Really like McDonald’s list, especially points 6, 8, and 12. They really get to the heart of a divide that’s pretty clear in Christian community – being right versus being different. The ‘negatives’ of all three of those points are all about a person’s own ‘rightness’ – I’m completely surrounded by Christians, not tainted by the world, don’t accept wrongdoing, my positions on everything are correct. Those things aren’t completely bad, it is good to be in community with other Christians (however that community is formed), we shouldn’t ignore our consciences, and obviously everyone thinks their opinions are right. But when you get far too invested in those things – and it seems to be depressingly common for Christians – we forget that a big part of why we’re meant to do all those things is to be different, to be salt and light, to be gracious and compassionate. In short to be Christlike. Jesus didn’t lord his ‘rightness’ over others, so why is it that his followers fall into that trap? And fall into it so much that we don’t just condemn what we see as wrongdoing from ‘the world’, but are even more vehement in condemning what we see as wrongdoing from each other?
That’s what I see happening with Rachel’s book, critics (who are of course more than welcome to disagree with her egalitarianism) go beyond saying ‘well, I don’t agree because of XYZ’ to saying ‘she’s a heathen, she’s a false teacher, she’s not a Christian, she’s destroying the faith’. It’s disturbing that so many – and so many prominent people – don’t seem to understand that they can do the first sort of critique, but instead jump straight to the second, which is, frankly, dangerous and downright mean.

Pam, the problem people have had with Rachel Evans’ book is not egalitarianism, but theological liberalism.

@ Bene D,
That was funny! Good wholesome satire & spoof!

I don’t define egalitarian as liberal. I was not referring to Rachel Evans’ book in particular but to some of her positions in general.

I have only read reviews of Evans’ book. I have also read posts from her blog. My point was only that it is not an accurate representation of Evans’ critics to suggest that they are only objecting to her views on gender roles and creationism. I am not accusing you of doing this, you haven’t. But some have.

I think Denny Burk’s response to Rachel Evans on the Today Show summarizes the evangelical objections to Evans’ teachings. You linked to this response in a previous blog post. The egalitarian/complementarian stuff is a part of Burk’s and others’ objections to Evans, but not the only part.

Speaking of liberal and conservative, I don’t get why it is more liberal to deny the miracles in the Bible than to believe in them…

Nicholas,

And people are more than welcome to have problems with Evans’ theology and to say so. But there is a huge difference between saying ‘I disagree with position XYZ because of ABC’ and saying ‘She said XYZ so therefore she’s godless’.
It’s not disagreement I have an issue with – it’s proclaiming your own views perfect and everyone who doesn’t think like you damned to hell that I don’t like.

If McDonald’s list is the litmus test, I’m doomed, and so is everyone else if they’re honest. Really. I’m a follower of Jesus who affirms and believes the Nicene and Apostle’s creeds and I’ve failed at every single one of those items. Every. Single. One.

C’mon people. We need God’s grace anew every single day. No exceptions. Of course McDonald’s list has an element of truth to it, but the danger of lists like this is that they’re soooo easily hijacked by the legalists and then used as a bludgeon against anyone they don’t like.

We have enough of that kind of thing already, and it’s exactly what’s driving people from the church.

Agree with numo.

Yep – who could possibly live up to even *one* of the things on that list?

(Rest of my comments on this being yet another impossible set of standards are above.)

On the topic of judging people and thinking they are not Christians. I’m not going to be PC here and say we cannot judge if other people are Christians.

Deep in my heart, correct me if I am wrong, say if you disagree) I believe that someone who say he is a Christian, blogs on male authority, say he slept with non-consensual women, who take pride in calling himself a cruelty artist, who believe that men need to learn from pick up artists how to treat women and recommend the blogs of men who advocate “pumping and dumping” (yes, I am descibing a real blogger here)- is clearly not regenerated by God, in short, is not a Christian by my assumption.

But that don’t make me much different from the guy who said I cannot be a Christian if I am an egalitarian.

Backtracking a little:

…his [Grudem’s] surgical approach to their [egalitarians’] theological arguments…

This simply refers to the practice of salami-slicing the arguments of an opponent into tiny fragments which, once taken out of their broader context, can easily be “disproved” using a bible proof-text, also taken out of context. It’s not nearly as big and clever as it looks, including when I am tempted to do it myself, or when I draw satisfaction from reading someone I agree with doing it to someone I disagree with.

But back on topic. To paraphrase scripture somewhat, every good and perfect gift comes from God, and every good and perfect gift can be horribly misused. Of course an article like McDonald’s could be hijacked and used against people. So is the bible, so is the Christian faith, and so is love (as in, abusive church discipline done “in love”). It so happens that I’ve met Gordon and Gail McDonald, when they taught together at a smallish training day for church leaders in Glasgow a few years ago. So I happen to know that they are not prideful, aggressively complementarian, or hell-bent on judging and condemning other professing believers.

I note that McDonald does not ask, what doctrinal code will a transformed believer subscribe to, nor what pretences should a christian struggle to keep up, but what will it look like when we’re becoming more and more Christlike. His original article is entitled “How to Spot a Transformed Christian”. If you can’t spot one, then in what sense is God real in people’s lives today?

It may well be that the crucial transformations that happen in our lives are hidden internally – to start with. But if they’re real transformations, they cannot help but produce visible evidence in us. It was Jesus, not Park Fiscal, who said that you know a tree by its fruit.

The word “liberal” is a mighty slippery word and often the user of it is the only one who can define it. I can easily say that the conservative resurgence used this one word to destroy the lives and ministries of many Bible believing and born-again people.

So a question I’d like to throw out there into the blue.

There’s nothing about one’s view of Scripture (i.e., the inspiration-inerrancy-etc. debate) in the creeds. And the Bible itself would seem to indicate that all that matters is belief in Christ and following his commands. In light of this, is it proper to use inerrancy as a “salvation litmus test” doctrine if the person in question genuinely believes and is following Christ’s commands?

I am thinking basically of a person who has otherwise “normal” doctrine (Trinity, Virgin Birth, etc.) and “normal” praxis but has genuine issues with either the historicity of some parts of the OT and/or the occasionally savage view of God presented therein; and by inerrancy I do not necessarily mean literalism. I am NOT talking about someone who ditches inerrancy to make the Bible say what they want it to say, or who allegorizes everything into meaninglessness.

I’ve been wondering A LOT about this lately after encountering some folks who would be labeled “real Christians” by the people I know except for the fact that they believe the book of Joshua has non-historical elements…which would lead me to believe that my other friends really believe that one’s beliefs about archaeology can negate true belief in Christ. This seems to conflict with Romans 8:37-39 to me.

Please help me out here.

Per McDonald’s list:

To someone who has read multiple Puritan “signs of salvation” lists (often book-length), let me tell you, McDonald’s is downright refreshing. The Puritan lists got right down to saying that even if you withstood persecution and torture you might not be saved, because you might have survived the rack via a “stout Roman constitution” instead of by faith.

I just love the irony of neo Cals whining and wringing their hands over the “liberals”. They don’t realize that they have more in common philosophically with Marxism than practically every politically liberal friend and family member I know. What is the core assumption that drives both Marxism AND Calvinism, after all? It is this:

That a specially anointed and unelected group of authoritarians is obligated and entrusted to use a monopoly of threats, force, and violence to compel the masses into “right” moral behavior.

Honestly, their theology is the most freedom hating of all theologies. So they can just stop the hypocritical judging.

Oh wait…they can’t. Otherwise, their pastors would need to go find real jobs.

Dee:

Who disciplines the leadership folks. I bet Al Mohler does not embrace criticism.

“What differentiates theological liberalism from theological conservatism? Where does the line cross and diverge? Is it based on secondary issues? For example, if I am an evolutionary creationist and a Wesleyan, am I liberal? If I am an evolutionary creationist and John Piper’s disciple, am I conservative?”

I would be interested in that, too. As a mutualist that believes scripture teaches practicing homosexuality is sin (we are to love homosexuals) , I find I am much alone and not welcome on either side. I have no “country” as it were.
So I am liberal to one group and a conservative to the other.

RHE is just a writer and blogger and normal woman, throwing ideas out there as eloquently as she can. I think it’s hard for some of her critics to accept that way of doing things, because they present themselves as the authority on certain topics. I think that’s why she gets the whole ‘heretic’ schtick from certain people. RHE doesn’t use threats and the fear of ‘not being a real Christian’ to make her point, and these critics just don’t get it.

Between Piper’s chart and Grudem’s list and their own husband’s authority, I wonder how on earth many complementarian women manage to do anything without worrying that they’re doing something wrong.

Dee, you said: “I was beginning to think I was only one of a few “conservative” Christians who liked her book. But then again, I have always been a rebel or sorts.”

Me too! I’m really very conservative. Reading RHE’s book (as many of her critics have *not* done) made me want to dig deeper into the Bible. It made me want to love God and people better.

