What Happens When You Take the Blinders Off?

I'm starting to think TheologyWeb can be dangerous to a person's spiritual health. As much fun as it is, I think I'd be hesitant to recommend it to anyone who wasn't mature in their faith.

I joined TWeb in July and since then have been on several dangerous adventures here. I'm currently crippled from one of them, hoping for a full recovery :)

Unlike ever before, it now seems to me that there are basically two kinds of Christians, when it comes to controversial issues related to the faith.

There are those who follow Scripture in every way and essentially ignore all secular information to the contrary - they keep the blinders ON.

And there are those who seek to understand secular science, biblical criticism, etc. - they take the blinders OFF.

This second group - which I joined recently - inevitably ends up going on some bumpy rides, trying to figure it all out...

I was wondering how many others - in this second group - have been down similar paths, either here at TWeb or through other means?

Did you end up leaving the faith, becoming neutralized in your faith, or becoming stronger in your faith?

Can you describe the process, the quandries you found yourself in, and how you got through them or were changed because of them?

Below is a message I just sent to Dr. Norman Geisler, a prominent Christian apologist. I doubt that I'll recieve any kind of satisfactory response (and I don't even know what would be satisfactory), but I'll probably keep sending it to apologists until I at least make some progress in coming to terms with life AFTER taking the blinders off...

-----------------------------

Dear Dr. Geisler,

I'm writing to you because I am currently facing apologetics issues which I am having great difficulty overcoming. I've known of your writings for many years, and have your books, When Critics Ask and When Skeptics Ask, as well about 30-40 other books on apologetics. All my life, I believed in the inerrency and authority of Scripture, the biblical account of Creation and the Flood (YEC until recently), and most other traditional evangelical doctrines.

However, more recently, as I began debating atheists online, I encountered arguments I couldn't answer. Then, not long ago, I stumbled upon a site where atheists and Christians debate all manner of theology and related topics, www.TheologyWeb.com. On this forum, I read of several accounts where former Christians eventually walked away from the faith, including one who had previously been steeped in Christian apologetics, having taught the subject himself at the university level. I started a thread on the forum attempting to find answers to all the issues this man raised (which led him to abandon Christianity), and I was unsuccessful in overcoming most of the objections.

After that online discussion, I started another thread entitled, "Former Young Earth Creationist, Now Confused Old Earth Creationist." In that thread, I explained the reasons that led to me adopt the OEC view, and that I was looking for answers in order to develop a coherent understanding of origins from the OEC perspective. This led me to Rich Deem of www.GodandScience.org, a site that does a great job explaining (in layman's terms) how the day-age theory of Creation makes sense.

However, during this discussion, I kept hearing that OEC's almost inevitably end up becoming theistic evolutionists. This concerned me greatly, so I started a thread on the mathematical improbabilities of evolution (at the time, somehow overlooking the fact that theistic evolutionists don't have an issue with probability, since God would account for what is otherwise attributed to chance).

This discussion turned into a heated debate between theists and atheists - with over 400 responses and over 6,000 views. Several Christians and non-Christians began explaining the various processes of evolution and evidence to support it - most compellingly the DNA evidence, indicating shared ancestry between humans, apes, and chimps.

At that point of the conversation, I was referred to www.ASA3.org, and watched Dr. Francis Collins' online video. As you probably know, he's the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and the author of The Language of God. He's a devout Christian and a theistic evolutionist. What he shared in his online video coincided with what was being said on the forum. So I sent him an e-mail (below), asking questions about his views, particularly how we can reconcile the (supposed) history recorded in Genesis with science.

On the forum, many Christians are 'conceding' that Genesis may very well be mythical, rather than historical. (Years ago, I read a book by Donald Bloesch [published by Intervarsity], where he said this very same thing. I couldn't believe IVP actually published it, and called them to ask about it. IVP said they considered this view to be one that was within evangelicalism, and not aberrant theology, as I believed it to be.)

Now, it seems there are fast becoming only two major camps in this debate: 1.) Those who follow only Scripture, and ignore all evolutionary/old-earth science, and 2.) Those who study current scientific research and end up in a serious quandary attempting to reconcile their faith with science.

