If God Is Good, How Could He Command Holy War?

You may also like...

184 Responses

  1. Ricky Bobby says:

    “This is a topic you speak on because you believe in the inerrancy of scripture”–Derek Thomas.

    Very telling. You are forced to force it into your preconceived presuppositionalist box vs. being intellectually honest and truthful about what is Good and what is Evil and what is Universally considered Right and Wrong etc. You are forced to spin and twist and present a God that can do whatever he wants…even if it is considered Universally wrong, bad, evil and unrighteous for anyone else.

  2. How do you find that it is universally wrong? Honest question.

  3. Ricky Bobby says:

    The “God said!” stuff is very prevalent. If “God said!” then most Inerrantists except it as righteous…even if it is not. Did God really tell the Hebrews to commit Genocide? Did God really tell George W. Bush to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    “George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month. Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

    One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: “President Bush said to all of us: ‘I am driven with a mission from God’. God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did.”

    Mr Bush went on: “And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, ‘Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East’. And, by God, I’m gonna do it.””–The Guardian, 2005

  4. Those kind of things are easily answered with Sola Scriptura. Did God tell the Hebrews? Yes, its in the Bible. Did God tell W? No, its not in the Bible.

    That seems cut-and-dried enough for me. Now, how do you know that something is universally wrong?

  5. Michael says:

    Derek addresses that head on.
    God is not George Bush.

  6. Ricky Bobby says:

    Well, Michael, how do you know whether God told GW to go to war or not? You can’t base it off of actions that are Universally Right or Wrong…b/c you have the God/bible commanding Genocide etc.

    So, basically, your truth is entirely Relative, no Absolutes…b/c God could have told someone to do Evil and if God truly told them to do it, then it wasn’t Evil, it was Good and Righteous.

  7. Ricky Bobby says:

    I’ll listen to the rest of it, but i’m sure it’s stuff I’ve already heard a zillion times. Probably the typical spin and twist and dodge and intellectual dishonesty to in essence say what John Piper just comes right out and says plainly: “If God commanded it, even if it is really bad, it’s good because God can do whatever he wants”

  8. Michael says:

    I have some hideous scars on my body inflicted by men with knives.
    They are known as surgeons.
    Without understanding their purpose, their actions with the knives are despicable and evil.
    With the purpose, they are good and vital.
    God’s purposes are always righteous and just.

  9. Ricky Bobby says:

    “God’s purposes are always righteous and just.”

    What good purpose does executing a child with stones serve?

    Genocide? Killing all the women, infants and children…and even the animals?

    Executing a woman with stones who didn’t cry loud enough for help when she was raped?

    Torturing a person in hell forever?

    …especially if the supposed penalty that was required was paid for on the cross?

  10. Ricky Bobby says:

    Seems like Double Jeopardy to kill Jesus on the cross for “all” and then have to torture the vast majority in hell forever on top of Jesus being executed. Seems like a double payment for sin…unless Jesus only died for a very few.

  11. “Well, Michael, how do you know whether God told GW to go to war or not?”

    Point us to the chapter and verse. Otherwise, we can know that God didn’t say it.

    Again, though, how do you know that something is universally wrong?

  12. Ricky Bobby says:

    “Again, though, how do you know that something is universally wrong?”

    I’ve stated it a zillion times, I’ve been threatened to be banned for stating it so much. Yet, you still ask LOL.

    Think about it. What have I said over and over and over and over and over etc etc.

  13. You’ve never answered that question in any way that I could follow. You keep telling me something is universally wrong, but you can’t tell me why.

  14. Michael says:

    RB,

    All I can do is present to you and others God as He defines Himself in the Bible.
    I believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God.
    It is the only account we have of Jesus and I take all the words of Jesus in the book as being true.
    That is the Christian faith and without the book there is no basis for the faith.
    You are free to reject it all, but it’s time on a Christian blog for me to present what Christians believe and do so without apology.
    Derek explains the holy wars well…you may reject what he says, but you reject much with it if you do.

  15. Ricky Bobby says:

    Conscience, Reason, Consensus.

    Murder* is Universally wrong.

    Stealing* is Universally wrong.

    Owning another human being as a possession/property is Universally wrong (though the bible commanded it as a legitimate and righteous option at one time).

    Many others.

    The bible did not invent Morals/Ethics. Humanity has had Moral/Ethical codes long before the bible and has honed those Morals/Ethics over time as humans have evolved and as Human Reason and Enlightenment has increased.

  16. Ricky Bobby says:

    Torturing and imprisoning a Saeed Abedini in prison for being a different religious faith having committed no other crime is Universally wrong. I don’t need the bible to tell me that. I don’t need “God said!” to tell me that.

    Iran’s God tells them to imprison him. “God said!” to Iran to imprison Saeed, according to them (in essence).

    It’s wrong. Conscience, Reason, Consensus tells me it’s wrong.

  17. “Conscience, Reason, Consensus.”

    Then if my conscience disagrees with your conscience, we do not have universally accepted anything.

    Your conscience says stealing is wrong. Perhaps my conscience disagrees. Stealing may or may not be wrong, but according to your own definition, if my conscience disagrees, then it is not universally wrong.

  18. Ricky Bobby says:

    “Then if my conscience disagrees with your conscience, we do not have universally accepted anything.”

    That’s where Reason and Consensus kicks in.

  19. Ricky Bobby says:

    What makes something a Universal is when after applying Reason to an issue and arguing the particular position…Consensus is gained or lost.

    The Consensus Position becomes the Universal Truth and the Moral.

    Where there is overwhelming and broad Consensus, you have a Universal Truth.

    Things like Gravity are easy. Pretty much everyone accepts Gravity as fact.

    Things like Murder* are easier…though there are caveats and disagreements as to some instances where one Group would call it “murder” and another Group would call it “abortion” or some other form of justifiable killing, like say a war context or self-defense etc.

  20. The iniquity of the Amorites and the long time mercy of God on them. Amen.
    From Abraham till Jericho, his hand was stayed.
    He gave them 40 years to think on the stories coming out of Egypt of the plagues, the Red Sea, the Pillar of Fire and the battles.
    And even then, only one in Jericho responded.

    Thank you for putting up this message, Michael.
    I have heard this message before, but not quite so well expounded upon.

    God is good, even when we don’t understand fully.

  21. Consensus in itself tells you that it is not universally accepted. Saying “consensus” implies that there is a minority that does not agree. You can not ascertain universal wrong by consensus. It is simply a contradiction in terms.

    Reason is obviously subjective to the person doing the reasoning. I can easily reason why God commanding the Hebrews to kill was good. Reason does not bring us to universal wrong. It brings us to millions of different ideas of what is wrong.

  22. Consensus does not make gravity any more or less true. That is ludicrous. If I can convince the majority of humanity that gravity does not exist, would that make gravity no longer true?

  23. Ricky Bobby says:

    “Consensus in itself tells you that it is not universally accepted. Saying “consensus” implies that there is a minority that does not agree.”

    There is always a minority that does not agree.

    Your assertion, then, says there can be no Absolute Truth…which is Nietzchian…and rather ironic that you bring that up in light of the other thread on PP right now LOL.

    “There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths.” – Friedrich Nietzsch

  24. Ricky Bobby says:

    “Consensus does not make gravity any more or less true. That is ludicrous. If I can convince the majority of humanity that gravity does not exist, would that make gravity no longer true?”

    Depends. Is human experience and understanding necessary to make Gravity true?

  25. Ricky Bobby says:

    …we’re getting into the deep end of the Philosophical pool now. You’re actually asking some great questions Josh.

  26. Michael says:

    Derek,

    It’s a well done message.
    I’ve been listening to Calvin on audiobooks at night and he chewed me out for not presenting sound doctrine clearly. 🙂

  27. “Your assertion, then, says there can be no Absolute Truth”
    No, my assertion is that absolute truth, by definition, cannot be dependent upon consensus. The moment truth is subjected to public opinion, in is obviously no longer absolute. Your definitions are fatally flawed.

  28. Ricky Bobby says:

    There are differences between Morals/Ethics Truth and laws and facts of our physical universe as observed by science.

    You’ve hit on the fact that Moral Truths are entirely Subjective, they depend on Conscience and Reason and Consensus even among Christians* and even the bible itself presents a non-Absolute with regards to Morals/Ethics as you have God commanding things that are today considered Evil, but were “Good” in the Old Testament, New Testament and in what we assume is to come (Revelation).

