Help: I’m on a slippery slope

Faith & Science Conversation
95

Then I look up to you and strive to grow in and toward that same faith with you. It warms my heart to read your words, and may everything I write afterward be colored according to that light.

Actually - I suspect not. The gospel narrators often (but not always - as @Marshall comments above) label them as parables for us, and I don’t recall reading of Jesus giving warning to his audience: “okay - now what I’m about to tell you is only a parable, okay? So take a chill-pill …”. In fact we more typically see the disciples (also think Nicodemus) getting confused precisely because they seemed to only pursue the literal sense of Jesus’ words - much to his exasperation. So in that society, telling stories, unannounced as such to make points seemed to be considered fair game.

I’ll have to ask your forgiveness if (after your confession of Christ above) I don’t take all your epistemological angst about scriptures quite so seriously as I was before. The only reason to delve into scriptures is to be brought to Christ to know him better. Once there, scriptures have already fulfilled their purpose for you - though we never leave them behind since they are an important connection we have to Christ. But you do have a point that logic, clarity, -indeed truth all do count and are very serious pursuits not to be neglected, for the sake of friends still struggling with it all [and for our own growing understandings too].

Actually, I’m fine with that definition. As long as we allow that reality isn’t necessarily limited to physically measurable reality.

But what if one of the ways to read it is true, and the other way to read it is recognizable by many as just stretched to the point of being silly? Wouldn’t your insistence that it must be true in both ways possibly become a stumbling stone to the skeptic who recognizes the pleading desperation of the latter, and so freely jettisons the whole of it? Why not take the intense interest in apprehending the actual truth as it is being affirmed and discard all other demands that would distract from the correct understanding? Science can and has proven valuable in helping us cull away such distractions Witness the Galileo affair and how, thanks to that we are no longer hung up on thinking the Bible demands a motionless earth, despite the steady scholarly convictions of the time that clearly recognized the Bible does teach this when you read scriptures as in fact you are reading them now! These were no lightweights who thought so but the eminent Cardinal Bellarmine himself who wrote that (my paraphrase): all matters touched upon by scripture, including astronomy, even though not an important matter of salvation, are nonetheless still important matters of faith because the veracity of the scriptures themselves are at stake. And yet Bellarmine then goes on to state something that I haven’t even heard you arrive at yet, gbob! He writes (and this is Ted Davis’ quote of Bellarmine):

if there were “a true demonstration” of the Copernican theory, then we might need to reinterpret some biblical passages; but, if we can’t really prove it, then we are obligated to view it as a hypothetical mathematical model rather than a true description of physical reality.

In short, how is it, gbob, that a 16th century cardinal is so far ahead of you in accepting that a certain understanding of scriptures might in fact prove to be the wrong one and might need to be revisited!? [granted, the scientific evidence was never forthcoming for Bellarmine while he was still alive - and so we never get to see if he would follow his own advice, but still – did you read what he said there?!] But here you are insisting that there can be no separation between scriptures themselves, and your understanding of scriptures. So I put forward here, that you have something to learn from the 16th century Cardinal, the most famous one to have have been on the wrong side of the Galileo affair!

[edited]

1 Like
96

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, darkly, but then face to face.
1 Cor. 13

It is good and proper to speak concretely to small children, but as time goes on, if their development is arrested in that stage, it is not so good.
There is a time to tell a child, “Don’t touch the stove!” But later we tell them “Don’t touch the stove if it is hot!” And yet later, " Stir the pot on the stove."
Genesis 1 portrays God as has being finite in location, hovering over the waters, bringing creation into existence with his voice (vocal cords? Language? A medium to carry sound?). From the beginning, the description is figurative and spiritual. Only later do we see God as omnipresent and omnipotent, and read that back into the text.

4 Likes
97

All of your examples involve people naming existing concepts with new words. That is an entirely different process than God introducing new concepts using a culture’s existing words. The issue is not that God can not introduce new concepts using existing words, it’s just that the existing words are already linked to conceptual categories and human experiences and already have conventional usages and associations and (which may be scientifically inaccurate) which will affect the communication.

True. But they all involve building on something the culture already knows and experiences. You cannot communicate something that is not linked to any existing knowledge, experience, or words.

A relatively small percentage of human communication can be reduced to propositions with truth values. A huge percentage of it is dependent on pragmatics. When your wife tells you the cat has thrown up on the floor, she very well could be communicating many things beyond a statement of facts, depending on your shared context. She may be asking you to clean it up. She may be lamenting the spoiling of her new rug. She may be deciding the cat needs to go to the vet. Language is about communication and communication is much more than transmitting factual statements.

