Is Your Faith a House of Cards?

If even one piece of your understanding of God gets shifted, will everything else you know about Him crumble down?

That’s a House of Cards faith, and I think it’s pretty common.

When I was a student in private, Christian schools, it was briefly mentioned that some (poor, misguided) Christians believe the earth is millions of years old–but I don’t recall being told why anyone would think that way.

I got the impression that any Christian trying to rationalize an Old Earth has “compromised” his/her faith by choosing “secular” scientific theories over the “clear and authoritative” Word of God. 

The disagreement was presented as if Real, Serious Christians were squared against the Godless Heathens… and there were a few spineless religious people, straddling the fence and causing God to want to spew them out of His mouth.

So, I was fairly convinced that the wrong interpretations of Genesis–or any other part of the Bible–would bring everything else down with it.

Today I found a comment on Facebook which perfectly explained where that idea comes from. Please take a deep breath before you dive into this rabbit hole:

“Why is the issue of death and disease as a result of sin so important?

I would propose that the whole foundation of what it means to be saved is found in the first chapters of Genesis. If you believe the first chapters are literal, then you believe that God literally created a world that was truly good. A world without death, disease, destruction and pain. God also created a literal Adam and Eve and these individuals literally sinned. That literally brought the curse of sin upon this earth. An earth that was created “good” was marred, and the death, disease, destruction and pain came as a result of man’s literal sin. God made a promise to this literal Adam and Eve that He would send the seed of the woman to overcome the destruction that had been caused by that sin and that through the seed of the woman the world could be saved. That is essentially the Gospel message found in the first chapters of Genesis.

Now look at what happens when someone decides…that the earth is actually millions of years old: You then believe that God did not create a good world. He created a world in which there was millions of years of death, disease, destruction and pain. He did it that way on purpose. It was his intent to do so. It was not the result of man’s sin who had not even been formed yet. It was simply the way God wanted to design His creation. In fact, there was no real Adam and Eve, so there was no real first sin in this world. God sent His Son. Why (in this set of beliefs) is a little hard to explain. He did not come to redeem His creation from the curse of sin though. Because there was no real curse. It was all part of His design from the beginning.

Do you see the major downfall to not taking the first few chapters of Genesis as literal? It is truly the foundation for the entire Bible and the Gospel message; the foundation of Christianity itself.

Please, please think about this.”

So, there you have it.

If you believe that plants and animals died for millions of years before Adam and Eve came on the scene, then everything else in Christianity is doubtful.

I mean, I don’t have a problem with asking how that can be reconciled, but I didn’t actually get to hear the argument from Old Earth creationists themselves until well into adulthood…

…and, as the Bible says, “The first to present his case seems right, until another comes forward to question him.”

Can you even think of a scientist who talks about the Bible, other than Ken Ham?

Oops, trick question! Ken Ham isn’t a scientist. 🙂

But, what I mean is–can you think of an organization, other than “Answers in Genesis,” which deals with the science of the Bible?

If you can’t think of a Christian who disagrees with Ham’s conclusions, I think that’s a red flag. We ought to be able to articulate the argument of our critics, and we can’t do that if we can’t even name them!

So, for anyone who needs a non-profit, staffed by brilliant scientists who love Jesus, in order to look into this topic from a new direction, I present Reasons to Believe, found at Reasons.org…

The website is run by:

Dr. Hugh Ross

Dr. Fazale Rana

Kenneth R. Samples, M.A.

Dr. Anjeanette Roberts

Dr. Jeff Zweerink

and dozens of “Guest Writers” from Universities all over the globe.  (Yes, I’m sorry, Flat Earthers, but the world is “a globe”…even though you think I’m compromising Scripture by saying so.)

I firmly believe that God is bigger than our questions, and I am terribly skeptical of anyone who argues that every, single piece of their Theology is necessary, or else you will lose the essence of God Himself.

