerrancy. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]

As far as inerrancy, I’ve been reading some Barth lately, and while I’m not ready to affirm his doctrine of inerrancy, I’m a lot closer to that than I am affirming the CSBI, or to say the general view of modern evangelicalism. Briefly (though I assume you know this), Barth states that the bible is a book written by man, inspired by God to be used by the HS to reveal Jesus to the reader. Absent the holy spirit present to reveal Christ to the reader, it is simply a book written by some guys a long time ago.

[SIZE=10pt]A problem I see with Barth’s view is that the Bible was not available to every potential believer for many centuries after it was compiled, edited, and produced in its final package. Never mind the literacy rate for all those centuries for a moment, the Church kept control of the reading of the scriptures. The average Joe didn’t get to read the Bible for a very long time. Maybe God intended the Holy Spirit to be conveyed from the priest reading scripture to the congregation. Otherwise how did the HS reach those who didn’t/couldn’t read the Bible. Barth’s idea seems aimed at the 20th century and later.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]

The literal Adam is something I’m open to one way or another. I have always affirmed a literal Adam, mainly because it’s what I’ve been taught in my sort of evangelical sort of reformed church. Scriptures outside of Genesis stating that sin entered the world through one man seem to point to a literal Adam. But, if I am to take Genesis as an overall creation narrative rather than a point by point detail, it’s hard for me to then in the same work state that a literal Adam is absolutely necessary - I do strive to be consistent. So I'll answer this a solid "I don't know enough to have an opinion."

[SIZE=10pt]I would suggest it is necessary to believe in a literal Adam, at least a first “man” as someone needs to be the target of the idea of original sin. Without Adam, are we to determine that original man was born with a sinful nature? That would suggest God’s creation was not “good”, yes? Paul taught a literal Adam (IMO), Peter taught a literal flood, and so on. I don’t think it is important for Genesis to be taken literally in point to point detail. But Christianity is reliant on the need for a savior because of the destruction of original sin. Creation was good, and then man chose to sin... now man needs a divine savior in order to get back to God. That is central to Christianity; the need for a savior. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]If there was no “Adam” in a literal sense, is it important that the gospel made up a genealogy from Jesus to Adam? One might wonder what else is “made up”. On the other hand, if we can believe that God created a man from dust straight to life, and this man is central to the teaching of important doctrine such as original sin... why can’t we also believe in a literal creation story, or a literal flood, a literal physical resurrection of the dead, and so on? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Is it because science seems to dispel the idea that the earth is younger than 6,000 years? Does that mean Christians have to alter former belief and allow scientific discovery to fit in with what they believe? Can it be applied to other parts of the Bible besides creation?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]

Now, I know this has problems too, and I'm a small step away from making the bible depend on what men dig out of the dirt, which is a pretty big issue.

If men pull further evidence that seems to contradict the Bible out of the dirt, are you open to adjusting your view of the Bible when it comes to inerrancy? Or do you think there is always room to apply allegory when it seems necessary? My question, then, is where does it stop? What is literal truth and what is symbolic for teaching?

You mentioned that Christ and his work being the one thing you are dogmatic about. Would it matter to you if Christ didn't actually physically die on earth and physically rise from the dead? Can the story of his death/resurrection suffice for the believer? Or is it necessary for it to have literally happened on earth?

 

[Jayrok]

I just found this quote from St. Augustine that I love.

"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture."

I like this quote too. As we discover things that seem to undermine the Christian's traditional view of scripture, maybe instead of defending a dogmatic view/interpretation, one should seek to discover how (or if) such a finding affects the central tenets of faith.

 

[tonydead]

I'm going to put this right here: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/

“We find they are getting less fit in the ancestral niche over time,” Lenski said. “I would argue that citrate users are — or are becoming — a new species.”

I thought about posting that, but, it's way over the Dr's head.

We're still waiting on this one. Unless they managed to create some new species in a lab...

They already have. And we can clone stuff too. Its almost like were playing god. O

Get back to me when the bacteria turn into fish or birds.

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand any species that you can't buy at the local pet store, that's why I didn't post the link in the first place.

 

[cstu]

[SIZE=10pt]I would suggest it is necessary to believe in a literal Adam, at least a first “man” as someone needs to be the target of the idea of original sin. Without Adam, are we to determine that original man was born with a sinful nature? That would suggest God’s creation was not “good”, yes? Paul taught a literal Adam (IMO), Peter taught a literal flood, and so on. I don’t think it is important for Genesis to be taken literally in point to point detail. But Christianity is reliant on the need for a savior because of the destruction of original sin. Creation was good, and then man chose to sin... now man needs a divine savior in order to get back to God. That is central to Christianity; the need for a savior. [/SIZE]

Yes, God supposedly created man with free will. There no reason to me that Christians need to literally believe what is in a Jewish book. AFAIK Jesus never commented that Genesis was to be taken literally.

 

[mr roboto]

I haven't really read this thread. This post is meant to put in perspective something that I believe even Christians forget about the Bible. The Bible is not an answer-every-question-I-have book. The Bible has a very clear purpose and a very clear desire, that is to reveal God to the reader.

When Christian say that the Bible is the word of God, they then take the next leap to say that it contains all of the things that we might want to know about God. That is a very large jump which leads many Christians to use the Bible as some sort of weird set of data from which to answer all of their questions.

One of the things I have realized in studying scripture and spending time with people in the church is that many of our questions that we want the Bible to answer the Bible itself simply doesn't care to answer. So if you bring your own set of assumptions and questions to the text, and then force a book written by dozens of authors over thousands of years to answer them or affirm your own assumptions, you are making the Bible into your own personal set of theological data points when in reality it's not interested in answering the questions you bring to the text.

I firmly placed the question of the age of the earth, and whether or not there is macro or micro evolution, in this camp. I believe, as Christians, we need to defer to science to help us understand how old the earth is and how species have changed over time. The take that Ken Hamm and others take is admirable from a Christian perspective (attempting to 'defend' creation), but I believe it very much fails to take the Bible at its own word, which is a book about revealing God to the reader.

 

[Jayrok]

[SIZE=10pt]I would suggest it is necessary to believe in a literal Adam, at least a first “man” as someone needs to be the target of the idea of original sin. Without Adam, are we to determine that original man was born with a sinful nature? That would suggest God’s creation was not “good”, yes? Paul taught a literal Adam (IMO), Peter taught a literal flood, and so on. I don’t think it is important for Genesis to be taken literally in point to point detail. But Christianity is reliant on the need for a savior because of the destruction of original sin. Creation was good, and then man chose to sin... now man needs a divine savior in order to get back to God. That is central to Christianity; the need for a savior. [/SIZE]

Yes, God supposedly created man with free will. There no reason to me that Christians need to literally believe what is in a Jewish book. AFAIK Jesus never commented that Genesis was to be taken literally.

Jesus used the death of Abel (Adam's son) as the first "prophet" killed by those he was speaking woes against (pharisees and teachers of the law) in the gospels (e.g. Luke 11:51).

I think Jesus believed many aspects of Genesis were taken as literal (flood, creation, Jonah and the whale, etc.).

