TE and Deconstructionism

[Jack777]

Part of the problem with Theistic Evolution is the same kinds of reasoning takes place in the defense of the indefensible as with those who view the Bible as written as inaccurate with regards to archeology. Why does it matter? It is thought that there is something wrong about being fideistic, believing the Bible is the inerrant and inspired Word of God. Putting forward the view that it is important that the Bible be understood as it is written brings about ad hominem arguments and and hurling the charge of fideistic is tantamount to declaring this person cannot be trusted. This is ironic, it is as if being unfaithful is the best thing to be. The same kind of thing happens in archeology as in the world of geology and biology. As far as cosmogony, it is thought that any argument other than that from a scientific viewpoint is not valid or if science is not adhered to as a religion. The following article is from 2002 that demonstrates the fallacies in archeology and the parallels in other science is striking.

BreakPoint
cultural commentary with Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson
http://news.crosswalk.com (http://news.crosswalk.com/)


Deconstructing the Bible
Ideology Makes For Bad Scholarship
By Charles Colson

For the past few decades, a group of scholars known variously as biblical minimalists or deconstructionists have made a big splash in the field of biblical archeology.


Minimalists regard biblical narratives as propaganda, not history. In their view, the Bible was written centuries, even millennia, after the events described and written for the purpose of creating a mythical glorious past.

Most reputable scholars disagree. Even those who don't regard the Bible as inerrant believe that the Bible is a reliable source of information about the history and culture of Israel and of the ancient Near East.

By contrast, minimalists believe that there never was a King David, a King Solomon, or a unified kingdom of Israel. And they insist that Jerusalem was never more than a backwater town on the fringes of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires.

But biblical archeologists are proving them wrong. In 1993, a group of archeologists found an Assyrian stone tablet near the city of Dan in northern Israel dating from the ninth century B.C. The inscription lists Assyria's foes. Included on the list are "king of Israel" and "house of David."

Those two inscriptions, dating less than a century after David's reign, are clear proof that the biblical writers didn't invent David.

As for the city of David, archeological digs in and around Jerusalem have uncovered evidence of what one scholar terms a "major city." The walls of the city at the time of the First Temple extend four times further than was previously believed. And the Jerusalem that emerges from this physical evidence has grandeur and scale commensurate with its reported status.

Evidence such as this led Anson Rainey of the Tel Aviv Institute, writing in Biblical Archaeology Review, to call the minimalist school "a circle of dilettantes." He labeled their ideas a "figment of their vain imaginations" and concluded that findings such as the one at Dan should sound the "death knell to their conceit" about David and other biblical figures.

Deconstructionists replied that the inscriptions in Dan could mean "House of Uncle" or even "House of Kettle." But no reputable scholar agrees with them. It's a case of refusing to look the evidence squarely in its face.

That's because minimalism, like its equivalents in other disciplines, isn't a product of the evidence; it's the product of assumptions about the author's motives. In other words, it's an ideology. Like literary deconstructionists, minimalists look at the text and see a hodgepodge of political motivations and power arrangements.

The problem is that, whereas no amount of digging can ever prove that there was a mayor of Casterbridge, it can prove that there was a king David. And that makes deconstructing the biblical text a completely different thing from deconstructing the work of Thomas Hardy.

Over the next few days, I'll be citing other examples of archeology helping to confirm the words of Scripture. It's a case of the stones crying out, and their message is: Believe what you see and read, and not the vain imaginings of ideologues.

For further reading:

Jeffrey Sheler, Is the Bible True? (HarperCollins, 1999).

Read more about biblical archeology at the Biblical Archaeology Review website.

Randall Price, The Stones Cry Out: How Archeology Confirms the Truth of the Bible (Harvest House, 1997).


Copyright 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. All Rights Reserved. Visit the Breakpoint website at http://www.breakpoint.org (http://www.breakpoint.org/).

[A Beautiful Truth]

Jack, spamming again?

It is amazing how you can relate everything back to TE, just amazing...

[Jack777]

I think there is a great deal of deconstructionism inherent in some people's version of TE, not everyone. Can you see my point?

What does it mean spamming?

[Abigail]

What does it mean spamming?It means you dont agree with her beliefs

[Jack777]

Thanks!:smile:

[rogero]

It means you dont agree with her beliefs
And Jack doesn't agree with your beliefs, either. He's NOT a YEC. Were you not aware of that? So, by your definition, you must consider him a spammer as well.