My faith will not be shaken the slightest bit, if God took his time allowing the earth to evolve for years before breathing souls into a couple of bipedal beasts we call The First Humans.

Christianity is bigger than my interpretation of a few verses in Genesis–and that book is NOT the only place I go to find “answers.”

I’m deeply concerned by some of the comments I’ve read today, including: “The Bible is all the evidence you need”  and “Ken Ham isn’t MAKING AN INTERPRETATION–he’s LETTING THE BIBLE SPEAK FOR ITSELF.” The truth is, Ken has written hundreds of posts and books to help people learn how to read the Bible.  He’s not simply “letting it speak.”

But I’ll deal with that later, I guess.

For now, check out Dr. Gerald Schroeder’s books, or read this article.  Listen to Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project (and Old Earth Creationist).  Or let William Lane Craig explain we read things into the Bible that it doesn’t actually say.  (Example: the Bible doesn’t say that plants/animals die as a result of Adam’s sin.)

If you are letting non-believers think that they can destroy all of Christianity by removing a single chapter in the Bible, your faith is too small and flimsy.

Invite questions and search for Truth.

Regardless of the age of the earth, God can handle it.

36 thoughts on “Is Your Faith a House of Cards?

  1. Mel Wild

    I couldn’t agree with you more. What’s funny is that the early church wouldn’t have understood reading the Bible with Ham’s wooden literalism, or even treating it like a science textbook like that. That’s a fairly modern invention. And God can handle it, regardless of what is true. The problem I have is, these particular doctrines set people up to be cannon fodder for pretentious atheists (a lot them former fundamentalists themselves). And so these unprepared Christians become unnecessary causalities.

    Like

    Reply
    1. mrsmcmommy Post author

      Yes…
      Anyone who thinks Old Earth Creationism leads to Atheism needs to speak to more Atheists. They’re all former Young Earthers! 😂

      Of course, that’s not to say that the Earth can’t be young. I’m just saying we should try to discern the truth and not just pick sides based on who’s on each one.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Mel Wild

        That’s very true. Some of the most dogmatic fundamentalists I’ve talked to on the Internet are atheists! And it really doesn’t matter to me one way or the other how old the earth is either. I don’t personally think the Bible was trying to address that.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. A Bit Of Orange

    Greetings my dear Miss Peaches,
    You say this is in response to the meme/post arguing that, when people try to make Genesis and Evolutionary science agree, Genesis is the one that gets “Modified” (meaning vandalized.)
    You said “Someone shared this meme in the comments that depicted such a straw man I needed to respond.” So, this is your response? This post? Because it does nothing to prove WHY that meme/post was a straw man.

    Why is that a straw man?
    Because it happens to be right. So, having made the claim that it is a Straw Man, how about you tell us why that meme/post is a “such a straw man” that you needed to respond?

    I don’t think you’re burned out, and I don’t think you Can’t explain yourself any clearer. I think you feel like you are justified to mock young earth creationists and have not as of yet presented a single reason from science or scripture to justify your position, let alone this continual attack of Ken Ham and other “Flat Earthers”/ non scientists like him outside of your having found some credibility in Reasons to Believe. And I think this has some emotional weight for you, perhaps because you think the kids over at “Reasons” have freed you from the Fundy education you spoke of with such disdain in last podcast? it certainly doesn’t seem like its because you have intellectual reasons for it.

    You say, “I didn’t actually get to hear the argument from Old Earth creationists themselves until well into adulthood…and, as the Bible says, “The first to present his case seems right, until another comes forward to question him.” On my side, I didn’t hear any argument from the Young Earth camp until I was an adult. I was a fan of Hugh Ross before you were. I saw him in concert before it was cool. And based on what you have said, I think I can say that the difference between us is that I understand both positions. Your fudny upbringing failed you rather badly, as you have said- but I wonder if you realize that it has failed you in this way. Is seems that maybe the only facet of the debate you actually know is the fear of what is lost when Genesis is abandoned. Can it be you don’t actually know why YEC’s believe what they do? Did you never learn anything other than the idea that Evolution can “destroy all of Christianity by removing a single chapter in the Bible”?

