I have put up a blog to deal exclusively with fundamentalism, so I can use this one for pure theology. Right now it has the same post as here, Dick Army Lashes out at Dobson. But it will soon contain more; I will put new material and fundy material from this blog as well.
Fundy Watch
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Dick Army takes down Dobson
These are not my words, this is the actual article
September 28, 2006
Armey Lashes Out Against Dobson, Values Voters Conservative Christians take it on the chin from an unexpected source. Former Texas Congressman Dick Armey, once a stalwart ally in the culture wars, appears to be turning his back on Christian conservatives and their leaders. The former majority leader of the House of Representatives reportedly told Ryan Sager, author of a new book on the Republican Party, that values voters and their leaders — especially Focus on the Family Action Chairman Dr. James Dobson — are "nasty bullies." In the interview, Armey responded pointedly when Sager asked why he thought Christian conservatives seemed more powerful now than in the 1990s. "To a large extent, because Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies," Armey said. "I pray devoutly every day, but being a Christian is no excuse for being stupid. There's a high demagoguery coefficient to issues like prayer in schools. Demagoguery doesn't work unless it's dumb . . . These issues are easy for the intellectually lazy and can appeal to a large demographic."
Focus on the Family Action President Jim Daly said it's shocking the former congressman would attack millions of values voters who helped Armey and other social conservatives gain control of Congress.
"Values voters expect to hear such cruel insults from the Left," he said, "but not from a champion of family values, as Mr. Armey once claimed to be."
read more
Senate Makes Last-Ditch Effort to Pass Line-Item Veto
Legislation would allow the president to strike parts of a bill. Letter Outlines What's Legal for Churches in an Election Year
The law allows non-profit groups
to do a lot.
Encourage Your Senators to Pass
the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act Parental-Notification Laws Reduce Premarital Sex Among Minors Judge Rejects Ohio Law Limiting Abortion Pill
more news
Dr. Dobson to Appear on Your World w/ Neil Cavuto
Dr. James Dobson's appearance on The O'Reilly Factor was postponed by the network. A new date has not been determined. He's still scheduled to appear Friday on Fox News Channel's Your World w/ Neil Cavuto.
Citizen
Issues that matter. Information that empowers. Stories that inspire. Get them all in "Citizen" magazine.
Suggested Donation: $24.00
details
"Upon this government more than any other has, in the providence of God, been cast the special guardianship of the great principle of adherence to written constitutions. If it fail here, all hope in regard to it will be extinguished."
-- President Andrew Jackson, Dec. 8, 1829
citizenlink.org | about us | contact us | focusaction.org | family.org
__._,_.___
September 28, 2006
Armey Lashes Out Against Dobson, Values Voters Conservative Christians take it on the chin from an unexpected source. Former Texas Congressman Dick Armey, once a stalwart ally in the culture wars, appears to be turning his back on Christian conservatives and their leaders. The former majority leader of the House of Representatives reportedly told Ryan Sager, author of a new book on the Republican Party, that values voters and their leaders — especially Focus on the Family Action Chairman Dr. James Dobson — are "nasty bullies." In the interview, Armey responded pointedly when Sager asked why he thought Christian conservatives seemed more powerful now than in the 1990s. "To a large extent, because Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies," Armey said. "I pray devoutly every day, but being a Christian is no excuse for being stupid. There's a high demagoguery coefficient to issues like prayer in schools. Demagoguery doesn't work unless it's dumb . . . These issues are easy for the intellectually lazy and can appeal to a large demographic."
Focus on the Family Action President Jim Daly said it's shocking the former congressman would attack millions of values voters who helped Armey and other social conservatives gain control of Congress.
"Values voters expect to hear such cruel insults from the Left," he said, "but not from a champion of family values, as Mr. Armey once claimed to be."
read more
Senate Makes Last-Ditch Effort to Pass Line-Item Veto
Legislation would allow the president to strike parts of a bill. Letter Outlines What's Legal for Churches in an Election Year
The law allows non-profit groups
to do a lot.
Encourage Your Senators to Pass
the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
more news
Dr. Dobson to Appear on Your World w/ Neil Cavuto
Dr. James Dobson's appearance on The O'Reilly Factor was postponed by the network. A new date has not been determined. He's still scheduled to appear Friday on Fox News Channel's Your World w/ Neil Cavuto.
Issues that matter. Information that empowers. Stories that inspire. Get them all in "Citizen" magazine.
Suggested Donation: $24.00
details
"Upon this government more than any other has, in the providence of God, been cast the special guardianship of the great principle of adherence to written constitutions. If it fail here, all hope in regard to it will be extinguished."
-- President Andrew Jackson, Dec. 8, 1829
citizenlink.org
__._,_.___
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Something is Not Nothing, but Nothing is Something, or Something Like That.
This is a comment from anonymous (that most prolific of all posters) on a blogpiece concerning my God Argument, "Argument From Cosmological Necessity.".The original argument turns on the idea that something must always have existed.
anon: While I will grant nothingness as a PSA seems to me to be an impossibility, since we would not be able to get out of the state of entropy that nothingness implies.
That's exacctly the point of the argument! That means that nothing as a "Putative state of affairs" (PSA) is impossible, thus we did not start with nothing, we had to start with some eternally existing "something."
However, to say that the spark, or counterpoint, or whatever it is that keeps the universe "real" and happening is "God" is a stretch. But what if it is God, as in a creator. To think that anything as massive as a counterbalance to the entirety of our known universal reality would even consider us important is ridiculous.
That's because you are identifying God with the big guy in the sky sort of thinking. You see the divine as an old man up in the clouds with the particular personality of some religious document. You need to learn to understand those images as metaphors.
Would something with that much force and power then create something as infintesimal as a human son to teach us a lesson? I hardly think so. Would that force even bother to notice Man in the great expanse of the universe that God created?
What do we have to base that judgement upon? Even that thought is anthropomorphic, and anthropocentric. you have nothing to base it on. You have no concept of what it would mean for God to do that much less how it seems to God or if God doesn't do such things all the time. After all, how can we measure economies of scale with infinity. The big guy in the sky is big, and everything he does is big, but if we are talking about infinity there is "big" or "small." the micro can be just as infinite as the macro.