I find this extremely troubling. In fact, at this very moment, I feel as though my faith has taken a terrible blow, from which I am not certain I will recover.

Months ago, as I mentioned, I started into this tunnel by trying to counter arguments against Christianity (brought against it by the former Christian apologist turned agnostic). My inability to successfully counter his arguments hit me pretty hard. Then, when I ventured into the issue of origins, I ended up stuck between the alternatives of acknowledging science to the detriment of my faith, or denying science in order to uphold my faith.

Then I recently started researching atheist criticisms of Scripture and Christianity. I used to dismiss their arguments out of hand. But when I look at them at objectively, they trouble me immensely.

I know you're extremely busy, but I thought I'd share this information with you to see if you might have any insight to share on these particular issues:

Here are the links to the online discussions I mentioned:

"What About the Mathematical Impossibilities of Evolution?"
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=80459

Here's the Francis Collins online video link:
http://www.asa3.org/movies/ASA2006C...720x480100k.ram


Before this thread, I had started these others on TheologyWeb:

"Former Young Earth Creationist - Now Confused Old Earth Creationist"
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=84762


"Problems With Christianity: Skeptics vs. Apologists"
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=81238
(This thread refers back to the thread where the former Christians describe walking away from the faith)

-

You can see the challenges to your faith as a huge storm that is going to tear you apart or you can see the challenges to your faith as a journey that includes letting G_d out of the tiny box into which He has been placed.

I'm YEC - that being said, it doesn't make a hill of beans difference if G_d created the world 6,000 years ago or if He created it 14 billion years ago - the G_d I worship is big enough to have done it either way. When I get to heaven if I was wrong I'll shrug my shoulders, blush a little, and then go enjoy the feast.

The point of your spiritual journey, incidently, isn't to have a comprehensive grasp of the facts(1), it is to develop a vibrant relationship with G_d. I cannot stress this enough - You don't defend the truth, the truth defends you.

Do you think it is tough now? What do you think it felt like to stand at the foot of the Cross only to watch the guy you pledged your life to suffer and die? What do you think Peter or John felt like? The scriptures tell us: They were scared pOOpless. All the evidence was that Jesus was a fraud - that it was all a big lie.

But then the dawn.

It isn't your job to answer every skeptic - it is your job to develop a relationship with your Lord. Once you do that the Creation/Evolution debate will begin to seem rather silly and trite. Origins is fun at times, but it is all some skeptics have as they are incapable of answering the real questions that plague mankind. In short, if you let them define the terms and the battlefield they will win - but it's such a pathetic battle it's almost funny.

Open up your hands and allow G_d to teach you through all of this - instead of placing Him in a box allow yourself to completely fail and then trust Him. Allow yourself to be pushed, crushed, and destroyed - and then repeat with Job: "Though He slay me, yet I will trust Him"

---------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
1: Most scientists/philosphers of both stripes are absolute blowhards. Make no mistake, they have product to move.

Hi TMM,

Believe me, no offense is intended, but that's probably the kind of response I would have given myself a year or two ago if someone else had asked me this question.

Back then, I still had my blinders on and was unwilling to even consider non-Christian views. So it was easy to hold tight to Scripture and ignore all other opinions. Now, the more I learn about anti-biblical views, the less I have to stand on spiritually...

I think your response was very encouraging, and I think you may still have the ability to have a childlike faith (which God desires). I don't say this flippantly, but I'm guessing that this gives you the ability to overlook the fact that the stars we see in the night sky are billions of light years away, and therefore would have taken billions of years for their light to reach us. Not to mention all the other scientific evidence against YEC - which is there if we look for it. (I say this as a former YEC, recently turned OEC.)

If you're able to overlook things like this, and remain at peace in your faith, I think that is admirable. I'm having a little harder time doing so :)

-

I would just like to comment that I respect your honesty in searching for the truth. It's a good sign no matter which 'side' you pick.

Remember, if you think things through and remain questioning and inquiring you can't be wrong.

