An Attack on Post-Modern, Relativistic Jibber-Jabber by Paul Sanders

Lamentations 2:14
Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes, but have seen for you oracles that are false and misleading.

Proverbs 20:30
Blows that wound cleanse away evil; strokes make clean the innermost parts.

The following is a response to a couple of comments that just got so long, I figured I’d put it up as a post.  Though the commenter made responses to several different issues, at the heart of my response is an attack on the hypocrisy of their specific statement concerning objective truth, primarily, their undermining of the truthfulness and authority of the Bible.  The context of this post is this philosophical sluggard pulling that tired old line of undermining the Bible by stating that because it was written by the hands of men it cannot be authoritative and implying that objective truth cannot be known but only subjectively and individually experienced.  The hypocrisy of this becomes quickly evident as this person expects us to accept their comments and opinions concerning various topics and their statements AGAINST the possibility of objective truth AS OBJECTIVE TRUTH! Just let the outrageousness of that sink in for a while!  My tone is a bit aggressive and sarcastic, but I pray that this post serves as a splash of cold water to the lethargic, befuddled brains of such relativistic thinkers…

(for a Scriptural example of Jesus cutting to the heart of bad theology and doctrine, please see Mark 12:18-27)

Rambling Comment Guy

I love embracing my personal "truth treasure!"

To the rambling commentator, I would like to ask you to consider the following:

Instead of wasting my time by individually addressing every issue contained in your responses, let’s just cut right to the heart of the matter.  As I read your sugar-coated, meandering comments and quickly got the gist of your philosophical outlook, it struck me that if you were really true to your philosophical belief system, you would not even bother wasting your time writing a response to my blog. Let me explain…if things are as you say, then “you’re just a man who sat down at a computer and began to type characters into a keyboard in order to form subjective shapes on a screen which we subjective humans subjectively perceive as words that can only be subjectively interpreted by our own prior subjective experiences whether they be spiritual, physical, or whatever to form our own subjective truth as we happen to perceive it, so then truth in fact can not really be known nor does it in fact exist, except as our own personal truth which is interpreted, embraced and informed by our accumulated subjective experiences blah, blah, double-talk, blah, etc….”  What has always fascinated and at the same time ticked me off about folks who hold to philosophies such as yours is that when the rubber meets the road and you want your side to be heard, YOU EXPECT A COURTESY FROM EVERYBODY ELSE THAT YOU REFUSE TO GIVE TO ANYONE ELSE, NOT EVEN THE BIBLE, AND YOU WANT THEM TO DO FOR YOU WHAT YOU SAY IS IMPOSSIBLE, i.e., OBJECTIVELY READ, CORRECTLY INTERPRET AND SUBSEQUENTLY ACCEPT YOUR POINT OF VIEW AS TRUTH EXPRESSED IN WRITTEN FORM. I find that logically incoherent, astoundingly hypocritical, intellectually insulting, incredibly annoying and it really ticks me off!  According to the philosophical rubric espoused in your comments, everybody who reads the Bible or my blog or both of your responses (or anything for that matter) is going to walk away from them and subjectively respond however they see fit based on their own private perception, so really, what have you accomplished in writing your 2 responses? What’s the point of even wasting your time?  At best it does nothing and at worst it just adds to the confusion of a bunch of already confused people.  It doesn’t nor can it do what you really in your heart of hearts want it to do, make an objective point.  