    You quote as DEEPLY CONCERNING statements like “Ken Ham isn’t MAKING AN INTERPRETATION–he’s LETTING THE BIBLE SPEAK FOR ITSELF.”
    And you reply with:
    “The truth is, Ken has written hundreds of posts and books to help people learn how to read the Bible. He’s not simply “letting it speak.””

    I don’t know who said that “VERY concerning statement,” but what they CLEARLY meant was NOT that Ken Ham says nothing about the Bible and merely puts Bible verses in his blog for people to read.
    Because that is what your reply is imagining they meant, but it is clearly not what they meant. THAT actually is a Straw man, my friend. You are not replying to the point they ACTUALLY are making. You are replying to something entirely different.

    What they mean, and I think you already know this, is that Ken Ham/the Young Earth position is base on allowing the interpretation of the original Hebrew text and the clearest, simplest meaning of that text inform our ideas of what the text says and means. Where as Hugh Ross pretends you can read Genesis 1 and come to the conclusion BASED ON THAT ALONE that the universe is BILLIONS of years old, AiG says, “It says six days” and then they look at the Hebrew and ask, “What would this mean in Hebrew?” and find it would mean six days, so they decide that it probably means six days, however unpopular that conclusion may be with the Biology teachers of America or their websites. Its Hugh Ross who says, “the text may SAY six days, but because of SCIENCE we know that it MUST mean 13.2 billion years in six somewhat overlapping epochs- because, that’s kind of like six days, right?”
    See, in that meme/post, this is what the scissors cutting up Genesis was supposed to represent. Well, its the start of it anyway. The rest is, apparently, found at the bottom of a “rabbit hole.”

    Your comments have been a microcosm of how the whole American Church interacts with this debate. You tell us to “take a deep breath before you dive into this rabbit hole”- poisoning the well before posting something with which you are dismissing at best and mocking at worst, and then you offer NO RATIONAL GROUNDS for disagreeing with it. Instead, you offer the straw man argument of “If you are letting non-believers think that they can destroy all of Christianity by removing a single chapter in the Bible, your faith is too small and flimsy.” As if the question is over merely a single chapter. If you want to make THAT argument, you have the story of the Woman Caught in Adultery from the gospels- that story might not belong in the Bible. But if you lose that story- what is lost? What doctrine, or understanding of what it means to be human, the origin and purpose of mankind, the origin of sin, the origin of human death, the nature of what we are being saved from or anything else do you lose if we jettison that chapter? Nothing. Thus the lack of fuss.

    Yet YOU POSTED in this article a LIST of the foundational doctrines and wide ranging theological ideas which MUST be changed if you abandon what Genesis (And Exodus, and Deuteronomy, and Psalms, and Job, and Mark, etc- because this is NOT about merely ONE chapter) actually says and replace it with what Atheists have decided to invent in order to replace the history according to Moses. If you are as yet too ignorant to know WHY this compromise cannot be made without doing violence to the whole of the Bible, then perhaps you should be asking questions and not mocking Ken “Not a Scientist :)” Ham and other Young Earth “Flat Earth :)” Creationists with Straw Man arguments and general name calling.

    When you change the CORE or FOUNDATION of a worldview, the whole system changes. That’s what the rabbit hole explained. Replacing Genesis with Darwin would be like a Muslim deciding that he can accept that the Koran was written by Atheist Englishmen in the 1700’s but then trying to argue that the time and place the Koran was written is just ONE PART of Islam. “If you can let your faith in Allah be shaken by this ONE Little change in orthodoxy- your faith is weak.”
    OR maybe… just maybe… if you abandon the FOUNDATION of your worldview, then your faith is stupid. Because if you don’t care what is TRUE about your religion’s core doctrines- what is your faith even IN? Small and flimsy faith in the truth is better than a confident and robust faith in a small and flimsy lie.