Originally posted by mpb1

What Happens When You Take the Blinders Off?

I'm starting to think TheologyWeb can be dangerous to a person's spiritual health. As much fun as it is, I think I'd be hesitant to recommend it to anyone who wasn't mature in their faith.

I joined TWeb in July and since then have been on several dangerous adventures here. I'm currently crippled from one of them, hoping for a full recovery :)

Unlike ever before, it now seems to me that there are basically two kinds of Christians, when it comes to controversial issues related to the faith.

There are those who follow Scripture in every way and essentially ignore all secular information to the contrary - they keep the blinders ON.

And there are those who seek to understand secular science, biblical criticism, etc. - they take the blinders OFF.

This second group - which I joined recently - inevitably ends up going on some bumpy rides, trying to figure it all out...

I was wondering how many others - in this second group - have been down similar paths, either here at TWeb or through other means?

Did you end up leaving the faith, becoming neutralized in your faith, or becoming stronger in your faith?

Can you describe the process, the quandries you found yourself in, and how you got through them or were changed because of them?

Below is a message I just sent to Dr. Norman Geisler, a prominent Christian apologist. I doubt that I'll recieve any kind of satisfactory response (and I don't even know what would be satisfactory), but I'll probably keep sending it to apologists until I at least make some progress in coming to terms with life AFTER taking the blinders off...

-----------------------------

Dear Dr. Geisler,

I'm writing to you because I am currently facing apologetics issues which I am having great difficulty overcoming. I've known of your writings for many years, and have your books, When Critics Ask and When Skeptics Ask, as well about 30-40 other books on apologetics. All my life, I believed in the inerrency and authority of Scripture, the biblical account of Creation and the Flood (YEC until recently), and most other traditional evangelical doctrines.

However, more recently, as I began debating atheists online, I encountered arguments I couldn't answer. Then, not long ago, I stumbled upon a site where atheists and Christians debate all manner of theology and related topics, www.TheologyWeb.com. On this forum, I read of several accounts where former Christians eventually walked away from the faith, including one who had previously been steeped in Christian apologetics, having taught the subject himself at the university level. I started a thread on the forum attempting to find answers to all the issues this man raised (which led him to abandon Christianity), and I was unsuccessful in overcoming most of the objections.

After that online discussion, I started another thread entitled, "Former Young Earth Creationist, Now Confused Old Earth Creationist." In that thread, I explained the reasons that led to me adopt the OEC view, and that I was looking for answers in order to develop a coherent understanding of origins from the OEC perspective. This led me to Rich Deem of www.GodandScience.org, a site that does a great job explaining (in layman's terms) how the day-age theory of Creation makes sense.

However, during this discussion, I kept hearing that OEC's almost inevitably end up becoming theistic evolutionists. This concerned me greatly, so I started a thread on the mathematical improbabilities of evolution (at the time, somehow overlooking the fact that theistic evolutionists don't have an issue with probability, since God would account for what is otherwise attributed to chance).

This discussion turned into a heated debate between theists and atheists - with over 400 responses and over 6,000 views. Several Christians and non-Christians began explaining the various processes of evolution and evidence to support it - most compellingly the DNA evidence, indicating shared ancestry between humans, apes, and chimps.

At that point of the conversation, I was referred to www.ASA3.org, and watched Dr. Francis Collins' online video. As you probably know, he's the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and the author of The Language of God. He's a devout Christian and a theistic evolutionist. What he shared in his online video coincided with what was being said on the forum. So I sent him an e-mail (below), asking questions about his views, particularly how we can reconcile the (supposed) history recorded in Genesis with science.

On the forum, many Christians are 'conceding' that Genesis may very well be mythical, rather than historical. (Years ago, I read a book by Donald Bloesch [published by Intervarsity], where he said this very same thing. I couldn't believe IVP actually published it, and called them to ask about it. IVP said they considered this view to be one that was within evangelicalism, and not aberrant theology, as I believed it to be.)

Now, it seems there are fast becoming only two major camps in this debate: 1.) Those who follow only Scripture, and ignore all evolutionary/old-earth science, and 2.) Those who study current scientific research and end up in a serious quandary attempting to reconcile their faith with science.