    Inerrantists cannot claim a Moral high ground as the bible presents Subjective Morality depending on whether the action was commanded by God (assumed) i.e. Genocide, Killing Children with Stones, Slavery, Sex Slaves etc…or whether the same actions were done outside of the bible (all those things would be called “Evil” if done today).

  29. I’ve listened to a few minutes of the sermon. Hopefully I can let it run tomorrow while I work. I’m very interested in what he has to say. Thank you for posting it, Michael.

  30. Ricky Bobby says:

    “No, my assertion is that absolute truth, by definition, cannot be dependent upon consensus.”

    A light is going on….

    Yes, with regards to Laws and Facts that govern our Universe.

    What about Morals/Ethics? What about Right and Wrong? Are there Absolutes? You seem to be an inerrantist, what are Absolutes that are Right and Wrong?

    Is Genocide an Absolute Moral Evil?

    Slavery?

    Sex Slaves?

    Execution of women and children with Stones?

  31. Ricky Bobby says:

    Josh, is Homosexuality an Absolute Moral Evil? Why or why not?

  32. You’ve just restated what you said above, but not given any reason why you believe that way, only that you do. Ok. I simply disagree. There is absolute truth and it does not depend on my agreeing with it.

  33. Sorry, you jumped in with those last two before I posted my last one. Do I need to answer all twenty of those questions, or could you narrow down the barrage to a managable bite?

  34. Ricky Bobby says:

    Here’s the fatal flaw (since you invoked that term 🙂 of the inerrantist “The Bible is Absolute!” Position:

    Genocide in the bible in the OT that Jesus/God commanded was “Right”, “Righteous” and “Good”….yet today it is not. That renders it “Not Absolute”….it is entirely Subjective based on whether “God said!” or not.

    Slavery was “Right”, “Good”, “Righteous” in the bible…but today it’s “Evil”, “Wrong”, “America’s Great Sin” and against the law…therefore the bible presents another case of Subjective Morality. It changed.

    Homosexuality…why is it wrong today? Maybe it has changed like Slavery and Genocide and Execution with Stones?

  35. Ricky Bobby says:

    The inconvenient truth about the bible is that it has a very shaky record on Morals/Ethics and greatly supports a Nietchzian proposition that there is no Absolute Truth…especially when it comes to Morals/Ethics. All Subjective…the bible is one of the strongest examples of such.

  36. “Josh, is Homosexuality an Absolute Moral Evil? Why or why not?”

    I’ll narrow it down for you, and just discuss this.

    First, two words need definitions.

    Homosexuality – Do you mean same sex attraction, or men having sex with other men?

    Evil – Based on what standard? How do you define evil?

  37. Ricky Bobby says:

    Now that we’ve established (and you seem to agree) that there is NO ABSOLUTE MORAL TRUTH…as the bible proves….then we are forced to rely on Conscience, Reason and Consensus to develop our Moral Codes and Ethics.

    Now, Laws and Facts of our Universe as observed through Science and things like Math etc are much more solid.

  38. Totally disagree. There is absolute truth in areas of right and wrong.

  39. Ricky Bobby says:

    I’m gonna stop there so this doesn’t go on and on and tick off the Group. I’ve proved the position, you agreed with it above (whether you realize it or not). If you have more questions, re-read the back-and-forth and I’m certain you can figure it out eventually.

  40. I completely disagree that there are not absolutes. And I know what i am saying, and I never said otherwise. Anyone who can read will see that.

    We do not always have the capacity to discern right from wrong, but that does not make it any less right or wrong.

    I’d be glad to follow the homosexual question if you will define your terms more clearly.

  41. RB sows out without answering a single question. The whole conversation he answers questions by asking more question and accusing people.

    Paul Copan wrote the book “Is God a moral monster?” Since this is a book, we know that RB will never read it – he may Wiki a summary, put if it’s longer than blog length, it ain’t gonna happen

    http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monster-Testament/dp/0801072751

    In many ways it also talks about how people like RB continually ask the wrong question … and then keep repeating it.

  42. Ricky Bobby says:

    Sorry, can’t wait, gotta lay it out, hopefully the Group will permit me and not call for my banning.

    Josh said, “Consensus does not make gravity any more or less true. That is ludicrous. If I can convince the majority of humanity that gravity does not exist, would that make gravity no longer true?”

    CORRECT. Stuff like Gravity can be more of an Absolute b/c we can test it, verify it, quantify it, see it, touch it, observe it, etc.

    The Definitions of Absolute/Objective and Relative/Subjective are similar to Gravity. Reason is similar to Gravity or Math, it is quantifiable, we can be more certain of it. It has an order to it, laws, properties, consistencies etc.

    Gravity is true whether or not there is current Consensus.

    The Universally accepted definitions of Absolute/Objective vs. Relative/Subjective are true whether you or the Group agrees with those definitions or not.

    As such, the bible presents Genocide as “Good and Righteous” because Jesus/God commanded it here:

    1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

    Genocide has a Universally accepted definition.

    Murder has a Universally accepted definition.

    Killing all the infants intentionally in a war context gets a bit more Subjective.

    As an Inerrantist who claims that the bible presents Moral Absolutes…you now have a big problem.

    As an Inerrantist who claims the bible is without error on anything, you have a problem.

    Killing infants, even in a war context cannot be a Moral Absolute per your bible.

    Slavery cannot be a Moral Absolute, per your bible.

    Sex Slaves cannot be a Moral Absolute, per your bible.

    Killing animals for the purpose of slaughter cannot be a Moral Absolute, per your bible.

    Executing people with Stones as the Taliban does today cannot be a Moral Absolute, per your bible.

    Multiple Wives cannot be a Moral Absolute, per your bible.

    As such, it discredits the bible as a sole Absolute Authority on Morals/Ethics. Morally Good is now Morally Evil in many many cases. It’s not a constant. It is Self-Evident that the bible necessarily cannot be a standard for Moral Absolute as it self-contradicts in many areas, some of which I specifically noted above.

  43. RB – ever fumigate your home? That’s killing all the creatures. Don’t even start by trying to explain which of natures creatures can be mass murdered and which can’t.

    Genocide is a qualitative word that defines itself as evil. You apply the word to God’s actions – but God doesn’t.

    Murder is a qualitative word that defines itself as evil.

    Killing is not a qualitative word and killing can in many instances be good.

    So watch that you aren’t just using loaded words to make your point.

  44. Can’t get to sleep, cause my wife is awake worrying about an ice storm tomorrow.

    Just gonna throw this out there, cause someone needs to hear it.

    God is good. God’s word is good. All the time.
    Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty!
    Who was and is and is to come!
    The whole world is filled with His glory!
    His proclamations are just and his judgement true.

  45. Btw, I love that guy,s first name. 😉

  46. Ricky Bobby says:

    “God is good. God’s word is good. All the time.”

    Even when he commanded the Hebrews to slaughter all the women, children and infants?

    Sex Slaves are good? Multiple wives? I’m on board! It’s GOOD. The bible said so.

  47. Michael says:

    God’s purpose in the Canaanite genocide was holy and it was righteous.
    God never says that sex slaves or multiple wives are good.
    He entered into a culture that practiced those things and led them into the good through his Word.

  48. Ricky Bobby says:

    Not true Michael. God permitted it by Law given to Moses…which you assert is Jesus/God who spoke to Moses.

    You also say God cannot author Evil. Doesn’t jive.

    If God gave the Law to Moses and God’s Law at that time was “righteous” then God did say it was “good” b/c he gave the Law.

  49. MLD,
    I am all for some fire ant genocide.
    I have committed plenty of atrocities on them myself.
    I can never get them all though, cause the neighbors don’t share my passion for insect cleansing.
    They always show back up.

  50. Ricky Bobby says:

    Leviticus (Law supposedly spoken to Moses by Jesus/God himself):

    “As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.”

  51. Ricky Bobby says:

    Michael are you saying that God gave Moses Laws that weren’t “Good” but were rather “Evil”?

  52. Michael says:

    RB,

    God does not make a moral judgment of good or evil on the matter.
    He recognizes where the culture is at and He begins to lead them out of that through regulation and then through later revelation.

  53. Ricky Bobby says:

    Michael, did God give the Law? Yes.

    Can God-given Law be Evil?

  54. Michael says:

    RB,

    I’m saying that God chose a people out for Himself, a barbaric people, and slowly began to show them what it meant to be His people.
    The process of revelation culminates in Christ as the completed revelation of the Father.

  55. Ricky Bobby says:

    This is supposedly (according to biblical inerrantists) a “Law” given to Moses by God to the Hebrews. God authored the Law.

    “As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.”

