"How Does God Reveal? Five Christian Reasons to Doubt Biblical Inerrancy"

[Htom Sirveaux]

Many conservative Christians take it for granted that God has revealed the divine nature and will in and through a specific book. More precisely (although they aren't usually this precise), they believe that God inspired certain human authors at various times in history to write texts that inerrantly express divine truths--and then inspired other human beings to correctly recognize these texts and include all and only them in the comprehensive collection of Scriptures we call the Bible.

(snip)

Does this theory fit well with broader Christian beliefs? Is this a good Christian theory about divine revelation, culminating in a good Christian theory about what the Bible is and what sort of authority we should attach to it? I think there are a number of reasons to be skeptical.

(snip)

1. Christianity holds that Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God

(snip)

Biblical inerrantists might argue that nothing precludes God from both revealing the divine nature primarily in Jesus and authoring an inerrant book as a secondary revelation. This is true as far as it goes. But there are reasons for concern.

http://thepietythatliesbetween.blogspot.com/2014/06/how-does-god-reveal-five-christian.html

I think this post addresses the question of how to judge between different versions of Christianity if you think there are no objective ways to tell which version of Christianity is the "right" one: start with a premise that both sides agree on. In this case, that Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God. Or that God is love. These then, become the foundations that you reason from.

I'm not saying that the reasons in the blog post provide a slam dunk case, but I do think it's a better start than, as a hypothetical example, declaring a general lack of standard then dismissing all the options as equally wrong or equally right. Internal coherence still matters.

[edhopper]

1. Well, if we want to look at which one is closer to the truth

Then the one that discounts much of the fictional tales in the Bible would win.
The more the stories are seen as allegorical myths, the righter the person becomes.
And when they discount all the supernatural parts and acknowledge that we don't have any good evidence that many of the people in the book even existed, they get as close as they will be.

[Htom Sirveaux]

2. But here's a question.

Which would you rather have: Christianity using the approaches you described be generally seen as the most legitimate form of Christianity, or fundamentalist Christianity be seen as the most legitimate form of Christianity?

On the one hand, you agree with the first one more. On the other hand, if fundamentalism is seen as the face of religion, then religion in general is easier to discredit, potentially leading to more support for your position.

I suppose the answer could be that you win either way, so its a matter of indifference?

[edhopper]

5. I prefer the Christians who accept science and reason over

superstition. I would take the real world results of a progressive, forward leaning Christianity over one that is easy to score debate points. The more people claim to know what God wants, the more trouble they cause.
There is quite enough in discussing any concept that entails the supernatural to keep me busy, and I can do without the efforts to curtail civil rights and destroy lives.
We as a country don't win anything with the fundies having any power.

[Htom Sirveaux]

7. Well said!

[skepticscott]

11. Can you point to any Christians

which can fit the belief that someone died and rose from the dead three days later into the framework of "science and reason"? Or who can be "Christians" without believing that?

[edhopper]

19. No

But there are Christians who put that in a separate part of their life and can function in a scientific and rational world.
The question was the choice between the two, who would I prefer. There are Christians who don't doubt most of modern science "because God" and there are others who won't accept anything that contradicts how they read the bible. And probably a continuum between the two.
I'd rather debate the existence of Jesus and the resurrection than evolution and Global Climate Change.

[skepticscott]

20. Well, I'd prefer Xstians who rejected all myth and superstition

in favor of science and reason, too. But, as you've just admitted, they don't exist. Only Christians who still have to turn off the rational part of their brain in order to get through the day. They're rational..except when they're not.

[edhopper]

27. Yes, but the real world consequences of the two different

types is profound. Doesn't mean i won't argue against them here, but I would rather argue about the resurrection and how much of the nativity is true than science education.

Would you admit there is a difference in these two types? One being a more serious threat.

[skepticscott]

28. Not sure where you get the idea that there are exactly two types

There are all different degrees of rationality among self-identified Christians, differing degrees to which they accept science and reject myth and superstition. At what point along that scale do you draw a sharp line to unambiguously distinguish your first type from your second?

[edhopper]

31. I did say there was a whole continuum of belief.

The conversation with Htom and me was about a hypothetical between to two. Sort of like would I rather shag Wilma or Betty from the Flinstones
This isn't something I've come up with, just a response to another poster's query.
Do you not see me challenging all forms of belief in this forum?

[skepticscott]

32. Well, you asked me specifically

"Would you admit there is a difference in these two types?"

I questioned whether there really are two unambiguously distinct types of Christians, and asked you to show me the objective line between them. Without that, your question doesn't make much sense, and can't be answered in any useful way. Your question also doesn't make much sense if you're now saying that there are no distinct types of Christians, and everything is a continuum.

[edhopper]

36. I didn't start this line of query

I was merely answering a hypothetical. I wouldn't extrapolate too much from the talk here.
I was asking you in the context of this discussion, which you might find meaningless anyway.

[Starboard Tack]

26. Excellent response. +100

[cbayer]

33. I agree. That is why it is important to differentiate.

As there is a spectrum, it is important that we identify and embrace the liberal/progressive christians with whom we share the same ideals and agendas.