I find this extremely troubling. In fact, at this very moment, I feel as though my faith has taken a terrible blow, from which I am not certain I will recover.

Months ago, as I mentioned, I started into this tunnel by trying to counter arguments against Christianity (brought against it by the former Christian apologist turned agnostic). My inability to successfully counter his arguments hit me pretty hard. Then, when I ventured into the issue of origins, I ended up stuck between the alternatives of acknowledging science to the detriment of my faith, or denying science in order to uphold my faith.

Then I recently started researching atheist criticisms of Scripture and Christianity. I used to dismiss their arguments out of hand. But when I look at them at objectively, they trouble me immensely.

I know you're extremely busy, but I thought I'd share this information with you to see if you might have any insight to share on these particular issues:

Here are the links to the online discussions I mentioned:

"What About the Mathematical Impossibilities of Evolution?"
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=80459

Here's the Francis Collins online video link:
http://www.asa3.org/movies/ASA2006C...720x480100k.ram


Before this thread, I had started these others on TheologyWeb:

"Former Young Earth Creationist - Now Confused Old Earth Creationist"
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=84762


"Problems With Christianity: Skeptics vs. Apologists"
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=81238
(This thread refers back to the thread where the former Christians describe walking away from the faith)

-

I think you can count me in the camp of those who "took the blinders off." That happened, for me, in early 1985. By early 1988, I was atheist and I have been since.

Michel

Originally posted by mpb1

Hi TMM,

Believe me, no offense is intended, but that's probably the kind of response I would have given myself a year or two ago if someone else had asked me this question.

Back then, I still had my blinders on and was unwilling to even consider non-Christian views. So it was easy to hold tight to Scripture and ignore all other opinions. Now, the more I learn about anti-biblical views, the less I have to stand on spiritually...

I think your response was very encouraging, and I think you may still have the ability to have a childlike faith (which God desires). I don't say this flippantly, but I'm guessing that this gives you the ability to overlook the fact that the stars we see in the night sky are billions of light years away, and therefore would have taken billions of years for their light to reach us. Not to mention all the other scientific evidence against YEC - which is there if we look for it. (I say this as a former YEC, recently turned OEC.)

If you're able to overlook things like this, and remain at peace in your faith, I think that is admirable. I'm having a little harder time doing so :)

-

You misunderstand.

I'm saying that your being YEC or OEC isn't even the real issue - it isn't even going to be close to your biggest battle. IF you really want to take the blinders off then I invite you to do exactly that. You'll find that I'm not overlooking the 'facts' and I wouldn't dream of asking you to do that either.

The core issue here is do you have a relationship with G_d and do you have the ability to trust Him beyond your ability to understand. This is what you are facing and the YEC/OEC debate is the catalyst.

Roll with me here for a moment.

Let's say the evidence was that G_d created the earth 6,000 years ago. Let's say the evidence for that event was overwhelming and that nobody even questioned it anymore. Let's say the truly rational person had to accept, on solid scientific grounds, that G_d Created. YEC/OEC is not an issue in this senerio.

So here you are, this happy go lucky Christain cruisin' along through life and suddenly you get hit by a car and you are paralyzed.

What is the issue now?

Why would a loving G_d allow me to be paralyzed? Maybe the guy next to you in bed flat out challenges you and after a crisis you are asking yourself why there is no healing and why G_d doesn't hear your prayers and so on. Guess what, we wouldn't be discussing YEC right now would we? We'd be discussing the Problem of Evil. In fact, if someone tried to discuss YEC/OEC with you I'm guessing you'd tell 'em to take a hike as you are concerned with real problems like paralysis.

You see the YEC/OEC debate is the catalyst, but it isn't the core problem. No matter what, every person in this life is going to be faced with the "BIG QUESTION" and while the calalyst might be different for each person the "BIG QUESTION" is exactly the same.

The big question is the one G_d asks "Do you trust me?"

Can you let go of having to have all the answers - do you trust me?
Can you let go of your ego - do you trust me?
Can you let Me out of the box - do you trust me?
Can you let Me work in ways you don't understand - do you trust me?