    The Law gave permission to the Hebrews to own other people as property both male and female as slaves/sex slaves.

    I would assume that you would say that any God-given Laws cannot be Evil and must be Good and Righteous.

    By your expressed beliefs, you are forced to believe that the above Law is “Good” or was Good for a long period of time.

  56. Ricky Bobby says:

    Why is it wrong for me to own Concubines or Sex Slaves today?

  57. Michael says:

    Because the original intent of God was for one man and one woman and that is clearly expressed in the Newer Testament.

  58. Ricky Bobby says:

    “Because the original intent of God was for one man and one woman and that is clearly expressed in the Newer Testament.”

    So you are saying that just because the bible said something was one way previously, that if the bible later says something different that trumps the old thing, that the new things is now the Truth?

  59. Ricky Bobby says:

    Are you saying that just because God gave an old law, it wasn’t his original intent? That just because something was said by God in the OT and even parts of the NT, that if it is clearly stated in the NT that we can be sure it is God’s “original intent”?

  60. Michael says:

    God was pretty clear about that issue in Genesis…we just didn’t want to listen.
    God works through covenants…and the New Covenant in Christ is God’s last word…that interprets all the words that came before.

  61. Ricky Bobby says:

    Yes or no? Are you saying that something clear that is presented in the New Testament can trump and clarify and undo something that is stated many times in the OT and even NT and that we can be sure that is “God’s original intent”?

  62. Ricky Bobby says:

    You seem to say that God gave a law in the OT but that he clarified his “original intent” in the NT as part of some progressive revelation.

    Is that true?

  63. Jim says:

    #54 is well said, and is why I lean NCT. Hard for me to equate how God dealt with rebellious Israel and how He deals with the Church. We are not a barbaric harlot. By His Grace.

  64. Michael says:

    RB,

    I’m done for the night.
    I hope the video is helpful in understanding my position.
    Your other questions are answered in any systematic theology volume you could read.

  65. Michael says:

    Jim,

    I lean that way some myself…

  66. Ricky Bobby says:

    Can’t get a straight answer out of inerrantists, which is telling of the position. Very common. Always the dodge, bob and weave.

  67. Ricky Bobby says:

    “I give you a NEW LAW, Love your enemies…as your father in heaven is perfect”–Jesus Christ, New Testament.

    Universalism. God loves his enemies, that is his “original intent”….if your rationale holds true.

    Trumps the other stuff and clarifies “God’s original intent” just like you say for marriage vs. Sex Slaves and Multiple wives etc.

  68. Michael says:

    No dodges, no bob and weaving.
    Just a refusal to fit biblical truth into RB categories that are chosen arbitrarily and simply don’t fit the data we’re discussing.
    As I said before, we will never come to any understanding here because we have completely different bases of authority.

  69. Ricky Bobby says:

    No you established that the bible is not Absolute on Moral issues. You said so yourself.

    You stated that God’s law on the issue of sex slaves and slavery etc was not his “original intent” and that Morality changed from the law given to Moses in the OT to the NT where you have marriage established and redefined as a new Morality.

  70. Ricky Bobby says:

    To take a different position is to call your version of God “unrighteous” if he gave a law that is unrighteous and Immoral.

  71. Ricky Bobby says:

    What you are forced to do is to dodge the issue altogether and call the Law God gave to Moses regarding Sex Slaves and Slavery as amoral…which is false, something is either Moral or Immoral when it comes to issues like Sex Slaves and Slavery…or you are forced to accept the fact that the bible establishes one Moral in the OT regarding marriage, sex slaves, etc and another Morality in the NT that establishes marriage as between one man and one woman and no sex slaves are permitted.

    Big problems either way you go.

  72. Michael says:

    No problems here.
    The “Law” had three components.
    Civil, moral, and ceremonial.
    The moral codes have never changed, the civil and ceremonial have.
    That’s all I have for tonight.

  73. Ricky Bobby says:

    Michael, they aren’t my categories, it’s called Reason.

    Only three options with regards to the Law of Sex Slaves/Slavery that God gave to Moses permitting the Hebrews to do such:

    1. Amoral (not a moral issue)
    2. Moral
    3. Immoral

    No other options or categories.

    Permitting Sex Slaves/Slavery is not amoral by definition.

    You then have to pick one of the two remaining options: Moral or Immoral.

    You then have to choose “Moral” if you assert the bible is inerrant and perfect.

    Then you are screwed.

  74. Ricky Bobby says:

    “The moral codes have never changed, the civil and ceremonial have.”

    Bullspit. Slavery/Sex Slaves is a Moral issue. If Sex Slaves and Slavery aren’t Moral issues, then nothing is.

  75. Michael says:

    RB,

    I don’t accept your analysis.
    Period.
    I’m not screwed…I’m stronger in my faith and my love for God’s word than ever in my life…even though life couldn’t be tougher.
    It’s not worth arguing about to me anymore.

  76. Ricky Bobby says:

    I know you don’t accept it, but it is what it is. It’s true whether you accept it or not.

    I’m not attempting to shake your faith, I don’t think true faith requires the bible to be inerrant and God.

    Sorry to hear your life is still tough. You led a great thing with Saeed.

  77. Michael says:

    Life is brutal right now…but God is good.
    We all did good with Saeed…we all had a part in that.
    It’s how the church is supposed to work.

  78. brian says:

    My take on the video and I am going to be very direct and I hope people dont get offended at my stance, if you do Oh Well.

    Lol I made you look.

    I was deeply troubled by some of what he said, but what I saw was this man, truly struggled with the text and with inerrancy. He really believes it deep down to the bone and it bothered him and he struggled through it. It was not rhetoric or some glib tweet but it was someone who believed it, wanted to teach on it and drove his stake in the ground so to speak. A side note Pastor Driscoll this is how you preach sir, now go do the same. There are many points I could make, I wish to but I dont know how to approach it. But it was his introspection and depth that touched me. I am touched by anyone who shares that way for the most part, even if I totally disagree with them. I felt that had to be stated.

    So I will ask this, I lack the intestinal fortitude of RB (thats a compliment and I mean it), but I also lack said fortitude of Michael the two better halves of my nature. If anyone who reads my half baked rantings and late night screeds may understand I am not a very logical person. But the problem of evil and Divine ” hiddenness” have always troubled me. My issue with inerrancy is its “practical” application in the real world / universe we reside in. There are many times that Divine Fiat has reared its ugly head and much blood has been spilled. I would hold we all operate on a day to day basis we use probabilities to make decisions, we use seat belts, we wait for the green light, we dont touch hot stoves, we dont jump off the roof etc. Through experience education observation instruction from a credible source we weigh the pros and cons and make a decision.

    On the other side I take a section of the Holy Scriptures (and they are Holy) say John Capture six and from that the RCC and to some degree the EO believe in the literal blood and body of the Lord Jesus are present in the elements. People from the various protestant branches (sorry I could not find a word but this sounds a bit condescending it was not meant to be) have a variety of views. Take said RCC, EO and all of the views expressed in the protestant tradition and give them a book say of physics, Algebra, Chemistry, Engineering, etc and pick any section from that non inspired fallible fallen human text and see if you have the same amount of disagreement and variety even throwing in cultural and genre’s such as is found in the biblical narrative. The consistency, cohesion and agreement is astounding on the human side, not so much on the inerrancy. Of course this is a categorical error at best, I understand that and want push back and correction but I post it to let my “thinking” be understood. I want to be teachable and that is not some quip I really do. I had a much longer blabbering but that is basically what I struggle with. Thanks

  79. brian says:

    ps I hope I did not kill another thread I tend to have that ability, call it a “gift” 🙂

  80. brian says:

    “You led a great thing with Saeed.”

    “Exactly God is found in right action for one to be a good person one decides in their mind and with their heart to do good”, of course that is by grace and it merits us nothing in the area of Salvation as that is a total gift. The first part in quotes came from the movie, loosely translated, “Kingdom of God”. Hey Pastor Mark see how easy that is.

  81. Michael says:

    brian,

    I have to go to bed as i’m worn to a nub from the last few days.
    Derek is a scholar and a pastor…Driscoll is neither.
    I’m using restraint…
    When i have to preach difficult passages I usually end up in tears…but like Derek, I believe the book with all my heart.
    People have abused the book…tried to make it a science text or a blueprint for killing their enemies.
    People have abused science as well, but we don’t discard it.
    I would love to try and answer your questions, but you need to lay them out so I can understand them. 🙂
    The last thing I’ll say is that the ultimate answer to me is always the cross…where God came himself, gave Himself, and proved that in all these things we can’t comprehend that they were based in divine, ultimate love.
    That’s all i have tonight…

  82. brian says:

    I will work on it Michael, that is a good observation on you and others, I am somewhat obscure, maybe I am afraid of the answers? Thanks for your effort.