3 Likes
98

You don’t owe me anything, but it is sad that you might take my jibes at what I see as the illogic of a theological position less seriously. Because of the slippery slope, that this thread is all about, what Ecerotops says at the start of his message is true. Once a God statement becomes doubtful, dominoes start falling. Look at Rob Bell. In his first book he had a throwaway line asking if the virgin birth was really a central tenant to Christianity. Small doubts. His doubts came slowly but ended up with him rejecting a central tenants of Christianity, so this problem is real.

Christianity is the only exclusive major religion. All the other major religions say you can be a non-believer and still get to their heaven or whatever. Christianity has said the only way is through Christ. so like Bell, small doubts have a way of growing. I know, I spent 12 years in excruciating doubt. I think part of my reason to answer these problems is because of that.

But what if one of the ways to read it is true, and the other way to read it is recognizable by many as just stretched to the point of being silly? Wouldn’t your insistence that it must be true in both ways possibly become a stumbling stone to the skeptic who recognizes the pleading desperation of the latter, and so freely jettisons the whole of it? Why not take the intense interest in apprehending the actual truth as it is being affirmed and discard all other demands that would distract from the correct understanding?

As I have said over and over, I would chose the true reading, if I can figure what that is. I don’t quite understand why you would think I would chose a silly interpretation. One must define silly though. Is it impossible for God to make a donkey talk? That is really silly, except God is said to be very powerful.

Citing Bellarmine:
If there were “a true demonstration” of the Copernican theory, then we might need to reinterpret some biblical passages; but, if we can’t really prove it, then we are obligated to view it as a hypothetical mathematical model rather than a true description of physical reality.

Well, there was a true demonstration of the Copernican system, but it came 200 years or so later, in 1838 by Bessel for 61 Cygnus. Bellarmine was correct that at that time there was no proof of the Copernican system. But so what? It is perfectly acceptable to hold a position prior to the time it has been disproven. People knew that parallax would happen if the earth were moving and nobody in Galileo’s day could see that motion. Thus, at that time, Galileo view was contra observational evidence. People seem to never tell that part of the tale.

In short, how is it, gbob, that a 16th century cardinal is so far ahead of you in accepting that a certain understanding of scriptures might in fact prove to be the wrong one and might need to be revisited!?

I actually don’t recall saying my views on scripture couldn’t be proven wrong. I have even said I am open to other explanations on Gen 1:6, so I too know what I see might be wrong, but I know that giving people NO explanation is already wrong. It is a forfeiture of the game.

Genesis 1 portrays God as has being finite in location, hovering over the waters, bringing creation into existence with his voice (vocal cords? Language? A medium to carry sound?). From the beginning, the description is figurative and spiritual. Only later do we see God as omnipresent and omnipotent, and read that back into the text.

Seems to me you don’t think God can do what ever the heck he wants to do. Since you seem to believe God doesn’t have a voice, then maybe he couldn’t communicate to the prophets? that would mean all those “And God said” statements are not really statements from this mute God.

But I will grant that a human description of God is always going to fall short of the fact, but that doesn’t excuse something that God supposedly said being demonstrably false.

99

I’m not the one who requires certainty on these things. But given your earlier statements, I’m surprised you’re only saying that it’s “not out of the realm of possibility” that the story of the good Samaritan is historically accurate. I didn’t read your earlier statements as allowing for that kind of nuance. I thought that when God speaks, it must either be historically and scientifically accurate without accommodation or it must be clearly labelled as a parable.

This mediating position – where it could be historical but might be something else, perhaps even a parable – would open up new vistas if applied elsewhere. God’s communication would be let out of the box, so to speak.

2 Likes
100

Hi Christy,

Sure, it might affect how they understand what God is saying, but jiminy what do we do with the supposed quotations of God? Those shouldn’t be affected by the culture, unless you say the culture changed those statements, in which case, we would have no idea what God said, if he said anything. To my mind, that causes huge problems for Christianity.

Equally, if God says something false to the culture, but then says it is impossible for God to lie, what the heck am I supposed to believe? If someone lies to me, it is very hard for them to get my trust back.

A relatively small percentage of human communication can be reduced to propositions with truth values. A huge percentage of it is dependent on pragmatics.

Agreed, I used the God said statement of the ten commandments today to illustrate that. I said that is unverifiable. But that small percentage of factual statements is very important when one goes off to examine which religions might be true. I have read the documents from the major religions and this one is always useful, said by a messenger from God to the Bahai’s.