There is so much of man in the Judeo-Christian manifestation of God that just has to be wrong. Kingdom's. God the Father. Lord.
Christianity is about us. The fundies are upset because they think God would hand down a "perfect" revelation from on high. But he's handing it to a flawed humanity. He hands it down through humans because it is for humans. So it has to be encoded and filtered through our cultural constructs because we have to understand it. The best the we can do is to understand it analogically. We can only know that our connections are metaphors but we can have the direct connection in mystical experience which is beyond words.
These are all human concepts. If God is the Father, then who is our Mother? Men can fertilize, but he cannot create.
"father" is obviously metaphor. Who is the revleation for? If it is for us shouldn't we understand it? Why would God communicate with us in ways totally incomprohensible?
I am not saying there isn't something, but I highly doubt it's anything like the men who wrote the Old Testament envision.
I think the Christian understanding has warped our persective about how the Jews actually saw God. They knew God was more than just a big guy on a throne. See the visions of Iasiaha about the throne Cheriot, these are metahors not litteral statements about how God looks! They are like the sumbols in the Book of Revelation. They are like images in modern art, they only suggest things.
Man has been wrong about the nature of his God through every epoch. We "know" that there is no Zeus on Olympus. No Odin in Valhalla. No Jupiter. No Osis. Yet it's ok to believe in a J-C God, Allah or Vishnu? We call theirs a "mythology" and ours are "beliefs"? "Ancient" man beleived just as ferverantly in the Gods as those of the faith do now.
You are literalizing the metahors. you are hung up on the litteral.
You can't have it both ways
O I already do!
Matt slick is a faith destoryer
It serves me right for going back. and I expected it. it still makes me angry taht taht childish petty minded little hick you can't has no brains and can't think can't defend himself intellectually so he has to ban everyone who disagrees with him.
I was being very good.I did not attack anyone I attack no one no one non one. I complitmented. I complemented their side. they banned me and said it wa for attacking people. that's because they are fools and they cant' ratinoally deal with an opponent.
I cliam them anathema. they are false teachers of a false gospel and I declair them anathema.
I was being very good.I did not attack anyone I attack no one no one non one. I complitmented. I complemented their side. they banned me and said it wa for attacking people. that's because they are fools and they cant' ratinoally deal with an opponent.
I cliam them anathema. they are false teachers of a false gospel and I declair them anathema.
answer to Matt Slick
since I was gone from CARM (banned) Matt bad a big show down and banned all the bad people and put everything right. He put up this "sticky" to answer it all and here's my response:
that is no excuse for reducing the whole issue to one of "bible good" or "bible bad." the whole thing from start to finnish revovles around the issue that there are better ways to understand inspriation than the verbal plenary model. You don't even bother to ask what they are. you just assume I am saying "bible bad." "bad man say bible bad, bonk bonk on head." there is no excuse for not even bothering to understand the basis of the argument and just lunching off against against a straw man argument that hasn't even been advanced.
instead of taking such a knee jerk reaction and just saying 'It's too complecited for me to sort out so all the non inerrency people are wrong and banned." Why don't you just start witht he basics, if inerrency peopl are slandering non inerrency people, they are viiolating rules, why not eforce the rules against them too? that would have stopped a lot of it.
but to lash out with these bold prnoucements about who is a chirsian and who is a false teacher when you don't even take the time to understand the issues is just the hieght of irresponsibility. Its also just stabbing me in the back. I've been posting here ten years, I think you at least owe me a fair hearing. I'm not asking for anything that isn't just a basic right of any accussed person.
that's all fine and good. It's a totally indefensable position and its' stick inside the box with super gule. it's not going anywhere and it will never lead any sort of thinking sekptic to the Lord. But if it makes you feel better, fine. I am not willing to say you are not a christian because you dont' agree with me. that seems to be your once answer to any disagreement you fall into.
I know you will probably zap this as soon as it is put up. and I know you will ban me for saying it. but I'm saying it, you are irresponsible and childish and you are not fair and you are not willing to meet the menimal requirements for the sor to intellectual apologistecs to which aspire. you think it's just a matter of rattling off a bunck of quotes from C.S. Lewish Moreland so forth that makes you smart and you feel good arout it all and you never have to think about it. Thinking about is the basis of what you must do to be an apologetist and to think about it you must understand what the other guy is saying.
you are making division because you are not willing to listen you allow us to be slandareda and you help do the salandering beause you aren't willing to do the actual work of lisgening and thinking and debating.
I'm sorry your life is hard, this is just part of the deal. this is what you sign on for when you want to be in apologetics.
More slader and you have no right to say it and no basisfor saying it. you have no facts and no evidence to back you up. I have tons of email form people all the time who tell me I saved their faith. I hear from people every day who say this. you have no idea. you are just making it up because it seems to you this is what should be the case, therefore, it is the case. But it is not. By the time I get through exapliaing what my position means they believe Jesus ten times over.
.
Apparenlty it doesn't matter to you that your position is without any historical precident at all, and it obviously doesn't matter to you that you slander views help by esteemed christians such as Lewish and Luther and Cardnidal Dulles and others. That "they are insulting my lack of education because they are so arrogant" card is just the excuse for nothign having command of the facts.
I'm sure part of you wants to put a stop to it. I'm sure if you could swing it you would live in a world where no one had the right to their on views. But you can't change the fact that skeptics see the problems you gloss over. And you can never win them over with dishonesty and pretending that the problems aren't there and then patting yourself on the back for being a bold man of God because you reuse to listen; you think being narrowmineded makes you brave.
why don't you try dealing honestly with other people's points of view.
show me the creed! show me the council! quote the passage from the coincil? do you not how the chruch worked historically? they did things by coucnils rememeber? show me what council adopted something called "inerrency?"