  83. brian says:

    “on you and others parts” error sorry about that

  84. Reading through the comments, one thing is clear – RB has no stones.

    He uses Richard Dawkins’ techniques and arguments, but he doesn’t know why or how to do it properly. You see, Dawkins also was abused by clergy as a young adolescent and turned the hatred inward – but Dawkins has the stones – he does not claim to be a Christian nor does even even claim to be a theist,

    Now Dawkins’ arguments are childish because Dawkins is not a theologian, has no training as a theologian – It’s funny, because RB has chosen the most childish of those arguments and has no clue how to handle them.

    But my hat is off to Dawkins for at least taking an honest stand against God and my middle finger is in the air to RB for trying to keep one foot in each world … a description of the stoneless and the definition of a coward.

    PS, if anyone wants to see how it is done, read Dawkin’s The God Delusion – it’s an easy, but confusing read.

  85. stu says:

    You are a wonderful person. Oh, how I want to be like you.

  86. stu,
    you don’t want to be like me.

  87. stu says:

    Why do I always get the sense that when I respond to you I’m nibbling bait?

  88. stu says:

    “…the heinousness of sin…” is the crux of the matter.

    What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

    Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?

    And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commands all men every where to repent:

    The man is right. We (the posters on this blog) have a low view of sin. I’m not a deep thinker like most who post here so I believe this man. I realize I’m more an ass than Dogberry.

  89. Tired Bob says:

    MLD

    Good comment about RB, I think you nailed it.

  90. Michael says:

    MLD,

    Maybe the lesson here is that the church needs to do everything it can to deal with abusive clergy so we don’t create this kind of rage in the first place…

  91. Imagine the difference in the bible had God not told the Hebrews to do those things.

    Exodus would end after a couple chapters with “And then the Children of God were exterminated.” And that would be the end of the bible.

    I like God’s story better.

  92. Michael,
    “so we don’t create this kind of rage in the first place…”

    Well I do like how you have classified RB’s thoughts as rage and not clear thinking. Good insight.

    As to the abusive clergy, that always comes after the fact.

  93. Sinful Bob says:

    I didn’t listen to the link, but am very familiar with the text and the instructions to Israel when they entered the land. The problem is most of us are very myopic when we read the bible. In the case of these “ites” who were to be anihalated by Israel one has to learn the history of their worship over the centuries of their existence, it’s no one of peace, harmony and child care.

    The real thought we should have is amazement on how long God is patient with those who sacrifice and burn their children. Maybe then we should also look at this generation who does it in a much more “humane” way. Evil is evil and it always starts with a capital I!

  94. Ricky Bobby says:

    Whatevs MLD. My readers who email me privately and respond to my stuff include a renowned scientist at a major US university and the guy who wrote one of today’s most famous sci-fi shows.

    Your readers include some idiot named something Bob.

  95. Ricky Bobby says:

    Some of you are very delusional. I have the goods and I can quantify my stuff. I don’t have 6 million hits on my blog and 10,000+ unopened emails (inundated every day) with feedback from all over the world b/c I’m some idiot who doesn’t know anything.

  96. Quantify what stuff?

  97. I just saw a whole conversation someone had here where they didn’t watch or engage the video.
    Sounds normal.
    And it was a great message too.
    But, some enjoy their blindness

    God is good and His word is good, always.

  98. RB,
    Wow, as Sci Fi writer as your source. You do understand that writing Sci Fi is no different than writing Fairy Tales? or do you??

    Read some Alister McGraff – a man who has a doctorate in the same scientific field, and from the same university as Dawkins and an additional doctorate in theology. He is the one qualified to speak to these issues.

  99. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    What about the Native Americans? So called Christians not only killEd and pillaged them but raped them of their culture and gave them White names and wanted them to forget their native tongues and also violated treaty after treaty and brought thier diseases on the heads on the Native peoples. Someone (I think Steve) commented on here earlier that a Native American he spoke with was glad that white man came and liberated his people. I about went off the chain but refrained from posting anything due to being angry at such a Sellout comment.

  100. Michael says:

    Solomon,

    I’m confused…what is your question about Native Americans?

  101. What does that have to do with anything?

  102. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    all that was supposedly done in the name of Christ., maybe Christians should stay out of matters of war and leave it to the military

  103. MLD,
    There are no sources.
    He makes up fictional people to support his ego.
    Professors, atheists, interns, sci-fi writers.
    The Secret Life of Ricky Bobby.
    How sad.

  104. Why hang out with all us losers?
    You are so internet famous on your blog, then go lead a charge from over there.

  105. BTW,
    To everyone else on here, you are not a loser.
    I was just making a point about how he seems to think we are.
    That was just tiredness of the RB message and misrepresentation.

  106. Steve Wright says:

    Someone (I think Steve) commented on here earlier that a Native American he spoke with was glad that white man came and liberated his people.
    ——————————————
    That is flat out wrong – One of the problems with internet discussion is that many people not only can’t read the actual words you write at the time (inserting their own thoughts and assumptions)…but they SURE can’t remember what was written by someone over a week ago.

    And rather than be a responsible child of God and taking the time to dig into the archives to look up the actual quote before attributing falsehood to a brother, they just throw it up there. Often they even get a couple replies in response too…”What an awful thing for him to say” etc.

    Then you have to decide to revisit the entire issue, quote, and context – all because of some other person’s libel…or ignore it and let the falsehood stand unopposed.

    Well..I don’t have time. And besides, if Solomon couldn’t read it correctly the first time, why would I think he would read it correctly the second time.

  107. If I took a little stroll through the archives for a month, (discounting the #freesaeed threads) how many have eventually turned to genocide and sex slaves?
    (BTW, could someone tell me where he gets sex slaves from the passage he quotes and no one ever challenges him on it)
    I can see how this one did, but dang…he didn’t even watch the whole video from what he said earlier and then throws his whole superior act.

    Sorry, y’all. I got sent home from work early because of an ice storm here and I am not in the best of moods. The trees are hanging low, because of loads of ice and I am hoping they don’t snap and take out the power lines and indeed the power for awhile like in 1994.

    God is good all the time, but unfortunately I am not.

  108. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    “That is flat out wrong – One of the problems with internet discussion is that many people not only can’t read the actual words you write at the time (inserting their own thoughts and assumptions)…but they SURE can’t remember what was written by someone over a week ago.

    And rather than be a responsible child of God and taking the time to dig into the archives to look up the actual quote before attributing falsehood to a brother, they just throw it up there. Often they even get a couple replies in response too…”What an awful thing for him to say” etc.

    Then you have to decide to revisit the entire issue, quote, and context – all because of some other person’s libel…or ignore it and let the falsehood stand unopposed.

    Well..I don’t have time. And besides, if Solomon couldn’t read it correctly the first time, why would I think he would read it correctly the second time.”

    Yeah yeah yeah, it’s the internet for crying out loud, people are going to misqoute, misspeak etc. don’t get the good ole panties in a ruffle, I know it had something to do with the gospel being presented to the Natives and how said native american was very thankful for that and rightly so, it still came off as a very Uncle Tomish statement.

  109. erunner says:

    Something I learned some time ago is that knowledge doesn’t equate to wisdom. If you don’t recognize the potential for this in your life knowledge can actually become your undoing. I speak from experience.

  110. Steve Wright says:

    , I know it had something to do with the gospel being presented to the Natives and how said native american was very thankful for that and rightly so
    ————————————————-
    And yet you could not be bothered to write THAT, but chose to write something totally different and defaming

    Yeah it’s the internet. And some people think the commands of our Lord, especially about bearing false witness somehow aren’t applicable.

    Take it up with Jesus. If He can’t convict you, I sure won’t be able to.

    I’m done. Way, WAY too much good news breaking to bog down on this…

  111. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    Steve,

    Stop pulling out the God card every time someone calls you out, it’s nothing more than manipualation

  112. Idiot Bob (with clean teeth) says:

    Derek:

    “no one ever challenges him on it”

    No one ever challenges RB?

    You know I like the people at my Dentist office; from the receptionist to the Doctor they are wonderful kind people and actually seem interested in my well being. When I go there I know no matter what happens they will inflict some pain in my mouth and sadly, even though I would rather be somewhere else, they make that experience something I am thankful for.

    Now, when I read RB’s posts not only do I read a lot of pain being inflicted on others I don’t see a kind wonderful soul who cares about those he operates on. Again I think I would rather be at my Dentist office.