“For instance, consider the substance of copper. Were it to be protected in its own mine from becoming solidified, it would, within the space of seventy years, attain to the state of gold. There are some, however, who maintain that copper itself is gold, which by becoming solidified is in a diseased condition, and hath not therefore reached its own state."
"Be that as it may, the real elixir will, in one instant, cause the substance of copper to attain the state of gold, and will traverse the seventy-year stages in a single moment. Could this gold be called copper? Could it be claimed that it hath not attained the state of gold, whilst the touch-stone is at hand to assay it and distinguish it from copper?” Baha’u’llah, "Kitab-I-Iqan, (Williamette, IL: Bahai Publishing Trust, 1950), p. 157

Such untruths about the natural world make it hard to believe Bahai’s unknowable God is really God. Same with false statements by God in the Bible. I see no difference in methodology there.

Buddha’s Dammapada and Hindu Bhagavad-gita, had almost no verifiable or fact based statements. Great. So upon what basis does someone decide that one of them is the true religion? Every Joe Blow on earth can publish a philosophy and say it is Gods word. Is it proper to criticize the Book of Mormon for lacking any and all archaeological verification of their claims? I think so. You might not, But none of the cities or peoples they speak about have ever been found. Things that are verifiable are important.

101

Let me ask you this, It is said Jesus never sinned. We are told in one of those God said statements, that we are not to bear false witness, and lying prophets are to be put to death (Deut 18:20) and Annanias was killed for lying to the Holy Spirit. Would it be OK for Jesus to tell white lies? How big a whopper must Jesus tell before he violates that commandment? How big a whopper is necessary for it to be a sin? Make up your own mind.

This mediating position – where it could be historical but might be something else, perhaps even a parable – would open up new vistas if applied elsewhere. God’s communication would be let out of the box, so to speak

Would you suggest that Genesis 1:1 is a parable? Genesis 1:3? Is that a parable?

How about this widely believed prediction of Christ’s coming. Is it a parable?
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel

Would you suggest that the ten commandments are really suggestions? How far would you let the communication out of the box, so to speak?

1 Like
102

I also see that definition of truth as fine for some purposes, and I see much in Scripture that is true by this definition. But this isn’t how the Bible typically uses the word.

In Scripture, truth is a path one can follow more than accurate statements. Actions may be described as true based on their character, not whether they actually happened (see Judges 9:16; Daniel 4:37; John 3:21; 1 John 1:6). Statements that say what to do rather than what was done are also called true (Nehemiah 9:13; Psalm 119:150–151). Truth is an object we can seek or possess (Jeremiah 5:1; Psalm 119:43; 1 John 1:8), or a path that one follows (Psalm 86:11; 2 Peter 2:2; 3 John 1:3–4).

Even if a man who enjoys torturing others is known for making honest statements (“This will hurt quite a bit”; “I am a very bad man”), he is not true in the biblical sense because he is not following the way of truth. Jesus’ claim to be truth (John 14:6) is not merely saying that Jesus made accurate statements. As our discussion of parables highlights, Jesus’ favourite way of conveying truth was fiction.

What if the God who inspired Genesis is the same?

3 Likes
103

I think you missed the part of the note you replied to, my definition that a religion is true because it matches metaphysical reality. It tells us truth about the spiritual world. Christianity isn’t the true path because a book says it is, it is the true path because the spiritual/metaphysical world is as described in the book. Remember’ Paul’s statement, if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. This is because if Christ is not raise, then what Paul preached about the way to be saved doesn’t match either scientific/historical or metaphysical reality.

Edited to add: I forgot to answer this: What if the God who inspired Genesis is the same?

Then God didn’t create the heavens and the earth, didn’t create man, didn’t give us anything we should listen to in the ten commandments. If God’s favorite way of teaching truth is fiction, then I say, Houston, we have a problem!

104

Would you be okay with God saying we think with our heart and kidneys? I don’t consider such things white lies or whoppers.

No, I don’t think those are either parables or eyewitness reports. I think there’s as much accommodation to humans in how God speaks of creating the heavens and earth in Genesis 1 as how God speaks of knowing and testing the human heart in Jeremiah 17.

I think fact-checking that passage for how it matches how humans react to snakes and snakes react to humans misses the deeper truth it conveys.

No, but I’m more focused on how Jesus both deepened their specifics and distilled their essence.

