The Secret of Success

by Dave on August 3, 2012

in General

I keep a placard on my desk with the secrets of success and thought I should share them.

The Secret of Success…

 

is that it is not the absence of failure, but the absence of envy.

Herodotus

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Albert Einstein

Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear, not absence of fear.

Mark Twain

Whatever you do , or dream you can do, begin it.  Boldness has genius, power and magic in it.

Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

Keep your fears to yourself, but share your courage.

Robert Louis Stevenson

There is no education like adversity.

Benjamin Disraeli

Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.

T.S. Elliot

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Biblical Inerrancy – Part 1

by Dave on July 2, 2012

in Theology

I have come to the conclusion, like many others have, that this whole idea of the bible being free from error and without inconsistency has got to go! There are many reasons for this, and I will write more of them in the future, but here is a good second starting point (My first was my review of Christian Smith’s “The Bible Made Impossible”)

Roger Olson has a new post out containing a Review of Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture by Kenton L. Sparks (Eerdmans, 2012). This is rational, salient and sober. We have many faults as Christians, but I believe the most egregious is to practically worhip the bible over Jesus himself. This post cuts to the heart of much of it.

Here is a highlight of the post.

In other words, according to Sparks, there are records in Scripture that simply cannot be trusted as true because of the Bible’s humanity. He begins with blatant contradictions such as the accounts of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus and death in Matthew and Acts; they cannot be reconciled. Most people are not particularly bothered by that. Only neo-fundamentalists find it necessary to try to harmonize them. The differences are not important theologically. One can easily respond to them by saying that, in spite of such contradictions, the Bible is “perfect with respect to purpose” (John Piper). We can chalk such flaws to human fallibility so long as we hold to a dynamic rather than verbal view of inspiration. (By “verbal inspiration” here I mean the idea that God led the writers to the exact words he wanted them to use. By “dynamic inspiration” here I mean the idea that God led the writers to the ideas he wanted them to record but allowed their personalities and cultures and fallible memories, etc., to affect what they wrote.)

What will trouble many evangelicals more is Sparks’ handling of the Old Testament texts of terror:

Where we judge that Scripture presents God as saying or doing something he would not say or do, we should confess that “these texts tell us more about the purposes of their human authors than about the purposes of God.” We will simply admit that the author of Deuteronomy wrongly believed (as Luther did) that God told his people to slaughter their enemies. To express in theological jargon, Scripture includes both “God-talk” (first-order words from God to humanity) and “god-talk-talk” (mistaken, second-order accounts of what God has supposedly said. This is an important distinction…. (105-106)

Telling the difference between these two types of texts is a matter of Christological discernment, not cultural accommodation. Sparks adamantly rejects any idea that his proposal is based on modern sentiments. To those who disagree he rightly points back to church fathers such as Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom and others who freely admitted that the texts of terror in question could not be taken at face value. The way premodern Christians handled them was to allegorize them. That method isn’t open to us. So where does that leave us?

I have not heard the Judas argument before, but I find the whole thing quite compelling.  Go read the whole post (and comments) to get a full flavor.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Are Chickens Real?

by Dave on June 14, 2012

in General, Theology

I find myself getting into (internet) conversations rather frequently with people who believe that they can somehow know the truth about something in religion.  Generally, I find these folks who don’t like my interpretation of something in the bible, and they say something like “you have to be true to the word of god!  You are contorting god’s word! ”  or something like that.   They say that they, on the other hand, live under the authority of the bible and that I should too.

I explain to them that I do live under the bible, its just that my interpretation is different than theirs.  For instance, I don’t believe that the world was created anytime in the past 10,000 or 20,000 years or that it was in 6 days or in 6 periods of 1,000 days or anything like that.  I also don’t believe that there ever was a literal Adam or Eve or a garden of Eden, let alone a talking snake!  And guess what!  I believe that the bible supports my view and that my view is closer to the truth than theirs.

This seems to be a difficult concept for so many Christians to understand.  They think that how they interpret the bible is god’s word, yet anyone else who interprets it differently is twisting the bible and going against god’s word.

In the latest incarnation of this debate we were discussing the role of imagination in our perception of the world.  I was contending that pretty much all we do is imagine, that we really do not have direct access to truth in the world.  As an example I said that if I see a tree, what I am doing is making an imaginary picture based on electrical signals coming from my eyes.  And my eyes produced the electrical signals due to light hitting them.  So what I have access to is my interpretation, my imagination of the object that I assume light bounced from.

But of course, if someone were feeding electrical impulses to my brain just like the ones my eyes produce, then I would still see the tree, even though it is not there.

Just as you cannot directly see the tree, you also do not have access to absolute truth.  Or, there is no such thing as absolute truth to us.

My conversation partner clearly does not like that view.  He says that he can read the bible and see what it says and that the bible has absolute truths in it.  The problem is that even if the bible does contain absolute truths, he can never claim to know them.  The reason is that each of us can only see the world through our own perspective.  None of us are in a privileged position where we can know what is true and what is not.