I never said inerrency is idolotry, I said putting it on a level where it superceeds personal relationship with Jesus and teatin it as the basis of the whole gospel is idolotry.
what's going on right now? how did all this start? The inerrency guys wouldn't let me deal with skeptics in the way I have come to see is most effective befcause they could not get aruond the inerrency thing.
that's the kind of distortion that comes form not listening. NO one has said that the source fo thruth is inerrency. NO church, no council no creed, no one ever said it. It is only if you assume the model of verbal pleanry inspriation that mistakes and inacruacies mean a mistaken source of inspriation. If you undersatnd inspriation as filtered through human undersanding, which obviosuly it is since it is writen to us, then inaccruacies don't mean anything in terms of the nature of the source. In other words, God wasn't trying to write a memo form the office. the bible is something else it is not a rule book, a memo, an owners manuel it is not a set of ruels to live buy. It's a work of literature.
Of cousre you see noly your side. They salndered me, they lied about me, that's ok. waving the flag of inerrency is just a carte blanch to say anything. they even said the physical bible is God, that's ok, any blasphemy is fine as long as one wave the flag of inerrency. But it's not ideolotry, it's just repalced Chrsit as the object of worship.
the major defining statment on inerrency, the defining momement when then the idea became a doctrine, was the Chicago statment in the 19th century. That statment ends in the following:
We invite response to this statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help which enables us to strengthen this testimony to God's Word we shall be grateful.
* The Exposition is not printed here but can be obtained by writing us at the Oakland office: ICBI / P.O. Box 13261 / Oakland, CA 94661 / (415)-339-1064.
they have said two things here that are crucial:
(1) not buying into inerrnecy doesnt' mean you aren't a true Chrisitian
(2) living the Gospel is more important than accepting any particualr doctrine about how the Bible is inspired.
*no creed, no coucil, no doctrine, no preacher, no convention, no bible verse anywhere ever made belief in inerrency the test of Christianity.
*It is true there was no doctrine of inerrench until the nineteeth century. Matt can poo poo it but study chruch history you see its true; how do you think Martin Luther was able to question the validity of the book of James?
The issues we were discussing had to do with other methods of undersatnding revolation besides seeing it as verbal plenary inspriation. Verbal Plenary means all the verbs are inspried. But that makes the Bible like a memo from the boss intead of a literary work, which is closer to being what it is.
The bible is complex, it is not just one thing and to have a accurate view we need a complex view. skeptics know there are problems with the Bible. we can best answers these problems by being honsest about them and not trying to pawn off an artificail concept such as "a perfect God makes a perfect bible." that's what Johesph Smith said. That was Smith's big line, his gold tablets were perfect and he knew the regular bible wasnt' perfect, if you perfect in the sense of litteral meaning and mathematical accuracy.
An adequate model of how inspiration works requires a complex view of what inspiration is. none of us said the bible is wrong or its full of lies we never said it's errent."
In theoloy error means theological error. certainly no one is saying that. We are saying there some inacuracies and they are clear on the page, you can only deny them by playing "the emperor has beuatiful new closthes." The empoeror has no closthes and the skpetics know the Bible has some inconsistancies. As long as we try to make all kinds of acruracy out to be the mark of theological perfection we will have problems we can' answer. Only if we understand the message as more important that we escape the problems.
The real issue is understanding it as figurative and as employing litrary devices, because that's where 90% of the problem comes in. MOst of the problems skeptics point out have to do with these things not with truth of the Gospel but with failure to understand the use of litrary devices.
Quote:Matt SlickThere has been a great deal of friction here on the discussion board about the issue of inerrancy. Unfortunately, the "he said she said" argument-counter-argument has cascaded into an avalanche of problems, accusations, defense, etc.. I cannot wade through all of the nuances of each person's feelings, perceived injury, redefinitions, modifications of positions, etc. in order to properly put the matter to rest.
that is no excuse for reducing the whole issue to one of "bible good" or "bible bad." the whole thing from start to finnish revovles around the issue that there are better ways to understand inspriation than the verbal plenary model. You don't even bother to ask what they are. you just assume I am saying "bible bad." "bad man say bible bad, bonk bonk on head." there is no excuse for not even bothering to understand the basis of the argument and just lunching off against against a straw man argument that hasn't even been advanced.
Quote:
People are now coming to me with complaints about various related issues and want me to take their side, to see their reasons, to address wrongs against them, etc. I've had enough. This is adding a great deal of stress in my life and I don't need it, especially lately. Therefore, I want to make it known what CARM stands for regarding this matter of inerrancy.
instead of taking such a knee jerk reaction and just saying 'It's too complecited for me to sort out so all the non inerrency people are wrong and banned." Why don't you just start witht he basics, if inerrency peopl are slandering non inerrency people, they are viiolating rules, why not eforce the rules against them too? that would have stopped a lot of it.
but to lash out with these bold prnoucements about who is a chirsian and who is a false teacher when you don't even take the time to understand the issues is just the hieght of irresponsibility. Its also just stabbing me in the back. I've been posting here ten years, I think you at least owe me a fair hearing. I'm not asking for anything that isn't just a basic right of any accussed person.
Quote:
CARM's position: God inspired his prophets and apostles to write perfect Scripture that contained absolutely no error whatsoever in any way. CARM will defend this position and oppose those who attack God's word.
Unfortunately there are people who claim that God either failed, but was not able to, or chose to not ensure that his original writings didn't have any mistakes in them. I wholeheartedly denounce this error. I'm not interested in wading through a morass of ambiguous accusations and inane defenses of various positions stating that the Bible contains only myth, or is part myth, or partly inspired, mostly inspired, etc.
that's all fine and good. It's a totally indefensable position and its' stick inside the box with super gule. it's not going anywhere and it will never lead any sort of thinking sekptic to the Lord. But if it makes you feel better, fine. I am not willing to say you are not a christian because you dont' agree with me. that seems to be your once answer to any disagreement you fall into.