This is the big question that we face because it is the question Christ Himself faced on the Cross. He said, "Into your hands I commend my Spirit" - He endured the abuse and trusted G_d to make it right. The 'Great Cloud of Witnesses' in Hebrews all faced this same question - and they each had a different catalyst.

Now the catalyst for me wasn't YEC/OEC - the catalyst for me was my time in college when my entire world caved. I had tons of proof that G_d didn't care, that G_d wasn't involved in my life, and that I was heading for a major collision - and then, in my darkest hour, despite all the questions and objections I had I echoed Job and told G_d, "I don't care if you kill me, I'm still going to trust you."

My stress level was so bad I had hives - I was covered with the physical manifestations of extreme stress and I spent HOURS in prayer and weeping due to the pain and anguish. Was the question really my finances or health? No, not really - the questions was, "Do you trust me?"

Something will push you to that extreme - let it be YEC/OEC or this, that, or the other thing. It doesn't matter - sooner or later each person who professes Christ has to actually trust G_d and that means taking the next step even when it makes no sense - even if you think it will kill you. G_d insists that we trust Him and the world will keep pushing you down until you let go completely - because whether it is YEC/OEC, or inerrency of Scripture, or personal crises, or a bad stock market - at some point you'll be destroyed and you'l have to make a choice.

For the record: I wouldn't trade my distress in college for the world. Once G_d has been faithful through something like that it makes all other challenges to my faith appear very feeble.

I say I trust Him not because I can glibbly ignore challenges to my faith - I can say I trust Him because I have already been thoroughly challenged and destroyed - the blinders are off me, my friend - all these other challenges look like child's play to me.

Originally posted by mpb1

What Happens When You Take the Blinders Off?

I'm starting to think TheologyWeb can be dangerous to a person's spiritual health. As much fun as it is, I think I'd be hesitant to recommend it to anyone who wasn't mature in their faith.

I think CS Lewis said something to that effect -- that there is nothing more dangerous to one's faith than doing apologetics.

Originally posted by mpb1

Unlike ever before, it now seems to me that there are basically two kinds of Christians, when it comes to controversial issues related to the faith.

There are those who follow Scripture in every way and essentially ignore all secular information to the contrary - they keep the blinders ON.

And there are those who seek to understand secular science, biblical criticism, etc. - they take the blinders OFF.

This second group - which I joined recently - inevitably ends up going on some bumpy rides, trying to figure it all out...

[b]I was wondering how many others - in this second group - have been down similar paths, either here at TWeb or through other means?

I guess I fall into a third group. I was an atheist/agnostic for many years, then became a vague form of theist, then became a vague form of Christian. So I'm not sure whether you would think that I've been putting blinders on or off. But my motivation has always been to search for the truth.

Originally posted by mpb1

On the forum, many Christians are 'conceding' that Genesis may very well be mythical, rather than historical. (Years ago, I read a book by Donald Bloesch [published by Intervarsity], where he said this very same thing. I couldn't believe IVP actually published it, and called them to ask about it. IVP said they considered this view to be one that was within evangelicalism, and not aberrant theology, as I believed it to be.)

That view has been around since Origen in the Third Century, and probably predates Christianity on the Jewish side. So why do you have a problem with it?

Originally posted by mpb1

Now, it seems there are fast becoming only two major camps in this debate: 1.) Those who follow only Scripture, and ignore all evolutionary/old-earth science, and 2.) Those who study current scientific research and end up in a serious quandary attempting to reconcile their faith with science.

It's never really been about "faith" vs "science". Science is a tool for determining truth, so it is more about "faith" vs "truth". What would you do if you found one small part of your faith isn't true? Would you throw the rest out?

Originally posted by mpb1

Then I recently started researching atheist criticisms of Scripture and Christianity. I used to dismiss their arguments out of hand. But when I look at them at objectively, they trouble me immensely.

Heh. Most atheist criticisms of Scripture and Christianity are bogus, I've found. I'm not an inerrantist by any means, so I'm not concerned if there are errors in the Bible, but even so there appear to be far fewer than I ever expected.