 

[proninja]

Jayrok - I'm working today without a computer, and heading straight from there to a cabin in the woods for a couple days of skiing. I'll remember to get back to this when I get back.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I would suggest it is necessary to believe in a literal Adam, at least a first man as someone needs to be the target of the idea of original sin. Without Adam, are we to determine that original man was born with a sinful nature? That would suggest Gods creation was not good, yes?

Man is sinful. I don't think that has anything to do with whether the Garden of Eden story is to be taken literally. Man is sinful either way. Adam succumbed to temptation, but so do we all. If that's an argument against the idea that God's creation was perfect (an interpretation many would dispute), then so be it. But the argument doesn't change, IMO, just because we're talking about Adam's imperfect resistance to temptation rather than everybody's. If that's an imperfection, it's there under either interpretation.

But Christianity is reliant on the need for a savior because of the destruction of original sin. Creation was good, and then man chose to sin... now man needs a divine savior in order to get back to God. That is central to Christianity; the need for a savior.

Man is sinful. According to Christian doctrine, he therefore needs a savior. I don't see how it matters whether man is sinful because Adam couldn't resist all temptation, or man is sinful because humans in general -- as symbolized by Adam -- can't resist all temptation.

If there was no Adam in a literal sense, is it important that the gospel made up a genealogy from Jesus to Adam? One might wonder what else is made up.

I don't think the genealogy is particularly important. Of course it's made up, but so what? Among the ancients, making stuff up was a perfectly legitimate way to make a point.

On the other hand, if we can believe that God created a man from dust straight to life, and this man is central to the teaching of important doctrine such as original sin... why cant we also believe in a literal creation story, or a literal flood, a literal physical resurrection of the dead, and so on?

If you're going to believe that man was created directly from dust, you might as well be a young-earth creationist -- but being a good Christian does not require believing that man was created directly from dust. You can be a perfectly good Christian while accepting all of modern scientific thinking.

Is it because science seems to dispel the idea that the earth is younger than 6,000 years? Does that mean Christians have to alter former belief and allow scientific discovery to fit in with what they believe? Can it be applied to other parts of the Bible besides creation?

I would hope so. The Bible isn't the only form of revelation. Science is revelation as well, and in many cases its findings are a lot less ambiguous and easier to interpret than scripture. When a given scriptural interpretation is at odds with boatloads of scientific evidence, it's generally going to be the scriptural interpretation that could stand some revision.

Now, I know this has problems too, and I'm a small step away from making the bible depend on what men dig out of the dirt, which is a pretty big issue.

The important stuff in the Bible has nothing to do with what men might dig up out of the dirt. The important stuff in the Bible, to Christians, is (or should be) about man's relationship with God, God's offer of redemption, and other spiritual matters. That's not the kind of stuff that can be contradicted by a geological dig.

(As should go without saying... JMHO.)

 

[Dexter]

Thank you god for saving me from what you would do to me if I didn't let you save me.

 

[mad sweeney]

Thank you god for saving me from what you would do to me if I didn't let you save me.

The real OG mob protection racket.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Thank you god for saving me from what you would do to me if I didn't let you save me.

That's a nice looking soul you got there...be a shame if something happened to it.

 

[Jayrok]

MT -- It should be noted that my conversation with Proninja comes from the viewpoint that the Bible is inerrant, the divinely inspired, true word of God (which is his position). Outside of those parameters I agree that it doesn't matter if there was an actual Adam or not.

Man is sinful. I don't think that has anything to do with whether the Garden of Eden story is to be taken literally. Man is sinful either way. Adam succumbed to temptation, but so do we all. If that's an argument against the idea that God's creation was perfect (an interpretation many would dispute), then so be it. But the argument doesn't change, IMO, just because we're talking about Adam's imperfect resistance to temptation rather than everybody's. If that's an imperfection, it's there under either interpretation.

[SIZE=10.5pt]Evolution would suggest that sinful nature is a part of the process itself. Natural selection suggests that organisms keep those traits that are useful in survival and reproduction as it adapts to its environment. It seems safe to say that in some cases, “sinful behavior” was a part of the adaptation and survival process. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Christian theology suggests that sinful behavior is the result of man’s fall, or disobedience to God. The Bible says that God’s creation was good until Adam’s sin. If sin is natural (part of the evolutionary process), when did it become disobedient to God? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Man is sinful. According to Christian doctrine, he therefore needs a savior. I don't see how it matters whether man is sinful because Adam couldn't resist all temptation, or man is sinful because humans in general -- as symbolized by Adam -- can't resist all temptation.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Was man sinful (whether Adam was literal or symbolic) before or after he realized he couldn't resist temptation?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]I don't think the geneaolgy is particularly important. Of course it's made up, so what? Among the ancients, making stuff up was a perfectly legitimate way to make a point.[/SIZE]

Please note again that we are discussing this from the viewpoint of Biblical errancy. If the genealogy is made up then the Bible contains fabrications. This is not important to you but it is to those who believe it is the infallible word of God.

[SIZE=10.5pt]If you're going to believe that man was created directly from dust, you might as well be a young-earth creationist -- but being a good Christian does not require believing that man was created directly from dust. You can be a perfectly good Christian while accepting all of modern scientific thinking.[/SIZE]

I agree with the first sentence. The last sentence would depend on how you would define a "good Christian."

[SIZE=10.5pt]I would hope so. The Bible isn't the only form of revelation. Science is revelation as well, and in many cases its findings are a lot less ambiguous and easier to interpret than scripture. When a given scriptural interpretation is at odds with boatloads of scientific evidence, it's generally going to be the scriptural interpretation that could stand some revision.[/SIZE]

Totally agree.

[SIZE=10.5pt]The important stuff in the Bible has nothing to do with what men might dig up out of the dirt. The important stuff in the Bible, to Christians, is (or should be) about man's relationship with God, God's offer of redemption, and other spiritual matters. That's not the kind of stuff that can be contradicted by a geological dig.

(As should go without saying... JMHO.)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Again, we are talking about contents of the Bible and what it says about creation as it relates to the idea of inerrancy. Personally, I think the theory of evolution goes against Christian theology in terms of the fall of man and redemption through salvation. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I agree that spiritual matters such as man's relationship with God can't be contradicted by a geological dig. But a geological dig can shed light on whether an event in the Bible actually happened as written, and that is the context in which I was discussing this with Proninja. [/SIZE]

 

[proninja]

Jayrok - today's my first day off in a bit, I'll have some time to respond in a bit more depth once I fix the fan on this has insert, but for a quick point of clarity, my position on inerrancy isn't what it once was. It's been something I've been wrestling with over the last couple of months.

 

[Jayrok]

Jayrok - today's my first day off in a bit, I'll have some time to respond in a bit more depth once I fix the fan on this has insert, but for a quick point of clarity, my position on inerrancy isn't what it once was. It's been something I've been wrestling with over the last couple of months.

I'd be interested to hear where you are now and how you got there. We could correspond via email if that might work better or be more convenient.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

MT -- It should be noted that my conversation with Proninja comes from the viewpoint that the Bible is inerrant, the divinely inspired, true word of God (which is his position). Outside of those parameters I agree that it doesn't matter if there was an actual Adam or not.