    Your position (I cannot even say arguments, because there have been almost none) on these matters has been entirely the weakest I have ever read or heard from you, and as someone who constantly feels it your place to call others on their heresy and error- especially when done in public- and who has often said you were open to the same kind of open discussion if anyone felt YOU were in the wrong- I hope that you will stop with the kind of emotional and irrational attacks on the sins of Fundamentalism- aka: believing the Bible actually means what it says when in the non-poetic context of a historical book and passage- and if you need to attack the position of AiG and those of us who think Moses may have heard a little more from God than Charles Darwin or Neal Degras Tyson- do it with REASONS. I don’t mind being told I’m wrong so much as being told I believe something I don’t, and then merely being made fun of for it. And it is not to your credit that I am forced to say to you what I have said to a hundred atheists on my own blog: as you seem to be woefully ignorant of both the science and scripture involved in this debate, perhaps you should stick to asking good questions and spend less time telling people like me why I’m such an idiot.

    And I remind you at this point that you insisted that, if I had anything further to say, that I do it publicly because the public discussion was important to you. I have no desire to call you out in public, but neither would I be a good friend to just watch you attack the truth in silence, especially since you are doing it in the manner in which atheists attack you.
    I hope we can still be friends.

    Like

    Reply
    1. mrsmcmommy Post author

      We’re still friends, Bryan. 🙂

      The truth is, I am not in a position to defend an Old Earth because I don’t care how old it is. You are in a position to explain why someone like Hugh Ross can’t be a Christian.

      Or, if you think he can be a Christian despite a disagreement about how old the Earth is, then you and I are on the same page.

      If you will not let it rest until both of us agree about how to interpret every thing in the Bible because your (and Ham’s) ideas of “simplest and clearest” interpretations MUST be everyone else’s idea of simplest and clearest, then I’m afraid this is the end of the conversation. 🙂

      Like

      Reply
  3. Jeff Lane

    I guess when it comes to this issue I am good whichever way it happened and will not look down on anyone’s interpretation. Much like your dad I probably lean young earth but my faith would not be shaken either way. I have heard it said well my God powerful enough to do it in 6 literal days as if it happened another way He would be any less powerful. Now show me a grave in Israel with Jesus’ bones then that may be a different story if anything would shake me that would be it.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  4. insanitybytes22

    So rather than address the content of your post because others already have,I’m just going to take your first sentence,

    “If even one piece of your understanding of God gets shifted, will everything else you know about Him crumble down?”

    Yes amen! I certainly hope so! The bible says “lean not into our own understanding.” God should keep us on our toes, keep us guessing, invite us into the mystery of it all. Even be really scary! “Fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom.” Everything you “think you know about Him” should crumble down, and frequently! Far too often we try to keep God tidy, self contained in our little box. We’re in a relationship,but often it’s just a relationship of “me,myself, and I.” We think we control it, we think it’s based on our own understanding, we think we’re the ones in charge. Sometimes we’re really solipsistic, we think God exists if I say He does and He doesn’t if I say He doesn’t. That’s how we wind up with deconvertees, they don’t realize they are in a two way relationship, and it is not defined exclusively by what they claim to believe or claim to not believe.

    So ideally what you want is to get up in the morning and go, “Lord, I never knew you!” He levels up the game, changes things up, and one of our issues as people is that we often try to keep Him safe, non threatening,like that Babe in a manger. How easy it is for us to forget that He is actually the Lion of the tribe of Judah. I’m a Christian because God says I am and my faith is actually in His hands and not my own.

    Like

    Reply
    1. mrsmcmommy Post author

      IB, if you found out that everything you just wrote–and everything you believe about the downside of “reason”–turns out to be something that disappoints God, how will you respond?