I agree with TMM. The age of the universe is the smallest piece of your faith that you should be concerned about. I doubt that there is going to be a quiz on the subject when we die either way. If you think that questioning the age of the universe is impacting your faith, perhaps you aren't asking the right questions? ("My neighbour is in trouble -- what should I do? First, let me work out if the universe is 10 thousand years old or 10 billion?")

And there are those who seek to understand secular science, biblical criticism, etc. - they take the blinders OFF.

You don't think that secular scientists have blinders on? You need to read a couple of things:

http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/07...ew-of-science/


http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/07...as-evangelist/

Hey TMM,

I hear ya' and I think your argument is sincere and probably biblical.

But before I even approached the YEC/OEC argument, I first tried to find satisfactory answers to the objections raised by those who walked away from the faith (see the "Skeptics vs. Apologists" thread link in the OP above).

That thread dealt with the Problem of Evil and many other common objections to Christianity, several of which I hadn't heard before.

I'm not arguing that Christianity is a farce. What I'm saying is that if you look at all the arguments 'for and against' Christianity OBJECTIVELY - forgetting for the moment that you and I are both already Christians - I believe it is very difficult to say that a person with NO experience 'in the faith' could immerse himself in all the available arguments on both sides and then conclude that the Bible is the inerrent, inspired Word of God from cover to cover, and therefore that Jesus Christ is indeed the Savior of the World.

Genesis doesn't agree with science, plain and simple, unless you jack with it until it works...

Atheists do a pretty decent job of chipping away at (if not destroying) the concept of inerrency. Frank Zito's current thread on this topic (here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=85709) takes a whack at it.

Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and others do a real number on inerrency and the Christian faith. The new documentary 'The God Who Wasn't There' beats it up some more. I haven't seen it yet, but atheists seem to think it's effective...

For the first time in my life, I'm practically convinced that science and arguments related to biblical contradictions can almost destroy the concept of biblical inerrency. Many even claim that the basic story of Genesis is based on pagan myths that had been floating around for centuries before Moses wrote the book.

When you look at all this and take it at face value - apart from any Christian bias - it is (at least) DIFFICULT to rule in favor of Christianity being ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

And if you can undermine ANY of it, you're easily able to undermine MORE of it. Then it starts to get scary...

I know what you're saying though, that FAITH should overcome all this stuff.

But why should the faith of someone who HAS experienced a relationship with God his entire life be enough to overcome all the objections to Christianity, when such faith may not be enough to overcome 'all the objections' for someone who has never experienced God in any way? The unitiated person would be taking all the evidence 'for and against' Christianity OBJECTIVELY. And this seems to be an increasingly hard case to win.

I know I'm playing the devil's advocate. I'm just trying to lay all the cards on the table...

----

To GakuseiDon:

The reason I find it so difficult - no, IMPOSSIBLE - to read Genesis as myth is because the book is written in a LITERAL way.

The geneaologies of Genesis 5 alone show very clearly that the book was meant to preserve a very literal record of the lives and deaths of everyone from Adam to Noah - and beyond. I realize there are (unbiased) dissenting views on this, but I can't accept them. If Genesis is the foundation of 'God's Book' and there is no indication (in the book) that Genesis should be read in any way other than literally, then I don't believe it's intellectually honest to say we don't need to worry if it's historically accurate. The book obviously 'WANTS' to be read in a historical sense, and if it's God' Book, then it should be historically accurate, and at least scientifically compatible with reality (as we are currently discovering reality to BE).

Beyond Genesis, you said you don't believe the Bible is inerrant. So if the Bible contains errors (and if it did in the orginal manuscripts), then the Bible no longer IS the Word of God. At best, it 'contains the Word of God.' And that obviously leads to cafeteria-style Christianity. To me, it also seems to lead to a disintegration of the faith.