The other thing I’ve noted is that today we seem to talk so much in conservative evangelical circles about right doctrine, YEC vs evolutionism, gender roles, etc, and yet prayer and devotional reading are hardly ever mentioned. I don’t think one can be divorced from the other.

A Christian: someone who trusts Christ as the solution to his or her sin problem.

All of those who are really trusting Christ in this way are being transformed- we may not always look like it and different people may see different evidences of the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

I don’t generally judge who is and who isn’t; however, I will strongly point out when some people claim they trust in Christ but their behavior shows extreme ungodliness then it behooves us to treat them as unbelievers (for example, the aforementioned “Christian” who advocates “pump and dump”). I think behavior is a lot stronger indicator than theology, and that’s the problem with social media and blogs. Often we cannot tell what a person’s behavior is really like. A preacher may say the most wonderful, peaceful things and then go home and beat his wife; we have to be cautious. But when a person puts it out there in front of us (like saying he wants to beat up his elders with no hint of self deprecating humor), we come to a point of needing to react to that kind of revelation.

Hester – good spot on the Creeds. There’s nothing in there about the bible (unless you count the phrase “on the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures”) and certainly nothing about infalliberrancy. [NB – I would like to submit that word for inclusion in the TWW dictionary, along with “deleterated”. I concede that “Deebs” for “Dee and Debs” might be a neologism too far.]

Personally, I have no use for infalliberancy; the concept may not be wrong per se, but it’s almost perfectly useless since the Bible has to be read by fallible and errant human beings.

On the Gordon McDonald List Of Doom… I want to defend McDonald’s intent here. In his original post (which is quite long, and spread over 6 interweb pages), he explicitly makes the point that becoming Christlike is a process, not a zap, and he never suggests that anyone who fails any of the Twelve Sacred Tests Of Salvation is damned. Nor does he hold it up as a checklist by which to pass or fail someone else. For one thing, the context is actually a follow-up to the question, what would the world looked like if everyone (or a critical mass of people) were Christian. For another, the article is full of reflective, first-person references.

What Is a Christian?

All too often, “SOMEONE WHO AGREES COMPLETELY WITH ME!”

2. Pursues a biblically informed view of the world.

This means “aiming to know the Bible well: its content and its imperatives.”
**********************

People come to different conclusions about the meaning of its content and imperatives. #2 can easily amount to “if your conclusions aren’t mine, then you’re not legit, and I will be wary of you and communicate to others to be wary of you, too. And from here on we’ll narrow our eyes when we look at you.”

Retha —

“Pumping and dumping” in a sexual or financial sense? (And either way, somebody’s getting screwed over.)

What with fundagelical, deleterated & now infalliberancy my vocabulary is being marvellously extended by being a Warty Watcher.

I’m now trying to come up with a word for that state of ‘everlasting moderation’ I have lost some of my comments on various Calvinista lady-mouthpiece blogs to…

5. Builds healthy human relationships.

This person is “faithful to friends, and (if married) affectionate, attentive, and servant-like to a spouse, and (if a parent) patient and nurturing to his children.”
***************

hmmm…. this gets too much into ordaining a one-size fits all uniform of behavior, mood, facial expression, body language, tone of voice, word choice, etc., and overlooks differences in personality. And personality shaped by a complex cocktail of life experiences. Not everyone is affectionate, either by personality DNA or circumstances. Leave them alone.

And who gets to decide what “attentive” looks like??

And the most transformed christian is the one who we see doing the most servant=like things. “Let’s see, I’ve observed Jane doing 6 servant-like things since I’ve arrived at church this morning. I’ve done 4…. what are the 3 quickest & easiest ways to be servant-like? I might just win. If i can come up with 4 or 5, then I’m sure to win!”

Way too much emphasis on how people “look”. Encourages people to put on a behavioral uniform, and to judge people by whether or not they’ve put on this uniform. And since it’s about “God”, it is so all-important, and therefore if it’s tweeds, then it’s ONLY tweeds. If it’s preppy, then one must ONLY look preppy. Because this about GOD. And if it’s puka shells, Micky Mouse, and a tough=guy sneer, then so be it. And woe to all those who look different.

11. Overflows with thankfulness.
They “walk through the day looking for things to be thankful for.”

Not a bad idea. But I see the spectre of “godly” emotional overdose fast approaching, zapping people with permasmiles & the uncontrollable urge to spout flowery language dripping with sweetness.

Elastigirl – I completely agree. That’s the point I was trying to make in my comment this morning.

What with fundagelical, deleterated & now infalliberancy my vocabulary is being marvellously extended by being a Warty Watcher.
“infalliberancy” deserves an award for being a most excellent word.

elastigirl said:
But who and how is Jesus? I feel that all too often we see Jesus through a Robert Powell lense (from the film “Jesus of Nazareth”). I recall seeing this movie as a kid, on TV, and thinking “ew – this is Jesus? this is who I’m supposed to be like? seems a little prissy to me. And so unnatural.” (& I don’t mean supernatural, but rather choosing “godly” facial expressions, “godly” language – pretending to be what our best guess of godliness looks like – pretending to be Robert Powell pretending to be what he thinks Jesus acted like.)
This isn’t Jesus. This is convenient, easy-access Jesus that we put on like a baseball cap on our way to the game.

Your comment made me think of how little we consider that Christ was ‘fully human’, I mean his feet really did touch the ground when he walked. I think that Peter’s brashness may have made Christ chuckle once in a while – I am sure there was a personality present, not just a smiling face that said nice happy things.

Sophie, many respected Christians would say that if you were a Christian once, you always will be, even if you are currently in a state of abeyance. I’m saying that not to have a go at you but to reassure you.

I can understand your feelings on sexism and racism – both are after all offences against the second commandment to love one’s neighbour as oneself.

The full humanity of Jesus is something that we need to be reminded of from time to time, just as heresies tend to miss out on his full deity. But it’s interesting that nowhere in the Gospels are we told what he looked like, or any details of his personal life. This is undoubtedly because Jesus’s importance lies elsewhere, but might it not also be to discourage us from possibly idolatrous fixation with external details? Some of the radical Islamists seem to have a thing about men wearing beards to imitate Mohammed. But it seems to me that the very lack of detail about Jesus’s personal particulars makes him a man for all people and every age.

@ Nick & Dee:

“Personally, I have no use for infalliberancy; the concept may not be wrong per se, but it’s almost perfectly useless since the Bible has to be read by fallible and errant human beings.”

It does often become difficult to distinguish someone’s interpretation of the Bible from what the book actually says…esp. when the person themselves can’t see the difference. I haven’t studied the inerrancy issue hardly at all, thus my question in my original comment.

I’m not trying to judge anybody’s salvation here – as Dee & Deb often say, that’s above my pay grade. But it recently struck me as ridiculous that someone’s opinion about archaeology could possibly undo/override their belief in Christ, which is what you would have to believe to claim that someone who said Joshua wasn’t historical was automatically lost. They didn’t believe Joshua wasn’t historical because they rejected God; they believed it wasn’t historical based on archaeological findings. I don’t see what’s necessarily wrong with God speaking through allegory, metaphor, story, etc. And as Dee has pointed out repeatedly, it’s a much less weighty issue to say that the conquest of Canaan didn’t happen exactly as described than to say that the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection didn’t happen exactly as described.

Inerrancy is a big, complicated and messy ball of wax that sounds so simple from the outside. Even thinking about this huge topic makes my brain tired.

Monty Python and the Holy Grain has nothing, theologically, on Monty Python’s The Life of Brian.

Spectator: I think it was “Blessed are the cheesemakers”.
Mrs. Gregory: Aha, what’s so special about the cheesemakers?
Gregory: Well, obviously it’s not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

Expository preaching as God intended it to be. Welease Woger, say I!

elastigirl,

I loved your comment on Jesus’ humanity! I like it because it goes past the roped off areas in the “Jeezus Museum”, and would surely make many an evangelical cringe and get uncomfortable. Some might even claim that you don’t “know” “Jeezus” and that you might not even be “saved”.

I believe that Jesus was sinless perfection, his very DNA did not “miss the mark”. It was not seeded with the slow death over time that the rest of us are doomed to. I also believe that as the last Adam, he was the most physically beautiful man to ever be born of woman. Yet another reason why the vineyard hirelings were so jealous of him and hated him with hatred cruel enough to plot his murder.

Muff–

How do you define perfection, in terms of sinlessness? Incapable of sin? Able to discern the right reactionary choice to make in the moment? (perhaps i’m coming to terms with my own understanding here.) Would you say it any differently? Take it apart any more?

Or, how do you define sin in the context of this conversation?

@ Gavin:

“This blog like many others it criticises is susceptible to too narrow a view. There has to be more generosity of spirit.”

