I’ve tired a bit of the many attacks coming from those (usually Christians,usually right-leaning) who disagree with me. Now when I say that, let me be clear: I do not mind in the least that they disagree with me. I ask them and anyone PLEASE disagree with me if you think I’m wrong.
Show me what I’ve said that was wrong and how it was wrong and you will be doing me a favor. Please disagree with me, you’ll be helping me learn.
So, when I say “attack,” I am not talking about mere disagreements. And that is at the root of some of our problems with communicating with one another.
I say, “Attacks are bad,” and they respond, “You wouldn’t have me correct you??” I didn’t SAY anything about correction, I said something about “attacks” and they (those who disagree with me) will read “attack,” assume I mean “disagreeing” and complain that I don’t want dissenting voices.
That’s called a strawman argument. They’re knocking down an argument that I didn’t raise and ignoring the original argument. It has happened repeatedly with me (and others I’ve seen) and comes especially from the Religious Right (in my experience).
Now, I’m absolutely sure that there are those on the Left who do the same thing, and probably in similar numbers, I just don’t generally see them – I don’t encounter that many doing the same thing. I must hang with a more reasonable set of Lefties…
Typically, it happens like this:
Commenter(s): Dan, you hate the Bible.
Dan: That is a lie. I don’t hate the Bible, I love the Bible.
Commenter(s): You twist the Bible’s words, Dan. You add to the Bible what isn’t there and you take away parts of the Bible that you don’t like.
Dan: That is a lie. I have not added anything to the Bible – short of my interpretation, which we all do when we read the Bible – nor have I taken anything away from the Bible. But, by all means, if it’s true, show me where I have added to or taken away from the Bible. Show me how I hate the Bible.
Commenter(s): It’s obvious, Dan! Anyone who has read what you’ve written knows that you hate the Bible and twist its words!
Dan: Fine, show me where I did this hating and twisting then so I can learn from my mistakes.
Commenter(s): You have said that the Bible is corrupt, and one can’t love what is corrupt, therefore, you must hate the Bible!
Dan: I have never said the Bible is corrupt. Those are your words. If you think I have, then show me so that I may learn from my mistakes and apologize for going astray.
Commenter(s): You have said that you don’t interpret Verse 1 the same way that God wrote it. Therefore, you must think it’s corrupt. Therefore, you must hate God’s Word!!! It’s all right there!
Dan: Again, these are all lies. I have said that I don’t interpret Verse 1 the same way YOU interpret it, I DON’T, therefore, think the Bible is corrupt, and I DON’T hate the Bible.
Commenter(s): I never said you hate the Bible. I said you hate parts of it. The part where you think differently than God! And if you hate part of it, then it’s a fair statement that you hate all of it.
Dan: ??? If you think this is the case, show me where I have said that I think differently than God and hate what God wrote and you will have done me a favor. Otherwise, I’m left to assume that you are bearing false witness against me.
Commenter(s): Oh, no! I’m not playing that game, Dan. I’ve seen how you go around sowing seeds of discord. People correct you and you act all innocent and then repeat your same lies and blasphemies. You’ve been corrected already. People have shown you where you’re wrong. Go back and read them yourself! I mean, it’s quite evident that you think the Bible is corrupt and that you hate God’s Word, twisting it so that you can remake God in your image…
Dan: ????? !!
And on it goes. The above, of course, is a much shortened and over-simplified version of what happens. The individuals involved DO sometimes offer at least some attempt to point out where they think I’ve strayed. But inevitably, it involves their interpretations of my words, rather than what I’ve actually said.
Why is this?
99 comments:
AMEN! And, if you're lucky enough to get them to actually show you why they disagree, they usually either misinterpret your words, or jump to conclusions about things you haven't said. Oy.
Why is this? As a Calvinist, I chalk it up to my favorite doctrine: total depravity. :)
(Fortunately, unlike you, I don't have a set of bloggers who seem to stalk me around the blogosphere. What's with that, anyway?!)
Perhaps some people are simply unable to understand the difference between "I don't believe in your interpretation of the Bible" and "I don't believe in the Bible." It isn't that they've turned the Bible into an idol, it's that they've turned their interpretation of the Bible into an idol that is not to be questioned under any circumstances.
Or, perhaps they're just wired differently. I posted a story on my blog the other day about some neuroscience research that seems to demonstrate that, in fact, the brains of liberals and conservatives don't work the same way when confronted with ambiguity.
Or it could be the total depravity thing I mentioned earlier. :)
Dan, there is a whole host of inconsistencies with this dramatic attempt to paint yourself as a martyr.
You lament being attacked, after accusing me of being "a liar, contemptible and diabolic in nature."
You correctly define a strawman argument and criticize it, only to offer a strawman of your own, an exchange with a fictional conservative who is, in many important ways, an utterly dishonest portrayal of my positions.
(For instance, I never once argued that you used the word "corruption", only that the word is an accurate description of your speculation that evil men with wicked motives added passages to the Bible to justify atrocities: I'll ask again, if that doesn't qualify as a corruption of Scripture, what would?)
(And, I never said anything resembling this: "And if you hate part of it, then it’s a fair statement that you hate all of it." On the contrary, in my last post in the earlier comment thread, I was quite clear that I DO NOT question your love for those parts of the Bible that you obviously accept as authoritative.)
But I think I can point out the most glaring inconsistency:
The above, of course, is a much shortened and over-simplified version of what happens. The individuals involved DO sometimes offer at least some attempt to point out where they think I’ve strayed. But inevitably, it involves their interpretations of my words, rather than what I’ve actually said.
In a single paragraph, you admit that you're presenting your interpretation of what others have written -- a "much shortened and over-simplified version" of events -- and then go on to criticize people who offer interpretations of your words rather than "what [you've] actually said".
It's quite alright for you to offer interpretations of what other people say in your dramatic little scene, but if others interpret what you say, why, that's an attack!
If you demand that other people stick only with what you've actually said, then, in obedience to the Golden Rule, you should do the same and not offer a fictionalized dramatization of what other people said.
It's hard to think of a more emphatic way for you to do precisely what you find so offensive.
Wow. Zero to belligerent in 20 seconds!
Dan, I feel your pain! I only wonder that it has taken this long for you to become so exasperated. Your patience and longsuffering through these endless attacks (the pattern you give has been repeated on almost every post not having to do with your love of Bluegrass and folk music!) has been amazing.
These kinds of rightwing attacks are happening less frequently on my blog than previously. I'm not sure why. Maybe because I have stopped visiting their blogs and trying your pattern of patient engagement. But I am glad you are showing that your patience has limits. It is time for some accountability from your critics.
BTW, Alan, as an Arminian I also believe in total depravity--and think it's as good an explanation as any. Except that even totally depraved sinners (i.e., all people) can be taught to avoid strawperson arguments and demonization--if they want to learn.
"BTW, Alan, as an Arminian I also believe in total depravity--and think it's as good an explanation as any. Except that even totally depraved sinners (i.e., all people) can be taught to avoid strawperson arguments and demonization--if they want to learn."
See? If even Arminians can get it right on total depravity, perhaps there's hope for others. ;) (just kidding!)
Oh no! That guy's attacking those poor kids with an ax!
Quite frankly, I've been having a hard time figuring out how your post on Berry and his poetry ended up with you being accused of not loving the Bible, or not loving parts of it.
These trolls don't visit my blog anymore. I'm glad. I really don't care to debate them or anyone for that matter. I just offer information and sometimes I state my opinion. People can take it or leave it.
I think those who do this have an agenda of attempting to prove you to be an infidel. It always comes around to the same thing in the end. The questioning of your faith in one way or another.
Oh, and btw, I'm finally reading "The Way Of Ignorance". So far it's a pretty good read!
OH yeah, and thanks for the kind words on my blog Dan. When you say my "tribe" I can only assume you mean intelligent good-looking people.
Quite frankly, I've been having a hard time figuring out how your post on Berry and his poetry ended up with you being accused of not loving the Bible, or not loving parts of it.
I'll happily spell it out for you, Marty. Dan introduced the subject with this snarky comment about "Overly aggressive/confrontational rhetoric." It was in reference to this thread at Neil's 4Simpsons blog. In the course of that thread, I did state my belief that, given what Dan has speculated about the authorship of some passages in the Bible (and not just his interpretation of those passages), I do not think he truly loves the entire Bible as he claims.
But it was Dan who brought the discussion here, not me.
Bubba, believe it or not, this post may not be ONLY about you. Rightwingers have been plaguing Dan with nasty comments and pseudo conversations since at least the time I started reading his blog 2 years ago. They used to do the same with me, but, as with Marty, they have largely stopped. They (you) keep it up with Dan because he is so patient.
I had to ban one person from my blog and threaten one or two others to get the harassment stopped and keep things within the parameters of intelligent disagreement and debate.
A straw man about straw men. ER will have a cow.
Play the martyr card if you like, but you have written more words on my blog lately than I have and many people worked hard to understand you. You may want to check out persecution.com (Voice of the Martyrs) for assistance.
Excellent points, Bubba.
sigh. Neil, I'd ask you to back up your claim that this my post is a strawman argument, but backing up what you have to say hasn't been your strong point.
And I would like to reiterate that this is in reaction to a few (several) specific people who make conversation difficult by their twisting of my words. I'm not - nor have I - dropped the L-Bomb ("Liar") on people who casually stop by and say, "What you think THIS?!!" and get my position wrong.
I fully understand that sometimes - especially in this format - it is easy to have misunderstandings. I'm not talking about misunderstandings.
I'm talking about people who have repeatedly twisted my words, saying that I'm advocating positions that I have never advocated and beating me over the head with that strawman of their creation. I'm talking about people whom I've corrected on their misunderstandings who steadfastly refuse to listen to what I've actually said and instead insist that they know better than I do what I think.