If you really and truly believed and practiced what you say you believe, you would realize that your efforts at involving yourself in a conversation and trying to make an objective point are just an exercise in futility, so just keep things simple and stop writing altogether!  Life’s already way too busy and complicated enough!  What do you care even trying to make or express a point because according to your logic, AIN’T NOBODY GOING TO GET IT ANYWAY!! Also, if you really and truly thought out and were faithful to your philosophy, why should you give a care whether or not someone simply critiques the ministry of Joel Osteen?  Why should Mark Driscoll get under your skin to the point that you couldn’t even sit in the same room with him?  That doesn’t even make any sense because, after all, according to you, “who knows if he or Martin Luther or the Protestant or Catholic church or anybody else for that matter are right?” If he gets on your nerves, aren’t you really indirectly saying that you’re right and he’s not?  If you are, then that seems awfully hypocritical to someone who sheepishly says, “well, who knows if who’s really right or not.” So, stop being a hypocrite and start to really live out your philosophical belief system!  Stop writing, expressing opinions and even talking altogether because after all, it’s just subjective and doesn’t really matter in the end, everybody’s just going to distort and manipulate what you say to conform it to their own preconcieved notions of truth and reality so it’s really just a glorified waste of all of our time!  You have accomplished nothing and you have made no objective point!  Stop reading my blog because everybody’s just going to make of it what they want and stop making comments because that’s just futility on top of futility!  So, go get a job somewhere doing something concrete and real and “form and embrace your own truth from all your subjective spiritual experiences,” whatever the heck that means!  I mean, I have no clue because even as I write I’m simultaneously and subjectively imposing all of my prior experiences and perceptions into this current experience and I think I’ve forgotten what day of the week it is!  My God!  To quote the book of Acts, “I perceive that much learning hath made thee mad!”  Such muddled and illogical thinking is the stuff of ivory tower philosophers, DVD and book-hawking self help gurus and Chinese buffet fortune cookie writers and IF YOU REALLY BELIEVED AND PRACTICED IT, YOU WOULDN’T HAVE EVEN BOTHERED TO WRITE A SINGLE COMMENT, NONETHELESS MAKE THE EFFORT TO WRITE TWO FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! However, you and I and now everyone else knows that you sat down and wrote because you’ve got a bone to pick and an axe to grind and you want people to hear your point just like everybody else despite your sugar-coating of sweety peety, mamby pamby double talk saying that it’s an impossibility to do so! I am absolutely dumb-founded that you are so blind that can’t see that you set yourself up as the ultimate and final standard of truth and that you think you’ve got it all figured out over the Bible, Jesus Christ, Joel Osteen, Mark Driscoll, Martin Luther, the Catholic AND Orthodox church and any blog post I’ll ever take the time to put up here (while at the same time saying, “who knows whether someone is right or not” yet basically claiming that you are!!!).  Absolutely astounding!  At least my standard is not my own little brain and subjective experience, but rather the Bible which I believe and know the be the truthful Word of God.  So, if you want to accuse me of being a “biblioator” or a Biblical literalist, that’s fine, go right ahead.  I’m willing to live and die with that.  At least I’m being logically and intellectually faithful to my belief system and not a double-talking, wind-bag, waste of time hypocrite.