On the contrary, I’ve found TWW to be one of the most open Christian sites I’ve ever visited. Though I would agree with Mr. Howe that some Christians do restrict the definition of Christianity to their own circle. I’ve met many of those people, esp. since, as a Lutheran, my denomination is one of the default “dead Christian” punching bags for Baptists (the other is Catholics). But none of them were on TWW.

Also, I too came by my opinion of Puritan assurance writings by extensive personal experience. (I also formed that opinion long before I ever started reading TWW.) There are some people who are too prone to obsessive thinking to ever find comfort in the books I referenced. (I would, for instance, never recommend them to any Christian with OCD or on the autism spectrum.) These people fixate on their inevitable shortcomings – and they will find many in such long treatises – and this leads them to despair or at least great discouragement. This does not mean they are lost; it just means that this method of self-examination doesn’t work for everyone. And that’s okay. If you find comfort in those books, then more power to you. But many sincere Christians have not.

Not all Puritans were nitpickers, though it seems from what’s been thrown up on this blog that some were. Matthew Bridge’s “A Lifting Up For The Downcast”, for example, is a very encouraging and gentle book and contrasts very favourably with some of the harsh rigorism that seems to come out of the Calvinista crowd from time to time. Ahem.

@ Beaker:

Just curious, are you on the autism spectrum? It’s very possible that I am and I think this might partially explain my tendency to obsess over things. I do this with other subjects that I care about – I had a lot of trouble when I was a kid knowing when I had bored the people around me to tears by constantly talking about a single subject. Maybe it’s natural that I would carry this over to religion as it’s always been such a central part of my life.

Also, like you, all my negative religious experiences have always been in the vein of doubt/fear about my salvation. My first one (age 8) was when an AWANA missionary told me my prayer to “ask Jesus into my heart” didn’t take because my mother said the words for me (I was nervous for whatever reason). Way to start a kid off right. My very earliest religious experiences, however – always liturgical and hymn/music-related in the Lutheran church – were extremely positive.

Hey Numo – no I’m not at all, I am a recovering agoraphobic however, so having an anxiety disorder has probably coloured my religious experiences somewhat…I’ve been told that a combination of a high IQ & being really sensitive is not such a good one…yay me.

Beaker – I hear you re. the closing sentence in your last comment. Pretty much the same here, along with difficulties with depression and anxiety.

The thing is, being able to see that those things exist – and doing what you need to do to help yourself – is a very good place to be. (Unlike those who deny that there’s anything wrong with them, or that such problems should never happen to [fill in the blank], etc. etc. – have heard it from people who would never in a million years identify themselves as xtian, btw.)

I am not a Christian. I used to be one, but then, over a period of time, I realized I was simply deceiving myself. Just to give one example, apropos to this season of the year: The Virgin Birth.

o Underneath “born of the Virgin Mary” the doctrine says a married woman having normal sexual relations with her husband in marriage is simply Not Good Enough to conceive and bear God’s son. It’s not very positive about the goodness of sex within marriage, and I can tell you, from having read in medieval thought, this caused a LOT of problems for women down through the centuries. You’d think an almighty God would have been able to see this, but I guess not.

o The traditional telling of the Virgin Birth raises the question of, “really, how much like me IS Jesus?” After all, he didn’t get here the same way the rest of us got here (via sex act).

o Where did the genetic material making up Jesus’ Y chromosome come from?

…and so many more questions. You really don’t want me asking them here.

I’m personally of the opinion, based on Ockham’s razor (that is, picking the hypothesis with the least moving parts), that the historical Jesus was likely the son of Mary and Joseph. There are other possibilities, ranging from more to less probable. I’m not going to list them here because some people may be very offended. The least probable possibility is the one given in two of the gospels (Matthew and Luke). I’d also note that this idea was not known by Paul or a part of his preaching.

If you have to assert, “born of the Virgin Mary,” to be a Christian, well, then, no, I’m not a Christian. Because the virgin birth is probably the least likely possibility.

N.B. This doesn’t mean I don’t celebrate Christmas, but I’m rather wishing Christmas was hived off from the month-long domestic economic boost/shopping orgy otherwise known as “The Holidays.”

Retha,

oops, in my above post it should be “…that not believing in the trinity has not always been heretical…”

mea culpa

Beakerj, I have similar experiences. My personal struggles are OCD and anxiety. I really struggle with “religion anxiety.”

N.B. This doesn’t mean I don’t celebrate Christmas, but I’m rather wishing Christmas was hived off from the month-long domestic economic boost/shopping orgy otherwise known as “The Holidays.” — SW Discomfort

Which kicked off yesterday with Black Friday(TM). I was driving yesterday and early afternoon radio were tallying the Black Friday casualties. Including some guy who pulled a gun on another shopper in San Antonio and some other guy who either got knifed or almost knifed for cutting in line in Sacramento. As is that station’s custom, they prefaced it with some bumper music I’ve been unable to track down — a catchy little tune that starts out
“Why is it always WalMart
Where the crazy s**t goes down?”
and continues with
“Naked people running past
And meth labs in the aisles…”

@ HUG:

The fact that RHE took time to interview an Aspie Christian was awesome. I remember from that article that the Aspie said most psychologists recommend people on the spectrum not get involved in religion. This made me sad but didn’t surprise me.

@ HUG:

“Which kicked off yesterday with Black Friday(TM).”

I don’t generally worry about the commercialization of Christmas, but I do make an exception for Black Friday (now rapidly becoming Black Thursday). I won’t participate in it. It’s become insane, as evidenced by the fact that people are starting to die regularly (last year an innocent bystander was trampled by a mob at a Walmart). What’s even more of a head-shaker is that my Christian friends who complain about materialism at Christmas, almost to a person head out at ungodly hours on Black Friday.

Christians were first called Christians at Antioch. They did not give themselves the name. It follows that they were given the name either by the Roman authorities or by the local inhabitants because of something different in them or about them. It was given to distinguish them from other religious groups. It was objectively verifiable. The clue lies in the designation – it had to do with their proclamation of Christ as the promised Messiah who had come and lived and died and had risen again.(Schnabel: Urchristliches Mission).

Fact not fiction, no matter how you care to spin it, dear Fendrel.

Regards
Gavin

@Hester

The fact that RHE took time to interview an Aspie Christian was awesome. I remember from that article that the Aspie said most psychologists recommend people on the spectrum not get involved in religion. This made me sad but didn’t surprise me.

Yup. When I was still a believer, I used to review every conversation I had afterwards in my head and judge it as to whether it was “godly. I was very self-critical. After I decided believing was too much of a burden, that compulsion disappeared. I do not want to go back to that way of thinking.

Dear Fendrel the stamp collector

Having found one of your less dignified but ultimately more enlightening posts elsewhere,I think it is fair to say that you are driven by your unbelief to be an evangelical atheist who has set up his tent on the village green to peddle a quack cure for faith! Unfortunately it has a bitter taste.

You said
“Hello? Where is everyone…please give us one, just one solid, logical, empirical proof for the existence of God which will compel our belief. We beg of you, dazzle us with holy brilliance, let God’s power be seen and heard in your divinely crafted, Holy Spirit filled, response, vetted against the almighty’s own storehouse of his omniscience. We patiently await an answer to our plea. In other words…either put up, or shut up.”

Best wishes
Gavin

When the Candles are lighted, Pray:

Most thick and dark clouds do cover our minds, except thy light, O Lord, dispels them. Thy sun, O most wise Worker, is as it were a firebrand to the world; thy wisdom, whereby light comes both to soul and body, is a firebrand (a torch, editor) to the spiritual world. After day, when the night comes, thou hast given for the remedy of darkness, a candle; after sin, for the remedy of ignorance, thou hast given thy doctrine, which thy dear Son has brought unto us. Oh! thou, who art the Author and Master of all truth, make us to see by both the lights, so that the dimness of our minds may be driven quite away: lift upon us thy joy in our hearts. Thy word is a lantern to my feet, and a light unto my paths.

Occasion to meditate

Think that the knowledge and wisdom that God has given unto us by candles this night, whereby we see those things in this night of our bodies, which are expedient for us, make us to wish much more for this doctrine of God; and when we get it, to esteem and diligently embrace it the more, that as all would be horror without candles so there is nothing but there confusion, where God’s word takes not place.

@ Dee:

“Did you know that JB Phillips, the Bible translator and scholar, suffered with chronic depression his entire life? My understanding is that he was instituionalized as well.”

Not to mention Luther, who had serious and well-documented OCD-obsessive tendencies. How interesting that, in a way, they led to his posting of the 95 Theses, because his fear drove him to search for a loving God instead of a merciless judge.

What many people don’t know about OCD is that, in many cases, it can have a mental component. It’s not just physical routines like turning all the light switches on and off before leaving the house. We know a woman whose 11-year-old daughter has “thought OCD” – she doesn’t perform any physical routines, but is unable to let go of thoughts/ideas, esp. worrying ones. (For instance, when Irene hit New England last year, they tried very hard to keep her from watching the news or she would obsessively worry about preparing for the storm.) Other people repeat words or phrases in their minds or are plagued by disturbing mental images, always involuntarily. It’s easy to see why people like this are almost always severely damaged by legalistic church environments.

