It has come to our attention that the latest episode of the podcast may have ruffled some feathers.
You’ll find the link here:
Generally, The Peaches said some crazy stuff about The Word Of God that you’re welcome to ask her to defend. (Don’t blame me, Pkarghl.)
Let the dialog commence below!
If you like my blog even a little bit, then you should know I do Christian Comedy live shows! It’s all the faith and fun you read here, but on stage, it’s even more hilarious. Hire me for your next corporate bash, church event, or school function, and let’s make it a night of laughs with my unique brand of Christian Comedy!
Three Little Pigs in Shakespeare is available as a children’s book. Get the illustrated story based on my viral comedy routine from Amazon. Makes a great gift for the word-lovers in your life.
You gonna keep lurking forever or are you gonna join this exclusive clique?
Stop procrastinating. Click This.
84 Responses
I’ve been a listener of the podcast since the very beginning, and I’ve really enjoyed and appreciated it, so thank you! However, this opinion did shock me, and, though I hoped the clarification episode would explain more fully, I was still rather taken aback even after attempting to look at both sides. Leaving aside the whole issue of what we mean when we say that Scripture is perfect or infallible, I have another question. You say that the Holy Spirit is the ultimate authority, and I don’t disagree. However, I John says to try the spirits to see if they’re of God or a false spirit. If we can’t use the Bible as God’s revealed word, by what standard are we to test the spirit that we feel in order to prove that it is the Holy Spirit?
Hi, Rachel.
By all means, use the Scripture to test spirits! I’m definitely not saying to throw out the Scriptures completely!
I’m just trying to strike a balance here. We have to remember that Paul was encouraging his young church to test spirits INCLUDING the spirit he himself was using… Their consciences and their ability to reason would have been used–and what a teacher claimed about The Christ was very important. I still think we should be using all of those resources today.
I understand what you’re saying, and agree to a point. We should definitely be using our conscience and reasoning skills, and I think Paul is teaching that as well, but he was encouraging people to study the Scripture and teaching that they had (what later became the New Testament) in order to compare (the Bereans, for example). I just believe that, like everything else that God created, mankind’s ability to reason has also been corrupted by the fall. Of course, it is still amazing as one of the ways that we were created in God’s image and can still be used to understand God more fully, but I don’t think that we should fully depend on it to understand God. As far as the conscience goes, it is definitely an inner voice that God gives us to clarify His will for each of us, but scripture also teaches that our consciences can be seared through constant sin and become dull. If neither of these are completely reliable, what is the reliable standard of what God wants?
I guess what I mean is that if we don’t accept the Scripture as God’s Word (in the sense that it’s God’s message to us, what He wants us to know about Himself, ourselves, and His law, even though it is limited information and sometimes hard to understand), and the Holy Spirit is supposed to be our main guide, then what leg do we have to stand on when someone argues that the Holy Spirit has told them to do something that contradicts Scripture?
P.S. Please tell your kids that I don’t think they’re annoying. 🙂
Rachel,
I get where you’re coming from. The problem is, we must use reason and logic while reading the Scripture. So let’s not forget that our minds (and consciences) are used in that process from the very foundation. You have used your mind in making the argument that Scripture is very important. And I agree with you!
I just think we should remember that the Bible can’t be considered the MOST important resource, if we need the ability to think and read just to use it. There are cultures which still don’t have the Bible, and there were many cultures before the Bible was compiled which didn’t have it.
I think it sounds like we’re mostly on the same page. Like I said in the podcast, I recognize the Bible as containing God’s Word, and I revere its wisdom. I just had some questions as a kid which have been answered by a slight perspective change about the word “inerrant.”
And, P.S., my kids ARE annoying sometimes. Lol. But they’re pretty great, too. 😂
If we take “testing the spirits” to mean “having some certainty that a teaching is correct” then scripture is often useful in a general sense.
I think the scripture is generally useful for knowing how God wants us to live. It doesn’t say specify how those general guidelines are to be applied.
A group of Christians believe it is wrong to play cards. This is rooted in the belief that “gambling” is a sin. Scripture doesn’t specifically address gambling (or card playing) so each of us needs to work out a position. The scripture seems to indicate that when something bothers your conscience, it’s a sin. Even that is a pretty ambiguous guideline.
Thanks for listening and commenting!
After reviewing Part II of the “InfalliGate” series, I would like to further discuss monogamous gay relationships (MGR) and moral progression. (I really tried to make this as short as I could… sorry it’s a little long).
Cards on the table: a) I lean toward a position of MGR is wrong SOLELY because there is no clear standard for gay marriage in the bible, but there does appear to be a moral standard for the allowance of straight monogamy in the Bible (the three ish passages that condemn “homosexuality” are a really shaky foundation to stand against MGR, in my opinion). b) I believe that, while I think the Bible is good evidence for moral pronouncements, the Holy Spirit really is the “final filter” that determines that an act is wrong or not.
Now, these stances seem to be similar to what both of you have expressed in the recent episodes, except that it seems you are more strongly against MGR due to what you feel has been revealed to you by the Holy Spirit. I struggle with that, because there does seem to exist those who identify as Christian and are in MGRs that they claim to be vetted by the Holy Spirit. Now, I know you have said you simply believe that they are in denial/are lying, but I don’t know why you feel that way with much confidence at all. Perhaps I’m reading too far into the strength of you conviction… Basically, I don’t feel confident enough in my interpreting the Spirit to say to someone else “You’re doing it wrong”.
To maybe elucidate my position a little better, I’ll provide the following hypothetical: My sibling, who seems to be as committed to pursuing a relationship with God, also wants to pursue an MGR and feels no conviction for it. Barring any additional in the moment guidance from the Holy Spirit, my moral responsibility begins and ends with saying “Look, I think this is wrong because of the lack of clarity in scripture, but if you feel no conviction after genuinely seeking God’s direction, then nothing about my relationship with you should be different than if you were pursuing a straight monogamous relationship”.
How might you respond to the hypothetical and why? To be clear, this is for ANYONE, not just John or the Peaches. I’ve really been trying to sort this out and keep coming to different answers.
I would have questions for the sibling, specifically “WHY do you want to be in an MGR?”
What would he/she gain from a same sex marriage that he/she can’t gain from a friendship?
If they can’t answer that question apart from admitting they simply desire the sex, then I would say they’re struggling with lust.
(Note: lots of hetero couples are struggling with lust, too, and getting married for all the wrong reasons, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay.) 🙂
Hmm… I think the only exclusive difference for most straight couples in asking the question you’ve posited is the ability for the relationship to produce children.
So, I could see a gay couple wanting to raise a family together, or just spend a whole lot of time together… You know, answers that most straight couples could give besides spawning.
Your right that getting married for lust is bad practice. But I think it’s quite a burden to demonstrate or assume MGRs are always coupled with list.
That line of questioning also applies just as well to infertile people as to gay couples. Which, that could be a legitimate stance. But if it’s not your stance, I’m interested in the differentiation
I think there’s a difference between someone whose broken body cannot produce children and one whose healthy body cannot. (There are plenty of stories of people who were thought to be infertile having children–but never a gay couple.)