Naughty, naughty preachers!

Naughty, naughty preachers!

ONE MORE THING…You also mentioned that “God is Love” and the “essence of the Gospel is love” and that you feel that certain ministries should “cease their angry preaching.” Can’t disagree with you about the actual Bible verse that says that God is love, but I’m guessing you don’t have children and have never had to administer “tough love” (whacks to the behind because you don’t want them to grow up and be fools…).  I’m also curious if you’ve ever considered matters such as evil and justice (but, I guess those things are only subjective realities…right?).  The reality is that Jesus had this nastly little habit of making people angry, very angry.  I read somewhere that He actually got killed because He made some people angry, but then again who really knows?  It’s just a bunch of ink from a  pen on a piece of paper from the fingers connected to the hands connected to the arms connected to the shoulders connected to the neck connected to the head balanced on the torso housing the cranium containing the subjective brain of a man.  If you are really true to your philosophical belief system, then you won’t pay any attention to the scriptures that I’m going to list, but I’m going to list them anyway:

Mat 10:28
(28)  And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Mat 10:34-39
(34)  “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
(35)  For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
(36)  And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.
(37)  Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
(38)  And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
(39)  Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Mat 23:33
(33)  You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

Mat 21:12
(12)  And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.

Mar 3:5
(5)  And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

My question to you is, if you don’t like angry preachers and you just couldn’t picture yourself being able to sit in the same room with them, how do you think you’d do sitting in the same room as Jesus?  Now, I’m not equating a man with Jesus in any way shape or form, but the fact of the matter is that Jesus and other Biblical men of God did say a ton of in your face things over the course of their ministries. What about John the Baptizer, Peter, Steven and the Apostle Paul…those bunch of angry jerks?  John rips into everybody and meddles in their personal lives even calling the sin and sinner out by name…in public! (see Luke 3:1-22).  Peter points his finger directly at a crowd and screams, “it was you who crucified the Lord of Glory!” (see Acts 2:36).  Steven got himself killed (unfortunately for Steven “Your Best Life Now!” hadn’t been published yet…) by calling a group of folks “stiff necked, uncircumcised, resisters of the Holy Spirit” (see Acts 7:51).  The Apostle Paul was always handing somebody over to satan for the destruction of their flesh so that hopefully their soul might be saved (see 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Timothy 1:20). Somebody should have told those jerks to knock it off with the angry preaching!  You so crassly wrote that certain preachers simply say what they do not out of personal conviction and care for the truth, but rather in order to “compete for viewership.”  Well, these mean old preachers “viewership” and “market share” has held up pretty steady throughout the millenia so count me in with the crowd who says, “up with the mean preachers!” and “cease with the fluff” for the true temporal and eternal good of the sinful soul of man.

Lamentations 2:14
Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes, but have seen for you oracles that are false and misleading.

Proverbs 20:30
Blows that wound cleanse away evil; strokes make clean the innermost parts.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “An Attack on Post-Modern, Relativistic Jibber-Jabber by Paul Sanders

  1. Pingback: A Few Pithy Thoughts About Doubt by Dan Phillips « Reformation Now Blog

  2. There is no room for conversation on this topic as our approaches are very different.
    You know me Paul, I am an old friend. I’m sorry if my original message seemed an attack. I just can’t buy the Bible as an absolutely authoritative text when it was developed and guided by a church I have very little faith in. I still value the Bible and its stories. And I find truth about God in it but I do not find that it acknowledges my true experience of God. I think some of our approach to the Bible has to do with personality amongst many other factors.

    I will say that this is a form of circular reasoning: “The hypocrisy of this becomes quickly evident as this person expects us to accept their comments and opinions concerning various topics and their statements AGAINST the possibility of objective truth AS OBJECTIVE TRUTH!”

    I wouldn’t consider a discussion or a debate to begin or end with objective truth rather a pursuit of truth. My words are not objective they are my opinion and a reflection of who this speaker is, which I find matters more than any object that would stand in the way of true human connection.

    I won’t go on. I realize our differences on this issue would not be very proactive. I’m sorry for the offense and look forward to seeing you again in the future.

  3. I might also say that we came from the same place, same town, same church, and my ernest pursuit of the Bible and of God led me to this point as yours has led you to where you are. You made many assumptions by indicating that I was not a man who knows the Bible or the Church. I dedicated alot of my life to the pursuit of these things. Just as you read your Bible I read mine. And from the same book, we come to different conclusions, opinions, and ideas. You feel the spirit of God guides you. I feel that I am also guided by the same spirit that breathed life into the world.

    The Bible tells us not to lie and I suggest that it is just as great an error to lie to oneself as it is to another. I cannot find contradictions of scripture and pretend that they have no effect on me. If I question inerrancy of the Bible it is because of the Bible not in spite of it. I find hypocrisy in the Gods the Bible talks about. Even in Genesis Eloheim can be either plural or singular. You can inject Christ into the the plurality but not without betraying original intent of the document. We can read Christ and God as one, but the Bible did not create the trinity, the Catholic church did. They solidified it in Nicea. These are just some examples of approach to the text that can be confusing.