Hester –

I know someone with the mental version if OCD. He has struggled greatly in his spiritual life. He is under a doctor’s care. Medicine helps, but it is a struggle to keep the right balance.

Dee,

First, let me categorically deny that I know it’s “untrue”, for the record so to speak.

Rather then go back and forth, let me ask you (and the community), can you agree on and give to me a single, unambiguous definition of what constitutes empirical scientific evidence from your perspective?

This statement should be applicable whether we are discussing religion, global warming or the trajectory of a bullet. It does need to be comprehensive, but it should be clear enough that we can agree on whether a particular piece of evidence belongs in the “supports” or “does not support” group.

From there we can continue, maybe with more success.

Gavin, I believe that post was something I wrote to an individual that kept talking about “proof” but never presented any…if you can point me back to the original I’ll take a look…now, sarcasm aside, the question is still valid, don’t you think?

A. Amos,

Because you can quote a verse from some letter written 2000-3000 years ago that says I am foolish for mocking god…doesn’t make the mockery any less valid…silly is silly, even if the silly book says it isn’t.

Religions are no more than control mechanisms for those in power and harbors for those who feel the need to have answers and believe, regardless of whether those answers have any validity.

You have bought into it hook, line and sinker, just as I did, and I suspect you probably know better, also just as I did. I realize it takes time to change…

Patiently waiting

Dear Fendrel
The question is valid but meaningless because we are saved by God’s grace, not by asking the “right” question. It is useful though in that it reveals the state of our heart before God and should serve as a reminder of our brevity of life.
You seem to have placed yourself some way beyond Thomas (who got the proof in the end) and the sarcasm of the Pharisees at the cross (if you are the son of god come down).It does not appear to me to be a very happy place to be and I wonder what drove you there.

Best wishes
Gavin

gavin – Just curious as to where that prayer (etc.) w/candles comes from?

numo,

I have never, ever said that…not once.

What I have said or more appropriately asked for is evidence, and a discussion on that evidence. To be clear, I am only “beating the drum” because Christians keep harping on how their beliefs are based in science, well then let’s see the science…I don’t care if someone wants to believe in Santa or God or heaven or hell or Jim-Bob down the street…but I will not let the fanciful idea that religion is based on scientific evidence to pass without challenge.

let me ask you a question, directly. You believe, I am going to assume, that you are correct in your beliefs about the existence of God, yes? Doesn’t that mean that you concurrently believe that people who don’t believe in God are wrong?

You can’t really believe you are right and people with opposing views are also right.

RE: elastigirl on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 05:52 PM,

It’s a fair question, but one that I can only answer for myself in terms of my own view of the Scriptural narrative. I cannot speak for others.

1) Sinless perfection to me is Jesus of Nazareth, his very person (DNA) was untainted, so that there were no “wages” (physical death) to be paid.

2) I am born with an inner spark of divine, a moral compass which tells me what’s right and what’s wrong. The choices I make are entirely my own affair. [this model flies in the face of Reformed and Lutheran theology which claims that I inherit a “sin nature” only]

3) This thread & convo is about what constitutes a Christian. We could debate this from now until hell freezes over. But which is weightier? What I believe about Jesus, or if I actually practice Jesus? In my opinion, and for me, sin is when I disregard the better angels of my nature and go ahead with bad choices that will hurt others.

Gavin,

Yes and human rationality took the place of God and His word as final arbiter of truth according to Witherspoon (and Reid). I assume that you would disagree with him, obviously smarter than he was. Still not sure what your point to me was supposed to be though.

Monty Python as theological discourse, that made my day! My theological proofs come from my extensive expertise in television and movies. I should have known the writing was on the wall at my former church, most of them didnt even own a televison. They wouldn’t know who Monty Python was, neither did they know such classics as A Charlie Brown Christmas, It’s a Wonderful Life, Singing in the Rain, or The Ten Commandments, not to mention Star Trek, Shakespeare, and Disney! I would consider that both unAmerican and sacrilegious.

@Hester, I’m glad you put that stuff into words. My husband is undiagnosed but has a tendency toward OCD and anxiety. I too am probably high,functioning Aspergers, undiagnosed. I’m almost totally left-brained, with degrees in Finance and Economics, and an expert in computer applications. Yet, I was told many times that I was not a good Christian because I got enjoyment from working, didn’t homeschool, wasn’t quiet and demure, was a “feminist”, and (gasp) I wanted to dialogue with men about scripture. My husband is reserved, but not a Bible thumper, and not into theology, so he was not considered manly.

@Fendrel, I know better than to try to persuade an atheist or agnostic. I never doubted God, my doubts have always been in organizations, rules, authority figures, people. I think people stink, and do the wrong thing, but I have hope in the fact that justice will be served one day. I don’t really want to believe that there is no afterlife, because then I’d really be angry. I would probably become a nonbeliever if aliens came to earth and said something like “we are the god you have been praying to”. There is nothing you can say to shake my belief, so I’m glad you come here with your alternate viewpoint.

@Susan

I don’t believe in aliens. But if aliens came to earth and falsely claimed to be the God I worship and pray to, that would not shake my faith.

Atheists demand that God prove Himself to them *to their own personal satisfaction*. He is under no obligation to do that. If the many evidences and proofs for His existence that He has left over the millenia are not good enough for them, why should He do more?

I don’t generally worry about the commercialization of Christmas, but I do make an exception for Black Friday (now rapidly becoming Black Thursday). I won’t participate in it. It’s become insane, as evidenced by the fact that people are starting to die regularly (last year an innocent bystander was trampled by a mob at a Walmart). What’s even more of a head-shaker is that my Christian friends who complain about materialism at Christmas, almost to a person head out at ungodly hours on Black Friday. — Hester

And on the car radio Thursday Night (Black Friday Eve) somebody was talking about how someone they knew was circling for four hours before finding a parking spot for the Black Friday Eve campout. I mean, this is like Star Wars Line-cons.

Oh, and I’ll take that “People of Walmart” video and raise you one by the same singer: BLACK FRIDAY NIGHT! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6TdM02Jt-k

That is not true at all, Muff Potter. In fact it is a category error. Aside from misguided geocentrists and young earthers, Christians embrace all the knowledge revealed from science and nature. There is no conflict. And the Bible is neither legend nor myth. It is true.

Nicholas … no offense meant, but I think it might be helpful if you could view your own beliefs and convictions as your beliefs and convictions.

You might know that they are true (or believe that they are), but telling others that what they believe is true or not… I’m not so sure that’s helpful. Everyone here has beliefs and convictions, or else they wouldn’t be bothering with this site.

But take a good look at how people phrase things when talking about those beliefs/convictions, OK?

best!
n.

HUG, what I meant was that it would not shake my faith in God. If aliens appeared, I would of course believe in aliens.

Nicholas,

How exactly, because even with heavenly DNA from Dad, He still was half Mary’s DNA, which would mean 1/4 of that was from Mary’s father hence a sin nature….no?

Since this thread went off on a tangent, let me explain what I mean by aliens. Not that I don’t believe that aliens could exist, on the contrary. I love the Star Trek universe, but mankind wouldn’t be able to live by the Prime Directive, that’s why I don’t think we will ever get to other planets and discover new races or creatures. We could not help but exploit them. Extrapolate what forgiveness of sins would look like in a world where none existed. The whole purpose of Christ dying for our sins would be shot. What would God’s story be to other worlds? Would other humanoids have free will and yet never sin? I doubt it.

RE: Fendrel on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 02:02 PM,

No I am not saying that Jesus’ DNA came only from the Almighty, he was fully Mary too. By way of conjecture, I would say that the coding sequence & timed release of decrepitude and physical death we are all doomed to is passed on by human males, hence the careful choosing of Jesus’ lineage to retrieve the least damaged female ovum as promised in Genesis.

Physical decrepitude and death is our real inheritance from Adam. I don’t believe in “spiritual death” or some mystically inherited “sin” quantity that makes me fit only for hell at birth.

Furthermore, I think a world without God would look exactly the same as it does today, except I would be without the hope of a better future for me or my children. To quote a Star Trek character, Khan Noonien Singh, “technology, knowledge is increased, but how little man himself has changed”.

No, I haven’t read it yet.

Dee,

First let me say I enjoy discussing this stuff with you…hope you don’t think otherwise and I hope you enjoy it too.

OK, let me take 1 paragraph at a time.

A Christian is someone who believes in the supernatural, someone who sacrifices the knowledge we have gained through science, medicine, psychology and the humanities for ancient myths and legends to guide then in life.
We do not sacrifice the knowledge we have gained through any of these modalities. My husband is a doctor. This is an over-reaching argument. Francis Collins is a world class scientist and physician so he does not sacrifice any knowledge of science/medicine. And he probably knows far more than you or i will ever know.