[Jack777]

Okay,

What does spamming mean then?

I don't agree 100% with anyone I know! :smile: Don't worry about something like that.

[rogero]

I think there is a great deal of deconstructionism inherent in some people's version of TE, not everyone. Can you see my point?

...
No.

If one believes in a Creator and one recognizes the scientific evidence that cosmic and biological evolution has occurred (and is still occurring), then one is a TE by definition. Whether some TEs are more deconstructionist in their view of scripture is not an argument against TE -- and certainly not against evolution.

BTW, I thought you accepted that speciation occurred after mass extinctions in Earth's history? Since you obviously believe in a Creator, don't these two facts taken together make you a TE?

I'm confused by your posts, as is the norm for me.

R

[Jack777]

Hey, I confuse myself sometimes.

[rogero]

Okay,

What does spamming mean then?

I don't agree 100% with anyone I know! :smile: Don't worry about something like that.
Spamming can mean a lot of different things. Here's the results (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:Spamming) of a Google search on the term.

Basically, the use of the term that would most closely apply to you is that of starting over two dozen threads in the past month with long OPs containing repetitive themes -- to paraphrase "Evolution is bad", "Evolution leads to all kinds of evils", "The Bible sez evolution is wrong". IMHO, a couple of threads would have sufficed to get your points across (or not get 'em across as the case may be.)

R

[Jack777]

I was wondering ...

You did not understand a thing I posted did you?

You science people sure are a touchy lot. The various posts were not repetitive. I was answering a different thing in each one. Sheessshh. Try to please people and they just do not appreciate it.

[Abigail]

And Jack doesn't agree with your beliefs, either. He's NOT a YEC. Were you not aware of that? Yes rogero, I am well aware Jack is not a YEC...and so what of it.... Am I not allowed to be friendly to those who are not YECSo, by your definition, you must consider him a spammer as well.No, the definition I applied was in the context of Charleen ....capiche :teeth:

[Jack777]

Yes, I knew you knew Abigail. Thanks. So there rogero. He is always trying to stir things up, have you noticed?

[Abigail]

Yes, I knew you knew Abigail. Thanks. So there rogero. He is always trying to stir things up, have you noticed?
I try not to notice rogero

[Jack777]

I understand.:smile:

[lucaspa]

Part of the problem with Theistic Evolution is the same kinds of reasoning takes place in the defense of the indefensible as with those who view the Bible as written as inaccurate with regards to archeology. Why does it matter? It is thought that there is something wrong about being fideistic, believing the Bible is the inerrant and inspired Word of God.

1. Your definition of "fideistic" is in error. ": reliance on faith rather than reason in pursuit of religious truth"
2. There are several things wrong with viewing the Bible as the "inerrant Word of God".
a. The Bible itself never says it is without error.
b. The Bible clearly says "the Word" is JESUS, not the Bible.
c. The position is bibliolatry, not Christianity. That is, it makes the Bible into a god that you worship, instead of worshipping God.


As far as cosmogony, it is thought that any argument other than that from a scientific viewpoint is not valid or if science is not adhered to as a religion. Cosmology, like all science, is agnostic.

However, your commentary is on ARCHEOLOGY, not cosmology. So I fail to see the relevance. What's more, it is directed at a small subset of theists Colson identifies as "biblical minimalists". That is hardly the same as "theistic evolutionists". So again, the relevance of the commentary to the title is lacking.

The following article is from 2002 that demonstrates the fallacies in archeology and the parallels in other science is striking.

By contrast, minimalists believe that there never was a King David, a King Solomon, or a unified kingdom of Israel. And they insist that Jerusalem was never more than a backwater town on the fringes of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires.

But biblical archeologists are proving them wrong. In 1993, a group of archeologists found an Assyrian stone tablet near the city of Dan in northern Israel dating from the ninth century B.C. The inscription lists Assyria's foes. Included on the list are "king of Israel" and "house of David."
So, minimalists are wrong. So what? The problem, Jack, is that showing the historical claims to be true does not validate the claims about deity. That there was David does not mean that there is a Yahweh.

Let's take this outside the Bible and apply the SAME CRITERIA elsewhere. For The Iliad. There was a Troy, there was a Menelaus, etc. Does this mean that Zeus, Apollo, and the rest of the Greek pantheon exists? You would say "No". Well, by the same criteria, Colson's attempt to link the history contained in the Bible to the theological claims is also flawed.