    So Derek, why won’t anyone challenge RB? Think about all those who had a bad experience at a Dentist office except in his (RB’s) case one doesn’t leave here with clean teeth.

  113. I challenge RB, to show a verse in the bible that specifically condones and sanctions sexual slavery.
    Sorry, his verse that he always plops onto the thread continuously isn’t cutting it. I see a verse on slavery, but I don’t see sexual slavery in there.

  114. Idiot Bob (with clean teeth) says:

    Solomon:

    It is quite clear to even the casual observer the American Indians (and many other people groups around the globe) were treated more than unfairly and it was often done in the name of “Christ.” I bet this really isn’t the issue at all. The issue seems to me you’re debate with Steve W. and how he responds?

    Overall you and I can’t change the past, but we can change the bubble we walk in and who it touches.

    I grew up in a neighborhood that had a few Native American families near by. I remember when I was in Jr. High a cute NA Indian girl who lived near me expressed her friendship towards me. As young studly white kids (without any help from our parents BTW) we thought and expressed she was more than creepy (I’ll spare you the cruel words we said as 12 year olds about her). To this day, as a man with grandchildren, I regret those events and how I treated her and do my best to teach others not to act in a similar way.

    Sometimes the biggest events shaping our lives are really small.

    Sorry for the interruption in your exchange with Steve W.

  115. Idiot Bob (with clean teeth) says:

    Derek:

    I have a few moments to write so I ‘m getting too wordy.

    If you go back and read any of my posts directed at RB I believe you will find hardly a single exchange of scripture bites. RB has chosen to pull text out of context and historic completeness and any debate with him is just pointless. If the man wasn’t so self absorbed and determined to be right about everything he could be a legitimate and worthwhile personality. Instead he has lowered himself to just bites of information and the continued need to tell everyone, not that he is right but rather, how they are wrong.

    Almost every single thread he is involved with follows the same pattern:

    RB starts out trying to be congenial and as people engage him the battle grows until he declares himself more intelligent and others are guilty of some form of delusional thinking.

    So the moral of the story of RB is more than a man running around in his underwear, it truly is (and sadly) a story about a man who believes second place is the first of the losers.

    Oh well I’ve written way too much and it’s time to go.

    Blessings

  116. Steve Wright says:

    Stop pulling out the God card every time someone calls you out, it’s nothing more than manipualation
    —————————————–
    Fascinating. Misrepresenting a brother’s views is “calling him out”

    Actually being called out on the misrepresentation is “manipulation”

    And in the end, pleasing God with a truthful witness is “playing the God card”

    Wow

    Solomon, what you need to see is that this sort of nonsense, is exactly why some folks, especially me, tend to not believe your stories of woe against those meanie pastors.

    You got a grudge…we get it. We’re wrong, even when you are wrong (as you were here).

  117. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    “Wow

    Solomon, what you need to see is that this sort of nonsense, is exactly why some folks, especially me, tend to not believe your stories of woe against those meanie pastors.

    You got a grudge…we get it. We’re wrong, even when you are wrong (as you were here).”

    When have I ever said I have a grudge against any pastor or that I was abused? I do point out the wolves but the difference with me is that I don’t cry about I just run far away and protect my soul. I was never abused because I do not allow it.

  118. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    Steve,

    Yes I misqouted you but my point stil ltands that your comment was insensitive to what Native Americans went thru. I knew I was not dotting my I’s and crossing my T’s when repeating your comment but I didn’t know you would get all technical about it.

  119. Michael says:

    I actually thought this sermon was worth discussing.

  120. It was, but some people like to argue without watching.

  121. Ricky Bobby says:

    Bob, nah, what happens is I make an assertion, I support the assertion with sound logic/reason and you and others cry foul and stomp and scream and call for banning etc.

    Again, I come at these issues from a Logic/Reason framework and my arguments are well supported and generally sound. You then attempt to muddy the waters and ad hominem by appealing to personality and style etc. and you don’t nearly represent things in a proper manner. Folks follow these discussions, folks who have the chops to know what a solid argument is…and their feedback is usually pretty consistent. I do a solid job of arguing my positions (whether you like it, assent to that fact or not).

  122. Ricky Bobby says:

    I think the strength of the sermon was articulated well by brian. The sincerity of struggling with tough issues to fit in the inerrantist box that doesn’t make God a monster.

    That was the strength. The apologetic is still extremely lacking and unsound from a Logic/Reason perspective but at least there are the positives that brian mentioned. If you’re going to embrace the bad things in the bible, I guess it’s better to do it with hesitation and concern than to beat folks over the head with it and take joy in casting most everyone into eternal torture or slaughtering them with the holy sword.

  123. Ricky Bobby says:

    Derek’s challenge (oh my LOL): “I challenge RB, to show a verse in the bible that specifically condones and sanctions sexual slavery.”

    I did that already, read the verse again:

    ““As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.”

    Moses (from Jesus/God) told the Hebrews/Israelites (gave them a Law) that it was “Okey Dokey” or “YOU MAY HAVE” slaves both male and female. Female slaves are concubines. Concubines are slaves who the masters have sex with.

    David and Solomon had concubines and Nathan the prophet didn’t confront David on his multiple wives and concubines, THAT was not David’s great sin…David’s sin was fornicating with Bathsheba, another man’s wife.

  124. Ricky Bobby says:

    something Bob said, “RB has chosen to pull text out of context and historic completeness”

    The typical dodge of the person without a sound rebuttal classic appeal to context which is ever-shifting. That’s the default position when you don’t have a good answer “You don’t have the right context!”

    LOL, well there is never a “correct context” unless it is agreement with your inconsistent and self-contradictory Box.

  125. Ricky Bobby says:

    Dismiss and name-call away, it is what it is and yes some of you are in fact delusional and should present a sound argument and sound rebuttal instead of the constant hot air you respond with.

  126. All female slaves are concubines…hahahahahahahahaha!
    You are so intellectually bankrupt!
    I even knew you were going to say that, because you have no other proof.

    Where does the law allow concubines?

    The female slaves are concubines doesn’t work.
    You always pull some trick like that.
    You are supposed to be smarter than that.

    Just because people had concubines does not show it was approved of either.

    Same old same old.
    Anyone on here agree with his views of female slaves?
    Maybe some of the non-existent atheists that follow your every move could speak up.

  127. Sorry, but this Hank Williams Sr. album is far more engaging than your twaddle.
    Night RB.

  128. I did what my mom said so I wouldn't be embarrsed in a car crash, Bob says:

    RB

    You still don’t get it at all, none of this is really about your “facts,” “reason,” “logic” or any other measure of the content of your information. What it is about is your presentation, and it is a failing grade!

    Read again my posts and they always come back to these kinds of statements:

    – “it is what it is and yes some of you are in fact delusional and should present a sound argument and sound rebuttal instead of the constant hot air you respond with.”

    -“well there is never a “correct context” unless it is agreement with your inconsistent and self-contradictory Box.”

    -“The typical dodge of the person without a sound rebuttal classic appeal to context which is ever-shifting. ”

    My rebuttals are always about your presentation and how you treat people. Rarely do I read any name calling from any of the writers on this blog which equal the lack of compassion and care which you so often demonstrate.

    Again the same old pattern so easily observed. Please make a change, oh and that underwear you are running around in is getting a bit soiled.

    Michael

    Sorry for the words to RB. I just want you to know the article is worthwhile to hear and even to debate.

    Thank you!

  129. You cannot argue a non believer like RB into the kingdom. They first need the holy spirit to understand the word of God.

    RB reads as a pagan and his explanation of the scripture proves it. But RB has every right to deny Christ and be a non believer if he wants … so we should not give him a hard time.

  130. brian says:

    Ok I am going to try it this way per Michael’s observation to ask questions directly that is loosely translated.

    I agree the bible does not speak about every single aspect of life, it does not deal with modern sciences in real specifics such as explaining in detail how the creation events took place in detail. It offers general events in a particular order and when it speaks of cosmogony it does from a geocentric world view. I am not saying that it teaches that as a reality and I would not use that, what I see as a canard, to use that as a wedge to attack the biblical text and its authority.

    With that My first question, where the bible speaks on an issue, clearly, and that biblical view appears to contradict observations, evidence etc is it the correct to say that the bible is correct and our observations / interpretation of evidence could be flawed because we are fallen (which I do not deny by the way), Basically where the bible speaks clearly on an issue belief etc it should be the bible we “believe” / act upon?