-

mpb1, I had an experience where I was chatting to a person about Christianity and they, being an atheist, brought up the theory that Christianity had been heavily influenced by cults such as Mithraism and therefore somehow diminished Christianity's authenticity. I hadn't heard of this theory prior to this conversation and really didn't know how to respond as they seemed to have done a lot of "research." I later realized the limited extent of that "research." i.e the Christ Conspiracy

Following this conversation I looked into this claim. There were a few moments when I was jumping around the internet "Googling" this whole issue that I had a sinking feeling in my stomach. What if everything I believed was a lie? I was seriously doubting my faith for a few days.

Understand, I was raised in a Christian home. I have four uncles, six cousins, and grandparents that are pastors of churches. I read my Bible, go to church, and pray. But my faith was shaken (temporarily). I quickly came to realize through some research that what I had been exposed to was It was effectively anti-Christian propaganda parading in the guise of credible and unbiased scholarly work.

If someone like me that has been immersed in the Christian faith for decades can be rattled, how much worse is it for a new Christian? Or even worse, someone who is searching. This made me angry. It dawned on me that the goal of the enemy is not to disprove Christianity entirely so to speak. That's impossible. The goal is to shake our faith ever so slightly. Enough to cause doubt on the central issues to Christianity. That's all the enemy needs to do and mission accomplished. I'm now convinced more than ever that Christians need to be able to answer for their faith. They need to know why they believe what they believe and that there is evidence to support that belief. After-all, we're only talking our salvation. No biggie.

It's the sceptics and atheists that should fear the blinders coming off. Not the Christian.

Originally posted by mpb1

But why should the faith of someone who HAS experienced a relationship with God his entire life be enough to overcome all the objections to Christianity, when such faith may not be enough to overcome 'all the objections' for someone who has never experienced God in any way? The unitiated person would be taking all the evidence 'for and against' Christianity OBJECTIVELY. And this seems to be an increasingly hard case to win.

I know I'm playing the devil's advocate. I'm just trying to lay all the cards on the table...

It's okay to play the devil's advocate - he needs one.

I would like to tell you about my faith because you seemed to miss it the first time around and it is something I'll stress time and time again. I don't believe my 'great faith' preserved me, I believe His faithfulness preserved me.

The inerrancy of Scripture is an issue for you? Is your faith in the inerrancy of Scripture or is it in G_d? Read FF Bruce's "The Canon of Scripture" and find out that people have argued for or against this or that book - and that while there was mostly a consensus they didn't seem to have a problem debating it. Are you above debating it and struggling with it?

Don't be.

Jump in and study it all the while seeking the face of G_d.
I personally don't believe the Bible is inerrent - I believe it is uniquely authoritative and this is an issue I'm still sorting through although at a very relaxed pace. Through this all I find myself more and more amazed by G_d and less and less amazed with factoids. I might come all the way around on that - fun!

In the end, "My sheep here my voice and I know them and they follow me"
You may be destroyed through all of this - you'll face tons you cannot comprehend or answer.

Bring it on.

MG,

It doesn't concern you that the Bible may have errors?

I guess I've always seen this as enormously problematic.

Maybe if I get used to the idea, none of these things will bother me anymore (or at least not as much).

But it does seem to undermine our faith and our message.

Before this theological mess I got myself into, one of my greatest passions in life was evangelism. I've always argued from a position of (perceived) strength, as a believer.

I could confidently say that my message was based on the infallible, inspired Word of God, etc. I could share the message of Genesis as the foundation for the Gospel and man's need for a Savior.

Now, I'd have to water that down a heck of a lot to be 100% intellectually honest. That is, to make it compatible with the belief that the Bible does contain errors and that Genesis is not reliable, historically or scientifically.

It's like trying to sell a product you don't fully believe in...


-------------


NOTE REGARDING THE FRANCIS COLLINS ONLINE VIDEO:

The link in the OP no longer works. Here are the new links:

Real Player video link:
http://www.asa3.org/movies/ASA2006Co...20x480100k.ram

Quicktime video link:
http://www.asa3.org/movies/ASA2006Collins.mp4

Audio only - MP3 link:
http://www.asa3.org/ASAradio/ASA2006Collins.mp3

The online video shows helpful slides in his presentation, so it's much better than the audio.