I think a huge problem in our culture is thinking that marriage is meant to make us happy, rather than meant to cultivate us.
I fully support a same-sex-attracted person marrying a member of the opposite sex in order to raise a family and learn to serve God regardless of fleshly desires. (That’s basically what all married couples are expected to do when they deny their temptation to be with LOTS of people and choose to be faithful only to ONE instead.)
I don’t understand why someone would need to marry someone of the opposite sex just because they are physically attracted to them?
Whoops, sorry, that last sentence was supposed to say “someone of the SAME sex.” But I guess opposite applies, too. Basically, I think we going about picking our spouses based on sexual attraction, and that’s a problem.
So, what I’m hearing from you is that the potential to spawn children is the only difference and is a significant enough difference to justify some straight monogamous relationships and implicate all gay monogamous relationships. Is that correct?
I think the other things your saying can be applied the same to both orientations, as you kinda clarified with your typo correction ^_^.
Thanks for the interaction on this!
Yeah, I think child-spawning is very important.
But I think Denial of Self is the most important. (Being a parent is a big step in that process. But it starts with sacrificing ourselves for our spouses.) This self-denialism is also called “love.”
I think that people of both genders can love ANYONE sacrificially. But, when you want to throw sex into the mix, the purpose is procreation.
Love is for everyone.
Sex is for married people.
So, I’m now hearing you say that the sole moral allowance for sex is procreation. To rephrase – without the (perhaps even remote) possibility of procreation, expressions of sexual behaviors between two (or more, lol) people are immoral, because it is encouraging lust. Is that correct or can you nuance that more accurately?
Well, yes… Maybe with some more clarification:
We all know that not EVERY sexual encounter results in procreation. And I’m not saying that a couple must “try” to have a baby every, single time to be doing a moral thing…
But what I’m saying is that sex results in new life (eventually). That’s the purpose of it. So, if two people are having sex regularly and a baby doesn’t come from it eventually, something is wrong…
Alright. That still feels really bold even with the clarification. And just to press you a little further in what I would think would make you uncomfortable and allow further nuance – based on your position, you would be against sexual activity for a woman who’s had a full hysterectomy, right?
That’s what I thought you might be pressing toward and why I added the clarification. 😉
My point is, women don’t get/need hysterectomies unless something is WRONG. We recognize this in most cases, I think.
I don’t think we should use the exceptions to define the rule.
Ideally, sex is for marriage and results in babies (eventually). If someone wants to make a case that some other type of sex is moral, I would put the onus on them to explain how they arrived there.
Thus the question I led with. 🙂
And then I would proceed to make THEM uncomfortable, by asking by what standard they can forbid someone from “loving” a minor, sexually. Or having sex with an animal or a tree or an inanimate object. 🙂 I think we can agree that something is WRONG when a human wants those things… And I think it stems from the same lust that homosexuals battle.
^_^ I recognize the extreme case of hysterectomies – but exceptions still need explanations. And I think most of those explanations could still be applied to the MGR (which, to be fair, may be an extremely conservative gay relationship and is NOT what is usually meant when talking about the morality of gay sexuality).
I do believe that monogamous sexual activity is good for a straight couple, regardless of procreation, because it increases the trust and bond that those two people have, which improves the well-being of the individuals for the long-term. It’s why polyamory is bad, there is a lack of trust and a breaking of bonds. I’ll grant that the research is not fully there at this point to back me up 100%, but there’s some research that points in that direction and I do essentially take it by faith that polyamorous sexual activity IS bad for people’s wellbeing.
I think what’s meant by “lust” is a selfish objectifying/dehumanizing of the other to satisfy our sexual drive- which is broader than most people’s definitions and includes what some people call “passion” or “love” and can happen within marriage. However, I don’t think it’s fair to assume that sexual activity outside the bounds of procreation should be considered lust. A very giving and other-centered sexual encounter can be inherently good and mutually satisfying, because it satisfies our drive AND builds a healthy relationship.
The sexual deviations that you mentioned at the end of your post broadly and entirely fit into the above definition of lust, but monogamous gay relationships are excluded by the above definition.
Again, I appreciate your push back and allowing me to hone my approach to the topic.
I’m just going to throw this out there:
I would be much quicker to accept the morality of polygamy than the morality of homosexuality. 🙂
When we look at nature, it seems pretty obvious to me that God is saying over and over and over that male plus female equals something important. As men and women lose their ability to conceive babies, their desire for sex tends to subside as well. And when are women most desirous of sex? During the time of their cycle when they’re most fertile.
Especially in light of the conversation of removing the Bible from the place of Final Authority–I’m not sure how one can make the case that mutual submission (love and sacrifice) is more important when it comes to sex than reproduction is…?
You can throw that out there I’m just gonna throw it on the ground and puke on it. In Christian love, of course. ^_^
What you’ve just explained sounds like an excellent lesson from Evolutionary Morality – it’s more likely to be right if it increases the ability for your genes to replicate ^_^. Which, if our sense of morality has indeed come from the survival of fittest, then what you’ve said makes total sense.
However, if our sense of morality has come from a Higher Authority (such as our prefrontal cortex and the ability to reason ^_^), then I think it’s fair to say that things which increase our own wellbeing and the wellbeing of others are more likely to be right. Thus, I think mutual submission is MUCH more relevant than procreation when it comes to the morality of sex. Procreation is much more relevant than mutual submission when we’re talking about the perpetuation of our genes. Clearly mutual submission is at least SOMEWHAT important, or else marital rape is on the table for being morally acceptable. Bee-tee-dubs – I really don’t think you want to hold a position where it is.
I’m not sure that “mutual submission” and “procreation” are in competition here. It almost seems like we’re saying the same thing: self-sacrifice is important for well-being.
But I still haven’t been helped to understand how homosexual sex improves anyone’s well-being?
Some wires may have been crossed – suffice to say I agree with your assessment that self-sacrifice is important for well-being.
Re: Homosexual sex and wellbeing. I’m saying that straight sex without the possibility of procreation is good for a person’s wellbeing, but you seem unwilling to adopt that position. I was going to build on that to say the following is a reasonable position: gay sex can be as beneficial to a person’s wellbeing as straight sex without the possibility of procreation.
The formal argument would be arranged simply like this:
A) Straight sex, even without possibility of procreation, can be good for a person’s wellbeing.
B) Gay sex can be as good for a person’s wellbeing as straight sex without possibility of procreation.
C) Therefore, gay sex can be good for a person’s wellbeing.
Since you don’t accept A, I don’t think I can convince of you C, even if you accept B.
Yeah, I was just reminded of the time we had a conversation about roles in marriages, and you made the case that there’s no difference between a man’s role and a woman’s role… 🙂
If we lived in a purely metaphysical universe, I might be able to agree with what you’re saying about logic being the better source of information. But–influenced by Evolutionary Biology or not–God DID give us bodies with two, separate sexes… For some reason, he wanted males and females to work together when bringing forth new life (Unless you think the two sexes are some type of punishment that comes from The Fall. And a person’s maleness/femaleness otherwise isn’t consequential AT ALL?)