 The best we can do is apply our reason to texts like the bible to come up with what we think is a rational notion of the truth.

Now, this brings up another rhetorical ploy of the biblicist.  They will immediately shout that you are putting your own thoughts above god’s!  What they fail to understand, and I wish I could figure out how to make them understand, is that they too are doing exactly the same thing.  The think that they know what the bible is telling them, but it is only their interpretation of what they are reading.  Or in the case of most of these folks, it is their interpretation of an interpretation made to translate multiple non-original documents written in a dead language over 2,000 years ago into our language and our society.

So, to help explain the idea to them that there is no absolute truth, I wrote the following fun reply and thought I would share it.

Are Chickens Real?  (or is there a true chicken to be known)

My daughter and I are raising a new batch of chickens this spring and they are nearly full grown now. We keep them in a coop in the back yard while they are young, and will be free range as they get older. Click the picture to see an enlarged version of what I am talking about.

Well, the dog in the picture is Freckles and she has had an interesting reaction to these new chickens. You see, we had chickens before and she never really bothered them. The chickens and her would simply ignore each other.

But when the chicks were young and we started keeping them in the coop, she would immediately throw herself against the wire on the coop and run around trying to get them and eat them. It was obvious that her brain saw these chicks and could only see them as one thing, a tasty meal that she must, absolutely must get.

My daughter and I were a bit shocked by this since she really did not do that to the other chickens. But after some research and thinking we realized that it was the peeping noise that the chicks made. The peep when they are young, and then start to cluck when they get older. That peeping noise was an obvious signal to her to eat them.

As time went on, the chicks start clucking, and now they only cluck. No more peep noises. But Freckles still attacks them in the coop and thinks they are food! Hmmmm.

Well, Nikki and I determined it was time to take the next step in chicken raising, so we put the chickens in the garden. You can see the garden behind the coop in the picture. We were a bit worried about Freckles because she was absolutely viscous toward them and the fence for the garden is not exactly bullet proof.

Much to our surprise, when we let Freckles out to see the chickens in the garden she totally ignored them! Worse yet, she would walk by them, wag her tail, then proceed to go over to the empty coop and freak out trying to find those good things to eat. She did not recognize that the chickens in the garden are the same ones that were in the coop, and the ones in the coop were food, but the ones in the garden are not.

It was an amazing experiment and we have more experiments to do on this, but I would like to relate this to this post (finally….. ;) )

First, it is clear that there is such a thing as a chicken that we all can agree to. But Freckles has two different subjective views of that chicken, and I pretty sure they both are different than my subjective view. Her view that the chickens in the chicken tractor are clearly interpreted by her as “food that I must eat”, but the same chickens in the garden are “chickens that I ignore”.

The two concepts for Freckles are just like it is for any of us. Each of us has our own contextualized version of what a chicken, or tree, or god, or bible, or sin is and they are all different. None of us is smart enough nor omniscient enough to know what the true chicken is like.

So, it is vital that we realize this when we talk to other people. Someone’s pet chicken may be a mouthwatering lunch to someone else. We need to be open to the fact that the objective truth is probably unattainable to either of us, but we can work together to try and get there.

I hope you enjoyed this, it is quite important that we all understand how we fit into the world.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

What’s Wrong with the SBC? Really?

by Dave on April 28, 2012

in Denominations, General

I love the article on what is wrong with the SBC here.

Here is the response I wrote that I think was censored by the site…..

This post seems to exemplify the problem more than provide a solution, in my view. Every one of the six points is sufficiently vague that only those “in the know” and the real Southern baptists will know exaclty what is being discussed.

A Calvinist will read 1-5 and think that they should be telling people how homophobic complementarian positions are founded on sound biblical doctrine and that they should now step up and go out there to let people know that the world is coming apart and we need to get past the basics here. And while they are at it, they should not reminiss about the old days where gays were not allowed and women knew they place without asking.

And the non-Calvinist will feel that it is good that we finally will allow the message of love and acceptance be the norm, and for those who do not show the love we will have to discipline them, somehow, to show that their old fashioned and non-biblically based ideas will not have a place in the SBC of the future.

The only group you chose to ourgroup explicitly was the post moderns who you totally presented a characiture that is not even close to what it means to be a post modern.

This is what is wrong with the SBC.

I live in rural Virginia and was a trustee, finance member, occasional lecturer in service etc of a church that existed (as I later learned) because of the constant fear that the Calvinists would come in and try to take over the church. They were so fearful of that, and continue to be, that they hid the actual founding documents from the members so that no one can come in and force a vote on theology.

Add to all of that the Baptist Banner rag that circulates around the state http://www.baptistbanner.org/

And there you have a culture of ingrouping some, while a subversive element of Calvinists intent on trying to take the denomination over and political publications like the Baptist Banner meant to further consolidate the position with the Republicans.

What’s wrong with the SBC? Sheesh. Open your eyes.

Afterward I also added something like the following, though I did not save the exact text I wrote.