I did not mean to imply that you revert to the stone age and lose all knowledge that we have gained in the last couple hundred years. That said however, by most Christians definition, the Bible, on “A” topics at least, overrules what we have learned from science and thus you are bound to hold on to pseudoscience (miracles if you prefer).

For example, virgin births, resurrections from the dead, visible ascension into heaven, concepts of morality and sin, and, while I know you do NOT subscribe to the following, there are a large number of Christians that do, 6000 year old earth, global flood that covered the world’s tallest mountains for a year, special creation (no biological evolution), lessor items, such as talking donkeys, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people living 600-900 years, Adam/Eve as the literal first two humans, blind allegiance to Israel, water into wine, walking on water, and on and on and on.

My point being, that many of those issues trespass overtly on what we know from the sciences and yes, as a believer to some extent or the other you are obligated by your faith to accept those as real and true phenomena in spite of the fact that it runs contrary to everything we know. In addition, acceptance of those items as “absolute truth” prevents or at least strongly discourages any need for research or acceptance of facts when available.

Israel holds to land in the middle east, for many reasons, but certainly included are those is a belief that a supernatural real estate agent deeded them the land for all eternity…no room to compromise there.

People that are militantly pro-life, not to say it isn’t a valid position (I think it can be defended), but for many, it is not a matter of science or humanity, it is simply out of faith that some magical being in the sky tells them it’s the right thing to do…no thinking required.

I know this is a bit sarcastic, but I’ll wager that somewhere in the world, some farmer is tieing his animals up to a fence painted with stripes in the belief that the animals will produce stripped offspring, I mean it IS in the bible.

How does science preclude any of these miracles? Science tells us how the world operates naturally, but it does not mean that God cannot intervene.

For example, I’m a software developer and I write the “rules” my programs operate under. But using special tools I can pause and change the state of the application while it is running, essentially performing a “miracle” according to the rules it knows and understands. I can make things happen that could never happen under as-programmed circumstances. If I can do it in my software, surely God can do it in his creation?

There is no conflict between miracles and science. Science is the repeatable rules that govern our universe; miracles are the exceptions to those rules.

Now if you are talking about something that science tells us did not happen by ovserving the effects of said event (say a young earth) then I see the conflict, but a talking donkey or the virgin birth- I have 0 problem accepting that.

Jess,

kind of my point…science tells us how the natural world works…is does not working by creating talking snakes or water turning into wine on command or with the sun standing still in the sky.

Yes, it’s a miracle, but that’s what I am getting at…you believe them because you WANT to believe them, not because there is any objective, empirical evidence for them. you accept as a violation of the natural laws that we understand with no evidence to support it, then christians try to pass off the miracles as scientifically valid…hogwash

by the way, tools or not, it is still software that is making the change to the program…your “environment” is the entire pc, all programs currently running, all the firmware and associated logic….within THAT environment there are no miracles…unless you really believe the office worker who says “but it was working before I went to lunch and no one’s touched anything, I swear!”

numo, I wasn’t aware that I was. Other people here are disputing with Fendrel.

As for the donkey, the Bible says that an angel opened the donkey’s mouth. It is no big deal, just my interpretation. I wasn’t arguing it with anybody.

Also… are they “disputing,” or is it more like “discussing”?

This site is generally a “discussion” site, though sometimes things get heated.

Fendrel is saying that things are what he says they are… and you often do the same. So does everyone here (including me) at times, but I think maybe it’s helpful to think of it as being a bunch of folks with widely varying points of view seated around a (virtual) table. It’s OK to pound the table sometimes, but we all need to focus on keeping things peaceful… or else it goes from a discussion to a brawl.

Brawls are, sadly, the norm on many web sites, but Deb and Dee strive to keep this place free of personal attacks (etc.) in their posts as well as in the comments.

Again, i respect you and your beliefs, but that’s exactly what they are – beliefs. And yours, by default.

the same is true of me – I can step in and try to put forth a position that I don’t agree with/believe in (and do at times, for the sake of furthering the discussion), but I try to preface that – as well as my own statements of belief – with a clarification. As in “”I think,” “I believe<" " From my pov," etc. – or else "X source says…"

Does that make sense?

numo,

Why does everyone feel like there is something insensitive or rude or about someone thinking they are right? If I’m not certain of my position I will say so, but when I think I’m right, why hide behind some phony humility.

As your friend Numo, I promise that whenever I think you are wrong and I am right, I’ll be sure to let you know. 🙂 lol

Fendrel – To try and be decent and sensitive to each other, perhaps?

“Discussing” is a better word than “disputing.” I should have used it.

Nicholas – s’okay! No need to apologize!

Fendrel – I am not up for a big discussion right now, honestly – am in the middle of doing laundry (tons of towels) and schlepping things between the basement and the 2nd floor.

Anyway… yes, people deserve respect, but I wonder if every discussion about beliefs needs to turn into a big thing about logic, reason, etc.? (Honestly, no offense meant.)

I gotta admit, the crack about God talking out his/Baalam’s ass was pretty funny. Back in my Calvary Chapel days, and mind you, they use KJV or NKJV only, it’s always the rooster that crows after Peter’s betrayal of Jesus, never what the Elizabethan text reads.

Not only funny, but an actual real life example of how not all words and their connotations are interchangable across many centuries of human society.

“your suffering is a part of christ-stop complaining about being abused!”
This shows how twisted their thinking is.

“and with authority and confidence,she would have the final word on womanhood.” Isn’t that what they are doing.I guess they can’t see the contradiction there.

Dee

Last one…

A Christian is one who, ignoring all reason and good evidence to the contrary, convinces themselves of the truth of their faith and then sets out to poison the minds of their children, their neighbors and the world with the same, addictive nonsense, all the time deluding themselves into thinking they are doing the world a favor.
Now you are starting to sound like a typical, ho-hum athiest. Only atheists can access reason. You know, like Stalin-such a reasonable guy. You are far better than that. Christians have given up all reason? Then, how i have survived to this point with a total inability to reason? ALL reason?? Darn, then all those Christians in the humanities and sciences have lost all ability to reason as well? Fire them and hire an atheist who is so much more reasonable and knows how to accues all that science and knowledge.
i set out to poison the mind of my children? How sweet. This is merely warmed over Harris/Dawkins.

See, this one is a great example of why it is near impossible to have a discussion..

I never, ever, not ever, not even once, not even implied that “only atheists have access to reason”, was never even a twinkle in my eye as far as a thought goes.

Just because reason is equally accessible to both sides, doesn’t imply you (or me for that matter), use it in each and every thought that’s rumbling around in our heads. But when a Christian makes a claim to believe in the supernatural, and Gods, and specifically the God he was raised to believe in, and adds to it a long list of “miraculous” events for which there is no support, and bases it all on the flimsiest of subjective evidence, and in the same breath, dismisses out of hand, the miracles and Gods of other religions, how is the rest of the world supposed to react other then to say, you may be an incredibly logical, rational, intelligent person, but in this particular case, your normal abilities that allow to to navigate and succeed in the world, seem to have gone on holiday.

You know my past, I am no more rational, logical or intelligent today than I was as a Christian. I simply refused to apply the same rigor to my initial assumptions about God’s existence and miracles that I used on a daily basis to evangelize members of cults and demonstrate that their arguments (theology inconsistent with Biblical teachings) was illogical and irrational. I do not think that is an uncommon situation for Christians to find themselves in. I also would like to apologize for becoming “ho-humm”, thought not quite sure what to do about it.

I think that teaching children to believe in invisible beings that require blood sacrifices in order to pay for “sins” so that they can go live in an imaginary magical place because otherwise they aren’t worthy (great for a kid’s self image), is poisoning their minds. If you thought so, wouldn’t you pound away at those who perpetuated those problems too?

I have no dislike of Christians, if I did, then I wouldn’t bother, but I know people can leave religion, maybe I only get to plant the seed, as you might say, but I have hope it will bloom one day.

Fenderal, you’ve succeeded in proving that people who left the faith had doubts. You’ve not proven that all people still in it do. You have to admit that your sample is biased if you only include people who have left the faith.

Regarding my software example, you changed the analogy. The fact remains I can intervene as an outside force in a way it would not operate in a natural state, my intervention is unnatural to the way it was programmed.

I agree this doesn’t prove miracles exist, I’m just saying its a fallacy to say that science disproves miracles. Science has nothing to say about miracles. I accept that my belief in miracles is faith based. My experience of this world has led me to faith, whether I can prove it to you or not.

I will absolutely admit to having doubts. I am a skeptic by nature– I pretty much accept that I am unable of holding any belief without any doubt at all. So I have to go with what I believe in the most, and by a large majority this is Christianity. God has proven too faithful to me for me to not accept it.