(I had one of them say to me recently, "Dan, I'm not accusing you of lying to me. I'm accusing you of lying to yourself." - again, suggesting that he'd know better than I do what I mean when I say something.)
There is a mean-spirited hubris in their refusal to discuss matters honestly. In their arrogant assertions that they know what I think better than I do. In their insistence - despite my relatively decent, honest and mellow behavior - that I've come to their blog to deliberately try to sow discord.
THAT is what I refer to as diabolical. I don't know what else to make of it.
And, by diabolical, I don't mean "devil-possessed" or anything of that sort, but rather just an abandoning of decent human conversational conduct. So perhaps that's not the best word, upon thinking about it (yes, bubba, it is truly ironic that I've demonized you for demonizing me...). I apologize.
I don't think it's diabolical. Just plain ol' human arrogance. Or perhaps it's that whole cognitive dissonance thing - wherein people are confronted with behavior that is so foreign to them, that they stretch incredulity to make sense of the behavior.
As in, "What?! A liberal Christian who disagrees with the obvious Words of God? That can't be. They must be here to sow discord or to try to trick us, something like that! But we won't fall for it!"
I don't know what the reasoning is for their behavior. I just know that it makes conversation near impossible.
If everything one says is suspect and if THEY assume that you are lying and out to trick them, then how can you make your point? Anything you say can be rejected as a trick or a lie and then there is no basis for communication.
Also for the record, I'm not playing the "marytr" card. I don't really care what anyone I don't know thinks about me. Why would I?
No. As I've always said, I'm concerned about the state of communication between various factions in our world. About factions between the so-called Left and Right in our very own churches - God's church.
THIS is why I've taken to pointing out that some people are continually misrepresenting my position. I don't know how else to deal with that sort of behavior but pointing it out. I've tried pointing it out via personal emails and in the comment area, but often to no avail.
If we can't learn to talk to one another without thinking constantly the other is lying, without twisting the others' words - if we can't do this within the Church!! then how can we ever hope to reach out beyond the church.
THAT is why I point out this sort of misconduct. Not because I mind at all disagreements. Not because "it hurts my feelings" that they have misrepresented me, but because it is important that we learn to communicate. And we're failing miserably at it.
I'm failing miserably at it.
Bubba's point seems to boil down to "But you do it too!" (And, before someone accuses me of making a "straw man", I'm simply paraphrasing this: "If you demand that other people stick only with what you've actually said, then, in obedience to the Golden Rule, you should do the same and not offer a fictionalized dramatization of what other people said.")
So, if the best response one can make is "But you do it too!", sorry, but I'm afraid you've pretty much lost the moral high ground. Even if Dan does indeed "do it too" that's hardly an excuse now is it? If Dan jumped off a bridge.... :)
Question 1: What is it with everyone shouting "staw-man" all the time? A straw-man argument would be if Dan made up some argument, attributed it to someone who didn't actually make that argument, and then he knocked it down. He didn't. He's appears to be commenting about how he's been treated (and it seems like a pretty accurate portrayal.) But it isn't an "argument." It's an opinion. Folks need to fixate on some other logical fallacy for a while! Try "begging the question", it's a fun one. Or "appeal to authority", also popular. :)
Question 2: Out of curiosity, since when did calling for a little common decency, mutual respect and forbearance, and just good old-fashioned manners make one a "martyr"?
Dan, are you implying that I'm guilty of "a mean-spirited hubris"? Of "arrogance" or "cognitive dissonance"?
I'm glad to see you that you admit that you don't know the reason for why I write what I do. I ABSOLUTELY insist that it's not hubris or arrogance or cognitive dissonance.
Do you believe me?
Dan, You can call what you do as just looking for conversation, but it seems strange to go to other's sites and post as much and as long posts as you do. When you can see that your view is not the only one expressed, you should be able to move on or go back to your own site with that topic. Alan and Michael remind me of a couple of pit bulls that come out to protect you. Eat a little cheese with your whine and get over it.
mom2 wrote: "Alan and Michael remind me of a couple of pit bulls that come out to protect you. Eat a little cheese with your whine and get over it."
Heh. Never been called a "pit-bull" before. :)
Actually I've just commenting on this blog post, the points therein, and the points made by other commenters, rather than making personal attacks on other commenters. Care to do the same, mom2?
Basically everything Dan has mentioned here I've observed as well, or experienced myself first hand, and I commented on that. That is allowed, right? Are people not allowed to agree with blog posts now, mom2? Perhaps I'm unclear about what your point was supposed to be.
Seems to me that several people have experienced precisely the same thing Dan is talking about on many different blogs, but the pattern is always the same. Now, either we're all deluded or perhaps there's some truth there. Given that I've just been called a pit-bull and a whiner by someone I've never met nor even talked to, one might make the case that there may indeed be some truth there.
"pit bulls"? "whine"? Is a little civility really that much to ask? However, you did just prove the point, so I suppose I should be grateful.
Ok Alan, you eat a little cheese with your whine too.
And here I was expecting a simple, instructional post...
Dan, I feel for ya... While I'm sure I've not found myself in as many of these things as you have, I know what it can be like, sometimes.
Just breathe deep, find your (spiritual, in your case) center, and patiently plug on...
In extreme cases, (much as I hate to say it) I recommend avoiding any unneccessary blog reading or writing for several days. Clears my head, and allows me to get back to it with much less stress and a renewed sense of purpose.
Of course, maybe that's just me... 8>)
Thanks for the thoughts, all. Alan, I'm not sure if I've ever said this, but welcome to Payne Hollow.
I've been busy and away from my computer and will be all day today, too. Just a quick thought.
Bubba said:
I'm glad to see you that you admit that you don't know the reason for why I write what I do. I ABSOLUTELY insist that it's not hubris or arrogance or cognitive dissonance.
Do you believe me?
Sure. Why not?
That was one of the reasons for my post here, to ask, WHY do folk like you behave the way you do?
On the one hand, I have no doubt that you are sincerely expressing your opinions in an effort to speak truth.
But, on the other hand, you (not you alone or specifically, Bubba, but you and some of your pals) repeatedly express ideas that misrepresent my (and I'm hearing others say the same thing) positions.
Your type repeatedly say that you know better than I do what I think. Not usually in those words, but sometimes yes, literally in those words!
When I express my opinions about what y'all are saying, I've TRIED to say things like, "Perhaps it's because..." or "That is a misrepresentation of my position..." and tried to stay away from "He is a liar..." or "He's out to twist my words..."
It is an observable fact that my words have been twisted, that my position has been misrepresented. I don't know the reasons why.
That is why I asked quite clearly, "Why is this?"
Why, when I have said, "No, I don't believe that. That is a misrepresentation of my position..." have you insisted on saying, "No, Dan. You DO believe that, despite what you think..."?
You have theories?
And I did hear you say earlier, bubba, that even I admit that one can tell to some degree what another's position is based upon their actions. You used the example of me saying that I can't see how those who claim to love their enemy but choose to wipe them and their children out could possibly love their enemies.
And yes, I think there is a strong likelihood that someone who kills their enemies and the children of their enemies does not love them.
But I think there are several worlds of difference between using my cognitive powers to discern that genocide is not an expression of love (that feels ridiculous even to write) and saying that you can tell by my words (often twisted) that I don't love the Bible.
Wouldn't you think?
Thanks for the welcome, Dan. :)
If this is what you believe:
I don't believe that a professed love for the entire Bible is consistent with such speculations about parts of the Bible.
Then say THAT. That is fine. That is a speculation on your part, an expression of your belief. You are entirely entitled to that.
You telling me what I believe - in spite of my disagreeing with you that such is what I believe - is just arrogance (or foolishness, or insanity, or I reckon it might be multiple things). But telling me what you think I must mean by that is your speculation and that's fine.
THAT is how you have a normal conversation, Bubba.
As to this:
I believe it's counter-productive for you to ask why you're being misrepresented: I don't think you are.
You may think that all you want. But when someone says I don't love the Bible, that IS a misrepresentation of my position. I DO love the Bible.
When someone says I reject the Bible's teachings in favor of something that is easier to live by, that IS a misrepresentation of my position.
Those just are misrepresentations of my beliefs. I'm aware of my beliefs and you'll just have to trust me that I know that for someone to make those claims (and they have) is to misrepresent my position.
They could say, "I don't see how you can not interpret I Sam 15 literally and still love the Bible," and that's fine. That's a statement of their belief and they are welcome to it. I don't have a problem at all with that (other than disagreeing with it, but disagreeing is an acceptable reality).
But I don't believe you've ever answered my question to you about "loving the entire Bible," Bubba. Would you read the passage where the Death Angel kills all the Egyptian children or the command to wipe out entire populations of people - children included - and say, "Man! I LOVE that passage!"?
Perhaps it's the language we're using. What if we rephrase things?
1. I think the Bible is God's Revelation to us. I think the Bible contains teachings that are beneficial for personal growth and morality.
2. I don't think that the Bible is God's complete word to us. God doesn't fit in 66 tiny books.
3. I don't think either of these are outside of mainstream orthodox Christianity.
4. I don't think the 66 books of the Bible ever make the claim that they (the 66 books) must be read literally or inerrantly. While this notion may be heretical to many modern day Christians, it is plainly the truth. Saying that the 66 books must be read inerrantly is an extrabiblical tradition.
Have I spake wrongly at any point thus far?
Dan, I appreciate your concern for the state of communication between various factions in the church and the world. I used to teach critical thinking for precisely that reason.
But, forgive me, my brother, but I think you're trying too hard. The people who attack you show no desire to understand you--just to get you to "repent" and believe just like them. I can't judge except by actions, but it seems to me that we must distinguish between people who disagree but are willing to dialogue and people who just want to rant, thunder, and intimidate into silence.