2 Likes
105

As they should. Because at that point it becomes apparent that the receptacle of one’s faith must not have been the God of truth. How could it be? If the Bible is teaching you or Ecerotops or anybody else falsehoods, then they are better off not reading it, and putting it away from themselves until such time or possibility as they can begin to read it aright, or more hopefully to attend to what the Spirit leads one to draw from it - which will not be a falsehood.

I repent of that sentiment and only ask that you then grant the greater weight to the end of that same paragraph where I do finally concede the importance of our pursuit of logic, clarity, and truth.

I haven’t read Bell, though from what little I have heard about him I’m guessing that you raise him here as a “cautionary tale” against some dreaded heresy such as universalism or “too much love” or “not enough wrath” or some such thing. [Actually I can predict the response here: He’s guilty of ignoring the “plain truth” of a certain assembled arsenal of passages that leave no doubt about God’s inevitable and eternal wrath. (How did I do?) Which if true, means Bell is probably guilty of attending to the whole arc of scripture and Christ’s character, instead of proof-texting “truth” out of some key critical mass of verses as you ‘face-value’ readers like to do.] No doubt he probably errs as many of us have by trying to grant too much authority to modern sensibilities or our own sin-laden judgments on various matters. But I would rather - a hundred times rather - err on his side of love (if indeed he does that) than to err as so many others have done in trying to read the old testament (as you [those who share your approach to truth] have?) in ways that turn god into an eternally immoral monster such as makes any human father a paragon of righteousness in comparison. But I won’t waste time here defending Bell since I haven’t gone to the trouble to read up on him. This is just to say that when earnest traditionalists get their dander up about this or that author, my sympathy is probably as likely to fall with the outcast as it is with the self-appointed guardians of doctrinal castles who themselves are not likely to welcome the illumination of the Spirit into all their dark doctrinal dungeons.

With major edit inserted above in brackets.

2 Likes
106

Marshall wrote:

Would you be okay with God saying we think with our heart and kidneys? I don’t consider such things white lies or whoppers.

This gets more and more bizarre. there is a whole lot of things that it isn’t ok with God that we do, but we do it anyway. I went looking for something that could be construed as the Bible saying we think with our kidneys, cause I can’t imagine any other reason to raise this rather bizarre idea. I couldn’t find it. If you have a substantive point, please state it with references.

No, I don’t think those are either parables or eyewitness reports. I think there’s as much accommodation to humans in how God speaks of creating the heavens and earth in Genesis 1 as how God speaks of knowing and testing the human heart in Jeremiah 17.

I think fact-checking that passage for how it matches how humans react to snakes and snakes react to humans misses the deeper truth it conveys.

It doesn’t look to me about how snakes and humans interact. It is funny how no one ever tells me what that ‘deeper’ truth is. They just say it is there. What is the deeper truth in that passage?

107

Hi Mervin,

You wrote:

As they should. Because at that point it becomes apparent that the receptacle of one’s faith must not have been the God of truth. How could it be? If the Bible is teaching you or Ecerotops or anybody else falsehoods, then they are better off not reading it, and putting it away from themselves until such time or possibility as they can begin to read it aright, or more hopefully to attend to what the Spirit leads one to draw from it - which will not be a falsehood.

The above makes little sense to me, I am supposed to believe in the God of Truth, who is the God in the Bible, but who can’t get things correct when he is quoted in the Bible.

I will say this right off, I am not a YEC. Evolution is how our life arose, so I am not advocating YEC. But they do have a point when we decide that much of the Bible isn’t true, that it makes it less likely to be believed.

I repent of that sentiment and only ask that you then grant the greater weight to the end of that same paragraph where I do finally concede the importance of our pursuit of logic, clarity, and truth.

I stand corrected and glad of it.

gbob:

Look at Rob Bell.

I haven’t read Bell, though from what little I have heard about him I’m guessing that you raise him here as a “cautionary tale” against some dreaded heresy such as universalism or “too much love” or “not enough wrath” or some such thing. [Actually I can predict the response here: He’s guilty of ignoring the “plain truth” of a certain assembled arsenal of passages that leave no doubt about God’s inevitable and eternal wrath. (How did I do?)

One out of three. Universalism. Jesus said no one comes to the father except through him. The night before the crucifixion, he begged God if there was another way, lets do it that way. Universalism says there are other ways to God, meaning, God let his son die needlessly. And, if universalism is true, then Jesus’ statement that No man comes to the father except through him, is a big fat falsehood, so another reason to disbelieve the Bible. I am not a universalist.

Which if true, means Bell is probably guilty of attending to the whole arc of scripture and Christ’s character, instead of proof-texting “truth” out of some key critical mass of verses as you ‘face-value’ readers like to do.] No doubt he probably errs as many of us have by trying to grant too much authority to modern sensibilities or our own sin-laden judgments on various matters.