My logical AND evolutionary argument would look something like this:
A. God gave us physical bodies.
B. God requires male and female both to continue the life cycle.
C. This isn’t really a formal argument, but I liked the A, B, C.
D. Back to you, Dylan. 😀
Guilty as charged, hehe. I could see why concrete gender roles in marriage would make same sex relationships a little more complicated to fit into a worldview^_^.
I want to take a moment to reiterate that I do lean toward MGRs as being wrong… I have just become really interested in how YOU have arrived at the conclusion, because I have felt surprised by several of your comments and it’s a fascinating puzzle to put together.
So, it’s clear that male and female sexes are necessary for reproduction, but I really have a hard time connecting any information gleaned from that to morality. The best I can come up with (and gender roles fit into this as well) is that it does make sense in evolutionary morality that those who hold morals similar to what you have described have a better chance of passing on those morals to their progeny than those who hold morals that I’ve described.
My basic morality is more selfish than that, haha. I’m more of a “what’s in it for me” kinda guy when it comes to morality.
I arrived at “homosexuality isn’t beneficial” because that seems to be what the Bible says. (I did mention that strict fundamentalism is in my background. And I do believe the Bible is a source of Wisdom…) I think it’s a fair observation that cultures which get ahold of the Bible and start applying strict (“Conservative”) morality end up flourishing…
But I’ve stayed in this camp despite my opposition to Bible-thumping because it still makes the most sense to me that morally bankrupt societies always have rampant sexual deviance… Homosexuals almost always have abuse in their pasts… And I can’t figure out why a same-sex attracted person wouldn’t opt for celibacy as their refining fire, instead of demanding marriage as their preferred opportunity to sacrifice. It’s kind of like saying “Well, yes, I want to learn to think of my own desires less… But not when it comes to THAT ‘desire.’”
If you want an argument from what benefits individuals and society, I’m going to want to see examples of societies where homosexuality is widely practiced and everyone is doing great. 🙂
Well… the best case from the Bible seems to be Romans 1… but even that is pretty flimsy when it comes to clarity of whether or not something is wrong – most other categorical sins are pretty clear and have multiple sources with good context as to X is wrong. Besides Romans 1, you have the OT law and a item in a list of bad things that was translated homosexual, but has no surrounding context to solidify that translation.
What you said about abuse is interesting and, quite honestly, is a significant portion of the evidence that leans me over the line of “Yeah… it’s probably wrong”. It’s convincing personally, but I really wouldn’t blame someone else for rejecting it – it’s not exactly hard evidence.
“And I can’t figure out why a same-sex attracted person…”
Again, outside of potentially having children, what follows this statement could apply exactly the same to every opposite-sex attracted person.
Can you name any society that is “doing great”? With this statement, I think the burden is on you to back up that correlation. =P
http://cdn-webimages.wimages.net/05582a6e89a8fbb3adf37bd2720197a75608df-v5-wm.jpg
What you say here is exactly why “having children” is such an important part of my sexual ethic. If it weren’t for the need to raise children in stable, loving households, I would think the best course of action were for all of us to become monks/nuns and refer to each other as “brothers and sisters” instead of digging to find acceptable outlets for sexual impulses.
It seems like we humans are always trying to figure out how much of our fleshly desires really need to be controlled and how much we can safely keep indulging. 🙂 I understand the tension between the two sides, as usual. But I still suspect the homosexuals who are trying to find “the line” already know where it is.
Somewhat related (I think): I was just reminded of a couple I knew in college. (Male and female.) Every student at my school had to sign an agreement to abstain from partying and premarital sex and basically conduct themselves with integrity while attending the University… Yet, the female half of the couple had somewhat of a reputation for skirting rules in creative ways. (She was allowed to live in the freshman dorm all four years because she had a doctor’s note that she was allergic to something in the other dormitories. And she kept all of her furniture at the school at year round, even though everyone else was required to move out completely each summer, because her parents complained to the administrator that they lived too far away to haul stuff back and forth.) So, anyway, when I found out this Female and her boyfriend were living together, I wasn’t surprised. And I also wasn’t surprised when she told me, “Well, we’re not sleeping together! Why does everyone assume the worst? We’re saving money for our wedding by living together!”
My point is, I think the two of them were sinning, whether they were actually having sex or not. (Of course, I’d be shocked if they weren’t.) But, regardless, I think their desire to find the technicalities and push social boundaries actually crossed into selfishness and manipulation MANY times. This is not a couple who was interested in self-sacrifice. They always were on the look out for what they could GAIN–much like many homosexual activists in the U.S.
That’s not a healthy foundation for any relationship.
I read this early today and I do intend to respond – it’s just been mad busy today. I intend to give a proper response later, but I’ll initially say that I think you may value asceticism to a higher degree than what I do. We may have different things in mind when each of us say “self-sacrifice”.
So, I certainly agree that humans too often look for a line for sin and cozy up to it, thinking that they are maximizing their fulfillment (“nearly sinful pleasure, but holy points to boot. Win win!”) . I think we agree that the maximum benefit comes from doing what’s most right, rather than some idea that one must stay above some sort of sin threshold.
I guess I’m just continually baffled by the necessity of potentially producing children in your sexual ethic. Such an ethic seems to me to seems to demonize even kissing that does not lead to an encounter that could produce a child.
To me, such an ethic cheapens the multifaceted value of human sexuality. I will again affirm that selfish sex does happen frequently (which is bad in every instance), but I can’t agree that sex that reduces or eliminates the possibility of producing a child is inherently selfish. It’s not about skirting the line, as I feel you are implying by your examples. It’s about sexual expressions being a means to build a relationship, which is inherently good (all else being equal, of course… We can get into codependency and boundaries if you like, haha)
I think I understand your perspective. 🙂
But I still feel the “ick” factor when I think of two dudes or two chicks trying to make square pegs fit into–other square pegs, I guess?
This reference to the “multifaceted value of human sexuality” begs your own question, by the way. 😉 Sex isn’t like avoiding gluttony, for example, which is difficult because we still need to eat even if we struggle with eating too much.
Humans don’t HAVE to gratify sexual desires.
Re: Pegs – lulz ^_^
I felt like I addressed the question I was begging – which I assume you mean is “What good is human sexuality if you remove reproduction?”. The answer I posited was building the special relationship between two indiviudals. I can probably flesh that out more if you think it’s too vague. Or if you mean something else entirely, I’m afraid you’ll need to be more clear.
Clearly we don’t have to gratify sexual desires. There are many desires (basic and complex) that we don’t have to gratify – but gratifying them is not inherently morally inferior to denying them. Unless you do adopt an extreme asceticism. If you do, I can respect that, but I can’t agree with it (as it stands, anyway) ^_^.
While the ick factor might be reason to raise concerns in moral questions, it’s not an end in itself. Someone could just as easily say the same thing about two fat people, but would have a hard time truly justifying a position promoting the moral inferiority of the sexuality of fat people.
Building the special relationship doesn’t tell me enough… I think you just changed the word “sexual” to the word “special.”