One of the things you’ve asserted here before is that people cling to faith because they are wrapped up in it. Their social circle and everything they are is devoted to the church and they cannot honestly assess their doubts because to do so means reassessing every part of their life. I know this because it’s something I’ve thought of for years: “am I just a Christian because I’m too invested?” Well this past year I lost all the trappings of faith. I lost my church, my church friends, my ministry. Basically there was no reason for me to remain a Christian at all. I had the chance to make a new life without Christ in it, but I didn’t do that. I found a new church, and new friends. I got involved in a new ministry. Why? Because friends or no friends, Jesus is worth it. He was there when no one else was. When the church abandoned me, the still small voice was not of doubt, it was Him saying “you are still my child and I still love you.”

Perhaps you are right and I am deceived. I cannot say that my life is better for having been involved in the church– there’s a lot of pain to compensate for the good. But Jesus? There is no regret there. My faith has been worth every investment I’ve made, even the misguided ones. He is worth it.

I find RHE already boring.

Her work is a sort of popularized lampooning of the Bible’s more interesting statements about women, to prove a larger point that she wants to make.

The people who like her larger point will defend her, which is their right.

Her detractors can only be glad that a book like this was not written by some educated and serious person.

I think that Gavin’s point about who this book will persuade is probably spot on.

Muff – yes, I do know more Yiddish words and a few phrases, and I think I probably have been one of those “preferred goyim.”

Fendrel – I’m *still* doing laundry! but it’s my own fault for letting it pile up…

Mot:

What “man-made document” are you referring to that you don’t have to believe?

Beakerj,

I am not sure how many super Christians had troubles with OCD or etc., but in my own bubble the evangelists who visited who were worshipped, those who had the people hanging on their every word and living by their standards and lists, seemed to have some obsessive tendencies, seemed to be very insecure and controlling men. So human like us all, yet elevating themselves above us.

As to “common” Christians (those without a book published or a big following), I used to be very depressed that I could not be like their super selves, and indeed I did not even have a desire to be. But then I got to know several of them rather well, and the ones I have gotten to know (by no means saying all of them are this way) are not really more superior, as they seem. They in fact seem insecure in Christ and just able to deal with pressure and stress far better than I, who struggle with aforesaid disorders, ever could.

Anon and Jeff

1. I want to be careful here, so I would say that whether or not I have already verified something to be true or not has no effect on it’s reality. Also that, reality, by definition is subject to natural law and therefore is verifiable or testable via scientific methodology, the current status of science notwithstanding.

2. I am not saying that the supernatural, God, angels, heaven, hell are not real or that they do not exist. I am saying, given the inability to test or verify via scientific methodology that which is outside of the natural realm and sensory experience, it makes no rational sense to commit our belief to its existence, certainly no more than something which might be in the realm of “possibilities”. definitely not to the level that believers would have you think is reasonable, i.e. almost, if not, a sure thing.

3. That last point also addresses miracles, in that there is simply no conclusive evidence that is of such quantity and kind that we should permit it to overwhelm our verified knowledge of how things behave. You can tell me all day long that you dropped a bowling ball off the roof of your building and it just hung there in mid air defying gravity and that you can walk out your window and walk through mid air to the next rooftop all day long, but unless you can produce overwhelming, substantiated, evidence and can repeat and test under extraordinarily regulated conditions, it simple makes no sense to abandon what I know about gravity and all the evidence which supports what we know about gravity, simply on your word or that of a few friends or neighbors who you claimed witnessed it. It would not be rational…doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, just that you’d have to be crazy to buy into that story.

4. Yes, it is biased to only look at those who have left the faith, on the other hand, if someone is in the faith, would it be reasonable for them to admit that they don’t believe God is there while they are still members? Secondly, there have been thousands upon thousands of people who used to belong to one religion or another and have left all with similar stories. I think therefore that while I cannot prove it is true for everyone, it seems a reasonable hypothesis. In addition, doesn’t this blog work in a similar manner? By that I mean, people who have left SGM for example, all tell a very similar story, and those who are still members typically do not, even if they feel that way. Yet because of the numbers, we assume that the assumption something is wrong, has merit. What’s the alternative, would you try to make the case that all the thousand of people who left Christianity were all being dishonest about their conversion experiences…they all lied? If not, then you need to explain God’s apparent absence from their lives in stark contrast to his biblical promises.

One more thing (sorry such a long reply!) I felt like the churches address porn struggles or drug addictions, but we who struggle with mental instability are passed over, perhaps because they don’t know how to address that particular problem. Very little understanding or support from the organized church.

Hester,

Yes! OCD does indeed have a mental component. My anxiety over a particular situation (especially what-if ones that haven’t actually happened) causes the same thoughts to run over and over in my mind. Sometimes I can stop them, at other times I just have to let it run its course. I do hope the church steps up its understanding to those who struggle with things like this. Unfortunately, growing up I heard the stories of “this person refused to follow God’s will, got in a car accident, died.” And other variances of the same story…rather traumatizing to someone with anxious tendencies!

http://i.imgur.com/I3QM4.png
(Is this what the SBC are discussing behind closed doors?)

Fendrel, if I experienced said bowling ball floating in mid air, then whether I could prove it or not to you or repeat it would not make me question my experience. My faith works the same way. I have experienced something real, and whether I can prove it to you or not does not make it any less true. My faith is based on how I’ve experienced this world and the presence of God, and it would be irrational for me to deny miracles while accepting the experiences of God that I have.

I disagree that we have to be able to scientifically prove something to believe it. I believe tons of things that I have not scientifically proven. I believe that my mother and father love me, and I believed that way before I understood anything about rational thought or science. Was it irrational to believe that as a young child? Well, believing it served me well. I believe it even now because I have experienced their love for me, and whether you trust me or not when I share that truth with you, it is still true and real.

In the end, all of our measurements and scientific studies are marred by the fog of our perceptions. We are limited in our capabilities and we cannot even trust our most basic pieces of knowledge fully. We have to start with some basic assumptions and go from there (“I think therefore I am”). There is no truly rational belief if you want to be pure about it, but as far as it goes there are reasonable things to believe based in our experiences that make sense of the world we live in.

Miracles do not “overwhelm our verified knowledge of how things behave.” By definition miracles are outside the norm of verified knowledge of how things behave. Just because a miracle happened 2000 years ago does not require any change at all to our understanding of how things behave. It is easy to conceive of a Creator who establishes behaviors for his creation, but then intervenes at times contrary to his established order.. I’m not arguing that such a Creator does exist, but that there’s nothing about miracles that challenge scientific thought. Believing in them does not mean throwing out any science. As far as anything is rational, a belief in mircales is rational.

Regarding the bias question, you ask if I think people are being dishonest about their conversion stories. I’m not suggesting they are. What I’m suggesting is that YOU are suggesting that people still in the faith are the dishonest ones (if even to themselves), and I think that is going too far. I don’t have a problem asking people why they left and drawing conclusions for that, but please be sensitive to your lack of knowledge of what is really going on inside other people who you accuse of deceiving themselves.

Jeff

Miracles do not “overwhelm our verified knowledge of how things behave.” By definition miracles are outside the norm of verified knowledge of how things behave. Just because a miracle happened 2000 years ago does not require any change at all to our understanding of how things behave.

You are assuming what you are trying to prove. It is circular logic. You assume that miracles can occur therefore they are included in you view of how the world works…

If I walked off the roof and floated in the air, I doubt I would jump up and down and scream oooh a miracle happened. I would probably either try to wake myself up or get someone to take me to a hospital so they could see what I was hallucinating on…and I suspect you would too.

Not to change the subject/derail the conversation…but did y’all see the bloggers at TGC making a fuss about the International day for the elimination of violence against women? I find it so sick that this group…you know…the one that supports women “enduring abuse for a season” AND who fails to aknowledge the whole SGM lawsuit trying to make a case that they give a &%#* about the safety of women and children. It smacks of such hypocrisy….ugh! Just UGH! Sorry…couldn’t stop the rant…