Yes, I realize I'm butting in, and I don't mean to speak for proninja. I was just giving some of my own thoughts, from the point of view of someone who has no wish to preserve the idea of Biblical inerrancy. It's a goofy idea, and I think religion is a lot better off when it doesn't try to inject extra goofiness into its veins.

Evolution would suggest that sinful nature is a part of the process itself. Natural selection suggests that organisms keep those traits that are useful in survival and reproduction as it adapts to its environment. It seems safe to say that in some cases, sinful behavior was a part of the adaptation and survival process.

Yes, I think being sinful is part and parcel of being hypocritical, which is a trait deeply hardwired into humans. We want society in general to gravely respect strong moral principles, but when we think we can get away with skirting those principles to our own advantage without being caught, we are profoundly tempted. When we give into that temptation and engage in behavior we'd morally disapprove of if done by others, that's a pretty good (secular) definition of sin, IMO. And we were all born to do it.

Christian theology suggests that sinful behavior is the result of mans fall, or disobedience to God. The Bible says that Gods creation was good until Adams sin. If sin is natural (part of the evolutionary process), when did it become disobedient to God?

I think the Judeo-Christian parable agrees pretty well with evolutionary history. Our pre-human ancestors had altruistic moral instincts as well as more selfish instincts, and these instincts sometimes clashed. At some point, humans moved away from acting entirely on instinct and began to think in abstractions -- to philosophize, to moralize, to develop ethics, to acquire a knowledge of good and evil. From that point on, hypocritically giving into selfish temptations in situations where we'd morally disapprove of others for doing so became ... sinful. In other words, man became sinful precisely when he acquired the knowledge of good and evil, just like the Bible says.

 

[proninja]

Jayrok - today's my first day off in a bit, I'll have some time to respond in a bit more depth once I fix the fan on this has insert, but for a quick point of clarity, my position on inerrancy isn't what it once was. It's been something I've been wrestling with over the last couple of months.

I'd be interested to hear where you are now and how you got there. We could correspond via email if that might work better or be more convenient.

I got there by reading and listening to some smart friends. At some point in time a year or so ago I lost trust in the theology of the teaching pastor at my church, and I realized that he was by far the biggest influence on my own theology - frankly, more so than scripture itself. I'd heard his point of view and listened to his point of view orders of magnitude more than anybody else's, and what I realized was that if I didn't have confidence in his construct, I really had no idea what I actually believed, I was simply a parrot of what I had been spoon fed, and suddenly I didn't trust the person I had been parroting. That moment when you realize that you don't really have any idea exactly what you believe on the thing you claim to hold as the most important thing in your life is an interesting moment.

So, I started reading. I started with some classic reformed guys, like Calvin and Berkhof. I've moved to guys like Barth and Bonhoeffer these days - reading CD I.2 currently, and Bonhoeffer's Ethics is on deck. I have a friend just finishing up her M.Div, and another friend who lacks the degree, but he's the most well read guy I've met on this particular subject. He has been very generous with his time, just left the church I go to about 8 months ago, so he understands my issues with the church I go to well. He's a good friend, and most of what I've been reading has been at his recommendation. The good news is that through this my faith has actually gotten much stronger. I've learned a bit, but I have a long way to go.

Where I stand right now is that the bible is the inspired word of God written by human hands and heard by human ears. It is utterly reliable in its communication of the gospel, the translations we have are very good, and I don't need an absolutely utterly perfect bible to affirm that it is the reliable word of God.

Any communication has at least two parties. Scripture has four that I can think of. The holy spirit, the author, the translator, and the reader. Even if we presuppose that there are no errors in the autographs (which we don't have) and take any capacity for error away from God and the author, we are still left with a fallen translator and a fallen reader. There's a lot that can go wrong there.

There are many wrong ways to read the bible. For me to say that my particular interpretation of any verse is inerrant by necessity puts my authority on the same level as that of God (as well as that of the translator) and I am utterly unwilling to do that. Even if the bible were without any sort of human error in the autographs (which, by the way, I'm no longer willing to affirm), even if the translation were perfect, I still have to give myself the authority of God in order to claim that what I derive from the bible is the inerrant word of God, which is a pretty fundamentalist, put yourself in authority over revelation, big problem kind of thing to do. So I try not to do that. And it seems to me that if you want to claim inerrancy, you pretty much have to do that.

NT Wright talks about not only the difference between literal and metaphorical but also the difference between concrete and abstract. Here are some notes from an interview that he gave. The different parties to communication I lifted from Barth, but I frankly have trouble understanding him on this subject, so a lot of it is what I've been able to pull out of my backside too.

The word literal, like the word metaphorical is a word that refers to the way that words refer to things, he notes. But we often confuse the word literal with the terms concrete and abstract—that is, the first meaning something that is actual, physical and the latter, referring to something transient, like an idea. One can refer metaphorically to something concrete (e.g. “my car is an old tin can”), or one can refer literally to something abstract (e.g. Plato’s Theory of Forms).

You asked a while ago where I was willing to stop, and what hill I was willing to die on. The answer probably won't be very satisfying, but it'll be the truth - I'm not sure right now. I am in my infancy as a reader of theology, and I haven't given all of the different permutations of that question enough thought in order to give a decent answer, and I don't just want to parrot something I've heard that I don't fully understand. Besides, I don't trust people who give easy, simplistic answers to hard, complicated questions, so I don't want to be one of those guys.

 

[Politician Spock]

Jayrok - today's my first day off in a bit, I'll have some time to respond in a bit more depth once I fix the fan on this has insert, but for a quick point of clarity, my position on inerrancy isn't what it once was. It's been something I've been wrestling with over the last couple of months.

I've been a fundamental Christian for about 3 decades, but 2013 really changed me. In fact, the pastor at my church said something on Sunday that really bothered me. He said "we are banking our eternity on that book " (pointing to his Bible). I don't know what kept me from standing up and saying "No I'm not". I really wanted to. But I didn't. Perhaps I should have.

I'm starting to think Christians have elevated the importance of the Bible to a higher degree than it should be. Jesus didn't come to live on the earth to write a new book, or volume 2 of an existing book. As Jesus pointed out, the scriptures that already existed then we're already misinterpreted by many. Right there it should be evident that our interpretation of scirptures easily falls short of us getting it right.

While Jesus was here He focused on 12 men, and the testimony of those 12 men was to be communicated to the ends of the earth. How their testimony is to be communicated is really just man's choice of medium. If Jesus came today and again focused on 12 men, and those 12 men testified in front of video cameras, which someone produced into a DVD, would we build a religion around the DVD, calling it the Holy DVD, and form doctrine from our interpretation of the DVD, a lot of which we can't agree completely on, so we form numerous denominations of different doctrines formed from watching the DVD over and over and over and over again to the point where we refuse to budge from our interpretation?... probably, because that's what we did with written testimonies of Christ.