I can already agree that a “sexual” relationship is a different kind of relationship–but I’m not convinced that it’s a “good-special” kind. And, yes, I do think that citing well-being is a little bit vague, because we already both agree that selfishness isn’t good for anyone’s well-being. But we’re both struggling to define a clear line for selfish sexual behavior.
I’m assuming we can agree that trying to build a “special relationship” with a ten-year-old, for example, would be out of bounds because it’s ALWAYS selfish and never loving, right?
I agree with your assessment Re: the ten year old.
By special I meant unique… referring to a monogamous relationship – for sake of argument, I’m still trying to establish this between a husband and wife, because I still think we aren’t on the same page on what a healthy sexual relationship between a husband and wife is yet.
I think the above is clear enough, but for sake of over explaining – I am not advocating that sexual relationships are inherently good. I advocating that sexual relationships can serve more good in a monogamous relationship than just reproduction.
From what I have heard you said, I think you would DISAGREE with the following statement that I affirm: Sexual expression between husband and wife can be morally superior to marital abstinence (lack of sexual expression) even when the possibility of reproduction does not exist.
Is that correct? If not… I’m interested in how you nuance that. If so… I’m interested in how you derive a moral imperative from what you observe in nature OR how you see that in the Bible… or how you would nuance you came to that conclusion (From what I’ve heard so far, I think you’re deriving a moral imperative from what you observe in nature)
I sort of feel about the “when is sex moral” question the way I feel about the submission question, which is: I don’t know how to end the infinite loop of deferring to the other person…so I just sort of throw up my hands and say, “This is what we observe in nature over and over, so the main point must be reproduction.”
Does that mean there CAN’T be other valuable things about sex between a husband and wife? No. I guess not. I just struggle to outline what those valuable things are, because I see how quickly it devolves into hedonism.
So, I’ll accept the charge of dancing dangerously close to asceticism if you can help me avoid becoming a hedonist instead. 😉
Haha, I’m not sure I can keep you far from there… I think I’m as close to hedonism as you are to asceticism.
Honestly, my only defense against hedonism is that its traditional understanding is short sighted and ultimately leads to less pleasure.
To kinda go back to your first two paragraphs – that sounds super reasonable for a personal ethic, but I think it’s hard to pitch that as a prescriptive ethic for others to follow.
Hmmm….
Well, 70 comments in, but I’m not getting the sense that we solved the world’s problems here. :/
Drat.
Maybe next time.
I’m gonna go with the world is at least three shades brighter since we started… I’m gonna take credit for at least a small part of that boost. You can have some too, if you like. Either way, thanks for the exchange.
Yes, let’s each claim one and a half shades. 😁
I appreciate the spirited discussion here. I’m just going to toss my 2 cents into the mix and back away slowly.
My view is: homosexuality is just lust. It’s not a desire given by God. Qualifying a sin with the word “monogamous” doesn’t fix the problem. For example, a Monogamous Necrophiliac Relationship would be absurd.
*shouting toward where you’ve backed away* I emphasize monogamous to differentiate from what fundy me used to picture when he thought of a gay person – which is a flamboyant stereotype that clearly wants to have sex with every man he encounters ^_^.
As I’ve been spiritedly discussing with Amanda – I’m genuinely interested in what differentiates heterosexual relationships as having the ability to not be just lust (while gay relationships MUST be lust). It seems that she believes that the ability to have children is a sufficient difference. Granted, that difference is still consistent with your necrophiliac example, but I wouldn’t want to just assume you hold the same reasoning ^_^.
I’m so sheepishly proud of the can of worms I inadvertently opened by sharing that video with you, Amanda. 😀 I loved hearing yours and your Dad’s thoughts build upon the philosophy the video is trying to put forth. It was originally shared to me by a friend, and it’s created some awesome conversation.
My only beef with the video would have to be his use of the word “contradiction”. I think a better word to use would be “progression” or at times even, “fulfilment”. Even in a novel, frequently the last chapter will “contradict” the things postulated or written to appear a certain way in the first chapter. No one complains that a movie contradicts itself. It progresses. It moves forward. It doesn’t mean the truth written earlier wasn’t EXTREMELY relevant at the time it was written, whether in history or in the plot timeline. It just moved beyond that point.
In my Bible college, this was taught to me using the phrase “progressive revelation of Scripture”. Someone who builds their entire doctrine on the book of Job, for instance, would be building their beliefs on the oldest book in the Bible, the oldest revelation of who God is. This is unwise. Does that make the book of Job irrelevant? Not at all. It’s in the Bible to teach us something (and will be taught to us by the guidance of the PRESENT Holy Spirit), but to take it on its own is folly when there is greater revelation to be found in Exodus, and then Psalms, and then Isaiah, leading up to the complete revelation in Jesus Christ. It’s why Scripture says “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;”
Colossians 2:9 NKJV. It’s also made abundantly clear in Hebrews:
“God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,”
Hebrews 1:1-3 NKJV
Ha! I wondered when you’d show your face, Troublemaker! 😀
In all seriousness–this has been beneficial.
Uncomfortable.
Frustrating at times.
But beneficial.
Thanks for the Thought Food!
I figured I better turn up at some point so I could catch some of the mudslinging too. 😀
Glad you’ve found it as excavating and beneficial as I did.
The word of God is God. It’s a fact that the bible is a collection of various accounts. These accounts were done by the inspiration of God. I like the debate. Let’s keep the discussions going.
Joining the discussion a little late, but I’m still confused. Mostly, I’m perplexed by Amanda’s comment that we shouldn’t make the Bible an idol. I believe what you’re trying to say is that we shouldn’t trust the Bible more than we trust God. (Please correct me if that’s not what you meant.) While I do agree with that, is there any other way we can trust God without the Bible? God even says in Psalm 138:2: “For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.” He obviously (from my understanding,) says that he places more stock in His word than his name. What would your perspective on that verse happen to be? And if the Bible is just a holy book that happens to get a little closer to absolute truth than other “holy” books, how can we definitively know that any of the Bible is true?
Hi, Isaac!
Yes, essentially I’m saying we shouldn’t mistake the physical collection of records about God with GOD HIMSELF. The book isn’t God. It’s a book… Though, without the book, we would be sadly without some very important history and knowledge about God, that still wouldn’t change that God himself interacts with humans even TODAY.
I admit, I don’t know much about the Psalms… The quick search I just did gave me four different translations, and two of them didn’t use the term “word of God” at all. So I don’t want to pretend that I know how to interpret that particular verse, for sure.
But, what I’m basically trying to remind us is: when David penned the Psalms, there was no “Bible.” The Word of God meant ANYTHING which God directly said, but there was no collection of 66 leather-bound books yet…
God’s Word is extremely important to me. His decrees are of MOST importance, in fact. But we have to remember that God’s Word isn’t synonymous with “The Bible.” He didn’t literally, specifically WRITE every thing recorded in the Bible, which explains why it doesn’t start with “Dear Humans” and end with “from God.”
Does that make some more sense?
I believe so?
