This is the first installment in what proves to be a well supplied list of individuals who would do us all a great service by removing themselves from the public light.Overall, the list before me to be written on is vast. Be it Joyce Meyer, Brian McLaren, or a bevy of political figures chomping at the bit to become the next toilet America drinks out of, we're nothing short of popular individuals who are doing more harm than help.
Out of this entire list, I felt it most important to begin with the man who would consider himself a pastor, Rob Bell. Bell's current ministry is at Mars Hill, yet another church with a bizarre name which means nothing, preaching how happiness and self-fulfillment are the main reasons to become a Christian. Rob Bell's ministry is praised by CNN, who has crowned him as the next Billy Graham. I'm certain that if he can hear it, Billy Graham is rolling in his grave, even if he is still technically alive. The next Billy Graham? BILLY GRAHAM? The man who asked us "Hughhwhai (Why) dent (don't) yew (you) ternuh (turn) from yer (your) sin and repent?" Billy Graham never sat down his large audiences and told them that "Having sex is what connects the creature with The Creator" like Bell suggests in his recent muck entitled "Sex God".
Bell is a small man trying to fill big shoes, and how does he do it? By being intentionally controversial, mystic, and cryptic in areas where Scripture is actually obvious. Instead of holding the Bible as truth, Bell is famous for preaching "open-mindedness" (which is better understood as "empty-mindedness") in interpreting and relying on Scripture, with an emphasis on the possibility that modern science may routinely prove various parts of Scripture wrong, and that our theology should be loose enough to allow for these parts of Scripture to be understood from the eyes of unbelieving scientists.
Can you picture Billy Graham asking a crowded mass under the big top "Hughwhuuut (What) if the scientists eventually show us that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, that he was the physical son of Mary and Joseph? Would your faith crumble?" Bell believes that we must have a loose enough reliance on Scripture in order to accommodate for Scripture to be proven false. Would you like some Starbucks Coffee with that Heresy?
Rob Bell, author of the intensely popular video production "NOOMA" on the very topic of Christian truth and the ministry of the emergent church: "This is not just the same old message with new methods. We're rediscovering Christianity as an Eastern religion, as a way of life."(http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/november/12.36.html)
Rediscovering Christianity, eh? Like Joseph Smith did? Show us the golden tablets!
Christians, if they believe their Bibles, must rely solely on Scripture for the definition of truth and the discovery of contradictions to the Bible must be looked at as products of failed reason and man's predisposition to reject God as illustrated in Romans 1. Any attempts to hybridize Christianity with an acceptance of the possibility that the Bible is actually part myth and part truth is ridiculous. The Bible claims to be the completely true Word of God. If it isn't true, it lies about itself and cannot be trusted for something so important as the eternal destination of an individual. Bell's theology creates a wave of ignorant shallow spiritualists he calls modern Christians. People see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, say what they want to say, and feel what they want to feel. I on the other hand, smell a rat.
E.J. Wood is a recent graduate from the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay. He has a BA in Political Science, as well as BS in Public Administration. He currently is authoring a book called "Closing the Book on Christianity: The Post-Modern Christian’s War Against the Bible".
Contact him at proantiundecided@hotmail.com
15 Comments:
"Christians, if they believe their Bibles, must rely solely on Scripture for the definition of truth and the discovery of contradictions to the Bible must be looked at as products of failed reason and man's predisposition to reject God as illustrated in Romans 1."
So... if the bible contradicts itself... its our fault for having reason?
and..
"The Bible claims to be the completely true Word of God. If it isn't true, it lies about itself and cannot be trusted for something so important as the eternal destination of an individual."
I agree whole-heartedly 100%. If it isn't true, and it lies about itself, it can not be trusted.
Thats all for today folks
See, Rob claims it might, but it hasn't and won't. If he can't believe it, of all things, is flawless, then he can't believe anything is and will eventually see how confused he is since he claims to know the Word of God.
Wentwj, you said IF the Bible contradicts itself... it's our fault for having reason? (emphasis added). If the hypothetical arose, and proven, then the whole book is worthless and he would be a fool for believing both the facts and the Bible. Yet, to this day, and after many years of intense study, the Bible has yet to contradict itself. So, even though Christianity still requires faith in the unknown, it cannot be disregarded yet as invalid if someone choses to believe.
I see we agree on something. That's a good start. :)
"Wentwj, you said IF the Bible contradicts itself... it's our fault for having reason? (emphasis added). If the hypothetical arose, and proven, then the whole book is worthless and he would be a fool for believing both the facts and the Bible. Yet, to this day, and after many years of intense study, the Bible has yet to contradict itself. So, even though Christianity still requires faith in the unknown, it cannot be disregarded yet as invalid if someone choses to believe."
Yes, IF the bible contradicts itself. I don't necessarily think that if the bible DOESN'T contradict itself it's fact. After all the sentence: "Unicorns control the public transportation system" technically doesn't contradict itself, but I have no factual evidence to back it up.
