This interesting study in the affect of absent or flawed fathers and the incidence of atheism in the atheist population is another indication to me that people, even rationalists, are often influenced by non-rational, emotional and personal factors in arriving at their worldviews. I explored these things in The Idol of the Mind previously. I certainly do not claim that Christians or theists are less influenced by other than rational factors, but we do not claim to be rationalists. Rational thought is not antithetical to faith in God – far from it; rational thought is, however, not the sum of all things for the Christian. There is a realistic and honest understanding that we are finite beings; that we, perhaps, are incapable of getting our arms and minds around the vastness of the universe and should not presume to think that the wisps of mist that we are in the eons of time can expand to the beginning and end of time and space and prove (or disprove) the existence of a Creator of it all. Of course, we “err” on the side that God exists; while atheists do not believe what they cannot prove. The truth is, however, that many (most?) atheists appear very intent on not wanting to prove that God exits, or even to consider the possibility. I expect there are some honest atheists, but I also suspect they are precious few. I have never encountered any more dogmatic or inflexible a personality than an atheist.
Author: kevingdrendel
I am sixtiesh, an English Literature major in college and an attorney by profession. Faith informs my life, and this blog is about my faith journey.
Straightening the Crooked Path
When uneducated and inaccurate statements are made about evolution, materialism or scientific evidence, people smirk and are quick to point out the ignorance. Uneducated and inaccurate statements about the Bible raise hardly a snicker.
Apparently in defense of homosexuality, I have heard people suggest that the Bible endorses many forms of sexual and gender relations that most people today find more offensive than a loving, gay or lesbian relationship. That is the point of this Upworthy post – “The Top 8 Ways to Be ‘Traditionally Married’ According to the Bible” (sarcasm noted).
I am not going to take on the subject of homosexuality in this piece. I will leave that to others. My issue is with the claims that the Bible endorses deviant sexual acts in the Old Testament. The intention of this type of argument is to undermine the Bible as a standard for conduct, to undermine the reliability or the Bible and to suggest that people who believe the Bible is inspired from God are either hypocrites or do not understand their own Scripture.
But the statements about what the Old Testament says beg the question of their accuracy. I should note at the outset that reports of things that happened are not endorsements of the actions reported. Would anyone mistake a newspaper article on the kidnapping and rape of a ten year old as an endorsement of kidnapping and rape of ten year olds?
Much of the Old Testament is a chronicle reporting things that happened. There are statements of what God purportedly communicated, to be sure, but much of it is written as a history. Clearly, there is a difference between a history or chronicle (report of what happened) and a standard of conduct. Was anyone confused in middle school when reading about the Holocaust in history books that the textbook was endorsing the Holocaust?
If you read the Bible from beginning to end, and attempt to understand what it says, you will find that it reads like a chronicle of God revealing Himself to men and women, and the responses of individuals and people groups, especially the descendants of Abraham and Sarah, to those encounters. The history includes an unfolding of knowledge and understanding, if you will, little by little over a long period of time. It is not terribly unlike the history of science and the unfolding of knowledge and understanding of the universe.
The Bible reports the ancient view of women as chattel, a view that was almost universally shared in every part of the ancient world during times in which physical strength and prowess determined a “might makes right” society. We find throughout the Old Testament examples of women being granted much greater rights and respect that the culture of the time afforded them. Still, the treatment of women reflected in the Old Testament must be viewed in the context of the culture of the time.
Compare that to Paul’s entreaties in the New Testament that husbands should love their wives as their own bodies (Eph. 5:28) and “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (a self-sacrificing love that exults the needs and interest of another above one’s own). (Eph. 5:25) The whole passage in Ephesians is prefaced by this statement: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Eph. 5:21) Paul reflects a more “enlightened” view of women than what was reflected in the Old Testament.
The changes are not contradictory; they are progressive. The Bible chronicles the growth in understanding of what it means to be a follower of God. We have some a long way. The things that people commonly did thousands of years ago are no longer tolerated. Things that were accepted centuries ago are no longer accepted today. All that means is that people have changed; God has not changed. (Heb. 13:8)
None of the activities and relationships reported in the passages cited in the Upworthy piece purport (in the text itself) to have the “blessing” of God. Even the passage in Genesis 2:24 does not read as a command, but as a statement: “a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh”.
The Upworthy piece and other pieces like it are gross mischaracterizations of the Bible and what it says by people who have not given serious effort to understand what they have read. A serious discussion about anything should start from an accurate beginning point. Beginning a discussion with inaccuracy will not lead to understanding; it will just lead us down a crooked path.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Postscript ~ As for commandments, Jesus actually raised the bar. One of the Ten Commandments is, “You shall not commit adultery.” Jesus said,
“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt. 5:29)
The context of this statement is the pronouncement that Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. (Matt. 5:17) Jesus revealed that God’s standard is even higher than what the Pharisees thought. God’s standard goes beyond what we do, and includes what we think and who we are.
Who has not lusted in their hearts? No one! By God’s standards, we are all deviant; we are all sinners; we have all missed the mark.
…. and that gets to the heart of the Gospel ….
but a person must understand the Law and the purpose of the Law to understand the Gospel (Good News). Revisiting the Garden may be a good place to start.
Share this:
The Unsettling Nature of Man, and God
I have been reading through Genesis the last couple of weeks. In reading the stories of Abraham, Isaac and Isaac’s twelve sons, who would become the twelve tribes of Israel, I have been impressed, negatively impressed, with them as people. I must not have really noticed before their blemishes.