The New Testament is not ALL the written testimonies. It's a small fraction of them, and they were chosen by heavliy Roman influenced Christians. And by heavily Roman I mean heavily pagan influenced people. Not only were they pagan influenced, but they had a big liking for Paul, who wasn't one of the 12. What we as Christians are led to believe is that Jesus focusing on the 12 while he lived fell short. That's right! It FELL SHORT! It fell so short that God had to inspire people to write because Jesus coming and focusing on the 12, and the testimonies of the 12 being repeated over and over and over just didn't get the job done. What mankind needed was scripture... because mankind interpreted scripture right before Jesus came (wink, wink).

I do not bank my eternity on the Bible. The Bible is great. It's a fantastic collection of the testimonies that came about from the 12 that Jesus focused on. Unfortunately it's not all the testimonies, but it's a great collection none the less. What I bank my eternity on is Jesus Christ choosing to save me. That's it. Nothing more. No book. No interpretation of a book. The book is a just a medium of communication, and my salvation has nothing to do with whether or not I believe it to be inerent, the inspired word of God, or any thing else the Christians in Rome decided to elevate their chosen collection of letters to be.

And that's really what it comes down to. Men chose the letters of testimony that they liked most, and labled it holy, God breathed, God inspired, etc, etc.... In seminary I was told it was only the burden of man to "reckognize" which letters were God breathed, so really it wasn't mankind that chose the letters... we just "reckognized" the one's God chose. WHAT ####### HOGWASH!!!! That's why I left seminary. Christianity as we know it is Roman (pagan) influened religion. I won't go so far to say that's it's unChristian to believe that Bible is holy and God breathed. I don't think it has any effect at all on a person's salvation whether or not they believe that. So if it's easier to believe it is, then do so. But to me it's a collection of letters testifying of Christ. I don't limit myself to those letters because Roman influenced Christians decided not to include the others. No letter is perfect, because they're all written by imperfect people, even the ones in the Bible (yes, it's not inerent). Paul's letters are great, but it's rediculous how his writtings are more important to some people than the testimonies we have about Jesus himself. The Romans loved Paul, and they essentially made a religion around Paul's writtings by choosing a ton of his stuff in their supposed "Bible". He even warned in one of his letters not to favor his leadership over others. Not only did the Romans favor him, they labled his words holy and god breathed.

There is a lot we can learn about Christ by not limiting our understanding of Him to what the Roman influenced Christians favored. Granted there is a bogus stuff too... but we have the Holy Spirit to guide us. We don't need men of 1700 years ago telling us that they seperated the good from the bad for us so we don't have to. I want to. It's part of my growth to go through that process. Just accepting what people tell me to believe is really weak.

 

[joffer]

For those who believe in theistic evolution, or some form of it, as well as the existence of the soul, do you think Homo sapiens are the only species to ever have a soul that survives death?

 

[proninja]

For those who believe in theistic evolution, or some form of it, as well as the existence of the soul, do you think Homo sapiens are the only species to ever have a soul that survives death?

It's an interesting question. Near as I can tell, the bible doesn't answer the "will my dog be in heaven" question, so quite literally my easy answer would be "I don't know."

We don't precisely know what the new heavens and the new earth will look like. Read (or listen to) NT Wright's answer here, it likely speaks to the subject you're interested in.

 

[jon_mx]

The apple that Eve ate was from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Within the context of evolution, that could mean that prior to that point man was not intelligent enough to really understand the concept of good and evil, but was only interested in survival. He was essentially an animal, but lived in peace and happiness. Once man evolved with this new knowledge he became aware of greed and power and lust and craved it.

 

[joffer]

For those who believe in theistic evolution, or some form of it, as well as the existence of the soul, do you think Homo sapiens are the only species to ever have a soul that survives death?

It's an interesting question. Near as I can tell, the bible doesn't answer the "will my dog be in heaven" question, so quite literally my easy answer would be "I don't know."

We don't precisely know what the new heavens and the new earth will look like. Read (or listen to) NT Wright's answer here, it likely speaks to the subject you're interested in.

Fair enough. Do you think all Homo sapiens had a soul, even the ones that lived for hundreds of thousands of years before the time of Christ?

 

[proninja]

For those who believe in theistic evolution, or some form of it, as well as the existence of the soul, do you think Homo sapiens are the only species to ever have a soul that survives death?

It's an interesting question. Near as I can tell, the bible doesn't answer the "will my dog be in heaven" question, so quite literally my easy answer would be "I don't know."

We don't precisely know what the new heavens and the new earth will look like. Read (or listen to) NT Wright's answer here, it likely speaks to the subject you're interested in.

Fair enough. Do you think all Homo sapiens had a soul, even the ones that lived for hundreds of thousands of years before the time of Christ?

Is there something you're trying to get at here? The bible doesn't speak to that. I don't have a strong opinion. As much as it would be cool if it were true, the bible doesn't answer every question.

 

[joffer]

For those who believe in theistic evolution, or some form of it, as well as the existence of the soul, do you think Homo sapiens are the only species to ever have a soul that survives death?

It's an interesting question. Near as I can tell, the bible doesn't answer the "will my dog be in heaven" question, so quite literally my easy answer would be "I don't know."

We don't precisely know what the new heavens and the new earth will look like. Read (or listen to) NT Wright's answer here, it likely speaks to the subject you're interested in.

Fair enough. Do you think all Homo sapiens had a soul, even the ones that lived for hundreds of thousands of years before the time of Christ?

Is there something you're trying to get at here? The bible doesn't speak to that. I don't have a strong opinion. As much as it would be cool if it were true, the bible doesn't answer every question.

Just trying to understand the opposing point of view. I've always found theistic evolution difficult to reconcile with the concept of a soul. Seems like there are only a certain number of possibilities, and none of them make much sense to me.

 

[proninja]

For those who believe in theistic evolution, or some form of it, as well as the existence of the soul, do you think Homo sapiens are the only species to ever have a soul that survives death?

It's an interesting question. Near as I can tell, the bible doesn't answer the "will my dog be in heaven" question, so quite literally my easy answer would be "I don't know."

We don't precisely know what the new heavens and the new earth will look like. Read (or listen to) NT Wright's answer here, it likely speaks to the subject you're interested in.

Fair enough. Do you think all Homo sapiens had a soul, even the ones that lived for hundreds of thousands of years before the time of Christ?

Is there something you're trying to get at here? The bible doesn't speak to that. I don't have a strong opinion. As much as it would be cool if it were true, the bible doesn't answer every question.

Just trying to understand the opposing point of view. I've always found theistic evolution difficult to reconcile with the concept of a soul. Seems like there are only a certain number of possibilities, and none of them make much sense to me.

Is it theistic evolution you have an issue with, or theism?

 

[kutta]

Jayrok - today's my first day off in a bit, I'll have some time to respond in a bit more depth once I fix the fan on this has insert, but for a quick point of clarity, my position on inerrancy isn't what it once was. It's been something I've been wrestling with over the last couple of months.

I'd be interested to hear where you are now and how you got there. We could correspond via email if that might work better or be more convenient.

I got there by reading and listening to some smart friends. At some point in time a year or so ago I lost trust in the theology of the teaching pastor at my church, and I realized that he was by far the biggest influence on my own theology - frankly, more so than scripture itself. I'd heard his point of view and listened to his point of view orders of magnitude more than anybody else's, and what I realized was that if I didn't have confidence in his construct, I really had no idea what I actually believed, I was simply a parrot of what I had been spoon fed, and suddenly I didn't trust the person I had been parroting. That moment when you realize that you don't really have any idea exactly what you believe on the thing you claim to hold as the most important thing in your life is an interesting moment.