So, you would disagree with the closed canon idea? That the 66 books we have today aren’t necessarily God’s Word, that they could be God’s Word, and they might not be, and that there might be some Words from God that we might’ve missed or discarded, as well?
At the expense of sounding like a fundamentalist who just points out verses, 2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Would you agree with that verse, but argue that we can’t know for certain which books of the Bible are Scripture?
I’m also curious about your view of verbal inerrancy. Would you suggest that what we have on paper today isn’t verbatim what God said and what we have today is just what the authors thought sounded best after they were spoken to by God?
If you agree with that, (which I’m not saying you are,) wouldn’t it be hard to make a claim that anything is from God?
What (I believe) makes the Bible special, is that it’s a standard. If we take away that standard, what are we left with to know what God actually says, other than just guessing?
Great questions!
I’m nearly positive we’ll be podcasting about this again, but I’ll try to hint at what I’m thinking:
I would say we already know, for certain, that not EVERYTHING written in the Bible is “God’s Word.” Some of the words are Satan’s, for example. Some are Job’s friend’s words… Some are Pilot’s and Pharoah’s and King Nebuchadnezzar’s, etc. Etc. 🙂
I bring this up because it’s only when we’re pressed about it that we’re comfortable admitting, “Oh, yeah, context matters.” We can’t just tell people to read the Bible and do whatever it says–because there are places where it says, “kill the baby boys” or “bring me John the Baptist’s head on a platter.” Oops, THAT part isn’t strictly God’s Word!
That’s why it’s confusing for some people when we call the Bible “God’s Word.” And it feels like a bait-and-switch when we don’t qualify that statement until AFTER someone points out there are some ugly, incorrect things in there!
As for your question about The Standard, I completely understand where you’re coming from. I mean, I share the concern, and I’m uncomfortable with the things I’m saying for the same reason I think you may be!
When I was going through my worst depression/anxiety episode, the one thing I said the most was, “I just wish God would write me an email or send me a text to tell me exactly, specifically what he wants ME to do RIGHT NOW.” That’s where my comments in the podcast came from about Christians wanting/needing a sense of control, so we try to make the Bible into a formula or flow-chart that answers everything…
I’m just concerned that we have an unrighteous desire to give concrete answers which are the Holy Spirit’s to give–and that’s why we’re tempted to claim the Bible is more clear and authoritative than it is.
To be quite honest, I’m tempted to make the Bible into a trump card.
I completely understand wanting A Standard to answer important questions about God. But it’s a fine line between giving an answer and putting God in a box because we don’t trust Him to speak any other way.
Ok, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for taking the time to clear it up for me!
I don’t have any problem at all with what you said. I also agree that a lot of suppositions that modern fundamentalist Christians make are unnecessary roadblocks. These are, more often than not, received interpretations rather than necessarily what the Bible is trying to tell us. As far as the danger of the slippery slope for saying these things, you’re only addressing the very things the early church fathers took for granted. That was how the ancient culture wrote about things. From what I can tell, none of of the early church leaders (including the ones who gave us the Bible!) understood the Bible with the modern wooden literalism people read into it today. They would’ve pretty much taken your anthropocentric approach, which is that it’s a record of man’s perspective of God and interaction with Him (told from their perspective). This is why Jesus could come along and say no one knew God but Him! (Matt.11:27). So, yes, Jesus came from the innermost being, or bosom, of God (John 1:18), so He is the final word about what God is actually like.
Speaking of church history, here’s another wrench to throw into our certitudes. The idea of verbatim inerrancy actually came from Islamic influence in the late Medieval period, not what the Bible actually teaches. The Reformers used this argument to dethrone the Pope’s authority, arguing that the written text has the final authority. From that, the fundamentalists took it a step further in the 19th century that it’s without error. This is also where cessationism comes from, dethroning the Pope’s apostolic authority (therefore, no more apostles, etc.). Then, in the mid-19th century, the Catholic church countered with the modern innovation called the “infallibility” of the Pope! But neither one of these things were arguments for the Bible before the Reformation. Now, these terms have become the shibboleth to determine if someone is a “Bible believing Christian.” 🙂
Wow… The history of the beef between Protestants and Catholics is really interesting! I’ll need to look into it more…
To be clear, I think every one who takes the Bible seriously believes the Bible to be inspired by God and a true account of those who wrote it. That’s where the arguments often gets confused. But believing it’s inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, etc., is not necessarily the same thing as saying it’s verbatim words dictated by God. Or, that it’s an accurate science textbook the way we think about these things today. It was never written with that in mind (modern scientific methodology was still far in the future). Or, that one has to take ancient Semitic writing styles out of their cultural context, which were often written rather strangely from our modern Western viewpoint. I think that’s where the skeptics have a field day with Biblicists because, frankly, that argument is untenable. Not to mention, it would actually be a superficial reading of what’s being said. We lose the truly rich and deeply-layered genius of what it’s telling us about ourselves. I think you both alluded to some of this in the podcast.
Btw, this is why theologian, Walter Wink, concluded that the concept of modern historical biblical criticism is bankrupt. It tells us nothing meaningful. We’ve missed the proverbial forest for the trees, that it’s not about textual accuracy but about what is the text saying about us and about God. Because of this, we endlessly analyze what we never let speak to us. Even as believers, we have Bible studies instead of letting the Bible study us. We have no ability to let the text breath life because, as C.S. Lewis said, we’ve cut out our own souls. We’ve sacrificed them on the altar of humanistic rationalism. And we’ve been swimming in that fishbowl for over 500 years now, which makes it difficult for even for us who believe to see this.
Yes! The nuance in your comment is refreshing!!!
I tried to communicate in the podcast that I understand why some are reluctant to say anything other than “God wrote the Bible.” I understand why people are worried about undermining Authority and causing people to question too much, so to speak.
But I think ultimately we do ourselves a disservice when we try to make the Bible something it’s not… Something of an idol, maybe?
I understood what you’re trying to say (and not say) in the podcast and agree. And it can border on idolatry when we make the Bible bigger than our relationship with God. I actually think that seeing the Bible the way we’re saying is taking it more seriously, letting it go deeper and transform our hearts instead of just thumping people over the head with it or hiding behind it. We may even get a better response from the honest doubters by inviting them into this “undergoing” instead. 🙂
I totally agree that the examples of “contradictions” in the video don’t HAVE to be contradictions. (Luke took exception with the examples in the video, too!) 🙂 But, to be fair, he explained how to reconcile the census contradition later in the presentation.
At the time of writing Chronicles, David thought it was God who wanted the census, but by the time history proved that wrong, the writer of Kings knew it was Satan.
I guess I just appreciate the way this guy is gut-level honest about what young people HEAR when they’re told “the Bible is without error” because it was “written by God himself.” Kids think–or at least I thought–“The Bible doesn’t contain any errors because God himself wrote it.”
Turns out, the Bible is FULL of errors…
Now, hear me out: the Bible is full of human errors. I think we can agree about that, right? People do horrible things, which God allows, and it’s recorded in the Bible. But it’s a little frustrating that we are told “God wrote the Bible” until an uncomfortable problem makes us pull out the “context matters” card.