Those two inscriptions, dating less than a century after David's reign, are clear proof that the biblical writers didn't invent David.

Over the next few days, I'll be citing other examples of archeology helping to confirm the words of Scripture.
See above. Look at the error Colson is trying to make. When archeology confirms the words of the Iliad, do you believe in Zeus? Nope. Same reasoning here for the failure of archeology to "prove" the existence of Yahweh.

[lucaspa]

I think there is a great deal of deconstructionism inherent in some people's version of TE, not everyone. Can you see my point?



You did not demonstrate your point. You simply declared an analogy -- "Part of the problem with Theistic Evolution is the same kinds of reasoning takes place in the defense of the indefensible as with those who view the Bible as written as inaccurate with regards to archeology." -- but never presented any evidence that TE uses deconstructionism. Where exactly do you see the similarity in reasoning? Which people? What specific examples?

[rogero]

I try not to notice rogero

Abby,

Awww, you're so sweet! I love you too!!!

Roger :love:

P.S. I think you need to shave your legs before our next date. They look just like Glennn Morton's.

[rogero]

Yes rogero, I am well aware Jack is not a YEC...and so what of it.... Am I not allowed to be friendly to those who are not YECNo, the definition I applied was in the context of Charleen ....capiche :teeth:

Hi Glennn, errrr..., Abigail --

It's funny though that you choose to be friendly to Jack but not Charleen.

Do you have some pecking order of epistemic acceptability or origins views? YEC is best -- then Progressive Creation --- ... --- last of all TE?

Of course a Biblical "literalist" like you should allow no deviation from the "true" clear-simple-obvious-even-to-a-child (CSOETAC) reading of Genesis. Anything else is compromise. But, wait a minute -- Jack is also a Biblical literalist. How come Jack's CSOETAC reading is different than yours? What gives?

Jack is very much old Earth -- although he thinks the age is 1-1.5 Ga (for some reason -- "he read it somewhere"), and he accepts that the biosphere has been in continuous existence for over a billion years, with periods of speciation after mass extinctions (which he thinks were a result of Near Earth Objects- NEOs). Other than some quackishness, this sounds a whole lot like a version of TE -- a point of view which obviously loathes. So, perhaps the best designation for Jack is "self-loathing creationist" (SLC).

Have you figured out what Jack's views are? If and when you do, please explain them to me. Then explain how they are more "Biblical" than say -- Glennn's -- noting that Glennn hold scripture in high regard and could even be classified as a Biblical literalist (although "historist" may be a more suitable moniker.)

[grmorton]

Abby,

Awww, you're so sweet! I love you too!!!

Roger :love:

P.S. I think you need to shave your legs before our next date. They look just like Glennn Morton's.


Poor dear! :lmbo:

At least on my browser, Abigail seems to have absconded with a picture of me for her avatar. Is it that way for others?

[A Beautiful Truth]

Hi Glennn, errrr..., Abigail --

It's funny though that you choose to be friendly to Jack but not Charleen.

Do you have some pecking order of epistemic acceptability or origins views? YEC is best -- then Progressive Creation --- ... --- last of all TE?

I don't think so. I've tried to figure it out over the past year and I am of the opinion that she may pick on me because she knows I am a softy and don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. IOW--she smells "weakness" and tries to monopolize. But I've toughened up to her now, I have been around long enough.


Of course a Biblical "literalist" like you should allow no deviation from the "true" clear-simple-obvious-even-to-a-child (CSOETAC)...

:lmbo:

[A Beautiful Truth]

Poor dear! :lmbo:

At least on my browser, Abigail seems to have absconded with a picture of me for her avatar. Is it that way for others?

Yes, it is. Most curious that she would favor you... Not that you aren't wonderful and all. Like a big grumpy teddy bear...

Perhaps if you pressed her on YEC. I wonder what would happen to her avatar, then?

[grmorton]

Yes, it is. Most curious that she would favor you...

As Rogero said, I have hairy legs. I also have a moustache. Most women want neither.

[A Beautiful Truth]

As Rogero said, I have hairy legs. I also have a moustache. Most women want neither.

Quite so, I have my husband shaving both nearly every day.

(Just kidding, I'm part Italian and the men in the family are all hairy ...)

[A Beautiful Truth]

Y'know, it is frustrating that her avatar looks just like yours, Glenn. Reading through posts, I start reading her posts as if they had some weight and then realize it is not you.

