Then there is the materialist’s decree “Godispowerless” even though we have cool evidence of his interventions and his M.O., undetectable to science. Like the Man in the boat on Galilee. We also have no evidence of nature, physical existence, not having a beginning.
Dale,
Since your longish thread of “Christians and Doubt” has closed, I’m taking this opportunity to comment. It took some time to read it all.
It seems that there were three complaints about your topic. I’m late to it, but offer the following analysis and critique:
-
Doubt : You used the word consistently with two of its several meanings… that I shall call Doubt 1 and Doubt 2. Correct me if I’m incorrectly characterizing your thoughts, but Doubt 1, which happens all the time (and is OK) means “to question an issue”. Doubt 2, more egregious in current context, means you have considered the facts in evidence about God and choose to deny Him. You have repeatedly stated that not all doubt is wrong (Doubt 1). But Doubt 2 is and may result in a loss of God’s grace.
-
Tautological disagreement on the use of the word, doubt : Yet for some reason, your antagonists behave as if they are blinded to your statements. You have used it in a clear context of it being a choice of the mind, meaning that if after proper deliberation one arrives at a conclusion, then his expression of doubt is the choice of his mind. Others seem to insert their own definition of doubt, which seems to be to find fault with your conclusion. So they confuse the process of questioning details (which as you point out is good) to the automatic assumption that your use of the term doubt suggests that one cannot ponder alternative sets of data.
-
Ad hominem : At least one moderator has accused you of “insisting other people’s doubts are stupid” which I consider in very poor taste. She stated that one of your references (I think to Maggie/Rich Stearns) actually was “brought up every day” despite “us asking you not to”. Since no one else complained, I can only assume that she used an incorrect pronoun, but at the very least I have not read anyone’s comments that supported that accusation. You have been most gracious in your commentary even when accused falsely by another.
Faith is another term used with several meanings. It can be faith as in “I take that on faith alone without factual basis”, or as in “my faith and trust is with God”, or as in confidence such as “I have faith that you will return tomorrow”. That may be the reason for much of the disagreements we see and read.
I love this description recently posted: If the Bible “could have been” crystal clear (if God had wanted it to be, with absolute clarity, singularity, and obviousness), then we assume it intentionally welcomes our interpretations knowing it serves the greater mission of God by creating a people who humbly and assertively employ our hearts and minds in the human work of knowing and loving the divine (according to Austin Fischer’s “Faith in the Shadows”).
1 Like
Simple…because we are not after the most “natural” explanation. We are after the truth, the honest and final answer. It should not disturb anyone’s conscience if they are truly open minded to all possibilities. As Mark Twain said…“it’s ain’t what we don’t know that gets us in trouble. It’s what you know for sure but just ain’t so”
What a bizarre concept, “most” natural. Unnatural is not a possibility. Nature is the truth. Nature is honest. Nature is the final answer. With regard to ATP synthase and all other phenomena. You are not open minded at all to that. But you are to God having grounded the being of a trillion, easily a quadrillion ultimately sapient worlds in our mediocre, insignificant universe, by grounding fully autonomous nature itself in the first and eternal place, having to nudge the evolution of mitochondrial endosymbionts by intervening on every one. Nature can do everything except that, fill that gap. That is one utterly mystifying, faith negating disconnect.
Use ‘and’ instead. And we know what our work of faith is don’t we?
Oh but I am! Surely you get that the science in me demands that all options remain on the table until such time as evidence (or lack of same) becomes overwhelming. So far, the evidence of science’s inability to even postulate a mechanism of early energy formation leads me toward God. My mind is open…is yours?
Mine is demonstrably, in fact infinitely rationally and faithfully, far more open.
This is true for studying science. As BioLogos writer Karl Giberson said, “Only nature gets to vote”
1 Like
I like what I see as the general sentiment but I would have stated it very differently. I would say that God wrote Bible as He chooses to accomplish what He wants to accomplish, and we have no reason deny the possibility that this include the varied interpretations of different people. After all I have seen human authors employ such an objective in their writing for it to be understood quite differently by different people, and thus I don’t see why God would be less capable.
But this talk of being able to write the Bible as crystal clear is incoherent. Crystal clear to whom? It is a common experience in the sciences that the greatest clarity by someone with the greatest understanding of the subject results in something far from clear or understandable to the vast majority of people. The greatest clarity to the community of scientists is likely incoherent to a kindergarten class and the greatest clarity to the kindergarten class is likely incoherent to the community of scientists. If you try to speak to both at once then it will certainly not be crystal clear to everyone.
God . did . not . write . Bible.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.