Abraham, the father of faith, lied about his relationship to Sarah, not once but twice. When Abraham visited Egypt, and the Pharaoh’s princes were struck by Sarah’s beauty, Abraham instructed Sarah to say she was his sister so they would not kill him. When Pharaoh found out, he was appalled and let her go. Years later, when Abraham was living in the land of the Philistines, Abraham openly declared Sarah was his sister. After King Abimelech discovered the truth, he was equally taken aback. Why did he lie about it? It hardly seems like a noble thing to do. I would call it cowardly.
After Abraham was told by God that he would bear a son and his descendants would become like the stars in the sky, a number of years went by. Sarah then offered her servant to Abraham, and the servant, Hagar, gave birth to a son, Ishmael. Such an act violating the marital covenant does not sit well with a twenty first century reader. It was also not God’s plan. God’s plan was to give Abraham a son through his wife, Sarah.
Isaac, of course, was the son God promised. He, too, seemed less than sterling as a man of God. He followed his father’s footsteps in deceiving the same King Abimelech that Rebekah was his sister, when she was his wife. Like father like son.
Isaac had twin sons, and he favored the oldest, Esau. God blessed the younger son, Jacob. How could Isaac have gotten it wrong?
As for Jacob, he deceived his father for the blessing that his father thought he was giving to Esau, and he did it with his mother’s help. In his old age, Jacob had become blind. Rebekah put Jacob up to pretending to be Esau to receive his father’s blessing. Deception seems to run in the family.
All of this has been unusually unsettling for me for some reason. I have stewed on it for days. Today it struck me that anyone looking at my life would be equally unsettled (or more I dare say). I am no example to follow. I have made many mistakes in my life, too numerous to count. I have done many things of which I am not proud, and my thoughts are another matter altogether. Why should I expect anything other than humanity from these men of old? The amazing thing is that God chose them!
Clearly, it was not their spotless virtue that is the testament of their lives. It was their faith. They heard God. They responded to God. They honored God with sacrifices and pillars and altars where they went. They believed God when He spoke. They lived their lives in deference to God. They relied on God. Their faith was counted to them as righteousness.
My take away is that these men were in right relation to God. I take comfort in that, even if I am bit unsettled by their weakness and humanity, as well as my own. I am in good company, but more importantly, I am reminded of the importance of living a life with an attitude toward God.
Share this:
Ham vs. Nye Debate: Take Two
I have had some time to think about the debate last week in a little more detail, and I have some additional observations. (Disclaimer: I am not a science guy.)
One place where I think Ham made a legitimate point is where Ham drew a distinction between observable science and historical science. He said that creationists do not disagree with evolutionists on the observable science; they come to different conclusions on the same evidencce. Nye kept stating that only science that is “reproducible” is real science, but how can scientists reproduce the Big Bang? How do we observe primordial goo turning into a life form (any life form)?
We don’t. Clearly Bill Nye overstated or misstated the scientific method when it comes to determining what happened in the past. We must necessarily engage different scientific tools than the tools of the laboratory. We need to employ a different tool kit.
Nye’s point that creationists cannot test and reproduce the theory of creationism is not well-taken because evolutionists cannot test and reproduce the ultimate conclusions they reach either. In fact, both conclusions of the origins of man and origins of the earth require scientists to go beyond laboratory science because we can’t reproduce either a 6000 year old earth or a 4.3 Billion year old earth. We must use historical evidence at hand and reason to the best conclusion, and we have to understand that those conclusions will be impacted by our initial assumptions, which are often more philosophical than scientific.
To reach those conclusions requires something more than “pure science”. It requires logic, philosophy and even faith – because we don’t know what we don’t know.
To reach those ultimate conclusions requires us to start with a premise that is not based on “pure science”. That initial premise is often driven by worldview. Worldview has more of an impact on science than the scientific community cares to admit.
In this 30 minute piece called Evolution vs. God, fundamental holes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of the earth and man are exposed. The gaps come out of the mouths of evolutionary theorists themselves in response to questions asked of them. It is well worth the time to watch it.
This is not say that Ken Ham is right about the age of the earth, mind you.
Share this:
Debriefing the Nye v. Ham Debate
While, Nye would never admit the Bible as evidence, Ham came off as stubbornly refusing to accept the proof of science.
How many people watched the Bill Nye v. Ken Ham, young earth/old earth debate the other night? Apparently, Pat Robertson did, and he thinks that Ken Ham is full of water (as reported by many, including Patheos).
I have to say that I wanted to believe Ham, but it was hard to do. Of course, I do not buy Nye either. Just because one person of faith may not have it right, does not mean the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater (or Noah for that matter).
What is it about people that we want to know everything? We want everything to be tied up in neat bows and make perfect sense. But life is not like that. It just isn’t.
It seems to me, in my imperfect opinion, that we tend to get ourselves in trouble when we insist on knowing. Not that there is anything wrong with knowledge or with wanting to know things. But wanting to know everything and for all of it to make perfect sense is just asking too much this side of heaven. It also plays in to pride that is the root of all sin.
We are finite, limited beings. That we know as much as we do is, indeed, remarkable. That we should expect to know it all is something else altogether. (Interestingly, it was the temptation of knowledge, the knowledge of good and evil, that led Adam and Eve into sin.) Not that either Bill Nye or Ken Ham professed to know it all in the debate; they did not.
Let me say this though: I get Ken Ham: he takes the Bible for what it says, and he stands on faith that it is true. I get Ken Ham more than I get Bill Nye. Without faith, we can’t please God.
But the Bible does not say “the earth is 6000 years old”. It could be 10,000. It could be 10,000,000. I, personally, do not think that any of those scenarios matter much in the big scheme of things. The exercise of considering what if the world is only 6000 years old is interesting. It’s kind of fun, but only in a “what if” kind of way. My faith surely does not depend on it. Continue reading “Debriefing the Nye v. Ham Debate”
Navigating by Faith 