So, I started reading. I started with some classic reformed guys, like Calvin and Berkhof. I've moved to guys like Barth and Bonhoeffer these days - reading CD I.2 currently, and Bonhoeffer's Ethics is on deck. I have a friend just finishing up her M.Div, and another friend who lacks the degree, but he's the most well read guy I've met on this particular subject. He has been very generous with his time, just left the church I go to about 8 months ago, so he understands my issues with the church I go to well. He's a good friend, and most of what I've been reading has been at his recommendation. The good news is that through this my faith has actually gotten much stronger. I've learned a bit, but I have a long way to go.

Where I stand right now is that the bible is the inspired word of God written by human hands and heard by human ears. It is utterly reliable in its communication of the gospel, the translations we have are very good, and I don't need an absolutely utterly perfect bible to affirm that it is the reliable word of God.

Any communication has at least two parties. Scripture has four that I can think of. The holy spirit, the author, the translator, and the reader. Even if we presuppose that there are no errors in the autographs (which we don't have) and take any capacity for error away from God and the author, we are still left with a fallen translator and a fallen reader. There's a lot that can go wrong there.

There are many wrong ways to read the bible. For me to say that my particular interpretation of any verse is inerrant by necessity puts my authority on the same level as that of God (as well as that of the translator) and I am utterly unwilling to do that. Even if the bible were without any sort of human error in the autographs (which, by the way, I'm no longer willing to affirm), even if the translation were perfect, I still have to give myself the authority of God in order to claim that what I derive from the bible is the inerrant word of God, which is a pretty fundamentalist, put yourself in authority over revelation, big problem kind of thing to do. So I try not to do that. And it seems to me that if you want to claim inerrancy, you pretty much have to do that.

NT Wright talks about not only the difference between literal and metaphorical but also the difference between concrete and abstract. Here are some notes from an interview that he gave. The different parties to communication I lifted from Barth, but I frankly have trouble understanding him on this subject, so a lot of it is what I've been able to pull out of my backside too.

The word literal, like the word metaphorical is a word that refers to the way that words refer to things, he notes. But we often confuse the word literal with the terms concrete and abstractthat is, the first meaning something that is actual, physical and the latter, referring to something transient, like an idea. One can refer metaphorically to something concrete (e.g. my car is an old tin can), or one can refer literally to something abstract (e.g. Platos Theory of Forms).

You asked a while ago where I was willing to stop, and what hill I was willing to die on. The answer probably won't be very satisfying, but it'll be the truth - I'm not sure right now. I am in my infancy as a reader of theology, and I haven't given all of the different permutations of that question enough thought in order to give a decent answer, and I don't just want to parrot something I've heard that I don't fully understand. Besides, I don't trust people who give easy, simplistic answers to hard, complicated questions, so I don't want to be one of those guys.

You are well on your way to atheism. I give you three years.

 

[joffer]

For those who believe in theistic evolution, or some form of it, as well as the existence of the soul, do you think Homo sapiens are the only species to ever have a soul that survives death?

It's an interesting question. Near as I can tell, the bible doesn't answer the "will my dog be in heaven" question, so quite literally my easy answer would be "I don't know."

We don't precisely know what the new heavens and the new earth will look like. Read (or listen to) NT Wright's answer here, it likely speaks to the subject you're interested in.

Fair enough. Do you think all Homo sapiens had a soul, even the ones that lived for hundreds of thousands of years before the time of Christ?

Is there something you're trying to get at here? The bible doesn't speak to that. I don't have a strong opinion. As much as it would be cool if it were true, the bible doesn't answer every question.

Just trying to understand the opposing point of view. I've always found theistic evolution difficult to reconcile with the concept of a soul. Seems like there are only a certain number of possibilities, and none of them make much sense to me.

Is it theistic evolution you have an issue with, or theism?

At this moment? Exactly what I said. Reconciling evolution with the concept of a soul.

 

[proninja]

Jayrok - today's my first day off in a bit, I'll have some time to respond in a bit more depth once I fix the fan on this has insert, but for a quick point of clarity, my position on inerrancy isn't what it once was. It's been something I've been wrestling with over the last couple of months.

I'd be interested to hear where you are now and how you got there. We could correspond via email if that might work better or be more convenient.

I got there by reading and listening to some smart friends. At some point in time a year or so ago I lost trust in the theology of the teaching pastor at my church, and I realized that he was by far the biggest influence on my own theology - frankly, more so than scripture itself. I'd heard his point of view and listened to his point of view orders of magnitude more than anybody else's, and what I realized was that if I didn't have confidence in his construct, I really had no idea what I actually believed, I was simply a parrot of what I had been spoon fed, and suddenly I didn't trust the person I had been parroting. That moment when you realize that you don't really have any idea exactly what you believe on the thing you claim to hold as the most important thing in your life is an interesting moment.

So, I started reading. I started with some classic reformed guys, like Calvin and Berkhof. I've moved to guys like Barth and Bonhoeffer these days - reading CD I.2 currently, and Bonhoeffer's Ethics is on deck. I have a friend just finishing up her M.Div, and another friend who lacks the degree, but he's the most well read guy I've met on this particular subject. He has been very generous with his time, just left the church I go to about 8 months ago, so he understands my issues with the church I go to well. He's a good friend, and most of what I've been reading has been at his recommendation. The good news is that through this my faith has actually gotten much stronger. I've learned a bit, but I have a long way to go.

Where I stand right now is that the bible is the inspired word of God written by human hands and heard by human ears. It is utterly reliable in its communication of the gospel, the translations we have are very good, and I don't need an absolutely utterly perfect bible to affirm that it is the reliable word of God.

Any communication has at least two parties. Scripture has four that I can think of. The holy spirit, the author, the translator, and the reader. Even if we presuppose that there are no errors in the autographs (which we don't have) and take any capacity for error away from God and the author, we are still left with a fallen translator and a fallen reader. There's a lot that can go wrong there.

There are many wrong ways to read the bible. For me to say that my particular interpretation of any verse is inerrant by necessity puts my authority on the same level as that of God (as well as that of the translator) and I am utterly unwilling to do that. Even if the bible were without any sort of human error in the autographs (which, by the way, I'm no longer willing to affirm), even if the translation were perfect, I still have to give myself the authority of God in order to claim that what I derive from the bible is the inerrant word of God, which is a pretty fundamentalist, put yourself in authority over revelation, big problem kind of thing to do. So I try not to do that. And it seems to me that if you want to claim inerrancy, you pretty much have to do that.

NT Wright talks about not only the difference between literal and metaphorical but also the difference between concrete and abstract. Here are some notes from an interview that he gave. The different parties to communication I lifted from Barth, but I frankly have trouble understanding him on this subject, so a lot of it is what I've been able to pull out of my backside too.

The word literal, like the word metaphorical is a word that refers to the way that words refer to things, he notes. But we often confuse the word literal with the terms concrete and abstractthat is, the first meaning something that is actual, physical and the latter, referring to something transient, like an idea. One can refer metaphorically to something concrete (e.g. my car is an old tin can), or one can refer literally to something abstract (e.g. Platos Theory of Forms).

