Christians appearing to be unreasonable?

[miamited]

Hi jckstraw,

You asked: is it bad for Christians to appear silly to the world?

I can't say whether it's good or bad all I can say is that Paul seems to affirm that he is not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the truth regarding salvation and then speaks in that very same passage that it seems as foolishness to those who are perishing. Certianly it would seem then that one might logically draw the conclusion that if the perishing consider the gospel as foolishness, then those that follow it must also be following foolishness.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[ViaCrucis]

If not taking the Bible literal in every jot and tittle means damnation then heaven is going to be utterly empty.

Even the most ardent self-professed "literalists" recognize some things to be non-literal. I've yet to meet someone who believes God is mineral or a tall structure composed of stone and mortar, or that Jesus is a female chicken.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Greg1234]

is it bad for Christians to appear silly to the world?

To methodological naturalism, no.

 

[Greg1234]

If not taking the Bible literal in every jot and tittle means damnation then heaven is going to be utterly empty.

Even the most ardent self-professed "literalists" recognize some things to be non-literal. I've yet to meet someone who believes God is mineral or a tall structure composed of stone and mortar, or that Jesus is a female chicken.

-CryptoLutheran

How does the bible secretly mean Darwinism?

 

[artybloke]

The Bible, like every other piece of ancient literature written by late bronze age people, has no more to say about Darwinism than it has to say about relativity, germ theory, computers, the transport system of London or anything else that's irrelevant to its message.

 

[ViaCrucis]

How does the bible secretly mean Darwinism?

It doesn't. Science which we have only figured out in the last few centuries is not going to be in the Bible.

But, of course, the biblical authors were no more aware of evolution than they were aware of germ theory or that the earth moves in orbit around the sun. These weren't things which the inspired authors were aware of and it'd make no sense for them to write about it. Even if one takes the position that God "took over" and simply used the biblical authors as ink quills what good would it do for God to tell bronze and early iron age people about such things?

What seems rather clear is that, in Scripture, God's word comes to us in the linguistic forms understood and used at the time. One method of communication is mythology.

I know lots of people feel that the "m" word is really icky, but that doesn't change the fact that story-telling has always been a principal means of human communication. In fact it has been one of our most important ways of preserving some of our most important ideas.

That the ancient Israelites had a mythology, a cohesive set of sacred narratives, through which a great deal of vital, essential and fundamental truth about God and God's work and relationship to and with the world shouldn't be offensive.

There is no reason that God's Word cannot be spoken through this, one of humanity's most ancient and common modes of passing on our understanding and way of life.

And there is no reason why mythology can't exist side-by-side with literal history in the same Canon of holy and inspired Scripture.

Or is God so impotent that He can only speak His word through a narrowly selected set of communication forms?

The Biblical tapestry is not lessened by this. It is enriched by this fact. God's word is living, active and sharper than a two-edged sword. God's word is dynamic and robust, it has depth and beauty that should not be taken away by insisting on a rigid and wooden literalistic hermeneutic that refuses to let Scripture breath and say what it wants to say.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Greg1234]

The Bible, like every other piece of ancient literature written by late bronze age people,

Are you talking about the advancement of tools or the advancement of men?

has no more to say about Darwinism than it has to say about relativity, germ theory, computers, the transport system of London or anything else that's irrelevant to its message.

What does the atomic literature have to say about Huxley's plasm theory?

 

[artybloke]

Are you talking about the advancement of tools or the advancement of men?



What does the atomic literature have to say about Huxley's plasm theory?

Dear Greg, do get a grip and try and make some kind of sense.

 

[Greg1234]

It doesn't. Science which we have only figured out in the last few centuries is not going to be in the Bible.

Well surely you would not expect to find macroscopic substances exalted in microscopic literature either.

But, of course, the biblical authors were no more aware of evolution than they were aware of germ theory or that the earth moves in orbit around the sun. These weren't things which the inspired authors were aware of and it'd make no sense for them to write about it. Even if one takes the position that God "took over" and simply used the biblical authors as ink quills what good would it do for God to tell bronze and early iron age people about such things?

What seems rather clear is that, in Scripture, God's word comes to us in the linguistic forms understood and used at the time. One method of communication is mythology.