There is a loud and noisy section of the religious and political Right (and notice I said "section of" people--I can name exceptions) who seem to use all forms of communication, including blogging, to simply dominate and assure that their views prevail. Not "prevail" through rational persuasion, but by intimidating others into silence or drowning them out. Twisting your positions is a part of that larger project.
The only way to improve communication is to refuse to play that game. To talk rationally with all who are willing to discuss rationally and hope that they reject the ranting model. But to keep trying to communicate with those whose only desire is to silence you or to paint you in evil colors as a bad example for others, etc. is a waste of time and empowers them.
Even Jesus told us not to keep staying where we are not welcome. Maybe its time to stop visiting hateful blogs and to shake the cyber-dust from your feet as you leave.
Let me offer a different perspective for some people on this blog who may not be familiar with Dan's approach to the blogging world. I quit debating with Dan several months ago because of the same complaints he made toward me. When I attempted to deal with any argument he made, he immediately accused me of misinterpreting him, even when I could show him his logic in step by step form.
But my discussions with Dan did not come about because I found my way to his blog. He came to mine first and began to immediately disagree with me (and also engaged me directly on others' blogs). He did this to other bloggers I knew like my friend Brent (and I have spotted his comments on numerous conservative Christian blogs - looks like Neil is yet another one). Both Brent and I (and Bubba) took the time to discuss with him and debate with him (you can look at my blog when discussing homosexuality the level of discussion we had on the OT, only to see Dan tell me when I interpreted Romans 1 that I was simply too verbose and used too much churchy language to continue). And all of us became frustrated with his slippery logic more often than not.
So, those who think Dan is undeservingly criticized and attacked need to follow the links back to the blogs he visited first and began debating on. Dan is no innocent bystander here. He has done his fair share of trolling as well and now he is reaping what he has sown.
I am sorry that I violated my promise to not interact with Dan anymore, but I can't stand to see such a terrible presentation of facts and men like Alan being misinformed as to Dan's activities on the blogosphere.
Bubba, I went over to Neil's 4Simpsons blog and read that thread. Whew!
From what I saw over there and here, yep, Dan, you have been attacked and misrepresented.
Listening is a gift that is rare. Communication is rarer.
It is seldom seen in our selfish instant gratification world even among those of us who consider ourselves christian.
No wonder there are athiests among us.
Marty, If you just started reading then you have missed a lot. I think you could be misreading the whole thing and we have known for a long time where you stand. Apparently conservatives are always wrong.
Thank you, Marty, Michael, for the comments and thoughts and support.
The thing is, DR, that when folk who tend to believe more like me read a given set of comments, we see attacks and misrepresentations. When you read those same set of comments, you see only logic and God's Word, or at least it seems by your comments.
Why do you suspect that is?
And when people say things such as, "I have spotted his comments on numerous conservative Christian blogs..." it almost reads as an accusation. As I've said repeatedly, I believe in trying to increase the communication between different factions of folk - why wouldn't I be found at blogs with a different point of view?
But perhaps no accusation was intended. Let's assume not. So, yes, I go places where people have different opinions. I think it important to see that there are a wide range of Christians out there, and not just the Right Wing of the Christian church.
I engage in the conversations not at all to change anyone's mind (that's not my role, but God's and the individuals involved), but merely to say, "here's another voice from Christ's Church. I am sincere. I'm a Bible believer. And I sometimes disagree with the Religious Right..."
And yes, DR, people can certainly go back to those discussions and see what was really said. The thing is, as I noted to start with, that we tend to agree with Dan if one thinks like Dan to begin with and agree with DR if one thinks like DR to start with.
And that's okay, as far as I'm concerned. I'm just saying, why can't we disagree without the demonization and twisting of words?
DR said:
When I attempted to deal with any argument he made, he immediately accused me of misinterpreting him...
Could it be that you were misinterpreting me? Who would know better than ME if you were misinterpreting my position? That's one of the things I'm objecting to - YOU don't know me better than I know myself.
If you say, "Dan, you're really saying X" and I don't believe X, you ARE misinterpreting - misrepresenting me. Perhaps unintentionally. Perhaps in sincere ignorance. But misinterpreting my position nonetheless.
Dan, briefly, I think these attempts at dialogues across the aisle between theologically conservative Christians and theologically liberal Christians would go a lot smoother if there was a more even-handed approach to comments that go over the line.
I can see at least some occasions when my side crosses the line: God bless her, but mom2 has not done a great deal to make this particular discussion more civil or more enlightening.
You ask Daniel Randle, "why can't we disagree without the demonization and twisting of words?"
I can't help but wonder, why in the world are you not asking this of Michael Westmoreland-White? He just posted a lenghty ad hominem attack on "people who just want to rant, thunder, and intimidate into silence:" people from "hateful blogs" who want to prevail by "intimidating others into silence or drowning them out."
If one of DR's comments "almost reads as an accusation," I can't fathom why a person genuinely interested in dialogue wouldn't ask Michael to consider toning down the outrage.
For my part, I will apologize Dan. I admit that I have spoken too quickly some times, after reading comments that I have read as inaccurate assessments of peoples motives.
It is as you said, the person who agrees with oneself tends to see the other side as being the aggressor and both sides can do that. It just seems to me that the type of language used by liberals tends to get more out of hand.
I will try to do better in the future or stay out of the fray.
More to the topic at hand, I really don't understand the distinctions you're making, Dan, but if ultimately you have no problem with my expressing this -- I believe that your expressed love for the entire Bible is inconsistent with your speculations about some passages having sinister origins -- I think that will suffice as a reasonable middle ground.
But I think maybe there's a misunderstanding of terms. It seems like you think that loving a passage of the Bible means deriving pleasure from it:
Would you read the passage where the Death Angel kills all the Egyptian children or the command to wipe out entire populations of people - children included - and say, "Man! I LOVE that passage!"?
No, but that's not the only way to express love for a passage of Scripture.
What I mean by "love" is reverence, revering a passage, accepting it as an authoritative revelation from God, and letting it transform you.
To passages that promise eternal life to all who trust in Jesus, a Christian should respond with hope: trust that God will fulfill His promises, which is occasionally accompanied by joy and which (for some, not all) involves exuberant joy. Some very bubbly Christian might truly shout, "I LOVE that passage!" But even the most despondent Christian, suffering from bereavement and loss, should trust the promise of the passage even if reading it doesn't make him feel the slightest bit better.
But there are more than just promises. Some passages convict the reader of sin and some teach him a command; it's a rare thing indeed that either passage should lead to shouting in joy.
And some passages do none of these things but instead simply reveal who God is and what He does. Those passages might not lead to joyful shouting, but they should often lead to numinous awe at God's greatness and goodness.
One of the two passages you cite does exactly that for me: "the passage where the Death Angel kills all the Egyptian children."
The passage has another name: Passover. In the same passage, God spares those who were protected by the blood of an unblemished lamb. Christ compared Himself to that lamb in the Upper Room; Paul makes the same connection between Christ and the Passover lamb in I Corinthians 5:7; and the Revelation of John repeatedly refers to Jesus as the Lamb.
Passover is a vivid precursor to Calvary, and that final Egyptian plague is a very emphatic prelude to the final judgment. That plague doesn't make me jump for joy, but it does fill me with wonder at God's greatness and goodness -- that is, His dreadful power to be able to do such things, and His unspeakable holiness that proclaims that He is right and just to do such things.
You have speculated that I Samuel 15 was inserted by wicked men with sinister purposes.
In connecting Passover and that last Egyptian plague to I Samuel 15, are you actually implying that you speculate similarly about Exodus 12?
I sincerely hope not, because questioning whether Exodus 12 is an authentic revelation about who God is strikes me as potentially fatal to one's faith in the central tenets of Christianity.
Dan, I would like to explain my thoughts related to my whine comments. I think both sides can get upset with the others comments, so that is why I took yours and Alan's comments as whining. If that was offensive, I will apologize for that also.
Mom2: "Marty, If you just started reading then you have missed a lot. I think you could be misreading the whole thing and we have known for a long time where you stand. Apparently conservatives are always wrong."
Actually I haven't just started reading. I've missed very little going on here at Payne Hollow.
I'm not misreading. The comments are plainly stated.
And where is it that I stand, Mom2?
No, conservatives are not always wrong, but they are always conservative.
A new Sunday School class has been started at my church. I haven't missed a Sunday, which is rare for me. I am usually bored to tears in Sunday School classes. We call it Mosaic which represents our diversity. We are discussing controversial issues using the book by Adam Hamilton "Confronting the Controversies-Biblical Perspectives on Tough Issues".
The purpose of the class is to create a place where we can come together, discuss the issues, always being respectful of those who disagree, and never NEVER fearing to voice our opinion on what scripture has revealed to each of us, all the while, knowing, we will not all agree. We are also learning to communicate with one another in the spirit of peace and non-violence with the understanding that there is truth on all sides if we are willing to listen.
Marty, I was not referring to just starting to read Dan's site. I was referring to an ongoing discussion of several topics on Neil's site. There were several issues that seemed to always get side tracked by Dan and some very good opinions and sources were provided to Dan. It is as Dan said about how we view who is right, I always expect you to take Dan's side. The problem I have with Dan and Michael and some others is that after it seems they have run out of what they want to say, they start repeating and repeating and then the accusations start flying. It does not seem to me that the conservatives follow a pattern like that. I guess I read too many sites and see these same things happening in so many places. After a while, I have trouble seeing the purpose as just seeking truth.