You asked a while ago where I was willing to stop, and what hill I was willing to die on. The answer probably won't be very satisfying, but it'll be the truth - I'm not sure right now. I am in my infancy as a reader of theology, and I haven't given all of the different permutations of that question enough thought in order to give a decent answer, and I don't just want to parrot something I've heard that I don't fully understand. Besides, I don't trust people who give easy, simplistic answers to hard, complicated questions, so I don't want to be one of those guys.

You are well on your way to atheism. I give you three years.

You're not the first person to tell me that, but I'm not that far out of mainstream Christian belief once you leave America. The American church is a very different animal from the rest of the world.

 

[kutta]

Jayrok - today's my first day off in a bit, I'll have some time to respond in a bit more depth once I fix the fan on this has insert, but for a quick point of clarity, my position on inerrancy isn't what it once was. It's been something I've been wrestling with over the last couple of months.

I'd be interested to hear where you are now and how you got there. We could correspond via email if that might work better or be more convenient.

I got there by reading and listening to some smart friends. At some point in time a year or so ago I lost trust in the theology of the teaching pastor at my church, and I realized that he was by far the biggest influence on my own theology - frankly, more so than scripture itself. I'd heard his point of view and listened to his point of view orders of magnitude more than anybody else's, and what I realized was that if I didn't have confidence in his construct, I really had no idea what I actually believed, I was simply a parrot of what I had been spoon fed, and suddenly I didn't trust the person I had been parroting. That moment when you realize that you don't really have any idea exactly what you believe on the thing you claim to hold as the most important thing in your life is an interesting moment.

So, I started reading. I started with some classic reformed guys, like Calvin and Berkhof. I've moved to guys like Barth and Bonhoeffer these days - reading CD I.2 currently, and Bonhoeffer's Ethics is on deck. I have a friend just finishing up her M.Div, and another friend who lacks the degree, but he's the most well read guy I've met on this particular subject. He has been very generous with his time, just left the church I go to about 8 months ago, so he understands my issues with the church I go to well. He's a good friend, and most of what I've been reading has been at his recommendation. The good news is that through this my faith has actually gotten much stronger. I've learned a bit, but I have a long way to go.

Where I stand right now is that the bible is the inspired word of God written by human hands and heard by human ears. It is utterly reliable in its communication of the gospel, the translations we have are very good, and I don't need an absolutely utterly perfect bible to affirm that it is the reliable word of God.

Any communication has at least two parties. Scripture has four that I can think of. The holy spirit, the author, the translator, and the reader. Even if we presuppose that there are no errors in the autographs (which we don't have) and take any capacity for error away from God and the author, we are still left with a fallen translator and a fallen reader. There's a lot that can go wrong there.

There are many wrong ways to read the bible. For me to say that my particular interpretation of any verse is inerrant by necessity puts my authority on the same level as that of God (as well as that of the translator) and I am utterly unwilling to do that. Even if the bible were without any sort of human error in the autographs (which, by the way, I'm no longer willing to affirm), even if the translation were perfect, I still have to give myself the authority of God in order to claim that what I derive from the bible is the inerrant word of God, which is a pretty fundamentalist, put yourself in authority over revelation, big problem kind of thing to do. So I try not to do that. And it seems to me that if you want to claim inerrancy, you pretty much have to do that.

NT Wright talks about not only the difference between literal and metaphorical but also the difference between concrete and abstract. Here are some notes from an interview that he gave. The different parties to communication I lifted from Barth, but I frankly have trouble understanding him on this subject, so a lot of it is what I've been able to pull out of my backside too.

The word literal, like the word metaphorical is a word that refers to the way that words refer to things, he notes. But we often confuse the word literal with the terms concrete and abstractthat is, the first meaning something that is actual, physical and the latter, referring to something transient, like an idea. One can refer metaphorically to something concrete (e.g. my car is an old tin can), or one can refer literally to something abstract (e.g. Platos Theory of Forms).

You asked a while ago where I was willing to stop, and what hill I was willing to die on. The answer probably won't be very satisfying, but it'll be the truth - I'm not sure right now. I am in my infancy as a reader of theology, and I haven't given all of the different permutations of that question enough thought in order to give a decent answer, and I don't just want to parrot something I've heard that I don't fully understand. Besides, I don't trust people who give easy, simplistic answers to hard, complicated questions, so I don't want to be one of those guys.

You are well on your way to atheism. I give you three years.

You're not the first person to tell me that, but I'm not that far out of mainstream Christian belief once you leave America. The American church is a very different animal from the rest of the world.

It seems you are in a very similar path that I took. And it was about 3 years after this point where I became an atheist.Good luck in your journey.

 

[Jayrok]

Jayrok - today's my first day off in a bit, I'll have some time to respond in a bit more depth once I fix the fan on this has insert, but for a quick point of clarity, my position on inerrancy isn't what it once was. It's been something I've been wrestling with over the last couple of months.

I'd be interested to hear where you are now and how you got there. We could correspond via email if that might work better or be more convenient.

I got there by reading and listening to some smart friends. At some point in time a year or so ago I lost trust in the theology of the teaching pastor at my church, and I realized that he was by far the biggest influence on my own theology - frankly, more so than scripture itself. I'd heard his point of view and listened to his point of view orders of magnitude more than anybody else's, and what I realized was that if I didn't have confidence in his construct, I really had no idea what I actually believed, I was simply a parrot of what I had been spoon fed, and suddenly I didn't trust the person I had been parroting. That moment when you realize that you don't really have any idea exactly what you believe on the thing you claim to hold as the most important thing in your life is an interesting moment.

So, I started reading. I started with some classic reformed guys, like Calvin and Berkhof. I've moved to guys like Barth and Bonhoeffer these days - reading CD I.2 currently, and Bonhoeffer's Ethics is on deck. I have a friend just finishing up her M.Div, and another friend who lacks the degree, but he's the most well read guy I've met on this particular subject. He has been very generous with his time, just left the church I go to about 8 months ago, so he understands my issues with the church I go to well. He's a good friend, and most of what I've been reading has been at his recommendation. The good news is that through this my faith has actually gotten much stronger. I've learned a bit, but I have a long way to go.

Where I stand right now is that the bible is the inspired word of God written by human hands and heard by human ears. It is utterly reliable in its communication of the gospel, the translations we have are very good, and I don't need an absolutely utterly perfect bible to affirm that it is the reliable word of God.

Any communication has at least two parties. Scripture has four that I can think of. The holy spirit, the author, the translator, and the reader. Even if we presuppose that there are no errors in the autographs (which we don't have) and take any capacity for error away from God and the author, we are still left with a fallen translator and a fallen reader. There's a lot that can go wrong there.

There are many wrong ways to read the bible. For me to say that my particular interpretation of any verse is inerrant by necessity puts my authority on the same level as that of God (as well as that of the translator) and I am utterly unwilling to do that. Even if the bible were without any sort of human error in the autographs (which, by the way, I'm no longer willing to affirm), even if the translation were perfect, I still have to give myself the authority of God in order to claim that what I derive from the bible is the inerrant word of God, which is a pretty fundamentalist, put yourself in authority over revelation, big problem kind of thing to do. So I try not to do that. And it seems to me that if you want to claim inerrancy, you pretty much have to do that.