I know you will probably zap this as soon as it is put up. and I know you will ban me for saying it. but I'm saying it, you are irresponsible and childish and you are not fair and you are not willing to meet the menimal requirements for the sor to intellectual apologistecs to which aspire. you think it's just a matter of rattling off a bunck of quotes from C.S. Lewish Moreland so forth that makes you smart and you feel good arout it all and you never have to think about it. Thinking about is the basis of what you must do to be an apologetist and to think about it you must understand what the other guy is saying.
Quote:
As far as I'm concerned Satan is using this argument and many people associated with it, to accomplish division in the body of Christ, to try and damage this Ministry, to distract people from focusing their energies on the real enemy outside the church (atheists, cults, false religions, etc), and much more. Furthermore, undoubtedly the unbelievers who see the internal bickering, or mocking the name of Christ because of the actions of those claim to follow him.
you are making division because you are not willing to listen you allow us to be slandareda and you help do the salandering beause you aren't willing to do the actual work of lisgening and thinking and debating.
I'm sorry your life is hard, this is just part of the deal. this is what you sign on for when you want to be in apologetics.
Quote:
Having said that, in my opinion, those who cast doubt upon God's Word are dangerous people. They have helped to damage the faith of new believers, provided a venue of ridicule by unbelievers, and helped bring division in the body of Christ.
More slader and you have no right to say it and no basisfor saying it. you have no facts and no evidence to back you up. I have tons of email form people all the time who tell me I saved their faith. I hear from people every day who say this. you have no idea. you are just making it up because it seems to you this is what should be the case, therefore, it is the case. But it is not. By the time I get through exapliaing what my position means they believe Jesus ten times over.
Quote:
These are serious problems. Apparently they don't care. Apparently they want to let us know that we are ignorant, that we are uneducated, and that we are the idolaters. I find it interesting that the ones who defend the word of God and his originals in his perfection, are attacked and maligned
.
Apparenlty it doesn't matter to you that your position is without any historical precident at all, and it obviously doesn't matter to you that you slander views help by esteemed christians such as Lewish and Luther and Cardnidal Dulles and others. That "they are insulting my lack of education because they are so arrogant" card is just the excuse for nothign having command of the facts.
Quote:
Part of me wants to put a stop to this issue and part of me doesn't want to. Truth must be defended. But, if I silence the topic, then people will claim I can't handle it or made a bad choice, etc. Everybody is ready to complain and whine and demand that their side be seen and vindicated. Instead of turning the other cheek, they reach out and strike.
I'm sure part of you wants to put a stop to it. I'm sure if you could swing it you would live in a world where no one had the right to their on views. But you can't change the fact that skeptics see the problems you gloss over. And you can never win them over with dishonesty and pretending that the problems aren't there and then patting yourself on the back for being a bold man of God because you reuse to listen; you think being narrowmineded makes you brave.
Quote:
Like I said, it seems that no matter what I do I always get attacked, and if I don't respond, I'm attacked for not responding. One thing is for sure, my position as head of this Ministry is quite difficult and sometimes it can be agitating and very stressful.
why don't you try dealing honestly with other people's points of view.
Quote:
So, I believe that the position that innerancy was never the church's position is absolutely ludicrous.
show me the creed! show me the council! quote the passage from the coincil? do you not how the chruch worked historically? they did things by coucnils rememeber? show me what council adopted something called "inerrency?"
Quote:
I believe that the position that innerancy amounts to idolatry, is flat out stupid. Yes, stupid.
I never said inerrency is idolotry, I said putting it on a level where it superceeds personal relationship with Jesus and teatin it as the basis of the whole gospel is idolotry.
Quote:
I believe that the position that inerrancy takes the focus off of the message and onto written words, is hobwash.
what's going on right now? how did all this start? The inerrency guys wouldn't let me deal with skeptics in the way I have come to see is most effective befcause they could not get aruond the inerrency thing.
Quote:
I believe that errantists who hold to orthodox Christian theology, do so inconsistently since they hold to truth while believe in the original basis for the truth was errant to begin with.
that's the kind of distortion that comes form not listening. NO one has said that the source fo thruth is inerrency. NO church, no council no creed, no one ever said it. It is only if you assume the model of verbal pleanry inspriation that mistakes and inacruacies mean a mistaken source of inspriation. If you undersatnd inspriation as filtered through human undersanding, which obviosuly it is since it is writen to us, then inaccruacies don't mean anything in terms of the nature of the source. In other words, God wasn't trying to write a memo form the office. the bible is something else it is not a rule book, a memo, an owners manuel it is not a set of ruels to live buy. It's a work of literature.
Quote:
I know one thing for sure. The devil has certainly used this argument and people to bring many of us to fatigue and to cause division within the body of Christ. Well done attackers of God's word.
Of cousre you see noly your side. They salndered me, they lied about me, that's ok. waving the flag of inerrency is just a carte blanch to say anything. they even said the physical bible is God, that's ok, any blasphemy is fine as long as one wave the flag of inerrency. But it's not ideolotry, it's just repalced Chrsit as the object of worship.
the major defining statment on inerrency, the defining momement when then the idea became a doctrine, was the Chicago statment in the 19th century. That statment ends in the following:
Quote:
We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we purpose by God's grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.
We invite response to this statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help which enables us to strengthen this testimony to God's Word we shall be grateful.
* The Exposition is not printed here but can be obtained by writing us at the Oakland office: ICBI / P.O. Box 13261 / Oakland, CA 94661 / (415)-339-1064.
they have said two things here that are crucial:
(1) not buying into inerrnecy doesnt' mean you aren't a true Chrisitian
(2) living the Gospel is more important than accepting any particualr doctrine about how the Bible is inspired.
*no creed, no coucil, no doctrine, no preacher, no convention, no bible verse anywhere ever made belief in inerrency the test of Christianity.
*It is true there was no doctrine of inerrench until the nineteeth century. Matt can poo poo it but study chruch history you see its true; how do you think Martin Luther was able to question the validity of the book of James?
The issues we were discussing had to do with other methods of undersatnding revolation besides seeing it as verbal plenary inspriation. Verbal Plenary means all the verbs are inspried. But that makes the Bible like a memo from the boss intead of a literary work, which is closer to being what it is.