[Jack777]

Charlene, I am sad to see you think grmorton might have something intelligent to say or anything of weight in his posts. He is a poser. Abigail and you both care about the Lord more than science as I do. I would be fine with evolution being proven to be true and it would not affect my view of the Bible one iota. However, it seems the Bible has to be proven wrong to support evolution by people who claim Christ. I notice when I point out these kinds of things people take offence. I figure the heavyweights on here are too in love with themselves to change. In any event, you and Abigail may have a lot in common.

[rogero]

Charlene, I am sad to see you think grmorton might have something intelligent to say or anything of weight in his posts. He is a poser. Abigail and you both care about the Lord more than science as I do. I would be fine with evolution being proven to be true and it would not affect my view of the Bible one iota. However, it seems the Bible has to be proven wrong to support evolution by people who claim Christ. I notice when I point out these kinds of things people take offence. I figure the heavyweights on here are too in love with themselves to change. In any event, you and Abigail may have a lot in common.

BTW, her name is spelled "Charleen". Don't be upset, your newly-found Fundy friend Abbygayle doesn't know how to spell her name either.

Glennn Morton is not a "poser". He is the most honest straightforward science-knowledgable Christian poster here on TWeb. He has decades of experience in geophysics, namely petroleum exploration, was a publishing fire-breathing YEC for numerous years, almost became an atheist due to the illogic that both you and Abbygayle espouse, then he found a way to reconcile his belief in the truth of Scripture with what he knew to be the physical truth of nature. I take issue that a addle-brained "Jack"-ass like you would disparage him this way.

If you "would be fine with evolution being proven to be true and it would not affect my view of the Bible one iota" then why are you such an dedicated follower of your religion of Antievolutionism? Why do you continually conflate biological evolution with the politico-social philosophies it putatively spawns?

So, "...it seems the Bible has to be proven wrong to support evolution by people who claim Christ. I notice when I point out these kinds of things people take offence (sic)." The word is "seems" here, Jack. According to your ossified addle-brained conflationary view, it's fine to ignore observations of the physical Universe if they interfere in any way with a Fundy-mentalist interpretation of scripture. You even have to ignore your understanding from geological data that speciation has occurred after mass extinctions in a Ga+ continuous biosphere. What a nasty god you must serve to force you into that apologetic position!

Yes, you and Abbygayle have much in common. You're both forced to worship your interpretation of Scripture instead of the God of Creation who does not deceive in what he allows to be observed in the record of the rocks and life and the Cosmos.

R

[A Beautiful Truth]

Charlene, I am sad to see you think grmorton might have something intelligent to say or anything of weight in his posts. He is a poser.

If you only did a fraction of the intense research this man does in his spare time...

And on top of that, his posts are actually scientifically relevent.

I don't agree with everything about Glenn, but any fair-minded individual would give credit where credit is due--he is no "poser"--whatever that was suppose to mean.

I don't agree with everything about Glenn, but I cannot allow such a strange accusation of not being intelligent or posting anything of weight stand against him. That's just crazy, take it back. I am surprised, really.

Abigail and you both care about the Lord more than science as I do.

You make it sound like either/or. I do not see it that way. Science just tells us "how" He created, there is nothing in it that can take God away.

I would be fine with evolution being proven to be true and it would not affect my view of the Bible one iota.

okay...
However, it seems the Bible has to be proven wrong to support evolution by people who claim Christ.

I claim Christ and I don't think the Bible is proven wrong even if Theistic evolution does describe the "how" of creation. IOW, I don't see the contradiction.

I figure the heavyweights on here are too in love with themselves to change.

But perhaps it is the other way around? "Why do you look at the speck..."


In any event, you and Abigail may have a lot in common.

I think we do, actually. I have wanted to be her friend and have tried to work to that end, but I am too clumsy with my words and I offend her way too easily. I am tired of walking on eggshells, however.

[NeilUnreal]

Ditto what Charleen said. Glenn has a rarely encountered scope and depth of knowledge -- I spent 7 years in graduate school, and I recognize learning when I see it. And Glenn may not get everything right, but on those infrequent times when he is wrong, he admits it when you can convince him to the contrary.

Also, he cares passionately about the cause of Christ, and argues so strongly because of the damage he feels is being done to that cause by pseudo-science.