Oh, ok Mom2. I had never been to Neil's blog until Bubba pointed it out. I doubt if I will go back there either. I have only a few select blogs that I visit. I don't have much time these days for blogging, other than what I do on my own blog.
mom2 writes, "why I took yours and Alan's comments as whining. If that was offensive, I will apologize for that also."
If? If? LOL You know people who wouldn't be at least a little offended by being called a pit-bull and a whiner? In general, mom2, I think most people are indeed offended when some complete stranger makes snotty comments about them and calls them names.
I've been lurking around long enough to see that sort of behavior from you pretty frequently (though you are by no means the only one!) So, I thank you for the apology, but honestly it will mean more if it also includes a change in behavior.
DR writes, "but I can't stand to see such a terrible presentation of facts and men like Alan being misinformed as to Dan's activities on the blogosphere."
No, DR, I'm not misinformed. Dan isn't lying. I've been lurking around for a while, seen several conversations on several blogs, and I'd say Dan's portrayal is accurate, though he was a bit nicer about it than I would have been as he neglected to mention the snottiness and insults that usually go along with these discussions -- as we've clearly seen already in this thread.
We've seen several attempts now to discount Dan's experiences: Bubba's thinks it's an isolated incident involving only him, mom2 thinks it's just whining, Neil thinks Dan's got a martyr complex, and DR thinks that Dan's the only one who has experienced this and it's all Dan's fault anyway. Perhaps it seems easiest to either discount Dan's experiences as unique to him, or a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
However, as I've said, though perhaps you missed it, DR, I've also experienced precisely the same thing myself on several blogs, as have others who have commented here. You'll notice that I and other people commenting here have also corroborated Dan's view of how these conversations often happen. So again, either we're all deluded, or all "whiners" or "martyrs" or perhaps there's some truth there.
To give one specific example (of many), I agree with Dan that having someone tell me that they know better than I do about what I believe or feel is indeed not the way to have a normal conversation, to say the least. And, like Dan, I've received precisely those same comments on some of those same blogs, from some of those same people. Again, that's just one examples of many. Now, Bubba, Neil, mom2, and DR, you can try to rationalize that as a martyr complex, or as all my fault ... or perhaps you can consider whether that might actually be annoying and offensive behavior.
Thanks again, Alan, for the testimony. Can I get a witness, brothers and sisters?
I'm late here but my experience of you Dan is that you are no more interested in having a conversation than the others.
We could go back and take WB and take examples of his work and discuss why we thought they were good or not but I've read many examples of his writing in various formats to have my opinion, and your is different. That just is.
Yet you tell me to "be careful" and call him "saint". You aren't, with those comments, looking for a conversation. Of course, neither am I particularly. Didn't say I was though.
And that's where I'd call you a hypocrite.
I think Dan was kidding about the "Saint Wendell Berry" thing. Baptists like Dan and myself don't really have saints and usually use the term only to mean another Christian--like Paul used the term saint in the NT. And Wendell Berry certainly doesn't consider himself a saint.
It's easy to miss humor in a blog without smiley faces. I know because I've done it. I know Dan personally, so I think I am safe in surmising that he was joking there.
I certainly have felt free to criticize Berry as well as appreciate him. Dan didn't get attacked for not believing the Bible for anything he wrote about Berry--although it was weird that Bubba took a poem as literally as he did.
Dan,
Sounds like you're in some cat fights these days. Haven't heard from you over at Pisteuomen for a while :(
Hope all is well buddy. have a good'n.
www.michaelhalcomb.blogspot.com
'o'pq~
That's the cow I had over straw man squared. (Think about it.)
:-)
Man, these internets are so slickery. Too easy to be mean.
Ya know, I don't toss out verses very often, because, well, I think that as an arguing technique 1., it's over used, and 2., it's ineffective.
So, not to argue, but these verses have been coming to mind a lot, and I'm trying to keep them in the forefront of my mind more. I repeat them here directed to myself and to all:
James 4:1 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
Lusts to be right! To be understood! To be accepted!
James 5: 9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.
Hypocrite? Liar? To claim to know what another thinks? Based on a few words on a blog?? To carry the anger from one post to the next, from one blog to the next? To never let anything go? That's a damned grudge.
James 5: 16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
I confess that I let my anger unbridle my tongue, as given voice through this keyboard. I repent. And I hope to repent the next time. Because there will be a next time.
The fact is we, those of us who claim Christ, can agree on only one thing, the only thing that matters: Jesus is Lord.
And I dare say that anyone who adds ANYTHING to that is, in fact, "adding to" the Word. The Real Word of God.
I saw the humor in St. Wendell. I'm not sure it is seen in my comments, on that post, or on this one.
And I too can appreciate WB in small doses, and highly edited. I keep Collected Poems handy (although I almost always regret opening it, I still love the Mad Farmer ones) and most recently read Home Economy (which hits many notes Eleu was hitting on the economics posts).
I appreciate the debate here or I wouldn't come and read occasionally. What I think, what my point would really be, is that basically, all of you/us are the same. Adding to or subtracting from the Bible as you see fit, accusing others based on very little to nothing, misunderstanding seemingly on purpose, everything else. I see it from almost every quarter here. To pretend it is more from "one side" than "the other" is alternatively hilarious and sad.
M W-M said: "Rightwingers have been plaguing Dan with nasty comments and pseudo conversations [Blah, blah, blah...]"
That's 'Pot & Kettle' territory, Michael. Dan is the most disagreeable [as in 'contentious'] commenter I know. He got his hat handed to him at Neil's place, and he's not happy about it. But, hey! This is Dan's place, and he can say what he wants.
By the way, Dan, that WAS quite a "Straw Man" you through up, and if nothing else it WAS entertaining. In all seriousness: perhaps now you understand the exasperation us 'Right-wingers' feel about the 'abusive' [seemingly; from a 'right-wing' position] rhetoric you attempt to flaw us with.
I'm not entirely unsympathetic, however. I, too, am tired and disgusted with the endless disagreements with you and ER. Believe what you want; God gave us all that much, so you're entitled to an opinion.
Please note that I'm smiling [in a friendly, good-natured way] as I type this, but you can be SOOoooo infuriating in debates. You are so good at what you do that I'd not be surprised to learn you were really 35-Hundred years old and learned the fine art of Infuriating Debate Tactics at the feet of Greeks and Romans.
If nothing else, you're very good at what you do. That's a compliment, by the way.
Thanks for the comments, all. Sorry I couldn't keep up with you this weekend. Busy spending time with the family.
Thanks for the compliments, such as they were, Eric. As always, feel free to show me where I engaged in a strawman argument. (And, as always, I don't expect you to... but you'd help me out if I had and you did.)
Also Eric, where you said:
perhaps now you understand the exasperation us 'Right-wingers' feel about the 'abusive' [seemingly; from a 'right-wing' position] rhetoric
No. I don't. Why "perhaps now"? Has someone offered some reason why I would understand why you get so tired of me offering my opinions?
CG, yes, Michael is right. Those were jokes. As I noted at some point in this: you are free to have an opinion about Wendell Berry's writing, I certainly don't begrudge you that.
CG, where you said:
What I think, what my point would really be, is that basically, all of you/us are the same. Adding to or subtracting from the Bible as you see fit
This I would agree with - to the degree that we ADD TO the Bible our interpretation, I think you are certainly correct. I noted that point earlier.
The difference is, I acknowledge that point. What I don't do is say: "The Bible says you must interpret the Bible literally..." or "The Bible says, "You must believe in the Triune nature of God..."
When I'm "adding to" the Bible MY interpretation, I'll try to note, "The Bible says THIS, which says to me..." - trying to make clear that it's my interpretation. Perhaps I err at times on this point, but anyone is always welcome to call me on it if I do, and I will not continue to insist that the Bible says something it doesn't.
Dan, I will remind you that I pointed out precisely where I believe you used a strawman argument, telling you exactly where I thought your example dialogue deviated from the real dialogue you and I have had. I've seen you frequently ask others to correct you, but you have neither acknowledged my correction or explain why it's invalid.
But, to the point, I still don't know why it's so very important that we don't add to the Bible -- at least, given what you've already written.
Earlier, you criticized Neil for affirming the Bible's divine authorship because "God never called the 66 books of the Bible ‘his word.’"
Did God ever explicitly say that we shouldn't add or subtract from these 66 books in particular? If the idea that we shouldn't add extrabiblical doctrines to the Bible is itself extrabiblical, why should we believe it?
(Or, as I believe is more likely, if the criteria by which we can establish the biblical bona fides of "don't add" doesn't meet the exacting standards by which you exclude claims about the Bible's divine authorship, is that not an indication that your standards, so inconsistently applied, are probably not standards to which we should cling?)
In general, we should be as accurate as possible in attributing statements and ideas to authors and their works: if "to each according to his needs" is more correctly attributed to a work by Marx other than the Communist Manifesto, a simple love of truth should keep us from knowingly misattributing the phrase.
But, aside from that and the concerns of historians trying to connect literary works to their causes and effects, the source of the phrase hardly matters: the source is ultimately another fallen human, same as the rest of us, and the idea stands or falls independently of its source.
What I am ultimately asking is, if -- as it appears -- you deny the unique authority and divine authorship of the Bible, why does it matter if an idea arises from the Bible or from some other source?
While I would definitely not say, "The Bible says you must believe in the Triune nature of God," I would say the Trinity is the best theological deduction from what the Scriptures say and the early Christians experienced. As Jews, the early Christians inherited a belief in absolute monotheism--but then found that they had encountered YHWH in Jesus and, after the resurrection, encountered the Risen Christ in their experience of the Holy Spirit.
It took a few centuries to work it out, but the Trinity is not idle speculation. In fact, the saving work of Christ in the cross/resurrection event most makes sense from a Trinitarian viewpoint as Moltmann makes clear in The Crucified God.