The bible is complex, it is not just one thing and to have a accurate view we need a complex view. skeptics know there are problems with the Bible. we can best answers these problems by being honsest about them and not trying to pawn off an artificail concept such as "a perfect God makes a perfect bible." that's what Johesph Smith said. That was Smith's big line, his gold tablets were perfect and he knew the regular bible wasnt' perfect, if you perfect in the sense of litteral meaning and mathematical accuracy.
An adequate model of how inspiration works requires a complex view of what inspiration is. none of us said the bible is wrong or its full of lies we never said it's errent."
In theoloy error means theological error. certainly no one is saying that. We are saying there some inacuracies and they are clear on the page, you can only deny them by playing "the emperor has beuatiful new closthes." The empoeror has no closthes and the skpetics know the Bible has some inconsistancies. As long as we try to make all kinds of acruracy out to be the mark of theological perfection we will have problems we can' answer. Only if we understand the message as more important that we escape the problems.
The real issue is understanding it as figurative and as employing litrary devices, because that's where 90% of the problem comes in. MOst of the problems skeptics point out have to do with these things not with truth of the Gospel but with failure to understand the use of litrary devices.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Shaking the Dust at CARM
After ten years of fighting along side fellow Christians against the forces of atheism, unbelief, and Jesus mytherism, I have finally been betrayed by the narrow mindedness and callous stupidity of those who should be my allies. Just last summer Diane S. chief moderator of CARM boards sent me a PM saying "we thank God for you...you are called to do battle with the atheists." Now she issues a papal as though she's the pope warning posters to beware false teachers. It's clear, even though I'm not mentioned, that she means me since I was leaing the forces of reason against narrow minded bibliolotry. Her papal bull says:
I consider this an utter betrayal and knife in the back. The reference to the Bible as "myth" is a clear reference to me since I'm one of the oly two who spoke of "mythology in the Bible." Of cousre what I meant by that was a far cry from calling the bible a myth. Little distinctions like that don't matter to these guys. You don't have to worry about little things like accruacy and fairness when you control the zap button. Before demonstrating the unfairness of her statment I will set the stage by dscribing what my position turely is and what the general issues were about.
Basically there was a board split 50-50 with most of the major apologists who actually know what they are talking about on my side, the rest (the feeble minded who can't argue and use "bible said it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of logic) taking sides with the literalist biblioloters previously discussed on this blog. This was the group that says the bible literally is Jesus. Of course when Diane denounced that view and proclaimed it "error" the major proponent of it dropped it like a hot potato (that would be "Carico") and began qualifying it in ways she would never do for us before.
The basic issue began with an argument about evolution. Can a "true Christian" accept evolution or must one reject modern science in favor of faith? My position that I had set out. on inspiration is designed to allow one to accept modern science, evolution and the whole modern boat load of scientific goodies without giving up faith or denouncing the bible as "in error." To do this I have to step back from the traditional Verbal Plenary model of inspiration and look at other models that allowed greater room in understanding the kinds of texts that might be presented.
The creation story of Genesis, if taken in the Verbal Plenary since, where God is the boss dictating a memo to a secretary, then it is just understood straight forward and literally most of the time. If that is the case then the Bible has error, because science disproves creationism, the firmament, the flood, and other aspects of Genesis. We should interpret those figuratively, such as day = age, but then we are moving away from the model. If we adopt another model, we might be able to understand the creation account as Hebrew authors turning pagan myth on its head. This is not error because its not an attempt at scientific accuracy. It's an attempt to work within the knowledge categories of that time, without establishing any greater intent to impose those categories upon modern times.
Thus new models of revelation might understand the Bible as diverse, consisting of different kinds of texts. The Genesis text uses muthology to teach theological truth, that is not error, and it's not a lie, it's a sophisticated use of ancient understanding. But that's not good enough for the Bibliolotors. They can't understand the position because they are not smart enough. They have to keep it simple, Bible = good, or Bible bad! Those are the options for the bibliolotry crowd.To be spescific my view is that of dialectical retrival, which was brought out by the totally unorhtodx figure of Carndinal Avery Dulles who is very conservative and was appointed by JPII. These views are brought out in his work (written prior to becoming a Cardinal (Models of Revealation). The idea is that a dialetical relation exists between the author and the source of inspiration. The Bible is a diversity of different kinds of texts, and inspiration sometimes takes the form of the wirters on words, sometimes of dictator word for word from God, sometimes just of the authors own impressions based upon encounter with the ddivine. The common charactoristic is the encoutner; the Bible is the result of divine/human encounter. It is the importation of truth from the divine, but the ony question is in what way this is accomplished, it is not always in the same mannar. While methods of inspairtion very, it is always truth and thus we cannot speak of error in the larger theological sense. There may be inacuracies in the recording of some passages, or in their understanding, but there are no lies, no wrong teachings, no over all "error" in the more serious sense.In addition to the dialectical relation between author and divine, there is a dialetical relationship between the reader and the text.
what that means is the reader doesn't always get the same thing out of the reading. The piont counter point of dialatic can contian uninspried as well as inspired text, but the over all effect is a sublation process, just like with Hegel, where the progress of the dialectic continues to build upward, in this case, to reveal truth in every incounter the reader takes to the text.
Now let's look at the official CARM warning about the evil false teachers:
People claiming to be Christians. So the biliolotry crowd cannot take Paul at his word and see that "another Jesus" is defined by Grace, the cross, the resurrection, it is not defined by one's take on scripture. No passage anywhere in the Bible tells us that Christian identity is dependent upon accepting Verbal Plenary Inspiration as a theological position. Moreover, what did they think I was for 10 years? When they said "we thank God for you... you are called to fight the atheists" they should have said "and to be a false teacher." How could they have been so fooled for ten years? because they don't listen. They can't think.
But to say that I teach that the Bible is a myth is totally wrong and a lie. I never said that, I never said anything of the kind. I said it's only theological baggage from the Reformation that tells us Genesis is a literal scientific account of creation and to understand it as Hebrew writers dealing with pagan myth is a totally orthodox position given that certain other attitudes are in place as well. But of course this is way too complex for them.