-Neil

[Jack777]

I suppose if you have it on good authority that Glenn does more research than I do, then That is That. How would you know that, by the way? You don't know how much I do. No matter that is irrelevant. I found his depth very quickly if that tells you anything.

I said he is a poser because he purposely or out of ignorance presented a false argument to "prove" evolution from the Bible. I let it go with some mention although I could not remember where I read it, but I think it was a link he provided. Anyway, I do not like that.

The most attacks I have experienced if I can term them as such has been from YEC people and evolutionists as a scientist and a Christian. That is human nature I think. I do not see how a YEC or an evolutionist has anything to do with my relationship with Christ or my coming to Christ or doing any damage to Faith.

As far as Abigail I like her because I noticed she loves the Lord, and she wants to know about Him. I do not like people trying to make sure the Lord is secondary to anything, including your precious evolution and people are disrespected because they are not in your Mickey Mouse Club.

I do not care if she is a YEC and trust the Lord will change her mind or leave her alone about it. It is not really my business. I still do not understand why all of this is based on who is who.

Sorry I misspelled your name Charleen.

[lucaspa]

Charlene, I am sad to see you think grmorton might have something intelligent to say or anything of weight in his posts. He is a poser.
Ad hominem. Jack, this is argument by ridicule. You aren't addressing the specific posts Glenn makes, but attacking his personality. Invalid.

Abigail and you both care about the Lord more than science as I do. Since when is the Lord separated from science? Science studies God's Creation.

I would be fine with evolution being proven to be true and it would not affect my view of the Bible one iota. However, it seems the Bible has to be proven wrong to support evolution by people who claim Christ.
Jack, is the Bible wrong, or is Jack's interpretation of the Bible wrong? See the second quote in my signature. We are faced with believing Jack and his interpretation of the Bible or believing God and what He put in His Creation.

Hmmm. Jack vs God. Which do you think we should believe?

[lucaspa]

I suppose if you have it on good authority that Glenn does more research than I do, then That is That. How would you know that, by the way? You don't know how much I do.
We can tell by the information you post. For instance, Jack, have you ever read On the Origin of Species? If not, why not? How can you say you know evolution is wrong without at least reading Darwin's original argument for it?

I said he is a poser because he purposely or out of ignorance presented a false argument to "prove" evolution from the Bible. I let it go with some mention although I could not remember where I read it, but I think it was a link he provided. Anyway, I do not like that.
LOL! pot, meet kettle. Even if true, do you even recall how many false arguments you have presented to show evolution to be false? I've seen several in my short time on Tweb. For instance, the OP in this thread made an invalid connection between Biblical deconstructionism and theistic evolution.

I do not see how a YEC or an evolutionist has anything to do with my relationship with Christ or my coming to Christ or doing any damage to Faith.
Let me try to show you, again, altho I did so earlier in the thread:
1. You believe in an in an inerrant Bible. But that is Bibliolatry. Worshipping false idols does indeed influence your relationship with Christ and damage Chrisitianity.
2. The illogical link that if God did not create by your literal reading of Genesis 1, then God did not create. This wrongly sets God up to be falsified by a false criteria. So, you force people to choose between what they can see for themselves -- science -- or belief in God. Your constant attacks on theistic evolution refuses the possibility of believing both God and science. So you force people to be either creationists or atheists. Thus driving many people away from Christianity.

Let me put it bluntly: IMO Fundamentalism and its associated creationism are the biggest danger Christianity has ever faced. We get 2 choices from Fundy and creationism:
1. It convinces people it is right, in which case we end up with a false religion that has the name "Christian" but isn't.
2. It convinces people that the only choice is creationism or atheism and people choose atheism, in which case Christianity is again destroyed.

Fundamentalism and creationism is a lose-lose proposition for Christianity.

[Jugulum]

Let me try to show you, again, altho I did so earlier in the thread:
1. You believe in an in an inerrant Bible. But that is Bibliolatry. Worshipping false idols does indeed influence your relationship with Christ and damage Chrisitianity.
Lucaspa...Honestly, I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.

That I know of, idolatry has two forms:

1.) Straight-forward literal idolatry, in which we take a physical object and say, "This is God" or "This is a god," and worship it as such.
2.) In Colossians 3:5, Paul says that greed amounts to idolatry. The principle most people infer is that it is also idolatry to love anything the way we are supposed to love God--it's wrong to seek with your whole life after anything other than God. He's supposed to be our chief aim and our chief love.