I know lots of people feel that the "m" word is really icky, but that doesn't change the fact that story-telling has always been a principal means of human communication. In fact it has been one of our most important ways of preserving some of our most important ideas.

That the ancient Israelites had a mythology, a cohesive set of sacred narratives, through which a great deal of vital, essential and fundamental truth about God and God's work and relationship to and with the world shouldn't be offensive.

There is no reason that God's Word cannot be spoken through this, one of humanity's most ancient and common modes of passing on our understanding and way of life.

And there is no reason why mythology can't exist side-by-side with literal history in the same Canon of holy and inspired Scripture.

Or is God so impotent that He can only speak His word through a narrowly selected set of communication forms?

The Biblical tapestry is not lessened by this. It is enriched by this fact. God's word is living, active and sharper than a two-edged sword. God's word is dynamic and robust, it has depth and beauty that should not be taken away by insisting on a rigid and wooden literalistic hermeneutic that refuses to let Scripture breath and say what it wants to say.

-CryptoLutheran

So is the electric universe scientific community wrong because one of them was drinking coffee?

 

[Greg1234]

Dear Greg, do get a grip and try and make some kind of sense.

tsk

 

[Freedom63]

It doesn't. Science which we have only figured out in the last few centuries is not going to be in the Bible.

But, of course, the biblical authors were no more aware of evolution than they were aware of germ theory or that the earth moves in orbit around the sun. These weren't things which the inspired authors were aware of and it'd make no sense for them to write about it. Even if one takes the position that God "took over" and simply used the biblical authors as ink quills what good would it do for God to tell bronze and early iron age people about such things?

What seems rather clear is that, in Scripture, God's word comes to us in the linguistic forms understood and used at the time. One method of communication is mythology.

I know lots of people feel that the "m" word is really icky, but that doesn't change the fact that story-telling has always been a principal means of human communication. In fact it has been one of our most important ways of preserving some of our most important ideas.

That the ancient Israelites had a mythology, a cohesive set of sacred narratives, through which a great deal of vital, essential and fundamental truth about God and God's work and relationship to and with the world shouldn't be offensive.

There is no reason that God's Word cannot be spoken through this, one of humanity's most ancient and common modes of passing on our understanding and way of life.

And there is no reason why mythology can't exist side-by-side with literal history in the same Canon of holy and inspired Scripture.

Or is God so impotent that He can only speak His word through a narrowly selected set of communication forms?

The Biblical tapestry is not lessened by this. It is enriched by this fact. God's word is living, active and sharper than a two-edged sword. God's word is dynamic and robust, it has depth and beauty that should not be taken away by insisting on a rigid and wooden literalistic hermeneutic that refuses to let Scripture breath and say what it wants to say.

-CryptoLutheran

Bravo!! The best post in the thread so far.

 

[LBP]

Hi LBP,

Actually, I think if you really look you'll find that there has always been a remnant of those who believe the word of God to the letter. Remember also these two things. The road to condemnation is broad and wide and many travel it, but the road to eternal life is straight and narrow and few there be that find it.

Secondly, and I hope that you will carefully consider this one and maybe even take a stab at answering my following question. On that day many will say to me Lord, Lord did we not drive out demons in your name and perform mighty miracles in your name. I will turn to them and say, "I never knew you. Depart from me you who are accursed."

Now, let's make sure we understand this short example that Jesus spoke of. These people that come to him address him as Lord and claim that they have done mighty things in his name. I think anyone who would carefully read this would admit that these people seem to be one's who would have called themselves christians when they lived on the earth. Yet, on the day of judgment Jesus clearly tells them that he never knew them. Now, what if Jesus believed, actually he knows, that God's word regarding the creation account is just exactly as He had it written by His Holy Spirit? Do you think Jesus would find them faithful if, while they lived this life they spent much of their energies denying such a thing as ludicrious? If the Holy Spirit caused the Scripturs to be written and they do portray the exact truth of the creation, is a person who denies that truth led by the Holy Spirit. Wouldn't that make the Holy Spirit a liar if he confirms in you something different than he caused to be written in the Scriptures?