    Is this a correct understanding of an orthodox view of scriptural authority inerrancy. I am trying very hard to ask more clear questions.

  131. Michael says:

    brian,

    Give me an example of a place where the Bible contradicts evidence and/or observation and we’ll deal with that.
    I ask for specificity because there are some issues that certain traditions believe the Bible speaks to in a specific way and it may not actually speak to the matter at all.
    For example…the age of the earth.

  132. brian says:

    OK fair enough, the creation order in the biblical text of Gen 1-2 does not appear to be reflective in the Geologic column as observed by geologists and this is also reflected in the way geologists use the modern view of generally accepted applications for looking for oil, natural gas etc. The second observation would maybe be pointed out as to the measurements we use to determine time at a very mirco level I e the timing cycles used in many modern applications such as GPS, computers, etc. depend on our ability to measure time in very small increments we do this through the use of atomic clocks that is used as a base of timing, though it does not use radio active decay to determine exact time, it does operate on the principle that the sources it does use to keep track of time have been consistent (this is poorly worded). Basically for a Young Earth model to be accurate to our observations would mean light would have to have traveled faster than we observe, the continental drift would have had to be much faster, leading to massive earthquakes tsunamis etc. Given the time frame for civilization to have developed and biblical historic events to have taken place there would have had to have been massive disruption to the observed processed we now see.

  133. brian says:

    Im not as interested in arguing the science, I am not a scientist it is more the practical application of inerrancy and literal view that I am looking to be corrected on because I think I have sort of a canard based view of the debate I E I read it saw a youtube video etc then ran with it. That is why I asked the question in the above post about John chapter six.

  134. Michael says:

    Brian,

    Dr. Packer would be considered an inerrantist…he basically wrote the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy that is the standard document on the subject.
    Packer also teaches that those creation narrative are written in what he calls Hebraic prose poetry.
    The purpose of those narratives is to tell us about Who created the universe, not how or when.
    They lift up the Creator and that is their main purpose.
    That is a very short and grossly incomplete picture of that teaching, but the point is that it leaves us a lot of space to observe and learn from science next to it.

  135. brian says:

    PS please feel free to just post links or books I do not expect people to fully answer these meanderings that would be very unreasonable. I do appreciate the kindness shown to me here.

  136. Michael says:

    Packer lecturing on science, Genesis and evolution…
    http://sydneyanglicans.net/media/audio/creation_evolution_problems/

  137. Ricky Bobby says:

    MLD said, “You cannot argue a non believer like RB into the kingdom.”

    I am a believer, I believe in God and the Good Jesus as the ideal and the sacrifice for all sin.

    something Bob said earlier something to the effect that built yet another false assertion that I’m always right which implies I have a preconceived notion and never budge. Nothing could be further from the truth. I came on here more of a calvinist leaning evangelical, became hyper-calvinist again for a time (as I was in the past) and transitioned to more of an agnostic universalist. I’ve argued each of those positions and made many serious adjustments when the logical answers weren’t adding up.

    It is guys like something Bob that are “always right”…and are completely dogmatic and never budge b/c they aren’t intellectually honest and when confronted with a real contradiction and logical anomaly they default to the dogma and toss reason out the window.

    It is the something Bob mindset that has the attitude of “I’m always right!”

    Show me one things a dogmatist like something Bob or MLD has ever admitted is wrong in their apologetic and made a serious shift in their belief system since being on here?

    Nada.

    I hear a lot of hot air, but when (as usual) the evidence is laid out and examined, much of the stuff sent up by the bob’s and MLD’s is often bogus.

  138. Ricky Bobby says:

    It’s the difference between an honest Truth Seeker and a Dogmatist.

    The dogmatist often tries to poison the well and cast dispersion and “it’s all about you! you always have to be right!” when in fact it is the dogmatist who is unchanging and “always right’ in there dogmatic rigid mindset even when confronted with legitimate contradictions and anomalies in their dogma.

    I have changed my mind many times and continue to make the adjustments. I’m not always right. I have made assertions on here over the years that I have found to be wrong and made many adjustments. I have moved far more than most on here in terms of previously held beliefs to where I am now.

    The other falsity and lie is that i don’t listen to anyone. I have listened to guys like brian and G and many others. It is through their input and my considering their take (which I disagreed with at one time) that I came to different conclusions.

    So you’re basically full of spit Bob and MLD, verifiably so.

  139. brian says:

    OK Michael that is a good start I will read / listen to Dr. Packer I agree he knows much about the scriptures. Thanks. I will try to offer some more questions later. again links to websites and books are fine like I said to expect people to offer some long type response on these issues it is unrealistic such issues are best settled in private reflection. I am only applying this to me in this area. if that makes sense.

  140. Ricky Bobby says:

    underwear Bob said, “My rebuttals are always about your presentation and how you treat people. Rarely do I read any name calling from any of the writers on this blog which equal the lack of compassion and care which you so often demonstrate.”

    That is a very subjective opinion and yes your rebuttals lack a reasonable quantifiable response like i noted above. It’s generally “you hurt my feelings! I don’t like how you said it!” from you and then you do the same thing by being dismissive and then name calling. I can take it, no problem, but try to give a reasonable rebuttal if you disagree instead of just an emotional response.

    You challenge my position, you critique me, but your rebuttals lack substance, just “I don’t like you!”

  141. brian says:

    Ok I got to listen to Dr. Packer first I wish I could have been followed up by such a man. IE a tough kind spiritual drill sergeant that could have kicked me in the butt when I was spiritually / physically lazy (two things I admit to on occasion). He speaks of divine revelation vs the natural sciences that is a key issue, the natural sciences deal with observable phenomena and Divine revelation deals with well, Divine revelation. The two are different views of information that we use to interpret the observable world and our place in it. Dr. Packer asks the why questions and science seems to ask the how questions.

    This is the primary reason I well basically laughed all the way through Dawkins The God Delusion he expects expertise in a specific discipline when commenting on an issue but he commented on theological issues and he is not a theologian. I E if I was on a talk show and Pastor John MacArthur was asked a question and Dr. Dawkins was asked a question on theology I would acquiesce to Dr. MacArthur ( know this I cant stand this man at all and I mean that he makes my skin crawl) But I would defer to him because that is his expertise. On any point of biology, natural science cosmology etc. I would defer to Dr Dawkins. The two domains are different but not mutually exclusive. So that leaves many of us in this fog. That is my point. Note this Dr. MacArthur would not do the same and could not holding to his world view. That is my point. If one holds to an absolutism one must follow that road to the inevitable. And in a strange twist of fate or Divine Providence this block was created.

  142. brian says:

    oops sorry got it on 44 font still cant see, sorry this is why this blog was created when people abused their authority. Sorry about that I hate my vision issues yet I love them, actually I more love them as they help me understand my students more. I think I understand divine hiddenness and the problem of evil given it helps us to minister to those in the literal realm I E the here and now, for eternal consequences I can live with that. I think rightly defined RB could also but I could be wrong about that. RB am I wrong on that if the horrid evil issues you suffered were justly dealt with could you see the Justice of God. Personally if I was a deity I would have appeared right there and now at those moments of abuse and basically blasted the abuser and then held them and just stopped the pain. But like I have said in the past I would make a rather lousy deity.

    Just two souls my old man was a creep at times he hated religion and when I got born again he balked but my father never, even with a gun to his head would have sued me. If I went on Oprah and said he was the Canadian Jesuit conspiracy to take over america he would not have sued me. My dad did some things that troubled me but he ran up on a beach as a kid and saved the very fact that I would be born. The clowns that run the evangelical corporation dont have a clue and I would pit my father to many of them any day of the week. It took me decades to piece that together, my father allowed that, he wanted to come clean and he did. I guess I got my answer if there is a God, there is. Thanks Dad.

  143. RB said, “I am a believer, I believe in God and the Good Jesus as the ideal and the sacrifice for all sin.”

    So quit bitching and moaning about God – if you are a believer – a Christian – then the God you believe in is the God of the Bible – the one who slaughtered the Amalikites, as there is only one God. Denial of this God, puts you outside the pale.

    Suck it up!.

  144. Steve Wright says:

    Brian…your @132.. Most of your concerns in that post can be answered if there was once a worldwide, massive cataclysm.

    And there was…called The Flood

    Cataclysms today that are localized show the same effects that scientists assure take millions and millions of years to occur.

    The issue of light is its own discussion…but all the geology “problems” go away the moment one allows for The Flood as described in Genesis.

    Why is it necessary to assume that a little water over millions of years causing something to happen and not be open to a lot of water in a short time having a similar effect? Who cares if massive tsunamis and volcanic activity were happening – the only ones on earth were safe in a barge somewhere in the Middle East.