    Even the character of God, if the all the Bible is to represent God, is at best schizophrenic and at worst, simply cruel. I am not saying this to incite a reaction, this is my perception of God as I read the Bible. God says “Love does away with all fear…” but be afraid of me because I will send you to hell if you don’t believe. God makes the perfect Garden of Eden but still sees fit to leave the serpent in it, even to allow the devil in it. I don’t beleive this is the God I serve, I believe this was how the early Jews perceived God. I think that is the case for much of the old testament. Even in the New Testament I am not convinced that the disciples fully understood what Jesus was saying. I definitely question if Paul didn’t kidnap Christ’s message from Peter and the other disciples.

    Look I understand where you are coming from. And I respect your choice to read the Bible as literal and without error. I’m not attacking you. Really, I was just surprised. I don’t think anyone can truly read the Bible as literal, not without making their own interpretive exceptions. There are so many gaps in the Bible that people have to choose to fill. I fill them differently than you.
    Try to remember that it takes alot of faith for someone to admit to themselves their doubts and to live with questions. If a person, when in the pursuit of God finds one’s experience to be at odds with how their faith system describes God, it’s difficult. Calling people fools or other Biblical slang is not kind or helpful to them. And if you should ask why I would debate issues while in my doubt, I would ask why one should feel that they are so correct. Even if the Bible is correct, this doesn’t mean the reader is.

    • agnostic: “a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.”

      Ok, let’s try this one last time…Yes, I know I come across as a jerk sometimes, but I deal with teenage kids and grumpy parents everyday so grow up, deal with it, read the whole thing carefully and don’t get your feathers ruffled, I realize you’re probably not used to someone talking back this directly…so, maybe do get them ruffled…

      Please take note, I am not attempting to write an apologetic for the Bible or Mark Driscoll or anyone else for that matter. I am confident that long after both you and I are gone and this blog site is wiped from existence and memory, the Bible will continue radically transforming lives and being translated into 1,000’s of languages around the world and selling in the multiple billions of copies. We all understand…really we do…that you don’t, you just can’t accept the Bible as absolute truth. You see all the apparent contradictions…It’s written by men…People read it and make it say what they want it to say…you just can’t believe “your” god would do something like whatever…the Bible’s schyzophrenic…(And my personal favorite…)…It takes a lot of faith to doubt. We get it, we don’t doubt that you’ve got doubts, we get your point, really, we do. But, I think you’re failing to grasp mine…

      To be honest, I’m really not sure who you are (and please don’t tell me in a blog comment) and that’s OK and not really important at all for this topic. I’ll also let you know that I took no offense whatsoever to anything that you said in any comment that you made. There is nothing wrong with a good salty (sometimes bare-knuckled) clash of ideas from time to time, it does the brain and spirit good…and that’s partly the reason for the aggressive tone of my response and that’s partly the reason why AGAIN I’m going to take a few minutes and try to get you thinking. I have to be perfectly frank with you, at the risk of sounding “offensive”, just about everything you say inspires me to either fall into a deep sleep or scream. Do you want to know why? Because you accuse the Bible of being contradictory and schyzophrenic, full of holes and illogical statements yet you don’t seem to see anything contradictory or illogical about your statements and your stated worldview. I’m seriously starting to wonder whether you understand yourself because in all honesty to a person somewhat familiar with textual criticism and logical thought you sound like a hypocrite in just about everything you say. I must ask you a simple question, did you go back and read and THINK about what you actually wrote before you published it as a comment? And then took the time to come back and write YET AGAIN another comment? Did you? Would you, PLEASE?

      For example, how can you make statements like this:

      “We need to be careful that we preach the real character of God, which is love. Love is the nature of the gospel. And this is why I support Osteen and believe Driscoll should cease with his angry preaching.”

      And then come back and yammer on about how heroic you are to have all the doubts you do and say something like this:

      “I wouldn’t consider a discussion or a debate to begin or end with objective truth rather a pursuit of truth. My words are not objective they are my opinion and a reflection of who this speaker is, which I find matters more than any object that would stand in the way of true human connection.”