In fact, it seems a little weasily (sorry, I love you brothers and sisters, but it seems a LITTLE weasily) for us to talk about the Scriptures like they’re “error-free” and only begrudingly admit that imperfect humans have been involved in God’s processes when we’re in a corner and forced to walk back the “God Wrote It” declaration.
In school, I was taught that “When the Bible speaks about historical things, it is totally accurate.”
And “When the Bible speaks about scientific things, it is totally accurate.”
Okay, fine.
But when we asked, “How do we know when the Bible is meant to be speaking historically or scientifically?”
The answer–I kid you not–was: “When it’s accurate.”
*giggle*
🙂 Again, I love you, Brothers and Sisters… But that is just a liiiiiiiittle weasily! I don’t think you’re doing it on purpose. I just think, somewhere along the line, we started elevating the written record to the status of GOD’S WORD but God’s Word is Jesus–not the record about Jesus. Can we appreciate that nuanced difference?
I wonder if we haven gotten sidetracked in defending the documents which make up the Bible itself, as if those documents are required to be Perfect in all of the same ways God himself is.
I have a bazillion things to say about this matter, but I’ll spare you the bulk of it. 🙂
I sometimes tell people the bible is not an instruction manual like we are assembling IKEA furniture. It is a book of music, poetry, a love story really, about God and His people. It is living, breathing, the Divinely inspired word of God, intended to speak to our souls and not simply to our brains. Our brains are too tiny to receive or contain the Truth.
I totally believe in biblical innerancy, the problem being not the bible at all, but often our own subjective perception of it, what we think it says. I often say, you need to just let the Author read it to you. That’s scary for us sometimes, because we often prefer the concrete, the written in stone, the hard and fast, and we tend to dislike trusting in God. Yes, Jesus is The Word, first and formost, but if we believe He is risen, and the Holy Spirit is alive and well, then we can trust that His hand is also on scripture and ensuring that it is protected and preserved, brought together precisely as He wanted it to be. The bible actually speaks about the bible itself, how it reveals itself “precept upon precept, a little here ,a little there.” It is layered and multi dimensional. The bible has no errors, but oh yes, we people sure do.
The thing that ruffled my feathers quite a bit was actually said by you, John. You mentioned that you don’t think the Bible is 100% historically accurate while you were talking about the census David took (And whether God or the Devil inspired it) I really do believe that the Bible is truly infallible because of verses like Proverbs 30:5, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and 2 Peter 1:20-21, which certainly claim that the Bible is totally accurate. But obviously, you wouldn’t accept that unless I provided a better explanation of the census dilemma. I did a little bit of research into this, and one of my friends, who knows Hebrew, said that in the passage that says God inspired the census, a different verb is used in most original Hebrew texts. That verb can mean “to inspire”, but it can also mean “to allow”, which I believe to be the correct translation. God often will allow the devil to tempt someone or allow the devil to do something evil, like in the story of Job. Because of this, I believe God allowed Satan to tempt David to take a census out of his anger at the Israelites, which God ended up punishing David for later. What do you think? Sorry, I’m a bit late to this thread lol
Good find Jeffrey! I hadn’t even heard this one. I shall have to look into it.
This was the point I made with the links I provided about this apparent contradiction. Before one can claim that any two stories are CONTRADICTIONS- Biblical or otherwise- and claim that the accounts CANNOT BOTH BE TRUE- it has to be established that the stories CANNOT be harmonized, but you have to do that based on the actual accounts and not on assumptions or on how YOU would have said it, etc. There are at least three legitimate methods of harmonizing this apparent contradiction about David taking a census, and to read the English translation and decide- without looking into it- that there can’t be any manner of harmonizing these apparent contradictions because nothing occurs to you as you read it is lazy and dishonest. This is how atheists come up with their lists of the HUNDREDS of contradictions in the Bible- they find something which they can’t immediately reconcile and they decide that- if THEY can’t see how those two passages fit together than NO ONE can. And that video Peaches referenced was made by a guy who seriously doesn’t even understand the idea of what a contradiction is. I’m still perplexed by that. He truly seems to have no idea what is meant by a contradiction.
If you claim to be a Christian, you are claiming that you believe God is real and that He has interacted with the human race through history, eventually being born into history as Jesus Christ. What sense does it make to say “God is relational and wants to be known, and he revealed himself to lots of people over the years, but he really didn’t care if they were accurate or if they just made crap up.”? You imagine that the God who wrote the laws of physics didn’t care about the accuracy of the Bible? Like, nature was governed with precision but His revelation of Himself was “Ah, not true but close enough.”? Like, you imagine Moses just made up some things, changed his mind and made up more stuff, and the God who wrote the laws of the universe looked at that and said, “Meh. I’m sure they’ll figure out which parts are right and which are wrong. The important thing is they have some stories to tell their kids and to turn into movies staring Russel Crowe.”
Doesn’t this sound like Jesus telling his disciples, “Look, if you don’t know what I think about a topic, just make up something. Tell people I agree with you- or tell them I taught it to you. I’m sure it will be fine.”
Peter: “Can I tell people that I’m the head of the church and your mother was a virgin her entire life?”
Jesus: “Uh, sure, why not.”
Peter: “Can we tell people that when they eat bread and wine in church that they are LITERALLY eating your body and drinking your blood?”
James: “Can we tell people that they are saved through good works?”
Mark: “I want to tell people that they can pay us money to get out of purgatory early.”
Jesus: “Wait, what is purgatory?”
Mark: “It’s kind of like hell, but it doesn’t last as long and you can get out early by giving me money.”
Jesus: “Look, none of that is true but… yeah, whatever. As long as you tell the truth in there too, a few lies aren’t important. I mean, I let the prophets give me and Satan credit for doing the same things, so, whatever. Look, I’m going to go.”
Peter: “When are you going to be back?”
Jesus: “Tell people I said I’d be back by the end of the generation.”
Peter: “So, in like 40 years?”
Jesus: “Yes, AND tell them it may be many thousands of years.”
Peter: “But, how can it be both…?”
Jesus: “You know how I said I made the heavens and the earth and all that lives in six days, but I really meant it was 13.2 billion years in six somewhat overlapping epochs?”
Peter: “?”
Jesus: “You’ll figure it our Pete. Just ask my brothers and sisters and my still virgin mother about it. I’m out…” [ascends]
Because maybe I’m getting all fundy up in here, but I don’t see this as a legitimate take on the personality of Jesus. To me this is how every cult starts and how every denomination dies. Plus, you know, logic and stuff.
Love and Muffins to you all.
Did you make it through the whole video eventually, Bryan? (I understand if it was too much to push through all at once…I had to read the book “Boundaries” in very small doses, to get through it.) 🙂
I understand that most of the Atheist’s “contradictions” in the Bible CAN be reconciled. (Or–as some might call it–rationalized and justified.) I’m just admitting that it DOES appear we’re scrambling to defend a “perfect book” as if the book itself is God. And I’m not sure at what point in history we started elevating (some of) the written record to the status of Perfection?