Of COURSE this is interpretation and I have little doubt that a Unitarian would disagree with that interpretation. There is no reading of any document, much less the Bible, that does not involve interpretation. That does not make all interpretations equally likely.
Oh, I have no problem with the notion of a triune God. I just object to it being considered an essential of the faith.
Well, Dan, my friend, here we disagree. I do consider the Trinity an essential of the faith--along with the vast majority of all Christians since the third century. I think it's essential because the Trinity shows us a God who gives and receives love in God's very nature--Who does not need to Create in order to learn to love. God is love. I don't think any unitarian, monadic view of God can say that God IS love.
That makes the Trinity pretty darned essential in my view and I am certainly glad that every Baptist statement of faith since we began in 1609 has been Trinitarian.
Not to take this wonderful thread off course or anything. :-)
Oh Michael, not you, too!
So, I'm not a Christian if I don't believe in the Triune Nature of God?
Where would you find biblical support for that?
[Not to take us off topic, either...]
And there it is, folk: Yet MORE evidence that a Baptist "liberal" is more traditional than 99% of the population...
Bubba said:
"I will remind you that I pointed out precisely where I believe you used a strawman argument, telling you exactly where I thought your example dialogue deviated from the real dialogue you and I have had."
As Michael has already pointed out, Bubba, the world is larger than you. That is an accurate portrayal (boiled down to fewer words) of many individuals I have spoken with. This isn't just about our conversations alone.
So, when you say:
"You correctly define a strawman argument and criticize it, only to offer a strawman of your own, an exchange with a fictional conservative who is, in many important ways, an utterly dishonest portrayal of my positions."
That is not to say that my portrayal was a strawman argument. If I had said "Bubba said this...," then yes, you might have a point.
But I and, as you have seen, others have seen this repeated pattern. Are we all mad? Imagining it? Making it up?
OR is there some basis for truth there? I think we would not all be in agreement as to this being a problem if there were nothing to base this upon.
Bubba also asked:
"If the idea that we shouldn't add extrabiblical doctrines to the Bible is itself extrabiblical, why should we believe it?"
And I have answered this repeatedly. I think intellectual honesty is a perfectly sound reason not to misattribute a quote (as you seem prepared to concede).
But beyond that, as a logical matter, if we're saying that we think the Bible is a source of truth and something from which we can be taught, then it would behoove us not to make arguments that the Bible itself doesn't make.
If we say, "The Bible indicates that we ought to take all 66 books therein inerrantly..." then that would have some repercussions on how we think. We'd have to assume that the world was created in six days, that God sometimes orders mass slaughter, etc, etc.
BUT, if the Bible is a source of authoritative teaching for us AND it doesn't say we should take each of the books inerrantly, then that, too would have repercussions on how we think. We wouldn't need to try to reconcile genocide or facts that don't agree with science, for instance.
We'd be free (and responsible) to try to interpret which stories might better be considered parables or myth and what are the larger truths to be learned, not dependent upon the little details.
Or, as I have said, intellectual honesty.
Dan:
As Michael has already pointed out, Bubba, the world is larger than you. That is an accurate portrayal (boiled down to fewer words) of many individuals I have spoken with. This isn't just about our conversations alone.
There are a couple problems with this assertion. First, if you wanted to present an amalgam of different conversations, you shouldn't have used our conversation as a primary (and apparently almost exclusive) template, both in subject matter and in points being made. To the degree that the your strawman debater's points differed from mine, they repeated distortions that you had already made about me, namely that I asserted that you didn't love the Bible at all, when I made completely clear my belief that you don't love the entire Bible. I realize that your point wasn't just about me, but it's quite clear that the occasion was our dialogue, and I saw no evidence in your post that your sample exchange was really an amalgam of various conversations rather than a mere distortion of ours.
Second, and more fundamentally, it makes no sense for you to criticize people for using "their interpretations of [your] words, rather than what [you've] actually said" when the exchange you present as an example apparently did not happen in reality. If you insist that others focus on your actual words, you should not provide such a one-sided paraphrase of other people's arguments.
And if you want to continue to stand by that portrayal, I ask you to justify it by pointing out the other exchanges in which people lobbed those particular arguments at you.
But I and, as you have seen, others have seen this repeated pattern. Are we all mad? Imagining it? Making it up?
OR is there some basis for truth there? I think we would not all be in agreement as to this being a problem if there were nothing to base this upon.
Call me skeptical: cite your sources. Show me precisely what public exchanges justify that portrayal, and I'll concede that you're on to something.
Because, if you haven't noticed, more than one person thinks you're presenting strawman arguments for self-serving reasons: me, Neil, and Daniel Randle. Are we all mad? Imagining it? Making it up?
You're not going to accept our conclusions simply because more than one person has reached those conclusions, so for you to ask the same of me is weak.
Alan, you're overreaching, and one example will suffice:
Bubba to ER: "What amazes me more is that you still affirm that Jesus saves, even though the most authoritative source for that claim is the Bible. You’re calling your guides blind but still think they’re guiding you to salvation." BTW, I searched that thread and no where saw ER calling his "guides blind" or anything similar. THIS is an *actual* straw man argument, Bubba.
It is simply moronic to argue that the ONLY possible interpretation is that I was literally accusing ER of saying that he had written something about blind guides or something similar. The context is clear that, instead, I was arguing that there's an inherent contradiction between ER's claim there are numerous "obvious" errors in the Bible and his apparent belief that it's still possible to know that "Jesus saves!"
I wasn't pretending that ER had said anything about blind guides, so to accuse me of a strawman argument in this particular case is a very good indication that you're looking for anything about which to get offended.
I'm not psychic, but I can certainly draw conclusions from what you've written, and it sure seems to me that you're not interested in finding out what someone like me actually thinks: you seem entirely too busy looking for reasons to get offended about what I've written.
Because you're not arguing in anything that could plausibly resemble good faith, you're not a very good authority on having normal conversations.
"Alan, you're overreaching, and one example will suffice:"
Odd that Dan provided one example of exactly what he meant several comments ago, yet that did not suffice for you, Bubba. We've had several people witness to experiencing precisely this same treatment at various blogs yet those stories didn't suffice for you, Bubba. How is it that the rules for you are different than the rules for the rest of us?
So here's how this went down: Dan provides a paraphrase of a general conversation, Bubba asks for specific examples (because Dan's examples don't suffice, apparently), I provide more examples, and by rationalizing one of them away Bubba has psychically determined that only I'm interested in getting offended about what he's written. So, let's get this straight .... Bubba asks for examples and I provide them, while he simultaneously ignores the *entire* content of my comment. Yet he complains that I'm not arguing in good faith? Bubba, how is it that the rules for you are different than the rules for the rest of us?
He and his friends rationalize, psychoanalyze, and insult and I'm the one not arguing in good faith?
He appears not to like that one particular example. Fair enough. However, in trying to discount that one particular example, he does precisely what he accuses me of, makes a "moronic" argument by taking me too literally. I did not mean that I imagined that ER had actually written somewhere about "blind guides" but that somewhere in the thread I could find ER saying something to that effect. I couldn't find anything even close.
By the way, I do find it refreshing that, at the very least Bubba calls my argument "moronic" instead of calling me "moronic." That's indeed a pleasant change of pace around here.
But let's assume that was a bad example. Fine, no problem there. But notice that Bubba doesn't address any of the actual points in my comment. Nope, he "fisks" my comment for one thing to disagree with and then and seems to want to claim victory (yet I'm the one not arguing in good faith?) Is that how to have a normal conversation? So, even if one (and apparently only one) example is a poor one, that means what exactly, Bubba?
This comment is somewhat amusing, "Because you're not arguing in anything that could plausibly resemble good faith, you're not a very good authority on having normal conversations" which is basically the verbose equivalent of "You started it!" or "You do it too!!" Notice he refutes only one example (apparently all he needs). He doesn't refute my actual points, he doesn't answer my questions. In good faith? You asked for examples and I gave 'em. You don't like them, but that can hardly be considered not arguing in good faith. Care to actually address the meat of my comment, rather than just fisk it for minor details to disagree with? THAT would be arguing in good faith, it seems to me.
For example, I would have really loved to get an answer to this question: "Don't you find it truly ironic that such lame psycho-analyzing of someone via a blog comment thread is *another* excellent example of precisely what Dan is talking about here? Perhaps you could attack the argument being made instead of the sanity of the person making it? THAT would be one way to have a normal conversation."
Not to get horrible pedantic or anything, Alan, but you can't seem to decide whether to address me directly or to talk about me in the third person. You bounce from what you must surely think are pointed questions directed to me explicitly...
"Bubba, how is it that the rules for you are different than the rules for the rest of us?"
...to refer to me immediately in the third person, addressing no one in particular.
"He and his friends rationalize, psychoanalyze, and insult and I'm the one not arguing in good faith?"
You switched at least six times in about 600 words, by my count, and that's just odd. You oscillate between talking to me and holding me up as an example of whatever point you're trying to make. You seem so eager to pillory me that you can't keep your mind on who it is you're actually addressing.
That's no indication that your larger points are invalid, and I believe many of them are, but it makes it hard for me to think that going over them in detail with you is worth the time.
Dan, to be a "Christian" in the sense of having saving faith in Christ does NOT take belief in the Trinity, of course. That's not what I meant by calling Trinitarian faith "essential." It is essential for the life and health of the church--because it impacts so much else in our faith. Again, that is why every Baptist statement of faith included it.
I also can think of ZERO Baptist theologians, including our most liberal ones, who ever denied the Trinity or downplayed it. My teachers, Glen Stassen, Molly Marshall, Dan Stiver, Glen Hinson, etc. were all firm Trinitarians and would relate the Triune nature of God to practical matters of discipleship regularly.