Dear Fendrel

I have to admit that you have chutzpah. Your argument seems to be almost reduced to the absurd as you’ve gone from proving but ignoring the fact that, according to your statements, the basis of your belief rests on the same fallible human thought processes as ours. You then try and avoid Jeff S’s very “reasonable” inferences because he undermines your position.
Now you have said, in response to Dee, that you believe what you believe because other people like you have felt the same way or come to the same conclusion as you. Your scientific reason king has just flown out the window and landed in the dustbin beside your stamp collection.Lol.
So in a final flourish I would like to make the following points (all of which have been made many times before throughout history).
The first is that our human intelligence is unable to prove that God exists. But it definitely cannot be proven that God does not exist. Atheism is an entirely unprovable theory. It is never certain of itself. To those who contemplate the deeper questions of life, there is a great deal more in favour of faith than opposed to it. The so-called proofs have value to the extent that they point out as human beings we cannot ignore God. Therefore, we do not limit ourselves to the phenomena that we observe, but focus our minds on God to whom the world owes its formation and existence. This is how it can be explained that the arguments for the existence of God, which in themselves are inadequate and problematic, yet make a favourable impression.(Beknopte Gereformeerde dogmatik,1992 van Genderen & Velema).
In sensation I am determined by objects. In thought I determine the object.(Preliminary Theses Concerning the Reform of Philosophy; Feuerbach). Therefore, according to Feuerbach to arrive at truth..thought must give up control of its objects and allow to objects(of sensation only) their proper autonomy as independent subjects(Principles of the Philosophy of the Future; Feuerbach). If you want to be consistent at least follow the principles of what Mr F is saying. Having said that you could drive a coach and horses through his argument.
We know the truth not only by means of the reason but also by means of the heart. It through the heart that we know the first principles.(Pensees; Pascal).
It is a fact of universal and immediate experience that human beings are not only capable of knowing but that they are indeed endowed with a knowledge-base encompassing essential and ultimate principles of reality. It is this knowledge-base which underlies all thought and rationality and every exercise of the human mind. How do we know that these affirmations are true and how can we demonstrate their truth? Well, we know them to be true because our minds tell us – instinctively, immediately,- but we cannot demonstrate them to be true because all demonstration would presuppose their truth… Nevertheless, we know that these affirmations are true affirmations and if any interlocutor wishes to deny them the burden of proof lies with the interlocutor…In making such affirmations, we are remaining true to self-evident facts while those who deny them are flying in the face of these facts…At its most fundamental level, rationality can be experienced and exercised but not demonstrated.(Great Thinkers on Great Questions;Varghese).
You remind me of the lion in the Wizard of Oz, going around saying “Put ’em up, put ’em up. Nobody’s fighting 🙂
Best wishes
Gavin

Dear Fendrel
Ever the scoundrel (almost rhymes with Fendrel), you avoid the point but thanks for your simple and short explanation. I just about managed to follow it. (Put ’em up, put ’em up!).
Best wishes
Gavin

Fendrel:

Thanks for your response. It was nice of you to set out your belief system.

If I were to summarize where I think you are, it would be that there is, or could be a God, but since we can’t test such things, we should not rely on them. We should only rely on what can be scientifically verified. We should not have religious assumptions that are unprovable or are contrary to known physical proof.

I look forward to talking with you some other time in detail.

One additional question came to mind.

Where did the first matter come from, in your opinion? What is the basis for your opinion?

Thanks.

Miguel:

To follow your point out a bit:

An 8 year old who trusts Christ for salvation may not know or understand the Virgin Birth or the concept of the Trinity. No one would have reservations about the salvation of a child in those circumstances.

A 48 year old who denies the Trinity, the diety of Christ and the Virgin Birth is another matter. We certainly have no window into the status of that person’s soul either.

Or someone who is on his death bed and converts. He may know very little theology. Take the Thief on the Cross.

But it seems plain that a child with a lack of theological understanding, or a newly repented adult with no theological background are different types of people when compared with educated adults who consciously reject Christian essentials.

Again, we can’t get into judging to status of these person’s souls, but they seem to be on different planes, so to speak.

And none of them should be hired as seminary professors or missionaries.

Anon,

Quick response first..

Thanks for your comment. You are very close in what you said, the only thing I might modify is that I am not saying that a person shouldn’t have faith, all I am asking is that IF a person chooses to exercise faith, that they do so, because it’s what they want to do, not because there is any compelling empirical evidence for the belief.

I do not think that is an unreasonable thing to ask, I believe it would go a long way to ease tensions between believers and non-believers, and it would be a common base for future discussions.

cosmology, after breakfast and coffee 🙂

Dear Fendrel
I wasn’t asking you to engage with me, I gave you a list of brighter stars than I to discuss, but as they seemed to make the same points that I and others were making you’ve retreated into the ” you’re making it personal” bunker.

The problem is that you don’t exist (again using your rationality template). Or if you do, you don’t know who you are. I think you’ve used that argument as well. It’s a sad day when you can’t take sarcasm the way you dish it out.

Keep smiling captain. Nothing is personal. We’re all just cyphers in a meaningless universe.

Best wishes
Gavin

Thanks, Fendrel. Coffee would be fun sometime.

I agree with much of what you say.

However, I did not introduce God into the answer.

There are some questions that are, at this point, simply unanswerable. The concept of infinity, for example, is something that does not make logical sense.

Where the first matter came from is the same.

It seems to me that question cannot be answered, and if it is, then by what energy was it produced, and where did that energy come from.

Unless I am missing something, I have never seen a scientist answer that convincingly. If you run into what you think is a good answer, let me know.

Most explanations of the universe, or multiple universes, seem to start somewhere due to the limitations of human understanding. And it seems to me that most of the questions that cannot be answered, will not be answerable. I want science to try, for sure. But philosophically and practically, it seems an impossibility.

There are easier questions than this that cannot be answered. Just take life on earth. The “jump” from non-life to life. That has not been explained. Thus, when Professor Dawkins was asked, he surmised that aliens brought life to earth. Seems pretty ridiculous. But if true, it just pushes the question back – Where did the aliens get life?

If you find any references to the first known matter in the universe, or universes, and a theory as to what it was, how it got there (wherever there is), let me know. I would be interested in reading about it.

Thanks. Hope to see you around some more.

By the way, have you ever seen the South Park episode about the competing groups of atheists in the future? It is hilarious. — ANonymous

More accurately, it was a “DIE, HERETICS!” Crusade/Jihad between THREE Atheist Faiths, each of the three trying to exterminate the other “Heretics”. Don’t know about you, but I’m backing the Sea Otters in that fight.

“SOUND THE NAFFERTY!”

Unfortunately, growing up I heard the stories of “this person refused to follow God’s will, got in a car accident, died.” And other variances of the same story…rather traumatizing to someone with anxious tendencies! — Anony

Ah, yes. Just like those chain letters who curse you with “death comes to whoever breaks the chain” — never directly, but always through anecdotes of someone who threw away the chain later and soon after died horribly.

The image from my Aspie OCD days is from a Chick tract, with a car going over a cliff, a word balloon screaming “AIEEEEE!!!!!!”, and a narration text of “AND WENT TO A CHRISTLESS GRAVE!!!!!”

Pretty serious mind games there, and wouldn’t you think God needs mind games about as much as He needs a starship?

Hello Headless
Just asking Fendrel or Kaptain Kirk to prove his case the way he asks us. If he exists.
Regards
Gavin

Who said that?

oldJohn, if I failed to address something (I thought I had..but memory fails sometimes), please point me to original question or repost.

A quick response, (take it for what it is), even if our universe has an apparent “cause” from outside our universe, to say it is “God” or “supernatural” is still just speculation – there is “evidence” that God exists.

“My assertion is that, without sufficient evidence to overwhelm or at least be on equal footing with what science tells us about how the world works through observation and testing, there is no rational reason to give credence to the supernatural. ”

I don’t believe that my faith in any way contradicts how science tells us the world works. We all operate on truths we have not had scientifically proven to us. Empiricism does not tell us everything we know about life.

Dee,
Sorry to hear about your hubby’s bad disc. If it’s ok with you, I’ll do a Native American prayer to the Great Spirit using (horror of horrors!) tobacco and my Eagle feather. I know there are some who cannot abide such heathenish & downright demonic syncretism (in their opinion), but it should be remembered that my tribe NEVER worshiped talismans and such, only the Great Spirit because they were monotheists.

I’m glad it was the Jesuits who made first contact with my people because they never tried to stamp out the old spirituality, but tolerated it and incorporated it into the xtian paradigm.

Dee – Sorry to hear about your husband’s ruptured disc – hope he (and you) are feeling much better ASAP!

Jeff,

So, for instance, the resurrection doesn’t contradict what science tells us about how things work? What about virgin births, certainly science tell us something about that, and in Joshua, the sun standing still for a day along with the moon?

“I find RHE already boring.

Her work is a sort of popularized lampooning of the Bible’s more interesting statements about women, to prove a larger point that she wants to make.

The people who like her larger point will defend her, which is their right.

Her detractors can only be glad that a book like this was not written by some educated and serious person.”

Wow. Now that is arrogance. Some of the biggest charlatans in Christendom are ‘educated’. Mohler, Dever, Piper, etc

Eagle,

Both examples you cite are easily accounted for by those who believes that the original writings of Scripture contain no errors. The author of Hebrews was clearly well versed in the Old Testament and would have known about Ishmael. Whether he didn’t consider Ishmael a legitimate child, or was making a point about the special status of Isaac, I am not sure, but it is not an error.

Your example with Babel is only problematic if…well…actually I can’t find a way to make it problematic for those who believe the Bible is without error. Do you also think that Prince of Peace as a name of God is an error, when he called His people to war at times?

“So, for instance, the resurrection doesn’t contradict what science tells us about how things work? What about virgin births, certainly science tell us something about that, and in Joshua, the sun standing still for a day along with the moon?”