    Because the millions of years HAS to be assumed and embraced to keep God out of creation, therefore The Flood, which is the only reasonable explanation for the fossil record, must be denied.

  145. brian says:

    Pastor Wright thanks for your response No they do not, the geologic column is clear if there was an massive flood it would present an a different geology and biology. We observe a difference we see a systematic observation in the geologic column that is laid down over a serious of time not a catastrophic geological reflection. The practical application does not produce the expectations with this world view. Modern observations denote that there are no dinosaurs. If there was a literal flood, when the flood ended it is prevalent that all the land masses were connected prior to the modern observations.

  146. brian says:

    Let me put it this way flood geology produces no observable results and there is absolutely no predictive applications. I E if we are looking for oil / natural gas we use standard geological assumptions and well they find that natural gas and oil. When planned to an Yec World view it could not have happened. It just did not. Again Offered for what it is worth

  147. brian says:

    Another ps Pastor Steve we did not walk on this planet with dinosaurs, that just did not happen, it did not. If the flood hypothesis happened we could not have a geologic column. We observed a ordered layer of species in the geologic column. If a catastrophic event happened the order of the geologic column would have been different, it was not. The concept of origins of common descent is as much “provable” as is a heliocentric view of the solar system we reside in. Personally I see no conflict but I agree it does not agree with the Evangelical point of view. I dont expect some massive response just a few links would be helpful. Thanks.

  148. brian says:

    Pastor Steve I will try to answer your barge point of view as I look into it. Let me say this, I actually hope you folks are right, I dont want to be right on many levels. Forgive me but I want to be accurate as best I can. Thanks. Brian give me some time.

  149. brian says:

    this is a very simplitic view of it but I think it is a bit accurate
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

  150. brian says:

    Ps Pastor Steve It was not me that dragged all this into the public consumption when people groups deny defined realities they need to offer evidence to their point of view. Personally I would love to see that.

  151. Dog breath Bob says:

    Interesting…

    “and yes your rebuttals lack a reasonable quantifiable response like i noted above. It’s generally “you hurt my feelings! I don’t like how you said it!””

    A: Yes I never rebut what you opinion-ate.
    A: Never said , “my feelings were hurt”
    A: Yes I point out the horrible way you write to and about people.

    “So you’re basically full of spit Bob”

    A: Yes I am full of spit, a human body has about 50-60% of their weight in water.

    “The dogmatist often tries to poison the well and cast dispersion and “it’s all about you! you always have to be right!””

    A: You don’t have to always have the right answer, you have to always be right, there is a difference.
    A: Yes I am a dogmatist on many subject and very liberal on others. Of course you don’t have clue what they are except for one thing, how you treat others in your posts.

    “It is the something Bob mindset that has the attitude of “I’m always right!””

    A: Am I right about you? The answers lie in your responses.

    …”just “I don’t like you!”

    Again sadly, RB if you would take the time to read my posts, I really don’t care what you are comfortable believing in, what the truth is to you or even how you came to those conclusions, but not “like you!” Come on now, playground talk? I thought you were far more intelligent, mature and above all that.

    I’ll make you a deal; I’ll quit dogging you if you quit treating others so badly.

  152. Andy says:

    The people of Canaan were burning their babies in the fire to molech. The Lord gave them 400 years to stop. They refused to stop. The merciful Lord put them out of their misery.

  153. stu says:

    Why did God skew the evidence of how old the earth is by breaking up the fountains of the deep all those thousands of years ago?

    1, It’s irrelevant or
    2. It’s a matter to be taken by faith or
    3, We’re to search it out until we understand how to interpret the evidence and get to the truth.

    Perhaps God didn’t skew the evidence. Maybe he just moved things around to give us moderns pause. Is it important to search out things like the age of the earth? I like to think so. But where is the evidence and how does one find the tools to interpret that evidence? Dawkins was credible until he said that life began on earth by being brought here by aliens. That’s about as scientific as the moon being made of green cheese was a hundred years ago. Now we know the moon is full of whipped cream. Hollywood told us so. Equal credibility.

    I love nature, especially the seashore. I see evidence all around me. But I don’t know how to interpret that evidence. I see a scraped hillside south of Pacifica that looks like it was twisted while it was in a fluid state but is that what happened? That road is closed now so nobody will ever see that hillside again. I see cliffs at Pescadero Beach showing layers of rock, dirt, and sand. These layers must’ve been laid down one at a time. But were they spread in a day after the flood or over a long period of time? if the earth is millions of years old why are the rocks not all pulverized? Why is there sand only at the seashore? Why is the Sahara not completely flat and dispersed?

    Is there life on other planets and if so what are the implications? Your biases may vary.

  154. aru says:

    Good example, Andy. I’m sure there were many other such groups of pagans who needed to be exterminated by a holy God to spare the rest of civilization. God gave them all time to repent. He sent Jonah to Ninevah. The cities in Canaan heard about what God did in Egypt. They had 40 years to change their ways. (That’s called repentance for those who don’t know what the word means.) They knew God’s tribe was coming. He gave Sodom (and perhaps Gomorrah) 2 heavenly beings and what did they do? Instead of thinking maybe they should stop what they were doing they clamored to rape them. God could’ve killed them instantly but instead he blinded them. What were they to think then? Did they come to their senses and repent? No. They doubled down. God is merciful but he’s no fool or some senile old man.

  155. stu says:

    aru=stu

  156. Steve Wright says:

    when the flood ended it is prevalent that all the land masses were connected prior to the modern observations.
    ———————————————-
    Agreed..but instead of them drifting apart over millions of years, why not hundreds of years of ice melting causing flooding over the more shallow parts.

    Drain the oceans a couple hundred feet and look at the land masses then.

    There was an ice age..no question. Right after the Flood destruction in my opinion.

    The flood was not just a lot of rain, so I don’t know why there would be a problem with the geologic column issue. Not sure where you are going with that.

    And at the end of the day – I believe man used to live 900+ years routinely. That’s as crazy to most people as any discussion about large lizards living 900 years (reptiles having the ability to grow as long as they are alive)

  157. J.U. says:

    Not all Christians are “young earthers.” You don’t have to believe in a 7,000 year old earth to believe in creation and the Bible. I’m no expert and don’t mean to debate the subject or to attack those that have different views. I think we all agree that faith in Christ rests on other bedrock than archeology.

    It is something to think about and discuss, but it is not the deciding factor in whether we’re saved or not. Right?

  158. Michael says:

    J.U.,

    I agree.

  159. Michael says:

    Andy,

    That’s simply an awful response.
    We need to feel the impact of these texts…as Calvin said, we must acknowledge the terrible decree.
    If we don’t, we miss why they are in the book in the first place…we will miss God’s pure hatred of sin, the cost of sin to humans, and the magnificent grace of God in giving the only solution to the problem…Himself.

  160. Jim says:

    JU,

    This young earther agrees with you. I think most reasonable people would.

  161. Michael says:

    I have immense respect for the sciences…I owe my life and continued existence to scientific discoveries.
    Science, though is constantly changing, constantly learning, and constantly revising.
    The science around an issue like global warming shows that there is not always unanimity among scientists.
    The word of God changes not…and is the foundation from which I understand all other things.

  162. This young earther agrees too.

  163. Michael says:

    ” A Reformed Approach To Science and Scripture” is free for the Kindle.
    http://www.amazon.com/A-Reformed-Approach-Science-Scripture-ebook/dp/B00H19A4FY/

  164. Ricky Bobby says:

    “Science, though is constantly changing”

    No. Science isn’t changing, Scientific Method isn’t changing. The above statement is a misunderstanding of what true Science is. Science is like Math. It’s not changing.

    What changes is the observations of our Universe around us as we keep exploring and refine our testing and draw new conclusions based on newer data. The observations and conclusions change and there is disagreement at times over what the data suggests (i.e. Global Warming).

    But, Scientific Method doesn’t change. It’s a constant, like math.

  165. Ricky Bobby says:

    Now, it is completely understandable that you would say “Science is always changing” b/c one point I drive home with Atheists is that they cross over from Science into Philosophy. Dawkins does this all the time. He takes limited data and limited info we can be “sure” of and he then draws all sorts of conclusions that aren’t necessarily true or provable.

  166. Thanks for the free book link, Michael.

  167. Michael says:

    RB,

    I receive that correction.
    Scientific conclusions are often in flux through new discovery.
    That’s more accurate to what I meant.