Worth the time to post a comment about my writing style, but not worth the time to address my points? Again Bubba, you make no point, nor do you address mine. That's fine, of course, but then don't pretend that I'm the one not arguing in good faith, eh? ;)
Of course I address you directly, because you asked for specifics in one of your comments above. Of course I address you directly because I'm responding to some points you made. However, given that around 15 different commenters have participated in this thread, I'm also assuming that you and I are not the only ones reading. So while I address you specifically, I also call attention to your arguments, using them as examples, while making more general points about the blog post itself.
So ... It ain't all about you, Bubba. :)
BTW, just to clarify, twice now you've made assumptions about my attitude that are untrue. First you assumed that I'm only interested in taking offense at your comments. That is incorrect. I have taken no offense at your comments at all. In fact, of the people commenting in this thread, you're one of the more polite.
Now you assume that I'm eager to pillory you. Also untrue. What I am eager to do is have conversations with those I disagree with, in order to find common understanding, even if (and especially if!!) agreement is not possible. That is nearly impossible when some folks seem intent on making assumptions about what I believe and making insults. I am eager to point out these problems because I think they get in the way of "normal conversation" and honest dialogue -- if in fact "normal conversation" is what they are looking for as well. I admit I'm making an assumption that is the case, though it may not be the case at all.
Now, we all know that it is often difficult to know one's attitude from a few blog comments, so I'd suggest you not make such assumptions about the attitude behind my comments. I don't know you. I've never met you. I can't think of any reason I'd be angry with you. And, before this comment thread I don't remember a single time when we've interacted before. So, I'm not offended by anything you say, nor can I think of any reason to be "eager" to pillory you. I would like you and the others mentioned to understand why I believe these conversations often take such an unfortunate turn so that we can all recognize the pattern and, hopefully, do better in the future.
Unfortunately, given that so far you've simply fisked my comments for something to disagree with, and complained about my writing style, I'd say we're beating a dead horse here. In your own words you're not interested in actually addressing my points: "it makes it hard for me to think that going over them in detail with you is worth the time."
That's fine, but we could have saved some time simply by saying at the outset that addressing my points wasn't worth your time. :)
Alan, I am interested in addressing your points: I'm just not sure how much progress I can make doing so. Even now, while you assure me that I'm making false assumptions about you -- about which I do apologize -- you continue to make statements about me that I don't think are accurate or fair.
You continue to imply that I don't argue in good faith, you again wrongly assume that I think this thread is "all about me", and you continue to assert that I "fisked [your] comments for something to disagree with" when I would argue that the point about that one quote is crucial -- that no fair reading of what I wrote in context could construe it as a strawman, and that therefore the search for proof in making your point wasn't nearly as careful as it should have been.
If you want to make your point about having normal, civil conversations, do so by all means, but please keep to that subject. If you don't want people to draw conclusions about you, don't draw conclusions about them.
Horse...dead...beaten. :)
I wondered why my ears were burning!
Alan! You forgot the part where Timothy "handed" me "over to Satan"!
And Bubba: "there's an inherent contradiction between ER's claim there are numerous 'obvious' errors in the Bible and his apparent belief that it's still possible to know that 'Jesus saves!' "
Tension, yes. Contradiction, no.
The tension is there only because so many people do believe, against evidence to the contrary, that the Bible is inerrant. But, since the problems have to do with internal contradictions of asserted fact, which means, generally, at all assertions of fact *have* to be errors except the accurate one, and "Jesus saves" is an interpretation of the meaning of Jesus -- yes, an interpretation within the Bible itself (it is chock FULL of them), there is no contradiction, per se.
The debate over biblical inerrancy here would do well to become more informed about the various different models of revelation itself. The Q of biblical inerrancy is only relevant to the model of revelation as "revealed knowledge/information deposited in a book." Other models include revelation in history (in which the Scriptures are witnesses to the revelatory events); revelation as mystical encounter; revelation as illumination, etc. Hebrews 1:1 says that in times past (i.e., in "Old Testament days"), God revealed God's Self in various ways to Israel through the prophets. But "in these last days," God has revealed God's Self SUPREMELY through a Son.
Thus, JESUS CHRIST is the primary revelation of God. The term "Word of God" refers first and foremost to Him. Secondarily, especially in Paul's writings, the phrase "Word of God" refers to Paul's gospel message about Jesus. (Paul never uses the term Word of God about the Scriptures--which in his day would only be the Old Testament. Nor does Jesus.) The prophets use the phrase "word of God" to refer to the immediate message they receive from God--not to the Law or the writings of Moses (Torah).
So, if the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are to be called Word of God, it can only be in a secondary or even tertiary sense. The Scriptures bear witness to the Word; they mediate that Word in a sacramental fashion. But they are human documents. They are the witnesses of those people who encountered God in Israel and in Christ.
In such a model, I would think a large degree of historical accuracy might be needed (neither the Exodus nor the gospel story of Jesus could simply be made up wholesale), but historical or scientific inerrancy of detail? No. Completely unnecessary--which is good because we don't have it.
Just amazing.
Dan, I'd say that characterizing what people do so diversely with the Bible as 'interpretation' pushes the term to a euphemism for something else entirely. To take anyone's stance, especially anyone posting here, on the Bible strictly requires taking very obvious pronouncements and saying that they are foot notes, historical references only, or out and out wrong. That goes beyond any usual meaning of the word 'interpretation'.
In the old TV western 'Maverick' there was a scene where James Garner was in a fix and made a bet that if the antagonist would deal any 25 cards, he could make five pat hands out of them. In the end of course he does it and when the conflict is over, his sidekick says, "That was close! What are the odds of you being able to make five pat hands out of 25 random cards?" The reply was, "You can do it every time!"
Just like that everyone who looks into the Bible finds just what they want to find. If they want to sit on a hill top and starve to death (for Jesus), they can find where that's supported in the Bible. If they want to go bomb a country to ashes, they can find that too. And everything in between.
The Bible is a big box of Legos and you can make whatever you like out of it, so long as you are willing to disregard and [nod, nudge, wink] "interpret" the parts that don't agree with your Lego creation.
So as far as how to have a normal conversation, when it comes to the Bible, you can't unless you do as so many do on their blogs ... throw off anyone who doesn't subscribe to your particular set of Legos.
Do you recall those fables and folk stories where someone is convinced that they have a magic rock or magic paper clip or some sort by which they can do marvelous things? Then they lose the paper clip (or whatever) and for a moment they feel lost and powerless, but realize they lost it some time back but were still doing marvelous things. It wasn't magic after all, it was themselves that was doing it.
Watching people with strong convictions about right and wrong and philanthropy and equity argue that they got those ideas from the Bible and wade on through the muck of smiting with the edge of the sword and and all such things, reminds me of the fables. Eventually you may find that you've been making all this up on your own all along and you are using the Bible as your magic paper clip.
Maybe someday you can set it aside and go on. Maybe
Michael:"Hebrews 1:1 says that in times past (i.e., in "Old Testament days"), God revealed God's Self in various ways to Israel through the prophets. But "in these last days," God has revealed God's Self SUPREMELY through a Son."
Sorry Michael, but the Bible doesn't say 'supremely'. What sort of Satanic paraphrase are you using? No. Wait. I mean 'interpretation'! Interpretation. What sort of interpretation are you using?
Bubba:"God hates sin so much that putting His Son (and Himself) to death was the only way to absolve us of our sins."
I knew it! I suspected this all along. Here we've been told that God is omnipotent and yet here Bubba tells us that He screwed up and painted Himself into a corner.
He HAD to do it, it was the ONLY way. Well so much for omnipotence. I can just see God realizing that His options were getting thin and saying "Just damn! Now I'm going to HAVE to do this!"
Thanks for the conversation, all. You have them coming in faster than I can digest.
I would like to add that this, for the most part, IS how you have a normal conversation. Except for the few drive by snipings, the conversations here have leaned more towards give-and-take conversations and less towards "I know best what you think..."
Bubba, your distaste for our "evangelism" notwithstanding, you should know that Eleutheros is well-familiar with the gospel as presented by we evangelical-types and, in most cases, he appears to be more informed as to church history and biblical exegesis than most who frequent this Hollow.
Eleutheros, knowing the Bible as you do (and yes, we can find support for and opposition to nearly anything there), surely you'd agree that - despite our sometimes Lego-building - it's got a lot of grand teachings therein.
And, after all, nearly any written work could be adapted and twisted to support all manner of beliefs and that alone is not enough to invalidate a book.
Dan, I agree that El appears to be "more informed as to church history and biblical exegesis than most who frequent this Hollow," but I for one have never been all that impressed by his scholarship. I skimmed through some of our exchanges from late last year, and it seems to me that he often does little more than offer alternative translations for a Greek word in the passage being discussed: such information is easily found in a Strong's concordance (and it's not like Strong's isn't online), and El never makes clear how the alternate translation undermines small-o orthodox doctrine.
And I don't think his apparent scholarly knowledge excuses the positions he takes and the manner in which he defends them. The worst example I saw was his attempt to explain the idea that the "Jewish paradigm" in Christianity was inessential and taught only to the Jews to convert them. After I brought up Romans and the Jewish basis for its theology, El tried to argue that, like one of Paul's sermons in Acts, Romans was directed exclusively to Jews:
You might notice something curious about the book of Romans. It's written in Greek and not Latin. It wasn't written to ethnic Romans but rather 'to all those in Rome beloved of God and called to be holy' (my translantion). Not ALL Romans but the Romans called to be saints, that is, the church among the Greek speaking Jewish proselytes who were numerous in Rome at the time. Hence the references to the Jewish paradigm to explain the Christian message.