On that note, as an Atheist who has read portions of the Bible, I think anyone who claims the Bible has NO contradictions CLEARLY needs to read their bibles. However, unless I'm pressed I don't feel the need to go into that directly at this point. Though I would right out of the grate say that the existence of an All-Powerful, All-Knowing, and All-Good god is contradictory, at least given that the world is also not all good. And just a few other quick notes... two contradictory creation stories in Genesis (ironically largely stolen from Babylonian myths), "Eye for an Eye" vs "Turn the other cheek", ect.
I do however, want to bring up another point expressed in the main article. "man's predisposition to reject God as illustrated in ..." Wait what? So you're telling me that man is predisposed to reject god. By saying it's predisposed you can't fall back on "free-will" as it's a predisposition. So this perfect, all knowing, loving god, is going to create beings, then make the PREDISPOSED to reject him, and then PUNISH them for it? Really? And this is a perfectly good god? If that's actually what you think then you and I clearly have very different standards for 'perfectly good'
Oh yeah, and I also probably agree that this person should resign from public life. I find most preacher/reverend people that go on TV, and/or make an entirely commercialize their faith are despicable.
However, him not being medieval about sexual relations, accepting that scientific facts can't be ignored are large pluses in my book, probably making him better than your 'pray for the death of supreme court justices' crazy famous religious leader but still...
wentwj said... "I don't necessarily think that if the bible DOESN'T contradict itself it's fact. After all the sentence: "Unicorns control the public transportation system" technically doesn't contradict itself, but I have no factual evidence to back it up."
That's true and why I said it takes a degree of faith to follow because you can't see God Himself. I simply meant that it cannot be just tossed aside because of logical faults.
Also, I'll agree to save the other topics for when they're on topic. We agree this guy needs to step down.
But I see that you probably don't agree with me on the logical faults either, so I'll agree to disagree on this point right now so we can conclude on this guy.
"But I see that you probably don't agree with me on the logical faults either, so I'll agree to disagree on this point right now so we can conclude on this guy."
I agree. However, I do have a legitimate question on whether or not christans think that god created man pre-disposed to not believe in him. I hadn't heard that all too much before, but it was brought up in the article and some verse was quoted.
"I agree. However, I do have a legitimate question on whether or not christans think that god created man pre-disposed to not believe in him. I hadn't heard that all too much before, but it was brought up in the article and some verse was quoted."
As a Christian, I honestly believe that myself.
Backing up the whole freewill topic that is. :o)
Just my side of it I guess.
Good post Eric.
1st - On free will: If one is try to figure the Christian's perspective, he ought to use Scripture, so a study
Romans 9 would be useful to compare "free will" versus "predestination". Myself, I think if we rely on Scripture to determine what it is a Christian ought to believe, predestination seems the obvious implication.
2nd - The Bible states that faith is required for Salvation, so factual proof of the Bible's overall truth would negate the concept of faith, thus rendering Salvation impossible. A Christian therefore should not expect proof to back him up, or else he doesn't actually believe that faith is an element of his beliefs.
3rd - As far as the predisposition to believe and follow something other than God, I think Romans 1 covers the issue. Since we're addressing this from the viewpoint of what the Christian believes, I find it most useful to use what that Christian believes to be the ultimate authority; the Bible. Romans 1 suggests that man was created neutral, that he chose sin, and has preferred sin over God ever since.
"As a Christian, I honestly believe that myself."
Good to know, I have no desire to argue the point at this stage, I was just legitimately curious as to IF christians commonly believe that mankind is predisposed to this.
In regards to your points Eric, I think 'predestination' and 'predisposition' are entirely different things. A christian can logically hold 'predestination' and 'freewill' and say that god simply knows the choices we make (I think there may be some problem with this but I've heard this before).
However, predisposition would suggest that we HAVE some kind of freewill but our actions are inherently slanted in that direction.
If you don't believe in free-will then I guess the two equate to almost the same thing, but I find most christians use free-will to explain the problem of evil.
Again, I don't want to debate whether any of this makes sense, I just wanted to see what it is you guys believed. Which I think I got confirmation, at least from Brando, that he does believe humans are predisposed towards a disbelief in god. I suppose I don't know if that predisposition is within a freewill system, or if he thinks we don't really have freewill and it's all god pulling the strings
"Bell is famous for preaching "open-mindedness" ... in interpreting and relying on Scripture, with an emphasis on the possibility that modern science may routinely prove various parts of Scripture wrong... that our theology should be loose enough to allow for these parts of Scripture to be understood from the eyes of unbelieving scientists."
IF this is the case, I would tend to agree with you. However, could you cite some sources? The run in that I've had with Rob Bell didn't suggest any of those things.
Bell is "intentionally controversial, mystic, and cryptic in areas where Scripture is actually obvious."
Again I'd like to see some examples. I just read a few interviews with him, and from what I read, the worst thing he can be accused of is using new terminology to describe the same faith that I adhere to.
So tell me. Why is it that Christians are so hellbent on proving that the Bible is true if they have already based their lives on it? Bell is not saying that the Bible is subject to science necessarily (not that I would go about saying it in the same style he uses) but that we need to allow that God speaks through science in tangible ways whereas he speaks through the Bible in a written, personal way. The two are intertwined. They work together. It is simply the hearts and minds of the philosophers, scholars and scientists themselves that are at fault.
but if the two contradict, the Christian ought to follow Scripture.
Post a Comment
<< Home