NT Wright talks about not only the difference between literal and metaphorical but also the difference between concrete and abstract. Here are some notes from an interview that he gave. The different parties to communication I lifted from Barth, but I frankly have trouble understanding him on this subject, so a lot of it is what I've been able to pull out of my backside too.

The word literal, like the word metaphorical is a word that refers to the way that words refer to things, he notes. But we often confuse the word literal with the terms concrete and abstract—that is, the first meaning something that is actual, physical and the latter, referring to something transient, like an idea. One can refer metaphorically to something concrete (e.g. “my car is an old tin can”), or one can refer literally to something abstract (e.g. Plato’s Theory of Forms).

You asked a while ago where I was willing to stop, and what hill I was willing to die on. The answer probably won't be very satisfying, but it'll be the truth - I'm not sure right now. I am in my infancy as a reader of theology, and I haven't given all of the different permutations of that question enough thought in order to give a decent answer, and I don't just want to parrot something I've heard that I don't fully understand. Besides, I don't trust people who give easy, simplistic answers to hard, complicated questions, so I don't want to be one of those guys.

You are a kind soul, GB. I have also been on the path you are on.. in fact, I am still on the long winding path. I may have started on a different point from you, but I think we seek the same thing... truth.

Good luck in your discovery and I encourage you to read and keep reading while you pray. I don't remember asking you where you are willing to stop as I don't want to come across as someone who wants you to stop searching for truth (hope that makes some sense).

I've read NT Wright's comments on the words literal vs metaphorical and I find it to be somewhat of a smokescreen. When the gospel of John talks about Jesus being the lamb of God, well of course he isn't saying that Jesus is literally a lamb walking up to be baptized. In Psalm 139 when the psalmists says "you knit me together in my mother's womb", of course he isn't suggesting that he was born in any manner other than the natural biological process.

If Wright thinks it is a problem with readers mistaking passages such as these, it gives the impression that he is moving the target away from more difficult issues.

 

[Jayrok]

Jayrok - today's my first day off in a bit, I'll have some time to respond in a bit more depth once I fix the fan on this has insert, but for a quick point of clarity, my position on inerrancy isn't what it once was. It's been something I've been wrestling with over the last couple of months.

I've been a fundamental Christian for about 3 decades, but 2013 really changed me. In fact, the pastor at my church said something on Sunday that really bothered me. He said "we are banking our eternity on that book " (pointing to his Bible). I don't know what kept me from standing up and saying "No I'm not". I really wanted to. But I didn't. Perhaps I should have.

I'm starting to think Christians have elevated the importance of the Bible to a higher degree than it should be. Jesus didn't come to live on the earth to write a new book, or volume 2 of an existing book. As Jesus pointed out, the scriptures that already existed then we're already misinterpreted by many. Right there it should be evident that our interpretation of scirptures easily falls short of us getting it right.

While Jesus was here He focused on 12 men, and the testimony of those 12 men was to be communicated to the ends of the earth. How their testimony is to be communicated is really just man's choice of medium. If Jesus came today and again focused on 12 men, and those 12 men testified in front of video cameras, which someone produced into a DVD, would we build a religion around the DVD, calling it the Holy DVD, and form doctrine from our interpretation of the DVD, a lot of which we can't agree completely on, so we form numerous denominations of different doctrines formed from watching the DVD over and over and over and over again to the point where we refuse to budge from our interpretation?... probably, because that's what we did with written testimonies of Christ.

The New Testament is not ALL the written testimonies. It's a small fraction of them, and they were chosen by heavliy Roman influenced Christians. And by heavily Roman I mean heavily pagan influenced people. Not only were they pagan influenced, but they had a big liking for Paul, who wasn't one of the 12. What we as Christians are led to believe is that Jesus focusing on the 12 while he lived fell short. That's right! It FELL SHORT! It fell so short that God had to inspire people to write because Jesus coming and focusing on the 12, and the testimonies of the 12 being repeated over and over and over just didn't get the job done. What mankind needed was scripture... because mankind interpreted scripture right before Jesus came (wink, wink).

I do not bank my eternity on the Bible. The Bible is great. It's a fantastic collection of the testimonies that came about from the 12 that Jesus focused on. Unfortunately it's not all the testimonies, but it's a great collection none the less. What I bank my eternity on is Jesus Christ choosing to save me. That's it. Nothing more. No book. No interpretation of a book. The book is a just a medium of communication, and my salvation has nothing to do with whether or not I believe it to be inerent, the inspired word of God, or any thing else the Christians in Rome decided to elevate their chosen collection of letters to be.

And that's really what it comes down to. Men chose the letters of testimony that they liked most, and labled it holy, God breathed, God inspired, etc, etc.... In seminary I was told it was only the burden of man to "reckognize" which letters were God breathed, so really it wasn't mankind that chose the letters... we just "reckognized" the one's God chose. WHAT ####### HOGWASH!!!! That's why I left seminary. Christianity as we know it is Roman (pagan) influened religion. I won't go so far to say that's it's unChristian to believe that Bible is holy and God breathed. I don't think it has any effect at all on a person's salvation whether or not they believe that. So if it's easier to believe it is, then do so. But to me it's a collection of letters testifying of Christ. I don't limit myself to those letters because Roman influenced Christians decided not to include the others. No letter is perfect, because they're all written by imperfect people, even the ones in the Bible (yes, it's not inerent). Paul's letters are great, but it's rediculous how his writtings are more important to some people than the testimonies we have about Jesus himself. The Romans loved Paul, and they essentially made a religion around Paul's writtings by choosing a ton of his stuff in their supposed "Bible". He even warned in one of his letters not to favor his leadership over others. Not only did the Romans favor him, they labled his words holy and god breathed.

There is a lot we can learn about Christ by not limiting our understanding of Him to what the Roman influenced Christians favored. Granted there is a bogus stuff too... but we have the Holy Spirit to guide us. We don't need men of 1700 years ago telling us that they seperated the good from the bad for us so we don't have to. I want to. It's part of my growth to go through that process. Just accepting what people tell me to believe is really weak.

Thank you for this. I didn't know where you stood on these issues and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

 

[mr roboto]

Feeling like proninja and Spock while attending (and possibly even holding a leadership position in) a strong Evangelical church is tough. I too have been wrestling with strong magical inerrancy since seminary but there are a select few I can discuss it with who understand where I'm coming from.

 

[Jayrok]

Proninja -- Speaking of NT Wright in the context of the OP, it might be interesting to note his take on Adam's historicity. I had mentioned before that I believe Christians should view Adam as historical because I feel that it is a central ingredient to Paul's theology of original sin (see: Romans 5).

NT Wright, commenting on the book of Romans, says:

Paul clearly believed that there had been a single first pair, whose male, Adam, had been given a commandment and had broken it. Paul was, we may be sure, aware of what we would call mythical or metaphorical dimensions to the story, but he would not have regarded these as throwing doubt on the existence, and primal sin, of the first historical pair. -- NT Wright, "Romans" in The New Interpreter's Bible: Acts - 1 Corintians, vol.X, p. 526.