I can't understand why this is would not be a minmally acceptable position. I think most conservatives would agree that it is at least possible to accept such a position and be thought of as a real christian, even if they themeselves think it's a weak position. Where do these guys getting off deicing this is beyond the line of Chritsian belief?
where does the Bible say we must believe every word or verse? This was a major issue in all the harrangs for a month. The bible never says to have a bible. It never auhtorizes itself. It never says "this God's word." The may be logical reason to string together ideas like Paul's use of the term Scripture and Jesus identiifcation with the "the law and prophits" as valid divisions of scirpture. But these are still ideas, conscturcts that make up a big theory of inspriation, they are not divine mandates and each one of them can be taken in different ways. No one has the right to make these things indicative of Christian identity!
No one said this. I certainly did not say it and the other person, Matrix who argued for Mythology in parts of scripture (and ironically is an inerrentist) did not say it. I emphaically said the oppossite when I made it very clear that certian protions of scripture (when the phrophets say "thus says the Lord" for example) are actually literal dictation from God word for word!
no one involved on our side of the debate ever said anything about the bible being in error. I reputated the use of the word error as a means of describing our side, I did so repeatedly. I said specifically that error in the more important sense is theological, not merely factual and that is not in the Bible. Factual matter of accuracy do not count as "error" in a theological sense. That's not good enough. They have to have us believe in the firmament and in God inspiring Paul to forget his coat and the whole nine yards.
Inerrency doesnt' mean wihtout any inacrruacy. Even Karl C.F. Henry allowed minor mistakes in the text. So did Luther. these people have no thoelogical knowledge at all.This has nothing to do with the issues at hand. The original documents are not at issue here. They don't even address the distinction between in accuracy and error.
.
Of course none of this is mandated in the bible, it's all a matter of interpretation they have to make it a matter of Christian identity. True Christian believes in verbal Plenary inspiration. How is it that Paul did not use that standard and mentions nothing about a position on inspiration in Galations one where he explains the true Gospel? This is obvious proof that these people biblioloters because they have made the bible indicative of all of Christian faith.
she has no right to say that, no one has made these people popes, They have authority over no one, except the little kingdom of CARM where they can be as arbitrary and unfair and hyocritical as they wish to be.
.
In the name Jesus Christ do they have to characterize it as "attacks." Who is attacking? that's the thanks get for 10 years of salving to win people to the Lord and to answer atheists who Matt Slick doesn't have the brains to confront. he couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag. If it wasn't for circular reasoning he would have no reasoning at all. The point was to defend the Bible This was all a defense that would be understood by modern people and that would allow one not to have to throw away one's brains. But the problem is they do not want a modern world friendly form of understanding the Gospel. They only have their little power when they can set up a little kingdom where an embittered minority try to hide form the modern world and live in a fantasy world of 19th century piety.
Makes it sound as though I just started posting there doesn't it? I was the last one left from the God squad of 98. I have been posting there every day since then. I have argued with atheits almost every day since 98. I was arguing with them the day My father died, as a means of dealing with Greif. But that means nothing to these hypocrites. the thrill making a big prononcement far out weighs any sentimental stuff like friendship, loyalty, or even fairness.
Well I warn my friends Matt Slick and Diane S. are hypocrates. liars. waves without foam, leaders of of the leagion of barinwahsed zombies. I shake the dust the at thenm.
they are preaching another Gospel. their Jesus is the Bible. they make the Bible the issue of salvation and thus risk theirs because they don't heed the very book they pretend to care so much about.
they are conducting a witch hunt.
shake shake sahke that dust.
There are people on these forums claiming to be Christians, they are supporting and teaching that Bible is a "myth", that it contains errors and you should believe its message but not every word or verse, you should even deny the OT as mythology and not factual events.........they are false teachers that we are taught by our God, would enter the church, with their "itching ears"..They want to erase what they do not want to believe and suggest it is error....... The word inerrancy means without error, the CARM administration and ministry believes as well as the majority of Evangelical Christians, do support and testify that God's word is WITHOUT ERROR in the "original manuscripts," it is "inerrant" to the words written in the "original documents"....Those claiming to be Christian on these forums, that are calling us "Bible idolators" because we believe His word is without error are false teachers.....do not trust what they have posted to you in their attacks on Scripture. The CARM administration will warn our posters, since we have received complaints of the many false teachers now coming to these forums, they are false teachers, you should trust God's word and not such men....
Please be aware it is your cults, false religions, Mormons that make the same arguments about God's word. Please be WARNED......again, they are false teachers. I will respond when I see such false teachings to warn you, do not trust the words of any person that will deny the Word of God and suggest it is a "myth" or in error....
I consider this an utter betrayal and knife in the back. The reference to the Bible as "myth" is a clear reference to me since I'm one of the oly two who spoke of "mythology in the Bible." Of cousre what I meant by that was a far cry from calling the bible a myth. Little distinctions like that don't matter to these guys. You don't have to worry about little things like accruacy and fairness when you control the zap button. Before demonstrating the unfairness of her statment I will set the stage by dscribing what my position turely is and what the general issues were about.
Basically there was a board split 50-50 with most of the major apologists who actually know what they are talking about on my side, the rest (the feeble minded who can't argue and use "bible said it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of logic) taking sides with the literalist biblioloters previously discussed on this blog. This was the group that says the bible literally is Jesus. Of course when Diane denounced that view and proclaimed it "error" the major proponent of it dropped it like a hot potato (that would be "Carico") and began qualifying it in ways she would never do for us before.
The basic issue began with an argument about evolution. Can a "true Christian" accept evolution or must one reject modern science in favor of faith? My position that I had set out. on inspiration is designed to allow one to accept modern science, evolution and the whole modern boat load of scientific goodies without giving up faith or denouncing the bible as "in error." To do this I have to step back from the traditional Verbal Plenary model of inspiration and look at other models that allowed greater room in understanding the kinds of texts that might be presented.