Just something to think about. What would be the reason that a self-professed believer would not agree with the truth or believe something different than the truth? Didn't Jesus say that the job of the Holy Spirit was to lead us into all truth? Why then, do you and I believe something different if we are led by the same Spirit? Could those faithful christians that cry out to the Lord on that day of judgment, even though they did such powerful things in the Lord's name, be unknown unto him because they refused to believe the truth. Even though they walked around telling everyone, "I'm a christian. I know the Lord." The issue at judgment isn't really about whether you know the Lord, but whether the Lord knows you. The Revelation of our Lord makes it clear that on that day of judgment the ones who will be saved are those whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life. So, it seems clear to me that it really isn't about all our knowledge and self-proclaimed relationship with the Lord, but rather the Lord's relationship with us.

Just some things to think over. If God did create the heavens and the earth in six literal days and just so you wouldn't misunderstand had the Spirit cause to be written for each day that there was evening and there was morning, and you refuse to believe it...Does God see you as faithful. Will Jesus write your name in the Lamb's Book of Life? For you and I there is obviously a difference in what we believe is the truth of the creation. One of us, therefore, does not have the Spirit of truth confirming what the reality of the creation was.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Sorry, Ted, I didn't see that you had addressed this to me. I don't deny that there is a certain "internal logic" or "internal consistency" to your thinking, or even to Ken Ham's for that matter. And I certainly don't think that you're going to miss the narrow road simply because you choose to read the Bible as though it were a scientific text and to use this as some sort of litmus test for whether one is a true Christian. I'm even perfectly happy to concede that you could be right, which I would cheerfully concede for the Mormons, Scientologists and Islamic terrorists as well.

But I look at it this way: God put us on earth with our intellect and intuition as pretty much our only tools for making sense of our world and the universe. He then surrounded us with mountains of evidence suggesting that the universe is billions of years old and that life evolved over eons in a sequence quite different from that described in Genesis. Why would He have done this? As some sort of goofy test to see if we'd be "so faithful" that in this instance we'd disbelieve our lying eyes and intellects and cling to a wooden, literal reading of an ancient text that was never intended to be taken as a scientific description? This just doesn't seem even vaguely plausible - or God-like - to me. So I choose to go with my intellect and intuition and to flatly disbelieve that God could be this capricious. I don't object to your approach if you find it satisfying; I'm just utterly perplexed that a seemingly intelligent person like yourself could find it satisfying.

"Do you think Jesus would find them faithful if, while they lived this life they spent much of their energies denying such a thing as ludicrious?" Well, yes, I do. Although I don't spend much energy at all denying such things as ludicrous unless I'm so bored out of my skull that I happen to be visiting CF, I think Jesus would laugh out loud about the entire controversy. Although I have no doubt that you are sincere, and I hope to see you in Heaven, I suspect that those to whom Jesus will say "depart" are those whose supposedly Christian lives consisted mostly of arguing with other Christians about doctrinal technicalities and trying to prove who was the "true Christian" and who was the "false Christian" - while those who pleased Him were those who simply did their best to walk the Christian walk.

 

[DamonWV]

Its the new york times, we never had a chance from the get go

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Here is an example of how Origins Theology, and specifically the denial of evolution, is continuing to make Christianity look silly - just as if we had a large chunk of Christians who denied heliocentrism.

Note that the authors are both professors at a Christian college, Eastern Nazarene College.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/o...ion-of-reason.html?_r=1&src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB


Thoughts?

Papias

It doesn't matter that the authors are professors at a Christian College. Their bias in favor of modern,secular thinking and naturalistic theories and against traditional Christian beliefs is apparent. Perhaps they are not opposed to abortion and homosexuality and the spread of secularism and relativism and paganism,and the undermining of Christian religion. Many professors of religion today are unorthodox or unbelieving on the most basic Christian doctrines. Many of them interpret scripture and doctrine along naturalistic,anthropological,existentialist,evolutionary and socialistic lines. They undermine scripture and doctrine even as they seem to explain them with faith. Modernist biblical scholars and theologians have done much to undermine the faith of Christians,by chipping away at the belief in miracles,divine intervention,the divine origin of the Church and the priesthood,the divine authorship and authenticity of scripture,the Incarnation and Resurrection.