These events contradict nothing that science tells us. Science tells us how Creation works when it is set in motion under its own established order and rules. These events have nothing to do with science. When the Creator steps in and manipulates things, science is not applicable to describe those events, nor should those event be used as our observation set when coming to scientific conclusions.

Like my software program. The code tells the program how to behave and what the rules are. If I step in and change some data or an execution path while it is running, I have not invalidated the “rules”. The code still exists and can be understood, even if my interventions are not explained by them (which they wouldn’t be).

There are thousands of examples but a few that show us scripture cannot be inerrant is the translation of the word teshuqa in Gen 3. “Desire” is a bad choice and does not communicate the truth which is “turning” as it was translated up until about the 1300’s.

Another one is authenteo in 1 Tim. Used only once in the NT it is translated as “authority over” when a better translation, and one even used by Jerome/Calvin, is “domineer”.

The choice of the translator in these cases changed the meaning of the passage in subtle but important ways.

oops last sentence was left over..ignore pls (boy would luv an edit feature) 🙂

Fendrel,
Even after all the compelling proofs and non-proofs concerning the rationality of faith vs. science, I still choose to click my ruby slippers together and wish for home & fantasy somewhere over the rainbow.
===> (smiley face goes here)

You have not established that these events could not have happened, only that they cannot be measured by science. It’s quite a leap to say that because you cannot measure something that it did not occur.

I do NOT presuppose that miracles are real. I presuppose that they are possible without betraying scientific understanding. Though I do not presuppose them, I believe them because they are part of a system of faith that my experience has verified as true. Or rather, my faith represents the best framework for understanding the world around me, including that which science cannot measure.

I am not selling anything. I am defending against you labeling my beliefs as “irrational” and “fantasy”. You cannot prove that my beliefs are not real, so labeling them as “fantasy” is a leap, and one that is offensive (I assume you realize this is offensive and picked that word deliberately). As far as “rational” goes, it’s as rational a system as any. We have no verifiable facts that we can test everything against to make truly rational decisions. We make assumptions and go from there. We all do it, so in a sense we are all a little irrational. But we do the best we can with what we have. My beliefs deny no science or verifiable facts, so calling them irrational is overreaching.

Science does not tell us that God cannot make donkeys talk. Science only tells us that we observe that donkeys do not talk and we have no expectation that they will start, absent a change in our assumptions. One of our assumptions is that the universe continues to operate as we have observed it. Science has nothing to say on the subject of outside entities changing the assumptions.

Every Christian is also reading a “translation”. And they want us to believe a translation is inspired and inerrant. Well, perhaps their ESV. — Anon1

ESV is the new KJV?

Because some KJV-only fanboys came up with something called “double inspiration”, which was that God not only inspired the original writers but the translators of the KJV 1611. Thus, the KJV is The Inspired Word of God and there can be no other. (I’m just reporting it…)

HUG:

I know some KJV only guys. They really do believe that the KJV is inspired.

I don’t know anyone who believes that with regard to the ESV.

“I don’t know anyone who believes that with regard to the ESV.”

Perhaps that is because I failed to mention all the propaganda around it’s debut as the most “literal” translation. But go to Crossway and see the authors they represent and you get a good idea why the Reformed guys promoted it so heavily as the most literal translation.

Thanks Gavin. Where have I heard of Susan Hyatt before? Anyway, here is a snippet from the link:

“The starting point of the church’s traditional theology of womanhood is the pagan premise that women are INFERIOR, UNCLEAN, UNEQUAL, and EVIL. (See Alvin John Schmidt. Veiled and Silenced: How Culture Shaped Sexist Theology. Mercer University Press, 1989.)

The starting point of Jesus’ teaching about womanhood, which is diametrically opposed to this, is that WOMEN ARE EQUAL WITH MEN IN TERMS OF SUBSTANCE AND VALUE, PRIVILEGE AND AUTHORITY, FUNCTION AND AUTHORITY.”

The reason this interested me is when I started researching ancient pagan cultures and found so much in common with current teaching on women’s “roles” in certain circles of Christendom. Did you ever think Christianity would have so much in common with Islam when it came to beliefs concerning women and their “roles”?

Jeff,

I am NOT saying that they did not occur, I am saying, as I have said over and over again, it is NOT a matter of whether an event is true or not,it is a matter of whether, in the absence of any scientific evidence, it is rational to accept that event as true, when everything we DO know from science would seem to indicate the contrary.

I do not, for example, believe in the story of Noah’s flood and it is NOT because I negate the possibility of a magical being working behind the scenes violating all the laws of nature.

It is because what we DO know of water, pressure, currents, soil deposits, ice core technology, animal care, logistics, etc. all scream that this couldn’t have happened based on how we can demonstrate that things work.
Also because people who have tried to answer some of the issues have failed dramatically, usually creating even worse problems in the process.

Maybe God did do it all by magic, but believing in that answer is not a not a rational choice, from a scientific perspective. That’s all I am trying to say.

Would you agree with me on that point?

Jeff,

please read more carefully…

clearly couldn’t have happened based on what we currently understand

Is not the same as saying it didn’t happen.

This is the very definition of fantasy, not reality.

Fantasy, refers to the preceding sentence (in the original context), in other words believing in miracles without the support is fantasy. The word fantasy here meaning to believe something is true in the absence of evidence, wishful thinking if you prefer a different term.

About translations: the thing is, Koine Greek is not crystal-clear for us, living about 2000 years after the NT texts were written, in very different cultures, with our own presuppositions about what the original texts are “supposed” to mean.

But then, I think that all reading is, to a greater or lesser extent, about interpretation. Even seemingly simple things that don’t use words per se – like algebraic equations – use a set of symbols that have to be interpreted correctly by anyone reading a math text.

Words generally can’t be tied down to just one meaning – if you ever try translation from one language to another (modern), you’ll find that out FAST. Even the most seemingly simple, literal texts often have to be re-tweaked in translation, because the words used – sometimes, even the concepts – are unstranslatable.

I’ve run into that myself numerous times in the course of attempting to write about music from other cultures; also in assisting with edits of translations from another language into English.

it is hard, hard work, and equally gifted translators are likely to come up with differing renderings of the same texts… it’s inevitable, given that words work on so many different levels. (Literal, “meaning,” and more.)

Fendrel on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 12:02 PM said:
oldJohn, if I failed to address something (I thought I had..but memory fails sometimes), please point me to original question or repost.

Everything you ask for is in my 11:24 AM post, the one immediately preceding your reply partially quoted above, including a brief restatement of my primary concern about your claims.

If the universe was at one point a singularity, and if space-time is part of our universe, then time itself would have ceased inside the singularity, so it becomes meaningless to talk about “before” or “after”. — Fendrel

Didn’t St Augustine say something similar about talking about the idea of “before God”?

I read somewhere that there were about 20,000 words in Koine Greek and we have about 600,000 in English language. YOu can see the problems with translation of meanings in that big of a difference.

I’m not sure that the number of words (that we know of) in Koine Greek is the problem, though… it’s partly that Koine Greek is about as “alive” as Middle English – i.e., nobody speaks it or writes in it anymore, and they haven’t for a long time.

Imagine how lost we’d be if we were teleported back to Geoffrey Chaucer’s time and found ourselves totally unable to speak the English of the day – and probably at a loss to understand it as well…

Dee – my grandfather had 2 fusions and, I think, suffered from the effects, whereas my mom was advised (in the late 1970s!) not to have surgery on hers unless there was no other alternative.

She never has had a fusion, and a lot of her problems resolved over time. I have herniated discs in my neck and lower back, and only plan on doing something if/when they become unbearable. (intact or ruptured.)

Again, all best wishes for your husband’s recovery!

RE: numo on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 05:35 PM,

Great comment on what it takes to become literate in a thing, whatever it may be. When we’re blessed and lucky, a Katharine Bushnell will come along and even shed greater light on Holy Writ.

It’s really too bad that a vast majority of the folks that are in abusive calvinista regimes would prefer to be lemmings and let their leadership do their thinking for them. Most of them have no desire to do the hard work and critical thinking you speak of and are kept in line with fear and guilt.

It’s really too bad that a vast majority of the folks that are in abusive calvinista regimes would prefer to be lemmings and let their leadership do their thinking for them. Most of them have no desire to do the hard work and critical thinking you speak of and are kept in line with fear and guilt. — Muff Potter

“Ich habe nur meine Befehle Ausgefert…”

Dee: sorry to hear about your husband’s back…that must hurt. My younger brother had surgery on his prolapsed disc a few years back & is back doing triathalons, I’m glad I had no idea that surgery isn’t always a success!
My love to Mr Dee & great hopes for his recovery 🙂

Dee,

I had a friend with a slipped disk back in the 70s, I remember her talking about treatment with Chymopapain injections, at the time was relatively new I believe, is it still a common treatment modality?