Agreed, I would note though that God gave us logic. It had to be created with the light when God set the Big Bang in motion. The physical processes are based on a form of logic. Thus, I think we have a right to apply logic to theology and see where we go.

But I would rather - a hundred times rather - err on his side of love (if indeed he does that) than to err as so many others have done in trying to read the old testament (as you [those who share your approach to truth] have?) in ways that turn god into an eternally immoral monster such as makes any human father a paragon of righteousness in comparison. But I won’t waste time here defending Bell since I haven’t gone to the trouble to read up on him. This is just to say that when earnest traditionalists get their dander up about this or that author, my sympathy is probably as likely to fall with the outcast as it is with the self-appointed guardians of doctrinal castles who themselves are not likely to welcome the illumination of the Spirit into all their dark doctrinal dungeons.

As to outcasts, I have been the target of those people too. You don’t know my history cause you don’t know my name, but at one time I had a wee bit of fame in certain arenas, and I changed my opinion. Very quickly I was ejected from the circle. (don’t even try to guess you will be wrong). Every human group sets boundaries, from political sides to religious sides. This isn’t something unusual that just traditionalists engage in. I have seen non-traditionalists be equally ejective of someone who challenged them.

108

You are right. This is human nature. I guess it’s best to be sure we don’t exclude those we disagree with, so we don’t fall into that trap. It’s difficult. Thank you.

I am curious–what do you make of Joshua making the sun stand still in the sky, and the earth being firm in its foundations? These are verses that were used to prove geocentrism (which I know you don’t hold to), but they are examples of how difficult it is for us to clearly read God’s intent and relationship to nature, I think. Thanks. Blessings.

109

Post 76 in this thread.

Edit: @gbob after reading your comment above to Mervin, I’m sorry if I “outed” you in the post I linked. I saw you link a paper here that had your real name on it, so I didn’t think it was a secret.

1 Like
110

Why acknowledge that YECs got origins wrong, but then in the next breath accept their general approach to scriptures? What happened to your demand for established bonafides?

Since you seem to still want some satisfaction on a specific topic or two…

This is about Genesis 3:15 I’m guessing. You could probably consult nearly about any commentary about this - I’d guess (but without looking myself - I could be wrong) that respectable ones don’t spend too much time ruminating over the mechanical difficulties of the literal situation. Here is what I will suggest it can be taken (by the Christian) to mean.

The snake is a representative of evil spiritual forces that have entered the world, and these forces will be forever working against humanity and right relations between us and God. This strife will continue on down through the generations. And the verse about the serpent’s head being struck and piercing “his” heel, is taken to be a prophetic reference to Christ on the cross, and the resulting victory over Satan.

Edited to soften post and make it less verbose.

111

Miracle. I don’t think there is a naturalistic explanation. After my Turkish translator experience, and my survival against all odds, I can’t help but believe in miracles. Miracles ought to be easy to believe in if God can raise the body of a dead man. With all the biochemical complexity there is almost no other miracles in Scripture that is harder than that.

112

Bonafides? I don’t follow. We agree on Genesis 3: 15 but I suspect you don’t think it is as real as I do. I repeat what I said to Randy, no miracle could have been more difficult than raising Jesus from the dead. If God can do that, I see little problem with an easier miracle.

I won’t have much time tomorrow morning, maybe a wee bit, but got to go back to MD Anderson to see if I stay on this trial, and sadly, I got a tax bill for my house I just bought, only a tax bill for last year. I gotta go to the tax office to try to figure that out. lol

Edited to add: Mervin asked:Why acknowledge that YECs got origins wrong, but then in the next breath accept their general approach to scriptures?

I explained that Mervin in the post you quoted. I think they have a point on that issue. I said as much

113

it’s getting late here in my time zone, so I’ll hopefully pick this up more tomorrow.

between tax bills and medical trials it sounds like you have a lot on your plate. May God’s constant presence sustain you through it all.

2 Likes
114

Thanks. I wasn’t referring to the concept of miracle. Did God hold the earth still in the sky, or did He use that language to communicate to the people of the time what they would understand? We know that the sun doesn’t move. If God had said that the earth stood still and the sun didn’t, so that it looked like the sun moved, that would be confusing to them, I would think. On the other hand, people in Galileo’s day took it to mean that the Sun does move around the earth, and rejected Galileo’s observation/theories. Doesn’t this indicate God’s accommodation to earthly learning?