      I count at least 3 definitive, absolute (almost final judgement) statements in that little group of sentences but, you’re words are not objective? You’re full of doubts and just humbly seeking truth? You come squeaking back in here trying to sound all sheepish (well Paul, all of us rational, loving folk understand that you’re just a dogmatic truth monger and I’m a good little boy trying to connect to other humans and taking the valiant risk to doubt without letting messy obstacles LIKE THE BIBLE get in the way) and dare say (please read in a wilty, southern bell accent, i.e., Scarlett O’Hare for added effect) “well heavens! I just wouldn’t even think about having a discussion beginning or ending with objective truth…my little ol’ words are not objective, I was just stating my ‘humble’ opinion. I’m so full of doubts I just don’t know which way is up.” Oh really, now? The truth is, in the process of stating your “little ol’ doubt-filled opinion,” you’re making definitive, absolute truth statements about the REAL character of God and the essence of the Gospel! I was an English major, Mr. Blog Commentator, not a philosophy major! When you admonish others to “be careful, you must define the REAL nature of the Godhead just like me: the nature of God is love,” are you not in effect saying, “there you go, I’m right, everybody else is wrong and that’s the absolute REALITY of the Godhead defined according to Mr. Blog Commentator?” Based on what I might ask? Did you even realize that you used the word REAL in the sense of “this is how it is, mister”? Did you stop to think that by saying the REAL definition of the REAL nature of God is X that you’re doing more than just stating your little ol’ opinion, you’re actually espousing or promoting a statement of definitive truth? Yet, in your final comment you go on and on about how much you doubt the Bible, all the holes you see, all the contradictions, etc.? On top of that, you’re actually warning people to conform their definitions to your definition. I thought we were all just suppose to form our own truth, Mr. Commentator? Why talk about how much you doubt and then impose on all of us your definition for God? Isn’t that just a bit hypocritical for a person with your worldview? And the crazy thing is that it is a direct quotation from the Bible which you say is unreliable and in your words, contradictory and “schizophrenic?” I’ll be honest Mr. Blog Commentator, you’re a very confusing person…

      And what about your comments on the Gospel? Systematic Theology 101 with Mr. Blog Commentator, for today’s lesson, the Gospel defined…”love is the nature of the Gospel.” I thought you were “just stating you’re opinion?” I thought real truth had to be defined and embraced by the individual according to their personal experience? Why are you forcing all of us, even warning us to conform to your definition of the Gospel? Do you really not see this? You actually warn us to define the Gospel AND the nature of God according to your definition. I thought you were full of doubts? I thought you were being honest with yourself and struggling so to be brave enough to doubt yet you sound very confident in many of your assertions about extremely important topics? And then to top it off, you go and axe Mark Driscoll for crying out loud while judging me for simply critiquing Joel Osteen! Oh no, but you’re not attacking anybody! “And now for my closing arguments, I would like to say to the judge and jury, I support Osteen and believe Driscoll should cease with his angry preaching.” Rap the gavel on the block of wood and ship Driscoll off in his orange pajamas and cuffs, you’ve already passed sentence and yet you say, “[Martin] Luther may have been wrong, whose to say”! And you accuse me of using circular reasoning? You call the Bible contradictory and schyzophrenic? Have you taken the time to THINK about anything that you’ve said at all? As I said again, and again, and again, and again, and again in my other response, for a guy who doesn’t believe in objective, definitive truth, and who hammers on the Bible’s truthfulness, you’re just full of definitive, absolute, truth (sounding) statements about just about some very weighty topics and that to me is just a little bit cocky. Now that I’ve already mentioned it, I’ve just got to sneak this little dandy in here:

      “I feel that what he [Driscoll] preaches is uncompromising and dogmatic with no consideration to the fact that he could be wrong.”
      -Have YOU as a self-defined agnostic considered the fact that you might be wrong in your absolute, definitive statements and warnings about the REALITY of God, the nature of the Gospel and your opinion as to whether Mark Driscoll should cease his angry preaching or not? What if you’re the uncompromising, dogmatic one giving no consideration to the fact that you could be wrong? You say that you might be in your final comment but yet you define so many things for us so authoritatively? What exactly are you really trying to say?