The creation story of Genesis, if taken in the Verbal Plenary since, where God is the boss dictating a memo to a secretary, then it is just understood straight forward and literally most of the time. If that is the case then the Bible has error, because science disproves creationism, the firmament, the flood, and other aspects of Genesis. We should interpret those figuratively, such as day = age, but then we are moving away from the model. If we adopt another model, we might be able to understand the creation account as Hebrew authors turning pagan myth on its head. This is not error because its not an attempt at scientific accuracy. It's an attempt to work within the knowledge categories of that time, without establishing any greater intent to impose those categories upon modern times.
Thus new models of revelation might understand the Bible as diverse, consisting of different kinds of texts. The Genesis text uses muthology to teach theological truth, that is not error, and it's not a lie, it's a sophisticated use of ancient understanding. But that's not good enough for the Bibliolotors. They can't understand the position because they are not smart enough. They have to keep it simple, Bible = good, or Bible bad! Those are the options for the bibliolotry crowd.To be spescific my view is that of dialectical retrival, which was brought out by the totally unorhtodx figure of Carndinal Avery Dulles who is very conservative and was appointed by JPII. These views are brought out in his work (written prior to becoming a Cardinal (Models of Revealation). The idea is that a dialetical relation exists between the author and the source of inspiration. The Bible is a diversity of different kinds of texts, and inspiration sometimes takes the form of the wirters on words, sometimes of dictator word for word from God, sometimes just of the authors own impressions based upon encounter with the ddivine. The common charactoristic is the encoutner; the Bible is the result of divine/human encounter. It is the importation of truth from the divine, but the ony question is in what way this is accomplished, it is not always in the same mannar. While methods of inspairtion very, it is always truth and thus we cannot speak of error in the larger theological sense. There may be inacuracies in the recording of some passages, or in their understanding, but there are no lies, no wrong teachings, no over all "error" in the more serious sense.In addition to the dialectical relation between author and divine, there is a dialetical relationship between the reader and the text.
what that means is the reader doesn't always get the same thing out of the reading. The piont counter point of dialatic can contian uninspried as well as inspired text, but the over all effect is a sublation process, just like with Hegel, where the progress of the dialectic continues to build upward, in this case, to reveal truth in every incounter the reader takes to the text.
Now let's look at the official CARM warning about the evil false teachers:
There are people on these forums claiming to be Christians, they are supporting and teaching that Bible is a "myth",
People claiming to be Christians. So the biliolotry crowd cannot take Paul at his word and see that "another Jesus" is defined by Grace, the cross, the resurrection, it is not defined by one's take on scripture. No passage anywhere in the Bible tells us that Christian identity is dependent upon accepting Verbal Plenary Inspiration as a theological position. Moreover, what did they think I was for 10 years? When they said "we thank God for you... you are called to fight the atheists" they should have said "and to be a false teacher." How could they have been so fooled for ten years? because they don't listen. They can't think.
But to say that I teach that the Bible is a myth is totally wrong and a lie. I never said that, I never said anything of the kind. I said it's only theological baggage from the Reformation that tells us Genesis is a literal scientific account of creation and to understand it as Hebrew writers dealing with pagan myth is a totally orthodox position given that certain other attitudes are in place as well. But of course this is way too complex for them.
that it contains errors and you should believe its message but not every word or verse,
I can't understand why this is would not be a minmally acceptable position. I think most conservatives would agree that it is at least possible to accept such a position and be thought of as a real christian, even if they themeselves think it's a weak position. Where do these guys getting off deicing this is beyond the line of Chritsian belief?
where does the Bible say we must believe every word or verse? This was a major issue in all the harrangs for a month. The bible never says to have a bible. It never auhtorizes itself. It never says "this God's word." The may be logical reason to string together ideas like Paul's use of the term Scripture and Jesus identiifcation with the "the law and prophits" as valid divisions of scirpture. But these are still ideas, conscturcts that make up a big theory of inspriation, they are not divine mandates and each one of them can be taken in different ways. No one has the right to make these things indicative of Christian identity!
you should even deny the OT as mythology and not factual events.........
No one said this. I certainly did not say it and the other person, Matrix who argued for Mythology in parts of scripture (and ironically is an inerrentist) did not say it. I emphaically said the oppossite when I made it very clear that certian protions of scripture (when the phrophets say "thus says the Lord" for example) are actually literal dictation from God word for word!
they are false teachers that we are taught by our God, would enter the church, with their "itching ears".They want to erase what they do not want to believe and suggest it is error.......
no one involved on our side of the debate ever said anything about the bible being in error. I reputated the use of the word error as a means of describing our side, I did so repeatedly. I said specifically that error in the more important sense is theological, not merely factual and that is not in the Bible. Factual matter of accuracy do not count as "error" in a theological sense. That's not good enough. They have to have us believe in the firmament and in God inspiring Paul to forget his coat and the whole nine yards.
The word inerrancy means without error, the CARM administration and ministry believes as well as the majority of Evangelical Christians, do support and testify that God's word is WITHOUT ERROR in the "original manuscripts," it is "inerrant" to the words written in the "original documents"...
Inerrency doesnt' mean wihtout any inacrruacy. Even Karl C.F. Henry allowed minor mistakes in the text. So did Luther. these people have no thoelogical knowledge at all.This has nothing to do with the issues at hand. The original documents are not at issue here. They don't even address the distinction between in accuracy and error.
.
Those claiming to be Christian on these forums,
Of course none of this is mandated in the bible, it's all a matter of interpretation they have to make it a matter of Christian identity. True Christian believes in verbal Plenary inspiration. How is it that Paul did not use that standard and mentions nothing about a position on inspiration in Galations one where he explains the true Gospel? This is obvious proof that these people biblioloters because they have made the bible indicative of all of Christian faith.
that are calling us "Bible idolators" because we believe His word is without error are false teachers....
she has no right to say that, no one has made these people popes, They have authority over no one, except the little kingdom of CARM where they can be as arbitrary and unfair and hyocritical as they wish to be.
.
do not trust what they have posted to you in their attacks on Scripture.