Belief in the inerrancy of the Bible is rooted in the idea that the Bible is not simply a human-drafted record of God's activity, but an inspired message from God. Its inerrancy is not a separate entity, but an artifact of God's inspiration and preserving power. Holding the Bible to be an authoritative message from God is simply not worship.

You must be familiar with Galileo's "two books" argument. Reality is what it is--rational, systematic, "inerrant"--based on the sustaining power of God's creative activity. Do you think regarding nature as objectively real is idolatry? Why then do you think regarding the Bible as similarly a work of God's sustaining power is idolatry?

[Jack777]

lucaspa,


I am not concerned with how you are led to interpret the Bible personally. I dislike grmorton and some others because they are abusive and hurtful because they are used to getting away with being controlling. I have said people are free to believe what they want. The harm done to the cause of Christ by evolutionists has been immeasurable. The harm done to people by the "survival of the fittest" mentality has been real in physical, political, and religious terms. The refrain I have to shut up about the Bible being God's Word or I drive people from the Lord is a crock. You guys assume because I do not lick the gurus' boots I must be dangerous to Christianity, a Fundamentalist, a YEC, or whatever.

How do you think someone who truly wants to know if you are right or someone pushing Dino the Dinosaur being chained up in the backyard feels when they are immediately attacked and made to feel stupid. They get called ignorant and made to look stupid by artifice and cultic tactics. I mean that literally. You read into what I say what you assume about me and it is fun to say just enough so you are off. In the post that started this thread I left it for people to think things through as I do most thing I post. If you do not see, that is not my fault. It must be a proud day to claim the same kind of ground you accuse fundy's of having. The thing is at least they care about the Bible and do not see it as something not important if it interferes with what they want to think. The science thing is the opposite. You and some others give the same kind of treatment that the people who call me a satanist give to people. I have listened to these critiques that are essentially ad hominem from the get go. Sad.

[grmorton]

Quite so, I have my husband shaving both nearly every day.

(Just kidding, I'm part Italian and the men in the family are all hairy ...)

I just loved that--it sounds like something MY wife would say!!!!

[Jack777]

My memory is terrible. I think it was lucaspa that noted that all of Genesis One could be removed from the Bible and it would not make bit of difference. Solomon once observed that he did not think one of the tenets of the law is important and God reportedly said that He could make 10,000 Solomon's but there is only one law. Whatever you and I think about how the world was made will not change how it was made and how it has come to be as it is in our time. Yet, it is important to know what every speck of the Bible has to say about things, including the Creator and the Creation. The basics of our relationship to God starts at Genesis 1:1. He begins revealing exceedingly important information with the very first word that matters right now.

How was it that Abram acted in Faith and was deemed to be righteous by God? Was there a committee of the Church Elders that met and voted? No, of course not, the Bible tells us that Yahweh decided that Abram had been obedient and counted that to Abram as righteous. We understand that Abram was not righteousness or Righteousness, because God is Righteous and it is God Who Is Righteousness. Abram is not Righteous in the sense that God is Righteous. God alone is the Perfect and Righteous. Everything is measured against God. Righteousness is more accurately translated as rightwiseness. Abram's act of obedience was counted as righteousness by God. There is a difference. Edward Murphy discusses the differences in world view and how much it matters what world view one adopts. World view is closely related to religion as he explains:

"James W. Sire in The Universe Next Door defines world view as 'a set of presuppositions (or assumptions) which we hold (consciously or unconsciously) about the basic make up of our world.' The working definition of world view I will use is even more basic: World view refers to "one’s basic assumptions about reality."

Everyone holds world view assumptions whether or not they are reflective persons. All persons believe their own assumptions about reality are the correct ones, or at least the best ones, for the present. All persons’ beliefs and behavior, in that order, are based upon their world view, whether or not they are conscious of that fact.

While world view is closely related to religion, the two are not identical. Paul Hiebert affirms that 'a world view provides people with their basic assumptions about reality. Religion provides them with the specific content of this reality.' If one holds to an atheistic world view, atheism functions as a religion."1

People want to remain unaware of themselves on a selective basis. There is a reason for this. We are born of flesh and we have a fleshly nature, a carnal nature. This word for flesh as used by Paul in his Epistle to the believers in Rome, means literally flesh, but we understand that our fleshly man thinks from a purely physical world view as opposed to a spiritual world view. That part of us that we term spiritual resides unborn within us without coming to the Father by Jesus. We must be born again, born into the Spirit and then we are united with the Holy Spirit, Jesus and the Father. People want others to remain unaware of themselves for this reason as well. Until we are born again, we remain fixated on minding the things of the flesh.