Never mind that El's argument from silence here is far weaker than the argument that the Bible teaches sola fide, which he rejects. Never mind that Greek was quite well known throughout the Roman world, and never mind that Paul made a point to preach to the Gentiles.
In Romans 11:13-21, Paul explicitly address the Gentiles, and yet El argued, despite this passage, that Romans was written for an exclusive Jewish audience.
Like I said, I'm not too impressed by El's scholarship.
But I would like to reiterate that I think some of his theories are definitely worth addressing by any serious Christian, theologically conservative or liberal. I was overly harsh last night, Dan, and I wish I could rephrase what I wrote, but I've never seen you or Michael address and attempt to correct El's spiritually dangerous beliefs, much less do so with the passion you display when arguing against my embrace of Biblical inerrancy or my rejection of gay "marriage."
Perhaps the superficial scholarship is convincing, or perhaps the home-spun agrarianism gives him a false credibility. My worst suspicion is that you actually agree with him far more than any Christian should, as you've written, "I think Eleutheros comes closer to getting it right than the religionists."
(This, about a guy who dismisses the need for salvation as part of an "Alka-Seltzer religion" that involves the peddling of a "Snake Oil Jesus.")
On the other hand, perhaps you've tried to explain what Christianity really teaches, either in private or somewhere else.
I don't know for certain whether or not you've tried to explain Chrisitianity to Eleutheros and defend its central claims from his assaults. I just believe that you should, and I find it discouraging that I see no evidence that you have, especially when you've been so emphatic in your criticism of theologically conservative Christianity.
O.K., I'm going to shock everyone and agree with Bubba--at least as far as being less impressed with Eleutheros' scholarship than when I first began to interact with him. He's obviously had more exposure to scholarship than many laypersons, believers or unbelievers, but often his assertions have little or no basis.
Concerning the Lego-box analogy: Just because, as is oft repeated by people all over the spectrum, one CAN stitch together a belief or doctrine from the Bible in just about ANY shape--doesn't make all interpretations equal. The question is whether one can do so without violence to the texts and I contend the answer to that is "no." I could probably offer an "interpretation" of The Communist Manifesto that ended up supporting capitalism (maybe that's what the Chinese are doing), but that wouldn't make it a very plausible interpretation.
Extremely odd interpretations of Scripture--on the Right or on the Left--are in the same boat, in my view.
Wonders never cease. :)
Sincerely, Michael, I know we disagree on a lot of stuff, but I'm glad to see we agree that our ability to persuade each other about what the Bible teaches is rooted, first, in the belief that the Bible has a clear message and, second, that that message can be found by weighing the textual arguments for and against different positions.
Bubba:"I don't know for certain whether or not you've tried to explain Chrisitianity to Eleutheros and defend its central claims from his assaults."
I'd rather keep this on another note, but if I'm to participate there, there's something I ought to clear up , Bubba.
It might be that someone could explain something about Christianity to me that I haven't already heard and don't already know.... but that someone isn't Dan, it isn't Michael, and for certain it isn't you.
I've heard all your "interpretations" from men older and wiser and more articulate than you, many times over, for half a century. What you espouse is, as they say, nihil sub sole novum.
What you offer as unshakable truth boils down to, "If you only believe this, you will come to find that it is true." Well, doh, do you reckon?
You haven't expressed here your age, that I can recall, and there's no link from your name to a blog or other identifying data. But I will tell you I am elder to Dan and Michael and was participating in debates on exegesis and textual criticism when they were in kindergarten and have continued unabated in them since that time.
If you have no more capacity than to be unable to distinguish between a knowledge of the Bible, linguistics, and history on the one hand and Strong's on the other, you are hardly in a position to discuss the subject at hand.
If the best you can do is to assume that someone doesn't agree with your very old, tired fundamentalist arguments just doesn't understand Christianity or hasn't had it explained to him, perhaps you'd do well to dust off your Strong's yourself and start from the beginning.
Michael:"" I could probably offer an "interpretation" of The Communist Manifesto that ended up supporting capitalism."
Probably couldn't, not that anyone could follow. I don't doubt that you've read it or at least know the summary of it. It decries, for example, the holding of personal real property. Always. Not once does it ever mitigate, soft sell, back pedal, contradict, or even tolerate the opposite view.
Compare that to Christian interpretation, not, as you suggest, Extremely odd interpretations of Scripture but rather what was for one Christian people or the other the mainstream thinking and practiced by millions.
The Bible's teachings were the basis for the Crusades, for more than 1000 years the Bible was held as the basis for the morality of slavery and serfdom. It's the basis today for capital punishment, anti-gay laws, environmental rape (remember James Watt), and a host of other ills you are all too familiar with.
Not oddball interpretations but in numbers far greater than your own. In fact, your view of Christianity, and certainly Dan's, much more qualify as "extremely odd" than do any of the things I've mentioned, based on the numbers at any rate.
Recall in James where he says, " If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
Just like that you (Michael) and Bubba pat each other on the back that you agree that there is a central theme to the Bible which can be discerned and yet you raise the Bible like a cudgel to proliferate your liberal views on the rest of the world while Bubba raise the same Bible to do the opposite. Just like James' example, what difference does that make to the rest of humanity that you agree on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
But when it comes time to honest action, when it comes to anything that actually matters, you each reach into the Lego box and pick up a cudgel of your own crafting but exact opposites. And the havoc and devastation to the world begins.
So let's narrow it down a bit to more significant things. Non believers don't care if you hotly defend 'sola fide' or find a pacifist Jesus. That's a game in your own individual heads and you can please yourselves about that.
But what about things that matter. You action and responsibility toward the world and the rest of us. NOW let you and Bubba reach into the Lego box and see how much you agree!
El, as long as you have been engaged in exegesis and textual criticism, it's kind of shocking that you never noticed that a section of Paul's letter to the Romans was addressed specifically to Gentiles. What were you doing all that time that caused you to miss such an obvious fact? Were you too busy slamming Christianity for the Crusades and paid clergy?
I have no doubt that you think you know all about Christianity, and I don't doubt that Dan couldn't change your mind on much of anything on this subject. It's still disheartening that, so far as I can tell, he doesn't address your, um, unorthodox theories with the same passion he criticizes inerrancy.
But, truthfully, I bet that Michael, Dan, and I agree on temporal matters far more than you imagine. We probably agree on the goals if not the means by which to achieve those goals, and we probably agree on what Christ commanded even if we disagree on how precisely to apply those commands to present circumstances in the case of the individual and the state. Since we spend more time discussing our differences, they're more easily noticed, but I would wager that the common ground on Christian ethics between Michael, Dan, Neil and myself is still quite wide. After all, we never disagree on the duty of the Golden Rule, just its application.
When it comes to action, I'm sure we all work to help our neighbors, though I don't doubt that all four of us could do more: it's hard to demonstrate this in a long-distance text-based forum such as this.
But, and I suspect Michael and Neil would both agree with me, action isn't the only thing "that actually matters." You're begging the question every time you dismiss as unimportant issues of doctrine and one's relationship with God.
Bubba,
The reason your posits get nowhere is that the religious world only comes in two flavors for you: 1) Those who agree with your interpretation and 2) The ignorant who just don't know as much about the Bible as you do.
To put this in perspective, when you requoted your proof-text from Romans, I didn't have to look it up. I know just about all (if not all) of Romans by heart, I can recite it to you. I can tell you the variant readings and which codices have which of the readings. I knew, without looking it up, what the grammatical variant for 'Gentiles' was and why it is significant.
It is an idiotic assumption that because someone disagrees with you, it means there is something they don't know or that they overlooked.
Now as to your supposed "proof", it is proof of just the opposite. If you are writing a long tome, such as Romans, to the Gentiles, you wouldn't stop 3/4ths of the way through and say, "I say to you Gentiles ....". That would be moronic. By virtue of the fact that Paul felt the need to specifically say he was addressing relatively small part to the Gentiles is the nail in the coffin proof positive that the book is intended for the Jews.
And what does he say? Pay close attention to it. Paul has just finished a long dissertation on how God has dealt and is dealing with the Jews, then, as an aside, turns to the Gentiles and says, to wit, If God broke off the natural branches, as I have been telling these Jews here, where does that leave you, so don't start boasting.
You are disagreed with because your interpretation is incorrect and wrong headed, not because you've read a verse that you imagine others haven't read.
Bubba:"You're begging the question every time you dismiss as unimportant issues of doctrine and one's relationship with God."
I am dismissive of the issues and doctrine of your timorous interpretation and one's relationship with the sock puppet you have created out of your fears and misgivings. God hasn't even entered into the discussion yet.
Maybe you can get Dan to explain Christianity to you.
"I wish Dan would address both your weak positions and your acidic behavior, for his sake"
I disagree with Eleutheros at times, but for the most part, I don't find his positions weak. When I do, I disagree with them.
I DO find Eleutheros' arrogance irritating and have let him know as much. That being said, I don't find his sock-puppet allusions anything but humorous and not without a point - even when it's directed towards me and I disagree with his conclusion.
I disagree with him (and have let him know) when he has suggested that I'm only letting my sock puppet god echo what I already believe. I've pointed out that at least in some cases, I was getting a different understanding of God than what I currently believed - and therefore adapted my positions to reflect this new understanding even if it's different than what I was comfortable believing.
As in the case of gay marriage, for example.
So, especially in those cases, I think he's way off base and have let him know.
Nonetheless, I think the sock puppet gag is a good reminder that we don't speak for God. So it just doesn't bother me that much.
Mostly, I find your arrogance irritating, E (addressing you directly, now). You come across as so certain that your way is the only way, I'd almost suggest you could be a fundamentalist, if you were so inclined...
Still, I'm glad to have you here and tend to agree with you, even in your arrogance.