I’ve heard the explanations…that’s why I mentioned the “Book of Supposed Contradictions in the Bible.” (My thought, at roughly 18-years-old, was “Why don’t we start including this ‘supposed contradictions’ book as part of Scripture?)
I hate to answer a podcast with a podcast, but if you listen to this one, I’ll listen to the paradigm one, and we’ll meet here again real soon. I believe this guy has something to add to this conversation, though. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/exploring-my-strange-bible/id1271147429?mt=2&i=1000391102084
I promise to try…
Although, I don’t know if it’s this podcast or the one that comes out Monday in which I briefly describe my iTunes woes! 🙂
Ok. I’m up to the current podcast, and I get the original idea, and I think its even overlapping with McMommy’s blog. The sin is this arrogant attitude of “If you deny this one piece of the Bible in the way that *I* see it, you’re denying the entirety (this a word?) of Scripture”. And a stance like that is too brittle to handle some of the stones thrown at Scripture, and I think that is what is being addressed.
Maybe.
hope I’m right.
but if I’m not, then that’s okay too.
I’m learning.
Bingo.
Exactly right.
We’ve had conversations with Atheists in which THEY were trying to get us to adopt certain interpretations of Scripture just so they could knock it down. They want to talk endlessly about fossils and research papers and formulas. Why? Because they have lots of experience with Christians quoting very specific scientific talking points coupled with very specific Bible verses. They know hundreds of thousands of Christians have been taught A VERY SPECIFIC set of Conservative talking points, and the Atheists want their chance to respond by quoting the canned points they got from Dawkins or some other Atheist Bible Author.
We’ve got two set of fundamentalists bickering over carbon dating…
One side says it’s important because you’re denying science is you don’t agree with every interpretation of every formal experiment, and the other side responds as if deviation from their argument is the same as disagreeing with God Himself.
It’s a headache.
Personally, I’ve found that letting go of the need to make the Bible into a conversation ender has been faith-BUILDING rather than faith-destroying. I’m able to let Scripture be what God means for it to be, instead of dressing someone’s opinion about God in His clothes and then panicking when my little Paper-Idol doesn’t meet ALL of my perceived needs.
whoa. this may need to be on your blog. But I don’t want to get you into any more trouble than you already are. You may be asked to leave the Christians.
Ha, once again that’s something I’ve heard from the Atheists… 😂 “You’re not a real Christian!!!”
Lol. Neither camp likes being compared with the other.
Well at least I am not alone in my reaction of being a little bewildered by what was said. I was hearing some ideas I had not heard before. I will give it an A for being thought provoking though.
Thanks for sticking with us, Jeff!
I have a feeling we’ll be recording a “clarification episode” next!
(Although next Monday will still be Peter Heck.)
Well if nothing else it makes think through what we believe. I would insert a scripture quote her right now but I am thinking about that whole subject right now. I am so looking forward to hearing the conversation with Pete should be very entertaining.
Lol, I generally liked what the peaches was saying, but I did feel it was a “coming out” episode. I don’t even remember most of the content, but i do remember thinking “I thought she is more theologically conservative than that..” several times in the episode…
Sorry I’m not contributing more at this point… Granted, I have disappeared from these parts recently… So this is more than in the past few months, haha.
Yeah, I think the best way to sum up my Theological views is: “On The Other Hand….”
Meaning, I can’t help looking at things from multiple perspectives while I’m processing.
Whichever camp someone is leaning toward, I tend to explore THE OPPOSITE, just to see what happens.
That often gets interpreted as “argumentative,” buuuuut… It’s just that I can see the weakness of all my own arguments as soon as I make them. *shrug* So I struggle against dogmatism all the time.
I one hundred percent understand what you’re saying. If there is one thing I’m passionate about, it’s board games. But if there is another thing I’m passionate about, it’s ambivalence.
Wisdom is found in a diversity of counselors. I try to listen to “Christian” podcasts that vary in theology (yours, Phil Vischer’s, Bad Christian, and the reformed pubcast to name a few). Yours filled the “more conservative, but not crazy” spot… But now that I have found I agree more with you, I’m probably gonna have to stop listening… 😛
Lol.
Nooooooo, don’t go!!!
…I’m still not a Calvinist, so there’s that. 🙂
Alright, you’ve convinced me to stay. Nothing ruffles my feathers more than someone who thinks a God who rolls the dice is more likely to exist than a God who stacks the deck ^_^.
😀
Here’s the video Jasmine recommended, which started us down the rabbit hole! Maybe it will help explain where my head was, while I was rambling:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=XyOWg6dzYL8
Re: Paradigm Shifts With the Bible
OK, I just killed a handful of brain cells watching the first 20 minutes of this idiot, and I’m a little dizzy from the experience. Peaches, my dear friend- I still am waiting for you to tell me there is a punchline coming. This guy’s blizzard of logical fallacies are so blatant that he should be working for CNN.
“Solomon says he who finds a wife finds a good thing, but Paul says marriage is hard”, and THIS guy says that this is a CONTRADICTION! It is not.
He claims that the OT sacrificial system and Jesus being our sacrifice for sins is a CONTRADICTION! It is Not.
He keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
No, I seriously think he doesn’t know what it means.
Even in the apparently actual contradiction between 1 Chronicles 21:1 and 2 Samuel 24:1 there are multiple plausible explanations, given the very little information in the text.
https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/contradiction-who-incited-david-to-count-the-fighting-men-of-israel/
https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/who-authorized-david-s-census-god-or-satan.html
And because of how little is said, either of these may be accurate. To merely throw up one’s hands and say “Oh well! I guess there are errors in the Bible because I’m not sure what to make of this!” is dishonest and lazy. To show a contradiction in the Bible requires the clear statement of irreconcilable opposites in the original text- based on the information in the text- not merely the curious dissimilarity of two related passages, or the assumptions based on the modern English translation. This is no different than finding a contradiction in any testimony.
As an example- Matthew 28:1-8 and Mark 16:1-8 mention ONE angel at the tomb, and Luke 24:1-10 says that there were two. But neither Matthew nor Mark say there was ONLY one angel there, they simply address the one who spoke. While we can’t be certain why they would choose not to mention this detail when Luke does mention it, it is completely invalid to say that it is therefore a CONTRADICTION. It is a curiosity and a puzzlement, but not actually a contradiction.
And beyond his inability to grasp what makes a contradiction, this Shane Willard guy has an atheistic worldview- a fact of which I am certain he is unaware, but one which is obvious and I am again surprised that you did not spot it immediately. He states as a broad brush blanket assertion that THEY were ALL just sacrificing their children to god all of the time until ABRAHAM put a stop to it. This is false and baseless and completely opposed to the clear teaching of scripture. He asserts the commonly held and long ago debunked atheistic assumption that writing didn’t exist until the time of Moses and therefore the stories of Genesis were only oral tradition until Moses wrote them down. This is false for a NUMBER of reasons.
He also asserts that Moses just made crap up as he went and changed his mind about it- and the example he gives is the ten commandments (which say, “Don’t kill”) and the command to go to war against some evil people and kill them.
Is he serious?