World view, religion, and artifice can sometimes go hand in hand quite unnoticed. If we are drawn to mind the things of this world, the physical universe, and that which pretends to being spiritual, although we are able to mind the things of the Spirit, we do not. Someone once said that the unexamined life is not worth living. Truly the Christian life and the things of the Spirit which remain unexamined results in a life that is lifeless and stunted. Paul says that to live on the level of the flesh leads to death while living on the level of the Spirit leads to Life. God tells us that we are to seek His Understanding, His Wisdom, and His Knowledge. We are not to rely on our understanding, our wisdom, or our knowledge. God tells us that judgment came to His people because they did not seek His Understanding, His Wisdom, and His Knowledge. How it plays out is this. We lose awareness of the things that he has revealed to us and then we lose self-awareness. Once we lose self-awareness we are at the mercy of lies and delusion and cannot judge for ourselves the difference. This does not mean that we have to become stark raving lunatics, nor are we aware of a significant difference on a continuing basis. In fact, God says that destruction comes upon us suddenly. There is a way that seems right to people, and it leads to death. In the world there are those that think that there is no right and that there is no wrong in an absolute sense or in any sense. This world view fits with the natural world we live in much of the time. Collision with reality disabuses us of the notion that all decisions have the same weight and the same outcome in a qualitative sense. Even so, even that experience can be explained away and denial of reality becomes entrenched as a result if we do not examine things in the scope of God's view of things

The basic understanding that God and His Son created the universe that we live in is essential to an understanding of the Revelation to us by God. This Revelation is found in the first sentence of the Bible. One must come to the LORD seeking Him in Truth and Spirit, with an open heart and an open mind. We are left flat by an intellectual understanding of His Word. An adversarial approach to reading the Bible, expecting to find error leaves us with a complete misunderstanding of His Word. It is true that the Good News is foolishness to those who are perishing. We must approach the LORD with understanding and an awesome respect for God. The Holy Spirit has to reveal His Word to us and it requires trust on our part.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 14:6

Jesus is the Beginning. He is the first person mentioned in the Bible. That does not mean that Jesus is more important that the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Bible says:

In Beginning self-created Elohiym Himself the Heaven and the Earth.

The Bible is the only document in the world that preserves that knowledge. Abram was called out to preserve a people and preserve the message God has for us. Jesus is the Beginning. God created the Universe in Jesus. Jesus said that Salvation comes from the Jews. It is true. No Jews, no Salvation. Jesus was a Jew. Jesus is the Creator, Elohiym is the Creator, the Holy Spirit is the Creator. The Holy Spirit imparts life, activates all things with life, His Life. He gives Life. Jesus came to give us Eternal Life. Jesus tells us that He is the:

Way

Truth

Life

People died rather than deny the Creator of the Universe. They are called martyrs. Jesus is the Creator of the Universe. He holds all things together. The Universe consists of Him. In coming to understand any cosmogony, any cosmology, any aspect of the Creation, we have to come to God first. We cannot come to God of our own accord in some sense in that we are called from Eternity to Him. If you are reading this, you are being called. When we are called to Him we are born again. Our life seeking the Kingdom of God first and His Righteousness is the possible.

"...World view refers to 'one’s basic assumptions about reality.'

Religion provides people with the specific content of their reality."

What is your religion, what do you fill up your reality with? Who do you go to in order to fill up your reality with content? My objection to religion is that religion without God leads to destruction and passes for religion that is filled with the specific content of what God wants us to know. We can fill up the specific content of our reality with not God. We can have a form of the Faith that Paul talked about and deny the substance. Jesus is that substance.

"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

Exodus 3:14

The identity of God is important, He thinks so. What He is like is important and He thinks so. The fact that He created all that is, is important and He thinks so.

Jesus is I AM. Jesus is Yahweh, Jesus is the Creator, Jesus is the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. He began time. He is the Event that began time and He remains ever actively involved in His Creation.



1 Edward F. Murphy, Handbook for Spiritual Warfare [computer file], electronic ed. of The Revised and Updated Edition, Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, Copyright ©1996 by Edward F. Murphy.