In the name Jesus Christ do they have to characterize it as "attacks." Who is attacking? that's the thanks get for 10 years of salving to win people to the Lord and to answer atheists who Matt Slick doesn't have the brains to confront. he couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag. If it wasn't for circular reasoning he would have no reasoning at all. The point was to defend the Bible This was all a defense that would be understood by modern people and that would allow one not to have to throw away one's brains. But the problem is they do not want a modern world friendly form of understanding the Gospel. They only have their little power when they can set up a little kingdom where an embittered minority try to hide form the modern world and live in a fantasy world of 19th century piety.
The CARM administration will warn our posters, since we have received complaints of the many false teachers now coming to these forums, they are false teachers, you should trust God's word and not such men....
Makes it sound as though I just started posting there doesn't it? I was the last one left from the God squad of 98. I have been posting there every day since then. I have argued with atheits almost every day since 98. I was arguing with them the day My father died, as a means of dealing with Greif. But that means nothing to these hypocrites. the thrill making a big prononcement far out weighs any sentimental stuff like friendship, loyalty, or even fairness.
Please be aware it is your cults, false religions, Mormons that make the same arguments about God's word. Please be WARNED......again, they are false teachers. I will respond when I see such false teachings to warn you, do not trust the words of any person that will deny the Word of God and suggest it is a "myth" or in error....
Well I warn my friends Matt Slick and Diane S. are hypocrates. liars. waves without foam, leaders of of the leagion of barinwahsed zombies. I shake the dust the at thenm.
they are preaching another Gospel. their Jesus is the Bible. they make the Bible the issue of salvation and thus risk theirs because they don't heed the very book they pretend to care so much about.
they are conducting a witch hunt.
shake shake sahke that dust.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Visit my Message boards
come visit Doxa Forums fora great intellectaul discussion. No trolls allowed.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
The Fundy is so Christ-like
A fundy named "Flynn" said ths of me on the CARM board tonight:
So not only is he exhibiting that Christ-like Dictim "kick the other ass" but he's taking it upon himself to warn people that I'm not sincere in my faith and I'm trying to lead them astray. why? because I use big words. For that reason I must be of satan.
Isn't it obvious these people have gone to far? I mean he's making phyical threats against me because he can't handle my arguments, like a real ape man, doing the cave man scene. He thinks he's the Pope.
I have had it with these people they are idotic fools and dont deserve anything.
Metacrock will take the word of a great theologian over the word of any of the twelve apostles who were filled with the holy spirit and knew Jesus personally any day of the week. Now watch him come back and say that I know absolutely nothing because I didn't sit in on a seminary class. This person has not posted one single thought of his own. Instead he hijacks other theologians thoughts as his own. This person repeatedly tells everyone he comes in contact with on this board that they do not know what they are talking about and that he has all the knowledge in the world because he took some classes. He will attempt to use sophisticated words to make whoever he is posting with feel inferior. He told me one night that since I cant read greek and he can, this means that I do not know what I am talking about. Just read his sig line and that sums it up. The bible is wrong and he is right. Steer clear of this person. He is not here to help anyone come to Christ. He is here to express his so called intellectual dominance. Just the type of guy I would love to meet outside of cyberspace and see if he runs his mouth so freely then.
So not only is he exhibiting that Christ-like Dictim "kick the other ass" but he's taking it upon himself to warn people that I'm not sincere in my faith and I'm trying to lead them astray. why? because I use big words. For that reason I must be of satan.
Isn't it obvious these people have gone to far? I mean he's making phyical threats against me because he can't handle my arguments, like a real ape man, doing the cave man scene. He thinks he's the Pope.
I have had it with these people they are idotic fools and dont deserve anything.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Descartres and Phenomenology
Rene Descartes
We tend to think of epistemology as fashioned by Descartes. the rationalist constucts a neat little system for obtaining certain knlwedge. At the time that Descartres came up with the cogito Europe was emboiled in a crisis of skepticsm. The Skeptics weren't just anti-religious, though, they were Calivnists! The Calvinists challenged chruch authority, and the chruch was the gate keeper of knowledge. So Descartes' system was aimed at wrecking the arguments of the Calvinists, who despized reason and militated for faith as the ulimate route to knoweldge.
Descartes failed in that he didn't bring everyone back to the RCC, but he succeeded beyond his wildest in that he established the method of empirical scientific proof thorugh statistical verifcation, or helped to do so. Since that time we have tenede to think of epistemology as a need little disciplien that sets out a systemstic system and 1,2,3 we have the truth because we know how we know.
But it doesn't work that way in moderity. Things are too complex. One thing that happened since WWII was a current in German thought that goes back to Brintano and the 19th century came to fruition in the guise of a Nazi, even one accepted in the land of the Nazi deafters.
I speak of course of Heigeggerian epistemology. That is a very appropriate juncture for a Christian to move into thinking about epistemolgy, since Heidegger was influenced by two major christian thinkers, in the liberal tradition; the 'father' of modern liberal theology, Schleiermacher, and the "father" of modern existentialism, Keirkegaard. Both were devout christians.
This phenomenological persective runs parell to the persective of mystical religoius experince, which is the most sure fire safe guard on faith of which I know.
Heideggerian phenomenology proceeds from a point of allowing the phenomena to suggest their own categories. Rather than "gathering" all data into a heap and forcing it into pre conceieved categoreis, the phenomenologist begins with the root of the experince in sense data and phenomena, and rather than insisting upon filing it where he thinks it goes, he mentally allows the phenomena to suggest its own category.
That means in practicle terms expeiencing the presence of God rather than insisting thorugh rationalistic means that God exists and God is thus and so. One experinces God and then comes to an understanding of the nature of God.
Now I'm not saying that this can be a total empistemology in and of itself. We also have emprical knowledge and revelation. But you know my view on revelation of the Bible, that is a recored f peopel's experinces of god; that is very phenomenological. rather than be dictated their theological tennets, they recorede their expeinces and that becomes the tennet as the community comopares it to its own experinces; the dialetical presence model of inspiration that Barth and others spoke of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)