[pinto]

3. I think allegory plays an important role in many lives. Whatever the format.

It's been varied over time and modes of presentation. Likely, in a largely illiterate culture simple, well-remembered spoken allegory was effective at portraying a message.

[edhopper]

6. As long as people don't assume they know exactly what.It's when people think it is the literal truth

that we get into trouble.

[pinto]

13. Yeah, agree. Assumptions are a rocky road. I think many allegories could be taken at face value,

have some inherent worth and valued as that. Blanket assumptions get all into trouble.

[FreakinDJ]

4. Literal BS apologising for the "Literal Translation"

The "Literal Translation" of the Bible is the worst abuse of the word of the Bible in the entire history of Christianity

[skepticscott]

8. Which two sides agree on those premises?

"God is Love"? Really? All Christians agree on that? Including the ones who think "god" will consign homosexuals to the eternal flames of hell? Who think that "god" slaughtered all of the people in the world but 8 because he was pissed at them? And then a bunch of the Israelites? And abetted the genocide of a bunch of the Israelites' enemies?

Sorry, but this doesn't even come close to providing an objective way to distinguish "good" and "bad" Christianities or "real" Christians from the ones who aren't. Or to distinguish the statements attributed to god or Jesus in the Bible that they actually said from those that someone else is just claiming that they said.

[Htom Sirveaux]

9. Supporters of Biblical inerrancy are bound to "God is love" by

their own claimed method. It's 1 John 4:8. So, yes, all Christians agree on that.
-
Your first paragraph suggests that certain depictions of God in the Bible are not actually loving. This, in turn, suggests that there is indeed an objective standard of love (and that those depictions don't measure up). If that's so, then the claim "God is love" can serve as an objective measuring stick for various kinds of Christianity. That can also have an impact on judgments of likelihood concerning things God/Jesus would or wouldn't not have actually said and how we should interpret things we conclude that they did say.

[skepticscott]

10. Um, sorry, but no

Try 1 Corinthians 13:

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful

Unfortunately, the Bible is full of examples of god insisting on his own way, and of being not just unkind, but cruel and merciless. So by those "inerrant" passages, god can't be said to "be love", unequivocally and without any possibility of disagreement, now can he?

The real fact is that the Bible is rife with direct contradictions like this about what god thinks, wants, expects and does, and neither you nor the author of this article can offer any objective way of telling which of those opposing views represents the way god really it. Christians don't universally agree on any of it. They simply make "god" into what they want him to be, and ignore the stuff that doesn't conform with the version that makes them comfy.

[Htom Sirveaux]

12. Christians don't universally agree that God is love?

I don't think you'd have an easy time finding examples of Christians denying that God is love.

What you would have no trouble finding are examples of Christians disagreeing over how God's love relates to other traits he is thought to have, or whether or not the examples you gave can be be logically reconciled with God's love.

But you can't declare that Biblical descriptions of God are not loving without some idea of what love really means (and in fact you quoted a Biblical definition of what love really means). So not only are you implying that love has a real meaning, even just narrowing things down to the Bible produces a claim about what love really means, which Biblical inerrantists are also bound to by their own claimed method.

[skepticscott]

15. Yes, I quoted you a Biblical "definition" of love

And if someone believes that all of the Bible is literally true, then it follows logically that god does not conform to that definition. And when a Christian also declares (and is happy) that homosexuals will be consigned by god to eternal damnation for no reason, then they are implicitly denying that god is "love", whether they have the self-awareness and honesty to admit it or not. Mouthing the phrase or giving a knee-jerk answer to a question doesn't mean they believe it deep down.

Many Christians question the "love" of god when they experience a personal tragedy, and some come to reject the notion of that love completely. The affirmation of that "love" is not remotely universal.

[Htom Sirveaux]

18. Answers:

Many Christians question the "love" of god when they experience a personal tragedy, and some come to reject the notion of that love completely. The affirmation of that "love" is not remotely universal.

Except that if they finally reject that notion, they probably end up not considering themselves Christian anymore, which reaffirms the idea that "God is Love" is a universal part of being a Christian.

Yes, I quoted you a Biblical "definition" of love. And if someone believes that all of the Bible is literally true, then it follows logically that god does not conform to that definition. And when a Christian also declares (and is happy) that homosexuals will be consigned by god to eternal damnation for no reason, then they are implicitly denying that god is "love", whether they have the self-awareness and honesty to admit it or not. Mouthing the phrase or giving a knee-jerk answer to a question doesn't mean they believe it deep down.

I agree with all of this. You just explained, objectively, what is wrong with the Biblical inerrantist/literalist position: it's internally contradictory. It announces an objective standard (love) and a definition of that standard, and then adopts as having equal weight descriptions of God that fail to meet that standard, and pretends to itself that its actions are loving when they actually are not.

The liberal position does not suffer from these problems. It does not purport to treat all scripture as having equal weight. It takes love as it's objective standard and reads the rest of scripture through that lens, and tries as best it can to live from that standard too. This is more consistent than the inerrantist/literalist position.

Because the liberal position is more internally consistent than the inerrantist/literalist position, it is logically the correct choice between the two.