      “His theology is based on his perception of what is truth or not.”
      -And just what’s wrong with that? Isn’t that what you say that all of us should do? How have you formed your theology? Are you saying that only your way is the “right way?” I’d say Driscoll’s a bonafide “seeker of truth” just like you, you should commend him! But, it’s quite obvious that you don’t care for the “truth discoveries he’s embracing…” They rub you wrong and get in the way of your “human connections.” And just what exactly is your theology based on? You’ve gone and defined God and the Gospel for us, I’d like to know just exactly how you did that because for a “humble truth seeker just brimming over with doubt’s” that’s some pretty hefty theological tasks you’ve got whipped there? What are you all worked up and doubtful about? If you’ve got God figured out for all of us then you’ve got all truth as well because wouldn’t God be the absolutely definitive and final source of truth? In your final comments you pine on about your doubts and the Bible’s many supposed inaccuracies and contradictions yet you seem to feel very certain in many of your assertions…

      “He takes a scholastic approach to connecting his views to other men of the past who gave their views. But this is never evidence of truth.”
      -This one just gets my blood boiling, would you please stop and read that last sentence, read it a couple of times in fact: “THIS IS NEVER EVIDENCE OF TRUTH.” I don’t know how you can begin or end a conversation with a more definitive, absolute word than NEVER! Who gave you the sacred key for defining what the evidence of truth is? Come on, man! You say that’s impossible! You’re just wringing your hands, pacing the floors “bravely” all full of doubt yet you’re going to lecture me and Mark Driscoll and Martin Luther in such assertive terms, “listen boys, you’re way off base, that’s NEVER evidence of truth.” And who cares if he takes a “scholastic approach?” You’re taking an “approach” aren’t you? You’re “approach” is right and his is not? I thought you said no one can say whose right and whose wrong but yet you do again and again! Are you really going to keep insulting all of our intelligence with your ridiculous double talk? You say that truth must be defined by the individual indicating that there can be billions of different “truths” but yet you say one particular man’s approach is NEVER evidence of truth? Why can’t his “approach” be just another one amongst “billions of connected humans?” Mr. Commentator, this is just starting to get silly…

      Would you please stop and think about all the things that you have said! You said, “Driscoll does this but…this is NEVER evidence of truth. Luther may have been wrong, whose to say” Can you not see just a teensy bit of hypocrisy in those two back to back statements? In all honesty, you come across as incredibly petty and immature. You don’t like Driscoll, you don’t trust the Bible because it gets you all worked up because God is so mean so you’re going to make your own “comfortable” god and while we’re at it, let’s just burn all of Martin Luther’s stuff as well. Well, you’ve told us we should “seek our own truth based on our experience” and then turn around and warn us to define the nature of God and the Gospel according to YOUR definition and you’re the judge and jury in The Blog Commentator Vs. Mark Driscoll the Angry Preacher. And then you have the nerve to say that “connecting…views to other men of the past who gave their views…is NEVER evidence of truth.” How can you waltz back in here and say, “I’m just statin’ my opinion and I’m just so full of doubt that I wouldn’t consider appealing to any source of objective truth in a debate? I’m just so full of doubts I don’t know what to do with myself.” Are you really for real? Is this a joke? Am I just wasting my time here trying to reason with somebody who’s just laughing at us all and you really do see the absurdity of everything you say and are just getting a kick out of all this? According to all that you’ve said how could you dare go and say that you know the absolute criteria for judging the evidence of truth? There’s not many words more absolute or definitive than NEVER! There’s not much room for opinion or discussion in “never!” Are you kidding me? Do you really not see this? It’s absurd of you to say that you wouldn’t consider beginning or ending a conversation with objective truth and then to make statements like what you’ve made. Of course you begin with a source of absolute truth (at least in your mind). Of course there is an object that stands in between your “human connection” with anybody (i.e., Mark Driscoll) who dares believe differently than you do, YOU!