      Like

      Reply
      1. insanitybytes22

        Well, I suspect I actually lack the power to disappoint God. God does not love me because I believe all the right things or because I do all the right things. He loves us for who we are. because of who He is.

        An all seeing, all knowing, all powerful God cannot be disappointed in me, anymore then a parent can be disappointed in a baby that wakes up in the middle of the night. We don’t earn His love by being good.

        Like

      2. mrsmcmommy Post author

        I think you’re misunderstanding my question.
        If you come to find out that everything you just wrote about God in the first comment (or even in the second) isn’t true–and that actually he DOES care what you believe…. Will that shake everything else?

        Actually, on second thought, that might be a bad example. Because I have a feeling that if you changed your understanding of logic/reason and the role of grace, it WOULD be a very big, very catastrophic change…much like knocking a single card out of a card tower. 🙂

        All I’m trying to say is that the foundation upon which we build our Theology must be something stronger than how old the earth is. That’s it.

        Like

      3. insanitybytes22

        Hmmm, well actually my faith is not in my own capacity for reason, so if it turns out God doesn’t like that, I would simply say sorry and repent. And that’s the problem with worshiping our own ideology, our own capacity for reason, rather than worshiping the Truth who is actually a person. Our ability to reason becomes our source of pride and more important to us than who God is.

        My faith is really not built on house of cards, it’s built on a Person. Everything else really is sinking sand, including our own theology or even the nature of ever changing science.

        Like

      4. John Branyan

        I guess you can’t ever get to a place where your beliefs are wrong unless you first believe they are right. When your faith isn’t based in reason, you needn’t worry about new information affecting it.

        Like

      5. insanitybytes22

        Well, I think our faith has a very subjective edge to it. “Whether you believe Jesus is your Savior or you believe He isn’t, you are going to be right.” Atheist’s faith is actually based on reason. So is abortion, communism, the holocaust, and the atomic bomb. Reason is not morality, nor is it necessarily the truth. One reason why I stress this point so much, we tend to idolize our own brains and “believing themselves wise,they become fools.” New information does not affect you because of reason, new info affects you because of humility.

        Like

      6. John Branyan

        Atheist’s faith is based on reason?!!!
        To which atheist are you referring? I’ve logged THOUSANDS of dialogues with heathen and I’ve yet to encounter a shred of rationality.

        It is unnecessary to choose between reason and faith. You can do both. All truth belongs to God. Our ability to think and reason comes from God. Those who “believe themselves to be wise” are not those of us who are asking God for wisdom.

        For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:18 – )

        Like

      7. insanitybytes22

        “It is unnecessary to choose between reason and faith. You can do both.”

        I’m going to say “no,” John. If you’re making a well reasoned and calculated decision based on the facts and evidence before you, one that will lead to a predictable outcome, then that’s not really “faith.”

        Every atheist I’ve ever encountered is attempting to worship at the altar of his own reason, which he seems to think is vastly superior to God’s. He doesn’t have a problem with rationality, he has a heart
        problem related to surrender.

        Like

      8. mrsmcmommy Post author

        I think IB and Orange need to duke this one out.

        One seems to believe God is too complicated to know ANYTHING and the other believes God lets us know exactly how old the Earth is…

        Like

      9. mrsmcmommy Post author

        “Whether you believe Jesus is your Savior or you believe he isn’t, you are going to be right.”

        I’ve heard you quote this many times, IB. 🙂 And it seems you have reasoned that it means Truth is subjective. But, no matter what anyone believes, Jesus is THE Savior. The Truth is that God gives everyone the opportunity to have a relationship with Him, whether they choose to do so or not. That’s not subjective…

        I understand that you don’t trust your ability to reason. But you still continue to (attempt) reasoning every time you put words together… So, it’s important that we try to help you do the process better by pointing out that your diagnosis of the Atheist problem isn’t correct. I have read books from many former Atheists who reasoned their way to God. I hope you will continue to think about it. (Or I can ask God to bury the truth in our subconscious, through faith, I guess.) 😉

        Like

  5. juan devevo

    I’m going to be completely honest and say that I haven’t read all the comments, so if what I say has been said before, then disregard.

