The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

I don't find anything to disagree with in your statement, except for the part that "all seem to agree..." I agree, but I'm not sure I can speak for others.

And I would say not believing in God may be better than hating God, because hatred closes a person's eyes to the evidences of the truth.

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

The Bible says everyone is aware of God. I'm not sure what you are trying to nuance out of this. Disbelief is then chosen behavior which is rebellion, though perhaps you don't feel any active animosity. Of what benefit or comfort are you gaining from this nuance? As I said, you are not an impartial judge of yourself. How else to take than exactly what Romans 1 says? Reading Romans 1 (or go all the way through to chapter 3) and none of us comes out as "innocent, sincere unbelievers".

Disbelief is not a "behavior;" it is a state of mind. Moreover, the Bible does not say that "everyone is aware of God," or anything to that effect. If I am in rebellion from God, I am certainly not aware of it. My disbelief, however, is indeed chosen--but not based on hatred for God (which is not possible, since then I would not disbelieve), but rather on what I perceive to be the available evidence.

By the way, if you are going to quote me, please try to avoid changes, and note all of them. I did not say anything about "innocent, sincere unbelievers." Rather, I said that I was "innocent of any animosity towards God." And I am.

Um, I was not quoting you. I was putting quotation marks around a possible category of people. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

If something is chosen it is a behavior.

There are lots of things which are chosen, yet which are not behaviors. Disbelief is among them. Hatred may also be a choice, but I have not nor could I choose to adopt it against God, because I do not believe there is a God. By definition I cannot hate that in which I do not believe. I'm sorry, but if there's a way around that I certainly don't see it.

I don't think that's a good definition, but I have met a number of skeptics who have said the same thing. Their actions have also shown that they were a little more adamant in their disbelief than they gave themselves credit for. If one has proof of something which one then chooses to disbelieve, what would you think the motivation might be?

In Paul's time the wonders of creation showed there is a God, and we have even more evidence now.

Now we know about DNA, for example, a six-foot long exceedingly small encyclopedia of data and code that can develop its own support system and replicate it through time. It's an amazing creation.

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

hatsoff:

I believe you are sincere. There are lots of good reasons for believing that the Christian belief isn't true, and I thank you for your honesty on the matter. It's clear that you're trying to communicate in a very un-hateful way, and that is truly appreciated.

to all:

Back to the original post a bit... My thoughts resonate somewhat with the thread a while back about Psalm 68 and the nature of the biblical corpus. Has anyone ever considered that perhaps James and Paul simply had different theologies (just as Mark and John apparently had different christologies)? And that both their theologies (i.e., the way they spoke and understood God's works and ways) was different even from that of Jesus Christ Himself? It's a notion I got from reading Robert Jenson, and it's been percolating in the back of my mind for a while now. But it seems to jive well with the notion that it's the biblical canon as a whole that shapes and norms itself, with its many theological strands somehow entwining into a comprehensible one-ness.

So the solution, as I suggested in a much earlier post, is to learn to ask different questions (dare I say the 'right' questions?). Xulon is right, I think--it's not about 'reconciling errors' or any such thing, but learning to hear the biblical witness for what it is.

Because 'errors' do matter. If God cannot be counted on to tell the truth always, then on what do we base our hope and faith?

I've always disapproved of the idea of a "oneness" of Scripture. In America we have come to view the Bible as a single work from God's inspiration, but it is not. Rather, it is a collection of various works written and collected by men. Each author had his or her spin on Christianity, as did the shapers of the canon.

Another way to say that is that God has always used imperfect people to spread his message.

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

I agree, and I appreciate your (hatsoff) spirit with which you have discussed things here.

This corresponds with the idea of progressive revelation. This does not mean that some future Revelation "corrects" or shows a previous Revelation to be wrong, but that the Revelation came "in various ways and at various times" completing into a whole.

This idea of the unity (or oneness) of Scripture has a very long history pre-dating America. Every theologian and most everyday Christians are aware that the Bible is a collection of writings by various authors written over centuries. The unity of its message, given its controversial and subjective subject matter is a quite remarkable witness to its origin and preservation. Your "disapproval" seems based on your commitments and on your desire that it be so more than your contemplation on the object of your disapproval.

When I talk of American impressions of Scripture I don't mean to say that such ideas do not predate the United States or our modern era. I simply wish to limit myself to the society I know most about.