      Here’s the kicker…

      You know, I watched a documentary the other day with the (in)famous atheist Richard Dawkins and others of his ilk. He said many things that I didn’t like or want to hear, but you know what, at least he and a few of the others interviewed were frank and intellectually coherent with their world view. One guy even went so far as to say that for the true Darwinist, there is no hope, there is no free will, there is no point in living, and that if he got sick he would put a bullet in his head because he believed that he would just become fertilizer and that’s it, nothing more. Depressing, I don’t agree with any of it in the least bit, but at least these people carry their philosophies out to their logical conclusions. At least they are intellectually congruent and honest and don’t sound like hypocrites. If you would do the same, you wouldn’t dare say, “the character of God is love” because in your worldview you can’t. You would say, “I kind of think the character of God is love, but I really don’t know, whose to say? He may be a cosmic tyrant? He may be a deviant? He might be good or He might be bad? He might be a woman? He might be the collective conscience of the universe? He might be Woody Allen? He might be all of those things? He might not even exist? Who knows and who can really say?” Here’s the point, you, my friend, by your own definition are an agnostic and you have no business making absolute, definitive statements about any subject because according to your worldview, you just can’t do that and so when you do you sound like an ideological hypocrite. There is a logical disconnect between your stated worldview and your statements and that is called hypocrisy. I don’t mean to be a jerk in all this, but are you starting to grasp my point? If you want to talk about holes in logic and reasoning and schyzophrenia and confusion, try being me reading your blog comments! The logical Darwinist says, “there’s no Designer, there’s no cause, there’s no design, there’s no purpose, there’s no reason, there’s no good, there’s no bad, there’s no hope, there’s no Sovereign will, there’s no free will, there’s no choice, I’m just a walking pile of fertilizer” and they are being logically congruent with their worldview. You know what, I truly feel sorry for them, I hope and pray that they don’t die believing that, but I have to admit that they are being intellectually honest based on their stated worldview. Not only are your comments indeed a veiled attack (despite your repeated denials) on “truths” that you don’t like clothed in sheep fuzz, they are intellectually lazy, bland, cliche and borderline insulting to the intelligence of any good folk who would take the time to read them. However, I sincerely do hope and pray to God that before you pass from this life and go down in the history books as just another wind bag philosopher or even worse, a heretical false teacher (ever hear of Marcion? Some of your statements remind me a lot of him…) that led many others astray from the knowledge of the One True God, that you would by grace be granted repentance and truly come to the knowledge of the truth.

  4. Sorry I mixed the debates, I do that with first drafts and I apologize. I’m sorry if I come across hypocritical in my subjects and I am not trying to be rude or offensive through absurdity. I suppose my statements are unfair as I am debating truths you hold dear. My habits of language are often the most absurd aspects of my writing, a very bad habit. I say things as definitive when I mean them to be less so. I will also often, say phrases that should be more direct as loose or indirect. When I said never, I should have expressed it as how I view it. Thank you for showing me my weakness in how I debate. I have the information but I am obviously not communicating it appropriately.

    I suppose it may not matter to you but I’ll say it anyway. I am a theist. I have a personal experience of God and I feel led by the divine, though I admit that I cannot fully define this God. I suspect this is because of my deficiencies which I have come to accept and continue to work through.(my inability to comprehend God in God’s totality) That said, I have an internal sense of who God is in my life and in relation to creation. (I believe in my connection to God as I feel that this is more than simply mind or sensation.)I hypothesize that God is the creator of all things. I think that the spirit of God animates all of reality and is the life from which all things grow. I belief he is the architect and the base architecture of the created universe. I believe this because I do not believe in the alternative. It does not feel right to me and I do not believe it to be correct. It being a totally materialistic world view.

    Growing up in Grove Christian Center. I of course believed in God, Christ his son, and the Holy Spirit. But the trinity didn’t make sense to me. Though, this wasn’t a stumbling block at the time. Wanting to know God more, I pursued the Bible deeply and eagerly, until I realized I needed more theological training. I went to a college where I learned a great deal about the Bible and its language, religion and Christian history. I found that as I was reading the New Testament I related most to Jesus. I felt that Paul’s writings were at odds with the words of Christ according to the Gospels. Even the way I came to interpret what Jesus was saying began to move away from what I was originally taught. I could blather on about this but this isn’t the point I’m tryint to make.