And did you really watch this far and not notice that he has NO understanding of what he is talking about, but also the fact that all of his starting assumptions are atheistic in foundation? This is not a paradigm shift- this is just ignorant heresy. Or maybe when he titled that video “Paradigm shift” he added an extra “f” to the title. But I digress.
He is building his worldview on atheism, evolutionary assumptions, and beginning with an atheistic worldview BEFORE he even considers the text of scripture. Its no wonder he thinks he finds contradictions, and its no wonder he EXPECTS to. He thinks its ILLOGICAL not to expect that (and he says so) because a bunch of MEN wrote the Bible- and here is where he doesn’t say but clearly asserts that GOD was NOT involved. Not only does his view not require the existence of God, but it makes little sense if one accepts God’s existence as a fact. All of his assertions require an atheistic starting point in order to be valid at all.
You and JB are usually good at catching logical fallacies and calling out heretics and fools, so the fact that it SEEMS like both of you just flipped your lid and followed this goober down the rabbit trail seems like trolling. Like, I seriously still expect that both of you flipped too many pages of the old calendar and thought yesterday was APRIL 1st, because you are both clearly smarter and more sane than this.
If you are just trolling… send me an email warning me next time. This is giving me an ulcer.
If, on the other hand, Indiana legalized Marijuana since Mike Pence moved away and you guys gave both followed Hugh Ross and Shane Willard into heresy… we need to talk.
I’m here to help. But so is the D.A.R.E. program. If you need it.
This man sounds like a maniac. I don’t think I really agree with anything he said at all :/
Hm… I think you and I might have different ideas of how “maniacs” sound. 😉
But, seriously, it’s hard to know where to begin a conversation if you can’t agree with ANYTHING he said… If you can explain what you think he’s saying and why it seems crazy, I won’t be offended at all.
I have to apologize, peaches, I made a pretty big mistake there. I wasn’t able to watch the whole sermon at the time, but I skimmed it and it seemed quite crazy from the bits and pieces I saw. But I just went back and listened to his argument, and I think he does have a point. However, I disagree with a few of the things he said concerning Jesus and sacrifices, which is what I mainly picked up on when I first watched the video.
Part way through the sermon, he argues that Old Testament sacrifices were completely and utterly unnecessary because “Jesus said so”. Literally anyone who has ever studied the Old Testament sacrifices with any amount of detail should understand that they were absolutely necessary, as there was no Jesus to atone for their sins. Those sacrifices were COMMANDED BY GOD to pay for sins, therefore they had to be necessary!
Jesus came as a permanent substitute for animal sacrifices, that doesn’t mean that animal sacrifices were unnecessary before Jesus.
I really do think he made a good point about differences of opinion in scripture, but I absolutely disagree with any claim that God is changing his mind on something.
Ah, I understand…
If Shane Willard said the Old Testament sacrifices were completely and utterly unnecessary, then I agree with you that it’s a bad (wrong) way to make that point…
I think the importance of the sacrifices lies in the fact that the Israelites were spiritual children who NEEDED physical, tangible symbols while they were learning about God’s character and will.
If I can try to balance the concept with an analogy, I’ll use my own children. They sleep with nightlights.
I understand that they “need” the lights to keep the nightmares away, so I have given them the lights for as long as they need them…
The question is: do nightlights really keep nightmares away? Well, not exactly. It’s a bit complicated… But the “power” of the nightlight actually depends on how much faith the child has in it… Am I making sense at all, and can you see where I’m going with this?
The Bible says the sacrifices never had the power to save people from their sins. But it was through faith in God–which the Ancient Israelites demonstrated via their childish rituals–that justified them.
We have to remember that they, and all of us, are children trying to understand an infinite God. He has to use symbols to speak our language.
I have no feathers, but you did give me an ulcer. Did you perhaps forget to mention that you were playing devils advocate, or practicing role playing to argue the other side, or something like that? Because I literally waited until the end of the podcast expecting that both of you were going to admit to such. And you did not. So… unless I missed it somewhere in the beginning- which is possible- both of you have taken a swan dive into the deep end and we need to talk.
I love you both- you know I do- but the first hour of that podcast was full of content from both of you which Ark is going to hear and say, “Finally! They’re starting to make sense!”
It was that bad.
So unless there is something I missed or a punchline coming, let me know when you guys are free to have a friendly and honest chat. I’m going to be sitting here drinking Pepto Bismol right from the bottle until then.
Lol.
Honestly, Bryan, I haven’t listened to the playback yet. We got cut off at the end by that phone call and we never got around to coming back. And I only remember maybe 5% of what we were trying to discuss when we were interrupted.
Maybe I was drugged?!
You BOTH said some crazy crap which made me very much afraid that all of the friends and family and followers I’ve told about you two would somehow pick this episode to check you out and then I’d get tar and feathered.
I won’t surmise on the involvement of drugs, but in a nutshell, you started off by commenting on an upcoming conversation about young earth creationism, then the conversation devolved into “Adam and eve weren’t real”, “Genesis obviously doesn’t mean what it says,” A lot of vague badmouthing of Ken Ham and people like him including their fearful paranoia about the slippery slope of rejecting Genesis leading to rejecting the validity of the Bible (Which you scoffed at), and then a long and multifaceted conversation about how the Bible is full of contradictions and isn’t valid except in certain places, because it wasn’t written by God, and its been evolving since the beginning… essentially doing exactly what Ken Ham warned was the result of rejecting Genesis.
You literally attacked people who hold to the inerrancy of scripture as essentially illogical and fearful.
You both made the vaguest passing comments about science (Which still managed to be wrong) and then literally played out exactly what Ken Ham warns by rejecting what the Bible ACTUALLY says, which forced you to then attack the validity of scripture on the weakest and most emotional of grounds- and you make a crap ton of arguments which were right out of your own comment sections:
Science proves Genesis can’t be true, Adam and Eve weren’t real people, the earth really is billions of years old, people has no written languages until Moses time and so the Bible was a series of myths transmitted orally for thousands of years, people who believe Genesis are anti-science and fearful, people who believe the inerrancy of scripture are ignorant and fearful (“Afraid of losing control,” you said)… A lot of emotional, illogical, baseless or at least undefended arguments. Far more ad hominem than your traditional logical use of evidence or reason.
Like I said, I could almost hear Ark nodding his head in approval and agreement. It was kind of like hearing Rush Limbaugh spend half an hour talking about why he thinks socialism might be a good idea after all, and how he regrets not voting for Hillary.
So, I’m awaiting the punchline, or hoping you’ll both get through rehab, give this a listen, and make a series of corrections- or maybe I’ll click my heels together and wake up on the farm finding it was all a dream.
And if not, we will need to have a little conversation. Maybe about saying no to drugs.
Just say “No.”
Haha, I guess I better go back and listen to try and figure out what I was saying, then… 😉
But, before that, I have some very good news! (I think.)
I have presented the stuff about Old Earth Creationism to Ark before, and he most definitely did NOT nod along in agreement. So, fear not. lol.
Also, maybe check out this video which was recommended by Jasmine when you get a chance. It’s probably more nuanced than I was able to be, since our podcast was the first time I had ever tried to explain the concept out loud.