Bubba, I'm sorry if it is disconcerting to you that I don't find Eleutheros' positions to be weak (usually) nor his behavior especially acidic, but I don't.
That you can agree with El on theological matters is what I'm primarily concerned about, Dan. I'm not sure that theologically liberal Christianity is stable to begin with, but when you seem to agree more with El's wildly unorthodox beliefs than with Neil and D.R., and when you find his rhetoric less objectionable than the rhetoric of theological conservatives, it indicates a spiritually dangerous drift.
I don't find most of what E has to say to be in conflict with Jesus' teachings. And where I'd tend to think he is in conflict with Jesus' teachings, it's on relatively less-important matters.
Thank you for the concern, just the same.
wow dan! i am so impressed, 85 comments, wow! i've missed coming by (taking a large load at school so i can graduate in may so i have been especially self-absorbed). so glad to see Eleutheros still here as well.
I sincerely find you and Eleutheros two of my favorite people on the blogosphere, for sure the most thought provoking and inciting!
good show!
Bubba, to paraphrase Festus:
"Bubba, thou art beside thyself, thy much writing doth make thee mad!"
First, Dan has the essence of this correct: "Nonetheless, I think the sock puppet gag is a good reminder that we don't speak for God."
People get into a rut of thinking that they indeed speak for God. Like the song "Missionary Man" (Eurythmics) which characterizes him as "he's got God on his side, he's got the saints and apostles backing up from behind ..."
They get into the thinking that to question their pronouncements is to question God. You might indeed have divine headphones on with God speaking distinctly into your ear, but the rest of us are not required to incline our ear closely to catch a whisper of what is said to you. God speaks far more loudly to us directly than any whispers we are to get second hand from you.
It's just a reminder that your conclusions about the Bible, as they touch the rest of us, are far close to a ventriloquist act than divine pronunciations.
Let me augment your list:
ME (Bubba)
1) The Cross
2) The commands
YOU (Dan)
1) The commands
2) The cross
EL
1) Repentance (metanoia that is, a renewing of the mind, sight, vision, enlightenment, awakening)
78) The commands
It doesn't surprise me that you left that slot completely blank under my name because it is apparently something that is invisible to you. Yet without it, the total sum of your theology can be summed up in a sock puppet.
Oh, make no mistake. I have my sock puppet too. It's just that mine is more clever and colorful than yours.
Now as to Romans being addressed primarily to the Jews, we have ample precedence to see that this is so. When Paul addressed the Greeks on the Aeropagus, he did not use any Jewish references. If the Jewish paradigm was so central and essential, why no mention of it?
Notice also on the day of Pentecost in the second chapter of Acts, Peter was addressing people from a number of nations. Although he explains the story by means of Jewish paradigm and quotes from the prophets, he does NOT explain it as a sacrificial death, he does NOT use the Jewish paradigm of atonement. If it so essential and central, then why not?
The New Testament teachers explained the Christian story in term their various audiences could understand. When addressing the Jews, they used the comparison to the atonement, when addressing others, they did not.
So it doesn't matter whether Romans is primarily written to the Jews (although it certainly was), still the Jewish paradigm is addressed to the Jews.
I do the same thing, being apostolic as I am. When I explain things to you, I use your paradigms in hopes that you might get a glimpse of understanding from it. I call it 'God'. Although if we talked it out long enough you'd say, "Why, Eleutheros, you don't even believe in God!"
Well, God doesn't "believe" in God either, He told me so. But He uses that that well worn sock puppet as a teaching tool from time to time.
To latch onto that one paradigm, that one parable, in all of Christian thought and proffer it as it it were the sum of the teaching is like the mob in Monty Python's Life of Brian who grabbed his sandal, tied it to a pole, and venerated it.
While I find this conversation between the two of you fascinating, allow me to add a few meager thoughts and clarifications.
I. Dan's view is similar to, if not the same as, Bubba's, at least as Bubba defined it:
1) What God does and has done
2) What we are to do
II. With the clarification that, what God has done has invited us to be part of God's party. We can accept or reject the invitation. That's what we are to do.
III. If we accept God's invitation, implicit in the acceptance is that this is a good party to be part of, and that the path to the party is a good path. That being the case, it would make sense that we follow that path.
IV. While that may sound pretty similar to what Bubba is saying, Bubba has this big roadblock that he would throw across the path: The Atonement IS Christianity.
V. I don't buy that roadblock, although I can certainly see it from the pathway. Fortunately, it's not even on the pathway - just off in the woods. So I continue down the Path to God's Party unimpeded. The party, after all, is a free party for those who accept the invitation.
VI. Dan certainly understands Bubba's buying into the Atonement idea. To keep my invitation theme going, I'll say that we have, in the Bible, the invitation expressed in many different ways. One of those ways is offering the idea of atonement as part of the Path. BUT, that is not the only way the invitation is issued within the bible. It is one of many ways expressed.
VII. I don't fully reject Atonement language, by the way. It is a biblical concept and I think that idea is helpful for some. Especially for those raised with the notion of blood atonement firmly entrenched in their thinking. As Eleutheros has noted, I think.
I tend to think of Atonement sort of like the Catholic notion of Penance. It's marginally biblical and nothing to reject out of hand, as far as I'm concerned. For some people, I could see the act of doing a penance might help them get past a particular sin. I don't think it's a biblically mandated thing we HAVE to believe, but if it helps you as you are on the way to God's Party, well good.
Finally, Bubba said to Eleutheros:
That conclusion I reach is reinforced by your admission now that you [Eleut] essentially reject God altogether
Does he? I have not gathered that from his statements.
Dan, by the way, is speaking in third person to help differentiate between the players involved in this conversation. Dan will quit doing so now.
Thanks Michael, for the additional info.
Bubba, perhaps given Michael's additional explanation, I should elaborate. I have no problem with the notion that God has been about finding a way to make us At One with God. Jesus is that Way.
What I'm troubled with is the notion that the one and only way to view atonement is that God demands blood for sin and Jesus' blood was what was necessary for that payment - the traditional evangelical model of atonement. What I'm rejecting is THAT as the only possible or the primary way of looking at atonement.
It's one way of looking at atonement, as far as I'm concerned.
I will say again that this conversation has been much more even-handed and reasonable than many we've been engaged in lately. My thanks to all involved. Bubba, when you disagreed with me, you used phrases like, "You appeared to be saying..." instead of, "you're saying..."
Thank you for that. That's all I'm asking. It then allows me the opportunity to clarify, which I hope I have.
======
But He said to him, "A man was giving a big dinner, and he invited many; and at the dinner hour he sent his slave to say to those who had been invited, 'Come; for everything is ready now.'
"But they all alike began to make excuses...
"And the slave came back and reported this to his master. Then the head of the household became angry and said to his slave, 'Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the city and bring in here the poor and crippled and blind and lame.'
"And the slave said, 'Master, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.'
"And the master said to the slave, 'Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, so that my house may be filled. 'For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste of my dinner.'"
Have a good weekend. One thing about normal conversations: I get bored when they meander too far--even if they are conducted politely. I probably won't interact with Bubba or Eleutheros much anymore, Dan, because they both bore me. If I break that rule, it will only be if I think a historical perspective needs interjecting.
Bubba:"This probably being a fair assessment, I think it's clear that your belief system is essentially ego-centric."
Why, bless my soul, I do believe we're getting somewhere! Let me reinforce your perception with the following: Here is my addition to your revised list:
ME (Bubba)
1) What God does and has done
2) What we are to do
DAN
1) What we are to do
2) What God does and has done
EL
1) What we are to BE, what we are to BECOME
2) What we are to do
I'm not surprised that this most important aspect of the teaching passes you by to the point that it is completely invisible to you.
Michael:"I probably won't interact with Bubba or Eleutheros much anymore, Dan, because they both bore me."
So you have said from time to time.
The reason you won't interact with Bubba or Eluetheros has more to do with gonad gnawing fear than boredom.
Bubba is an honest fundamentalist. He's completely in error and doomed, almost a pity that, but none the less he represents the spiritual Kamikaze expression of the Christian religion.
You, on the other hand, know that what he offers is, however admirable in terms of human spirit, a crock. And yet you realize that if you broke beyond the bounds of Christian convention, if you flirted with enlightenment, no one would ever pay you for it, or any member of your family.
You couldn't have your picture taken with this or that theologian, drink in hand, name tag on the lapel, name dropping like some exegete or homilite with diarrhea.
You are the very epitome of Jesus warning that He is about to spew you out of his mouth for your lukewarmness.
Bored indeed. Scared sh*tless is more like it.
Now, boys, is this any way to conclude a relatively decent and well-behaved conversation?
Gee...
I'm just popping in here so I can be the 100th commenter...
Tell her what she's won, Johnny!...
"gonad gnawing fear" I blew tea out my nose and laughed until my stomach hurt.
BTW, nice blog dan
Thanks, and welcome to Payne Hollow.
Amazing self-admiration, Dan. Smugness, in fact!
You never attack anyone, do you? No...not you.
Have mercy!
""I don't believe in your interpretation of the Bible" and "I don't believe in the Bible."
Alan
Umm...well...Alan...uh...Dan has...umm...stated on many occasions...making it quite clear...that he only believes...uhh..SOME of the Bible. You know...the parts that agree with...umm...uh... his politics.
Thanks for the further validation, Al.
Good discussion.
What I'm troubled with is the notion that the one and only way to view atonement is that God demands blood for sin and Jesus' blood was what was necessary for that payment - the traditional evangelical model of atonement. What I'm rejecting is THAT as the only possible or the primary way of looking at atonement.
If there was any other atonement for our sins, wouldn't that make the cross unnecessary?
Matthew 26:39
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
Matthew 26:42
He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."
It appears that scripture answers your question. There is no other possible way.
Post a Comment