  168. J.U. says:

    That’s so true about the scientific method being constant, but scientific results get changed or updated regularly.

    One interesting and relevant point is the big bang theory. Before the big bang theory was accepted, some time in the 60s or 70s, the previous theory was called steady state. Just the opposite of big bang.

    Even though there was good evidence of big bang from the expansion of the universe to the background radiation discovered by Bell Lab Scientists, the big bang theory was slow getting accepted.

    Guess why. Many thought the big bang theory was too close to the Bible’s story of creation. And you thought scientists didn’t have prejudices.

    They do, but the power of evidence and peer acceptance can overcome the prejudices and ultimately lead to agreement on theories. Even though Einstein had serious concerns about quantum theory, and never fully accepted it. “God doesn’t play dice with the universe” is his comment directed against quantum theory. Today quantum theory is very widely accepted despite Einstein’s misgivings.

  169. Steve Wright says:

    J.U. @157 – Most definitely agree. Also agree that science, by definition, is knowledge. It’s the meaning of the word. Yes there is a method, a process, and an interpretation – but science by definition, can’t change.

    I do not hesitate to publicly say that the reason the billions of years old universe is insisted upon is because it is the only way to attempt to explain life here apart from Divine Creation. There is plenty of evidence for a young earth too. Each side has its challenges but whereas Christians are willing to go into the two camps, the atheist and humanist can only go to one – and promote it vehemently, not giving any credence to the alternative view.

    And THEN I tell them how woefully brief billions of years happens to be – at least for evolution to take place as they think it. Unless the mutations were happening so quickly that we could watch evolution with our human eyes, there is no chance that even in billions of years you could have life as we know it today – if you start with nothing.

    And no doubt more and more scientists are realizing that (as seen in the ID movement) and thus those scientists who fear ID will mean they are caving into Genesis are coming up with the whole “life came here on a meteor from Mars” theory which is getting greater and greater emphasis by larger and larger names.

  170. brian says:

    I read all the responses I may ask further questions and have a response to some of the discussion but I want to have all my ducks in a row before I do. I appriciate the information given it is quite helpful.

  171. brian says:

    OK I will try to focus this first I agree with Pastor Steve there are aspects of science enters into realm into other areas, such as the big questions such as why are we here etc. Pastor Steve forgive me if I am wrong. A point of interest, science cannot determine the validity of supernatural events, by definition as I understand it science utilizes natural paradigms to determine validity. Basically science uses natural observations as one component to determine the validity of a point of view supernaturalism basically outsteps that aspect of the scientific method.

    I understand the scientific method may offer evidence to supernatural events. But it is not geared for such events. By definition supernaturalism is outside the realm of science. I appreciate the redefinition offered by Michael where he agreed that Scientific conclusions are often in flux through new discovery.That’s more accurate to what I meant. Of course they are in flux that is the power of the scientific method. We want that to continue. Uniformitarianism in geology, cosmology, etc have produced results and have offered insights to predictions about issues such as where oil / natural gas can be found. Flood geology does not produce the same results. Lets face it if money can be made with whatever theory the speculator will go with that. I would hold flood geology just does not offer any predictive real world offerings.

    As for “panspermia theory” the idea that this is a comet from mars is a very simple rendition I would counter offer any biblical text what so ever that predicted a mars, jupiter, Saturn, Pluto etc. The biblical text offers nothing as to observed phenomena not one validation whatsoever. I mean even getting the basics of modern observations can appear to be an issue with the biblical text.

    One other point Evolution as I understand it does not deal with origins only with common descent through natural selection, I will agree with Pastor Steve Panspermia is not an adequate response to the creation event. If maybe he would agree that John Macarthur’s claptrap that there is no evidence whatsoever in support of evolution, And maybe it is a bit more complicated then that and that good christian people like the people of biologos are not some Jesuit inspired satanic conspiracy. Maybe that could be a point of discussion.

  172. brian says:

    That was totally poorly worded sorry about that I hope to clarify these issues I am just so far behind on my “projects”. Again my apologies.

  173. Steve Wright says:

    Brian, I agree with what I think you are saying, namely that a miracle by definition is something that violates scientific law. However, once a miracle takes place, scientific law is very active.

    It was a miracle to create loaves and fish ex nihilo as Jesus did to feed the crowds. However, once that food showed up in the baskets…was created as it were…it was subject to all the scientific laws of the universe. Gravity kept them sitting in the baskets, the same laws of physics were involved as the disciples used force to grab the food, hand it to others. Friction etc. all normal. The normal scientific laws of digestion and so forth.

    So I don’t have the slightest idea what you mean by predictions made with flood geology per se, but I will say that uniformitarianism is a complete bust when we look at observable processes around us – the rate at which deserts are growing, waterfalls are eroding, reefs are building etc. Use those rates over millions and millions of years and the world should look totally different than it actually does today.

    Not to mention the fossil record’s confusion with where we find fossils of sea creatures and other things in places they should not be.

    The start of the flood was a miracle, as was the start of creation itself – but once the flood got going, the laws of science took over completely. We see the effects today. And like I said, the flood was not just a lot of water falling from the sky but the breaking up of the entire earth from underground as well.

  174. Steve,
    “It was a miracle to create loaves and fish ex nihilo as Jesus did to feed the crowds.”

    This would make for an interesting conversation – and we would probably be guessing with everything we said – but did Jesus create the ‘extra’ fish and bread ex nihilo or did created them ‘using’ the existing elements?

    I think Jesus somehow used what he had and made more.

  175. stu says:

    stu l Uniformitarianism: a geological doctrine that processes acting in the same manner
    l as at present and over long spans of time are sufficient to account for all current
    l geological features and all past geological changes.
    l
    l Catastrophism: a geological doctrine that changes in the earth’s crust have in the
    l past been brought about suddenly by physical forces operating in ways that cannot
    l be observed today.
    l
    l brian, What evidence or proof do you have of uniformitarianism? Mountains? What
    l evidence do you have that goes against catastrophism? When I hear about a large
    l cache of bones being found I think they were probably washed there. When I hear of
    l plankton and other sea creature fossils and bones being found atop arctic mountains
    l I think of the fountains of the deep being broken up. Uniformitarianism doesn’t
    l have a reasonable, scientific explanation for these things. To say the high mountains
    l were once under water is a simplistic statement of faith. Without the cataclysmic
    l flood you would need worldwide volcanic action to move mountains and push them
    l from the bottom of the sea. You would see evidence of that volcanic action. There is
    l no evidence of that many volcanoes.
    l
    l That definition of catastrophism is weak. Obviously we can’t observe something
    l happening today that didn’t happen today. But we have evidence of one ism or
    l another. It just depends on what you choose to believe. Our view of God most
    l likely gives us our view of everything else. Am I skewed? 😉

  176. stu says:

    That didn’t post the way I typed it. 🙁

  177. stu says:

    Yeah, Steve^^^^^ What you said. Dang! I wish I had seen your post before I posted.

  178. The methods for dating rocks are so severely flawed and assumption based, I have never seen how any serious scientist would ever feel safe using them.

  179. Sorry, should have said “flawed because they are so assumption based”

  180. Andy says:

    “That’s simply an awful response.”

    To you, perhaps. But I see it as the true response.

    “We need to feel the impact of these texts…as Calvin said”

    You lost me there…. 😉

  181. Ricky Bobby says:

    If you are serious about understanding the arguments of YEC (Young earth creationists) and the corresponding scientific responses, this is a good start. Derek is wrong, IMO, there are many solid ways to gauge the dates of things, many techniques that corroborate other techniques and come up with the same age, etc. The techniques are largely reliable (and there are many). The following link examines the major claims of YEC and point-for-point addresses the claims.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-dr.html

  182. Steve Wright says:

    point-for-point addresses the claims.
    —————————————————-
    Actually several of the claims are granted and the Talk Origins guys just say but this doesn’t matter as to the age of the earth. .

    And for Talk Origins to take the time to refute Hovind, thinking they are refuting an expert, is wasting a lot of ink. The guy still teaches the moon dust theory (which is like #2 on TalkOrigins list of points to refute)

  183. So, RB
    Are you saying there are no assumptions built into the process of radiometric dating?
    I will read your reply tomorrow as I am about to go to bed.

  184. Jean says:

    I would not concur with the speaker, primarily because I don’t think God would kill the unborn and children because of the sin of their parents or other people in the community (as the case may be). Jesus, commanded that the disciples let the children come to him. Those were the children of the community in which he was ministering. He showed no partiality based on who the parents were.

    The author has some relevant things to say, but in general I think he gets God wrong.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.