[skepticscott]

21. As expected, your argument is just NTS crap

Yes, of course it will turn out that all "Christians" agree that "god is love" if you conveniently dismiss anyone who doesn't as not a real Christian, as you just did.

[Htom Sirveaux]

22. Except that's not what I said.

I said this:

Except that if they finally reject that notion, they probably end up not considering themselves Christian anymore,

I was talking about what they would likely think, not about myself at all. This isn't controversial. Lots of people leave Christianity because they can't believe that a loving god created the universe.

What I'd like to see is an example of someone who decided, once and for all, that God wasn't loving, but continued identifying as a Christian anyway.

[eomer]

23. You need to explain the many who consider themselves Christian and base their lives on hate.

In my experience the people who most consider themselves Christian are the ones who most live lives based on hate. I don't know whether they think that God is love or not but I do know that they don't live their lives as if God is love. Even if they say that God is love it seems they're just mouthing it, not really believing it, based on their actions.

[Htom Sirveaux]

24. I think love is harder for some than others.

But rather than face that truth about themselves, they call whatever they are currently doing "love". Then they spend their energy on justifying themselves rather than on growing.

[skepticscott]

29. That's exactly what you said

You said that any Christians who rejected the idea of god being love wouldn't be Christians any more.

Of course, if that's not what you said, then you're acknowledging that people can remain Christians even though they don't agree that "god is love". Either way, your claim fails, so take our pick.

Are you getting that your whole argument is fundamentally flawed? Hope so, because I'm not inclined to waste more time explaining it to you.

[Htom Sirveaux]

34. I quoted for you what I said, and I explained what I meant.

The way you say it makes it sound like I'm excommunicating them, when what I've continually said is that they, of their own free will, would probably stop identifying personally as Christians. That matters because it reflects their own personal judgment of what it means to be a Christian, not mine.

Anyway, as I've set up the argument, it's about two groups: literalist/inerrants and liberals. Members of both groups can agree "God is love". The important thing is what crosses the dividing line, not whether a hypothetical person can remain Christian at all if they do not agree.

Now, returning to the relative merits of the groups, you gave a most excellent objective criticism of the internal contradictions of literalism/inerrantism:

Yes, I quoted you a Biblical "definition" of love. And if someone believes that all of the Bible is literally true, then it follows logically that god does not conform to that definition. And when a Christian also declares (and is happy) that homosexuals will be consigned by god to eternal damnation for no reason, then they are implicitly denying that god is "love", whether they have the self-awareness and honesty to admit it or not. Mouthing the phrase or giving a knee-jerk answer to a question doesn't mean they believe it deep down.

And then I said:

I agree with all of this. You just explained, objectively, what is wrong with the Biblical inerrantist/literalist position: it's internally contradictory. It announces an objective standard (love) and a definition of that standard, and then adopts as having equal weight descriptions of God that fail to meet that standard, and pretends to itself that its actions are loving when they actually are not.

The liberal position does not suffer from these problems. It does not purport to treat all scripture as having equal weight. It takes love as it's objective standard and reads the rest of scripture through that lens, and tries as best it can to live from that standard too. This is more consistent than the inerrantist/literalist position.

Because the liberal position is more internally consistent than the inerrantist/literalist position, it is logically the correct choice between the two.

Your initial claim was that

Sorry, but this doesn't even come close to providing an objective way to distinguish "good" and "bad" Christianities or "real" Christians from the ones who aren't.

Your own analysis of the inerrantist/literalist position has shown that there is an objective way to measure the relative merits of inerrantist/literalist v. liberal Christianity.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. No. WBC.

They are Christians that somehow superimpose the psychopathic genocidal maniac god of the old testament over the sorta-fuzzy not quite so psychopathic god of the new testament.

[Htom Sirveaux]

35. Their inconsistency is why their position

is internally incoherent. Because liberals (as represented by the original blog post) don't hold that all scripture has equal weight, they aren't bound to claim that every portrayal of God in the Bible accurately or fully fulfills "God is love."

That's why, as I told skepticscott, the liberal position is logically better than the inerrantist/literalist one.

[pinto]

14. Yeah, many fashion a world view from a solely personal point of view. It's not uncommon, imo.

And to an extent, understandable. In many venues. Yet when that pov crosses a line - legally, socially, personally - there's a problem.

I've no problem with anyone who harbors a personal issue or even an abhorrence to religion. Many have suffered, are suffering under religious strife. Legally, socially and personally. Yet I don't concur with those that condemn religion in toto, across the board. Many people of faith are everyday folks, interested in the common good and supportive of ideals most of us here hold.

Blanket assumptions serve no one well.

[skepticscott]

16. None of which

addresses the issue here.

[pinto]

17. Yeah, probably not. Just some side comments.

[intaglio]

30. I posted on this persons blog

Well, as an atheist, I was hoping for a serious takedown of biblical literalism. Instead what I find is an exercise in cafeteria Christianity attempting to demonstrate that biblical literalists are not true Christians.

The massive problem of picking and choosing amongst the elements of scripture is that it leaves the door open to more extremist Christians to do the same. In addition the only evidence for the Christ figure is the scripture and so you risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Please not I said "Christ figure" not Jesus