I think it is important to value the intent of the author when trying to distinguish what is literal from what is metaphor. Paul uses metaphor often, such as his use of Hagar and Sarah when teaching the Galatians (ch 4) about the two covenants and the promise to Abraham's seed. He also uses figuritive language to describe a real event when he was treated badly in Ephesus (he called them wild beasts). He certainly didn't mean there were wild animals attacking him in Ephesus. NT Wright may call this metaphorical language to describe something concrete (wild beast to describe people opposing Paul).

I agree with Wright that Paul saw Adam as historical, just as he saw Hagar and Sarah as historical. He used all three figures in teaching his theology in Romans... literally to something abstract, to borrow from NT Wright (e.g. Adam, Hagar and Sarah to the ideas of original sin and God's promise to Abraham's seed through faith in Christ).

 

[babydemon90]

Feeling like proninja and Spock while attending (and possibly even holding a leadership position in) a strong Evangelical church is tough. I too have been wrestling with strong magical inerrancy since seminary but there are a select few I can discuss it with who understand where I'm coming from.

I have that experience as well. I was at this place several years ago... Think I even pm'd Jayrok way back then. I will say, still not an athiest . I do teach Sunday School/ABF at my very conservative church, and I try and given thought provoking lessons in small doses. Did a lesson on Biblical inerrancy a few weeks ago, really had to keep it lighter then I would have liked, but still introduce ideas to them to make them think.I enjoy reading where everyone is coming from and their thoughts on this topic

 

[babydemon90]

Www.crivoice.org/inerrancy

I like this guys thoughts on it...I'm not a Wesleyan like he is, but that's pretty close to where I'm at.

 

[Jayrok]

Www.crivoice.org/inerrancy

I like this guys thoughts on it...I'm not a Wesleyan like he is, but that's pretty close to where I'm at.

This seems to boil down as sure, there are chronological errors and historical discrepancies, etc., in the Bible as we have it... but in terms of the message of God's revelation to mankind, it is inerrantly revealed to man through these humanly flawed scriptures.

In essense, the Wesleyan view is that the message is perfect but the delivery of the human writers, no so much. The idea of inerrancy of scripture, beyond the message of God's revelation of salvation, is a matter of personal opinion. Or maybe I read it wrong.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Earlier in this thread, someone said something like, "Why bother debating people who've already made up their minds?"

Here's why: the newest member of our campus atheist club was raised by fundamentalist Pentecostal parents. He was not raised with science and was not raised to be a skeptic. But by the time he was 30, he left the church. He's one of the smartest men I've ever met, and he knows more about science and evolution than most people. This guy didn't come around to science by remaining in a closed religious loop. He discovered Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman, and his life will never be the same.

 

[proninja]

I did not know roboto was a seminary man. I'm a bit jealous.

 

[kutta]

Earlier in this thread, someone said something like, "Why bother debating people who've already made up their minds?"

Here's why: the newest member of our campus atheist club was raised by fundamentalist Pentecostal parents. He was not raised with science and was not raised to be a skeptic. But by the time he was 30, he left the church. He's one of the smartest men I've ever met, and he knows more about science and evolution than most people. This guy didn't come around to science by remaining in a closed religious loop. He discovered Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman, and his life will never be the same.

His books changed my life too. Guy was amazing.

 

[mr roboto]

I did not know roboto was a seminary man. I'm a bit jealous.

I didn't finish. Didn't see myself as a church pastor.

 

[The Commish]

Feeling like proninja and Spock while attending (and possibly even holding a leadership position in) a strong Evangelical church is tough. I too have been wrestling with strong magical inerrancy since seminary but there are a select few I can discuss it with who understand where I'm coming from.

Add me to that list as well. I started on pretty much the same path as proninja did for pretty much the same reasons. Only I started just after I left for college 26 years ago. My faith has grown stronger the more I question. I think America has done a pretty good job of mucking up the Bible and relationship with God. Today, it's more about politics and rules than it is about relationship and communion with God and others. However, I see an "underground" movement if you will that is occurring in churches around the country. There's a significant shift to getting back to basics and focusing on the kingdom. I am hopeful that continues. Sadly, the largest opposition to continued growth and success in that area is the current "old school" church factions.

 

[Politician Spock]

Feeling like proninja and Spock while attending (and possibly even holding a leadership position in) a strong Evangelical church is tough. I too have been wrestling with strong magical inerrancy since seminary but there are a select few I can discuss it with who understand where I'm coming from.

Add me to that list as well. I started on pretty much the same path as proninja did for pretty much the same reasons. Only I started just after I left for college 26 years ago. My faith has grown stronger the more I question. I think America has done a pretty good job of mucking up the Bible and relationship with God. Today, it's more about politics and rules than it is about relationship and communion with God and others. However, I see an "underground" movement if you will that is occurring in churches around the country. There's a significant shift to getting back to basics and focusing on the kingdom. I am hopeful that continues. Sadly, the largest opposition to continued growth and success in that area is the current "old school" church factions.

If you just want to attend a church you can question as much as you want. If however you want to lead ministries in the church, you'd best not let anyone know you question any of the chruch's statement of faith.

I agree with you that the more I question the more my faith goes stronger, which means being in a position where questioning is unacceptable would result in less growth. I think this is why the "old school" within churches are opposing what you are seeing. The "old school" probably hasn't experienced growth in years, if not decades. They can't grow, because they can't question.

 

[The Commish]

Feeling like proninja and Spock while attending (and possibly even holding a leadership position in) a strong Evangelical church is tough. I too have been wrestling with strong magical inerrancy since seminary but there are a select few I can discuss it with who understand where I'm coming from.

Add me to that list as well. I started on pretty much the same path as proninja did for pretty much the same reasons. Only I started just after I left for college 26 years ago. My faith has grown stronger the more I question. I think America has done a pretty good job of mucking up the Bible and relationship with God. Today, it's more about politics and rules than it is about relationship and communion with God and others. However, I see an "underground" movement if you will that is occurring in churches around the country. There's a significant shift to getting back to basics and focusing on the kingdom. I am hopeful that continues. Sadly, the largest opposition to continued growth and success in that area is the current "old school" church factions.

If you just want to attend a church you can question as much as you want. If however you want to lead ministries in the church, you'd best not let anyone know you question any of the chruch's statement of faith.

I agree with you that the more I question the more my faith goes stronger, which means being in a position where questioning is unacceptable would result in less growth. I think this is why the "old school" within churches are opposing what you are seeing. The "old school" probably hasn't experienced growth in years, if not decades. They can't grow, because they can't question.

Well, that's the rub. I won't be part of a church who behaves that way or requires me to behave that way so it's generally not a problem. However, it does make it hard to find a church home. It's tough in my very own family sometimes. I have a brother who's a youth director at a church and we have some knock down drag outs from time to time. Most of it comes from when he's "lecturing me" using church doctrine as his basis rather than the Bible. I have little tolerance for folks who come at me with "because the church says so" as the reasoning for why I should be motivated to do anything.