As you probably have figured out by now, I love letters to the editor, the angrier the better. Ah, those little tidbits of distilled "wisdom." Here is one that caught my attention yesterday and is typical of Christianthink. Read the entire letter here.First, our writer dismisses a previous letter (which I did not see and didn't take the time to search for) "concerning mistranslation/corruption and opposing translations of various Biblical scriptures."
Such things, it is suggested, can be ignored because none of the verses examined "have any bearing on the gospel message." In other words, even if this all important message from God is imbedded within a text full of forgeries, interpolations, and outright mistranslations, its main value as a tool for evangelism is preserved. No doubts should be entertained about trustworthiness.
This principle may be summed up as follows: If you like the text and agree with it, it is from God; if it is patently absurd or obviously wrong, it is a mistranslation or interpolation, or at least needs to be more carefully interpreted (explained away).
Our writer goes on to call attention to the "aggressive and organized atheist movement afoot in the U.S.," such as demonstrated by the controversial atheist billboards. But more dangerous, he suggests, are editorials:
However, planting the seeds of doubt in readers minds through editorials, etc. might be a subtle inroad to the same effect. Just plain old folks of reason and intellect asking, "You don't really believe all those mistranslated, corrupted myths and legends in that old book, do you?" sounds a little like "Did God really say 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden?'"
Christians, know what you believe and why.
Yes, the old serpent in the Garden, that ol' Devil! Go ahead, look at that again and tell me who told the truth there, the serpent or God?
According to that "corrupted myth" or "legend," God told Adam and Eve not eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Gen. 2:17).
The serpent, on the other hand, said this:
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil (Gen. 3: 4,5).
So again: who told the truth there?
(Hint: According to Genesis 5:5 Adam lived to the ripe old age of 930 years!)
(Additional hint: Genesis 3:7 goes on to add that after eating the forbidden fruit, "the eyes of them both were opened.")
Now you can accuse folks like myself of "planting seeds of doubt" if you like, but I like to think of it as planting seeds of freedom. Intellectual freedom, if you will.
By all means, Christians, as this writer suggests: know what you believe and why.
The "why" is because you have been and are being brainwashed and mentally abused by those who seek to control you while enriching their own bank accounts without resorting to honest employment.
11 comments:
First, I just want to say I fail to see how atheists putting up billboards is "aggressive". Would this same guy call Christians going door to door handing out pamphlets about their beliefs and/or their church "aggressive"? Somehow, I doubt it.
Speaking of doubt, I think doubt is a good thing. Beliefs should always be doubted. Without doubt, you have little or no incentive to analyze your beliefs and determine both why you believe what you believe and whether your beliefs can stand up to questioning and criticism. If your beliefs fall apart with a tiny bit of doubt, then they weren't worth having in the first place.
Good point, doug. Interpreting the Bible becomes like taking a projective test. It lets us see what our values and beliefs are based on what meanings we derive from scripture.
we like to retroject our current view of satan onto the cunning serpent character, but it just doesn't work.
Maybe the Bible was just a test, like in school, or "Where's Waldo?" Maybe it was meant to make people doubt, question, wonder. Maybe those who take it literally are lazy and their lives are always being challenged. I certainly see those types suffer emotionally a lot, those are the first to reach for their God and "his words" to help them.
I hear TN is passing a law to make it a crime to teach Atheism in schools/snort, yuk yuk. My first seed of doubt was the family hypocrites I watched, off to church, listening to a sermon about loving each other, then going home and name-calling every person of brown skin.
@ Sammy - Such a good point about Christians going door to door to hand out literature!
I like doubt, too - as a means to an end but not an end in itself.
This Christian was using doubt a pejorative. Of course, the doubts creationists, for example, try to plant concerning science would probably be okay in his view.
So rather than be thought of as just a doubter with no convictions of my own, I prefer to be thought of as a sower of the seeds of freethought. The freedom to think and explore for one's self is to be encouraged and regarded as sacred, I think.
@ DoOrDoNot - I can tell a lot about a person by listening to their ideas about religion and the Bible.
@ Diane - For a person who honestly studies the Bible indepth, doubt is the natural destination. However, a stubborn faith can short-circuit the process.
Ah, the Bible. Didn't Schwietzer observe that the searchers for the true Jesus each found someone much like themselves?
Seems like the Bible serves as a giant ink blot in a sort of Rorschach test.
@ Anonymous - Well put!
I agree: doubt is a means to an end. I would never use doubt as a pejorative, and I think it is foolish for Christians, or any group for that matter, to do so. If your beliefs cannot stand up to a modicum of doubt, they aren't worth having.
There are three kinds of death spoken of in the Bible. First there is Spiritual death. That is when sin separates us from God. When Adam sinned, he became separated from God and could only approach God through a sacrificial lamb. Since Adam, we're all born physically, but to fellowship with God we need to be born again, spiritually. (John 3) The second death is physical death. No need to elaborate except to say that it will be eliminated in the future at the coming of the Lord to those who have been born again.
The third death is eternal separation from God.
To sum it up: born once - die twice
born twice - die once.
@ bigr - I certainly do thank you for reading and commenting, but you have your theology all wrong according to the Bible, or at least - forgive my bluntness - hopelessly confused.
The Bible simply doesn't speak of three deaths the way you do. In fact, what you call the third death - eternal separation from God - is what the Bible calls the second death in Revelation 20. You call physical death the second death, when the Bible suggests it is the first: It is appointed unto man once to die (Heb. 9:27).
Anyway, to be frank with you, I find it all a hopeless jumble and of no practical concern.
Again, thanks for reading and commenting.
Post a Comment