This online video by Francis Collins, the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, is currently featured on the homepage of www.asa3.org.

The video is a fascinating one hour and twenty minutes long. For others who may want to take a look at the video, he starts off by giving an overview of the gene research and the gene mapping project. Then he goes into the shared ancesty in the DNA, and then looks at the competing origin views - for Christians. He ends by proposing that theistic evolution makes the most sense. Though he didn't touch upon how to reconcile the view with Scripture until the Q&A period.

When he finally addressed how to reconcile TE with Genesis, he said he didn't know the answer to the question of whether or not Adam really existed, or whether Adam should be understood as an allegorical figure.

In his e-mail response on this topic, he recommended that I start by reading his book, The Language of God, and another book by Darrel Falk, Coming to Peace with Science, both of which I have on order.

Another TWebber also recommended this article:

"In Search of the Historical Adam"
here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PS....html#Part%201

-

Originally posted by mpb1

To GakuseiDon:

The reason I find it so difficult - no, IMPOSSIBLE - to read Genesis as myth is because the book is written in a LITERAL way.

Strangely enough, I read Genesis as myth because the book was written in a mythical way. This is Origen, writing in the Third Century:

And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. Cain also, when going forth from the presence of God, certainly appears to thoughtful men as likely to lead the reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and what is the meaning of going out from Him.

And what need is there to say more, since those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place?

Keep in mind that this was 1600 years before the time that you think that science started to "chip away" at literalism.

Originally posted by mpb1

The geneaologies of Genesis 5 alone show very clearly that the book was meant to preserve a very literal record of the lives and deaths of everyone from Adam to Noah - and beyond. I realize there are (unbiased) dissenting views on this, but I can't accept them. If Genesis is the foundation of 'God's Book' and there is no indication (in the book) that Genesis should be read in any way other than literally, then I don't believe it's intellectually honest to say we don't need to worry if it's historically accurate.

Yes, I agree. And do you agree that the converse would be true, as well?

Originally posted by mpb1

Beyond Genesis, you said you don't believe the Bible is inerrant. So if the Bible contains errors (and if it did in the orginal manuscripts), then the Bible no longer IS the Word of God. At best, it 'contains the Word of God.' And that obviously leads to cafeteria-style Christianity.

You can get some healthy things in a cafeteria. :) Stick to the salad bar.

So, do you think that the Song of Solomon should be taken literally? That is, that at some point in historical time there really WAS a Shumalite who was talking to a group of people known as "Daughters of Jerusalem", and the Bible was a faithful recording of that meeting?

Now, I'll assume in advance that you will say "No, it isn't meant to be taken literally -- it is a poem." Assuming that is your answer, how would you convince someone that said that, even as a poem, it was meant to be taken literally as a real event, and that anyone who disagreed was a "cafeteria Christian"?

Originally posted by mpb1

To me, it also seems to lead to a disintegration of the faith.-

I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, if it is done with an honest heart.

Link mistake in my OP:

In the letter to Dr. Geisler, I included a link to the thread on...

"What About the Mathematical Impossibilities of Evolution?"

That link was incorrect. This is the correct link:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=85013

-

GakuseiDon,

I know you're representing a common view - that Genesis is mean to be taken as myth. I can see how one might read the Creation story in that sense (maybe). But I personally don't see how it is intellectually honest to mythologize geneaologies. I can't do it.

Like I said, I believe Genesis 5 (read here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...205&version=49) makes that absolutely impossible, not to mention many of the other chapters with their detailed biographies...

And believe it or not, I have always believed that the Song of Solomon was (and is) a very literal story between Solomon and the woman. I think those who apply it to the relationship between Christ and the Church are making the 'stretch,' and that the literal reading - for whatever it is or isn't worth - is what the book was written for... and perhaps also for poetic entertainment, who knows?

Beyond simply reading the text the way it appears it was meant to be read (literally), I guess my point is that IF there are ERRORS or MYTH in the book that is supposed to be the inspired, inerrent Word of God - and THAT is what the entire Christian faith is based upon - then I think we have a problem.

-