….additionally, the SBC has had a rather public and well documented political battle for control of the the denomination over the past several decades. What makes us think that the battles would not continue? Here is a good summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention_conservative_resurgence

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Should we read the Bible as Metaphor or Literally?

by Dave on April 28, 2012

in General, Theology

I have written before (A New Universalism, No One is going to Heaven) about the relationship between heaven and our life after death.  In that post I came down quite clearly on the side that heaven is not a place where we are going to go, but is the place where god lives.  I also supported that through an analysis of every verse in the New Testament where heaven is mentioned.

But, many people look at the thief on the cross and believe that Jesus is indeed referring to heaven when he says “today you will be with me in paradise”.  This says a couple of things.  First, it says that it will be today  and second that Jesus will be wherever this place is located.

N.T. Wright has discussed his view of life after life after death on many occasions and most notably (for common folks like us) in his book Surprised by Hope which I highly recommend.  In there he does refer to this life after death as being in paradise, and in being with Jesus.  I believe that Wright comes down on the side that it is still a bit of a mystery since all we have are sign posts pointing to what that future will be like, and no clear pictures of the actual location.

I also watched this video N.T. Wright – Rethinking Life After Death today.

In it Wright again discussed his view on heaven, hell, the resurrection and what the core beliefs about these subjects for Christians today.  I recommend that as the best summary I have seen on the subject.  But there is something else he discusses that I found quite useful.

Literal or Metaphor?

In the video, starting at about 12:30, he discusses the use of the words metaphorical and literal as it relates to the bible and interpretation.  I find myself regularly debating the meaning of various parts of the bible and find that much of the controversy comes down to whether people think they should be interpreting a particular part as metaphor or literally.  Wright says:

“There is a problem with those words, literal and metaphoric, those are words about the way words work.  If we want to talk about the actual realities we ought to talk about concrete and abstract.  Things are either concrete, in the sense that they are actually there, solid, or they’re abstract, in which case they are ideas.”

Now that offers a bit different perspective on the debate because it gives us new vocabulary to use about the contents of particular passages.  He uses the example of Daniel 7 that has a part where 4 monsters will come out of the sea and Danial discusses what these monsters are like.  Clearly everyone would read that and recognize that there will not be 4 actual monsters coming out of the sea, those are not concrete parts of the metaphor.  But the fact that there are four of them is something that we would start to believe refers to four actual things.

People get hung up on stating that something is metaphor or literal.  This gets particularly nasty when someone refers to something like Genesis 1 as poetry.  There are many who will argue that Genesis 1 does not fit the definition of what poetry looks like in ancient Hebrew.  And I think they may be right.  But they go on to say, therefore, it cannot be metaphor and must be read literally.  At that point I disagree and Wright helps me with the language he uses in this video.

Genesis 1 is largely abstract representations of concrete happenings, in my view.  It may not be poetry, and it may be inappropriate to refer to it as only metaphor, but it seems that the concrete and abstract language applies wonderfully.

Wright does not use Genesis as the example in the video, he uses the rapture text.  He clearly feels the Thessalonians text is talking about an abstract idea, not something concrete.

I hope that this language can help.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Old Earth or Young Earth – Dr. Albert Mohler

by Dave on April 23, 2012

in Theology

I posted a page on the site to simply document and not lose Dr. Albert Mohler’s speech on “Why the Universe Looks So Old.”

Page is here.

I disagree with his conclusion that we have to believe in 6 literal days of creation, but find his argument interesting and logical.  In the end he says that the universe indeed does look old, and he does not know why.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Garden

by Dave on March 22, 2012

in General

I am a bit late getting started on my garden, but I think I will be able to whip it into shape pretty quickly.  Here are pictures of my garden plot, my tractor and tiller.  Should whip it into shape in no time!

 

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Comments Thread 1

by Dave on March 14, 2012

in General

I have been told that it is not exactly fair to have comments on my blog blocked when I post on other people’s blogs.  I simply have the system set to shut down comments after 7 or 30 days, I forget which, because I get many more spam comments than actual blog comments.  I will try to keep one thread open for comments at all times so people can post about me here.

I welcome others to post dissenting opinions.  I certainly post dissenting opinions on other people’s blogs and would hope that people would give me the courtesy to engage me here too.  God bless.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

The Glory of God Leads Piper Astray

by Dave February 19, 2012

The younger Piper has posted about the Jeremy Lin phenomenon.  While I don’t have a problem with a basketball player being a Christian, here is an example of how the Calvinist stance in the world of seeking the “glory of god” goes astray.  I could not post a reply on his site, but was able [...]

Read the Full Article

Irreducible Complexity – Arguments Against

by Dave December 6, 2011

I’ve recently stumbled across a video series that is well done and insightful in regards to dispelling the theory that certain features of life are irreducibly complex, and therefore, must have been created.  This is an argument that I just  wish that my brothers in Christ would simply give up.  The more I see illogical [...]

Read the Full Article

← Previous Entries