    I came to the point where I realized that the Bible could mean many things given certain contexts. If I read the Bible in Greek my understanding would be different than if I had heard it in Aramaic. In fact the Greek influence may have strongly affected the way that we interpret the word prophet. The version I grew up with was actually understood in the same context as a Greek oracle. This can really change the intent of a text. I also discovered that many of the scriptures repeated in the New Testament from the old testament were not originally in the gospels but were written in later by an unkown source. I began to realize that there may be a more valid source for contextualizing the reading of the Bible. Because the original Catholic church chose the books, assembled, and protected the Bible, I felt that they would be the strongest voice for the Bible. But then the church became very corrupt. Luther saved Germany by helping to break away from that corruption, he likely kept a purity in the Christianity that descended from his translating the German New Testament and posting the Thesis. I especially appreciate his banning of monastic life. I didn’t appreciate that he was given to anger and indirectly caused the death of many because of it.

    But all of this was Western. I later discovered that the Orthodox church had been the Catholic Church and at the point of the great schism broke away from the West. This church holds more apostilistic authority, has older and more well preserved oral and visual traditions, and I am of the opinion that they are the best candidate for interpreting the Bible according to its absolute meaning. They made the Bible what it is and guarded it. My second best choice would be the Catholicism of Ireland for reasons I don’t need to go into.

    All of this realized, I nearly joined the Orthodox church. But it didn’t feel right in my soul, no church has since. Since then I have studied, from a scholastic interest, many of the worlds religions. The one common thing I have found is that all religions are human ones and often shaped by culture. They are often best understood by examining the time period in which they took form. No matter, I rejected the Orthodox church, because I did not believe their claims, though I believed much of their history.

    With no church and no definitive way to read the Bible. I’ve learned to pray and seek God. I have come to doubt many elements of the Christ story and of course I read Genesis as mythological. I have no set way to view the universe. I have alot of ways I can choose to but no way I absolutely need to. This frustrates alot of people and occassionally myself. This is why I choose to talk about such matter with people I know come from a similar background and who have intelligence. Of course I started this argument on a different subject with a different tone but I have tried to explain myself here.

    The reason I sound arrogant and cocky, is because I question the legitimacy of any self-professed authority. Saying this makes me sound like a proud person, I know. I don’t see my self as a hero. I may be completely wrong, mistaken, or crazy even. I may not experience God, it could be nerve damage or gas. But I have seen promises fulfilled and God’s commitments made true. I have seen healings, like when we were in Mexico. I have heard of miracle like the way your child received her name. Yet these to me did not confirm Christianity to me, rather it confirmed the reality of a loving creator. And God will not confirm in my heart the truth of Christ and if he would I would proclaim it. So, I choose to speak and to even curse God if I must, until God makes clear those things which are not. While I am waiting, I choose to live a virtuous life and to love others. I would even be kind to Driscoll, though I said otherwise. I choose to write what I do know is true for mankind and to be as useful as I can to by fellow men. I choose to be like my hero, Yeshua. I don’t need to know he’s real to emmulate good character. I know good character because it is what most supports life in this world.

    I do accept Jesus is the Son of God if it is true and if it is not, then I know that God is more than the religion in which I was born. If this is not faith enough for God then I have faith that He wants me to go to Hell, if it is real and in accordance to doctrine. For he has made me to doubt. I who have loved God and my faith, who dove deeply into its bosom and was spit out. Whatever God’s purpose for me, I accept it and its reward. I believe that in the end I and all things are the ward of the creator.

    I wish you well old friend.

    • I was highly caffeinated while writing that though I stand by all that I said. I do feel, however, that a later response that I wrote to the original post was better written. I feel like I was able to express more clearly what I was trying to say…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s