Interview with the skeptic
Hey everyone.
If you're interested, Wineskins, a Christian e-zine, just published an interview with me.
The interviewee was very respectful throughout the process, and I hope that the interview will help interpersonal relationships between theists and skeptics.
If you're interested, Wineskins, a Christian e-zine, just published an interview with me.
The interviewee was very respectful throughout the process, and I hope that the interview will help interpersonal relationships between theists and skeptics.
posted by SuperSkeptic at 12:35 AM
6 Comments:
Thanks for conversing with Wineskins. I read the conversation on-line and enjoyed your dialogue. As Christians, I know we have a long way to go in reaching out to people with love and kindness. Thanks for showing us some areas where we can improve. I believe that those who seek truth will find it (although not necessarily overnight!) God bless your search.
SuperSkeptic, I'd like to point you to a collection of resources on biblical interpretation, biblical theology, and related matters. Check out www.crivoice.org, and especially the link to "Bible Topics".
You should find the articles very accessible. They are written from a Wesleyan-Arminian perspective and are instructive in assembling a non-fundamentalist approach to scripture. Perhaps they will pose some useful questions for you.
The site's administrator will gladly engage you at any technical or scholarly depth you wish. He is an ordained clergyman and OT scholar. He loves students wherever he finds them.
The site basically doesn't deal in apologetics at all. That might not scratch your itch, but it will treat your questions about scripture with genuine intellectual honesty.
Superskeptic. Thanks for talking to Wineskins mag. I'm a day late and dollar short but felt I needed to write.
I have some genuine questions; not rhetorical as I couldn't even begin to guess why you are where you are or if you should be thinking any differently. I feel that anyone with the courage to blog is saying on some level, "talk to me."
I looked up the word, I think it was pederast (can't check right now) which refers to a male-male relationship. Is it possible that your pastor's zeal precluded that nudge in his spirit to do more homework? If that is even a slight possiblity, he is in as much need of prayer as he is of scrutiny/response by people like you who have flags raised in your mind. It's my opinion that as a thinking being it is a right given by God to all men to question another's assumptions, preferably face-to-face for starters.
Is it possible that you are a more rational thinker than you admit and are struggling with the possibility that you could turn out to be just as shooting-from-the-hip judgemental as those who have affected you, such as the pastor you mentioned?
Could it also be that your difficulty with reconciling the rational and irrational still come down to rational thought? The ability to distinguish something as right or wrong is not abstract but intrinsic by nature via creation before the fall as well as moral via the written code of scripture.
Have you also ever considered that your ability to enjoy a traditional service over the new versions suggests a degree of order that you enjoy, yet one that allows the spirit to soar. The difficulty with describing a soaring spirit's motivations in rational terms does not discount the fact that we have permission to use both rational and irrational realities as humans, just my thought. God didn't sit on my shoulder and tell me that, it's just what came to mind. And yet, I do believe He guides my thoughts beyond being a mere influence like a motivational speaker might.
From the article:
"...the Bible is right; if you reject that homosexuality is a sin, you're not a true Christian."
An M. Div. said this? Was it an honorary degree? :-)
I thought a true Christian was one who placed their trust the finished work of Christ. I thought sanctification was a gradual and ongoing process. I wasn't aware that salvation was pending acceptance of all aspects of Christian doctrine. But then, I'm not an M. Div.
Hey there,
Love your blog, keep up the good work!
Just wanted to let you know about this new website and podcast based in Australia.
The Young Australian Skeptics
http://www.youngausskeptics.com
and official podcast The Pseudo Scientists, which you can subscribe to on iTunes
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=300912635
and/or become a fan of on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Pseudo-Scientists/54438321568?ref=mf
Check it out if you have time, and keep fighting the good fight!
Cheers,
Jason
Within Ancient text we read ..."The teachings of the Scriptures and the church are regarded as authoritative, determining the moral positions one must take." First of all this wreaks all kinds of havoc on people that ask why? WHY,.. Because it's the word of God and it is infallible is the answer some respond with. Surely if a source has all the moral answers it should be constant and verifiable; I will give you a perfect example of logic versus illogical.
If you went to a doctor with a heavy cough, she'd checked you out and said "You have a severe infection in all your limbs which had to be removed within one week in order for you to live"...Would you question her authority? Would you seek another opinion? If the Doctor was legitimate and professional she would love for you to have a second opinion. After all if her tests were constant and verifiable she would not have any cause to lose face if she had mis diagnosed.
One of my gravest concerns; why would anyone not want to learn more about the origin of the text you live your life by? If it truly is divine and inerrant a little cross examining would not hurt the integrity of the text. In fact you would probably be a more devote follower once you could confirm the origins and facts. The problem I see with Scriptures and the church that regard them as authoritative, is that we do not have the original biblical text nor do we know who penned them. The problem with the various textual problems are summed up best by Professor Bart Erhman,
.."Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later-much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another and many thousands of places . . . Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts and there are words in the New Testament." Professor Bart Erhman, Author of "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why"
Personally I feel I have a relationship with God, however the Bible is another story entirely. To tie the God of the Universe to 66 books of ancient text that was written by frail humans with their own agenda is misguided in my opinion. It is very hard for me to me imagine handing my moral compass over to text that rarely agrees with itself. After many years of reading, studying and researching the BIBLE and its evolution I truly understand why it is religion is called the opiate of the masses.
I have attached some of the writings of others who have grave issues with the bible as well. After you read more and view some of the videos you can research it for yourself.
teledocument.vox.com
Peace
Teledocument
Post a Comment
<< Home