    I think if your ENTIRE faith is based on a few verses, then yes, it needs to be evaluated. To speak for the things they’re trying to do at AiG, it may not come across as such, but I believe they’re trying to say that since they take the view that Genesis is an historical record, then pulling out those blocks and calling it “myth” in the modern sense causes a chain reaction or slippery slope or whatever idiom you use to say that people start to not believe the Bible has authority.

    Another thing is that since the beginning of the entire Evolution v Creation debate, Evolutionists have been screaming to provide scientific proof for a Young Earth, and that’s just what they’re trying to do – to answer the question “If the Bible is literally saying this, what scientific evidence should we expect to find that supports it?”. What happens when they do this, is that they’re accused of using the Bible as a “scientific manual” or if they don’t do it that way, they’re ridiculed for not showing evidence. It is in my experience, though, that the evidence only goes to support what you already view as the Origins of the Universe. They can be spun in either direction with minimal damage the side that’s using it at the moment.

    Lastly, I’d just like to ask, if Genesis is myth (in the sense that its merely man explaining through story how things got they way they are today) when does the History written in the Bible begin? We know that certain people existed because of archaeology (King David, Daniel). So is Noah a myth? Or Joseph? or Abraham, Issac, or Jacob? Or it could be that entire book is legend intended to keep us pointed to God. But I don’t think you can say one part is one style and one is actual history.

    Like

    Reply
    1. mrsmcmommy Post author

      Hey, Juan! Thanks for chiming in!

      That “slippery slope” or chain-reaction argument is exactly what I’m pushing against. It’s a logical fallacy for a reason. I’m only arguing that Old Earthers should be given a chance to speak up instead of being reprimanded for “modifying” Scripture, just because they have a different perspective than AiG…

      As I told Bryan, it’s not my intent to defend the Old Earth stance because I’m not qualified to do that. I’ve only done some reading, so my best explanations would be incomplete and hear-say. For the record, I don’t have a problem with AiG giving their best evidence for a Young Earth. (I think most of the content is relevant and compelling. It’s why my dad and most of the people I love “lean” Young Earth. Ken Ham, et al, contribute important things to the overall conversation.)

      But I want permission to discuss the fact that Jewish teachers from before Christ were writing that the first chapter of Genesis is written from God’s perspective (and that the Earth may be old) with no Theory of Evolution to influence them. I want to let Old Earthers make their case without hearing “They’re rejecting the OBVIOUS, simple interpretation, which compromises EVERYTHING!” from the biblical literalists. I don’t mean to single anyone out, which is why I copied and pasted that Facebook comment instead of naming the Fundy. 😉 But I think there are well-meaning Christians who are turning the Bible into something ugly because they’re terrified that other Christians won’t read it “right.”

      Like

      Reply
      1. juan devevo

        What’s the logical fallacy, again? (No sarcasm, I might have missed it). Because I think that an Evolutionary explanation of our arrival tends towards enforcing the lie that man is continuously getting better. If anything its a cycle. We’re constantly getting better, then worse. I’m hearing new theologians with words like “he was a product of his time” or “they didn’t understand what we do now”. And It seems like its going towards propping up the Cult of the New. When the older the books I read seem to be more true. (Which for me, I need to guard against the Cult of the Old)

        Like

      2. mrsmcmommy Post author

        Slippery Slope argues that if we accept “A” we will eventually arrive at “Z” (which is usually an extremely bad thing). It’s used often in politics, especially by alarmists.
        I don’t think individuals are getting “better” OR worse… We all fall short. Period.
        But, God is in the process of redeeming mankind. I don’t believe in mindless evolution, but I absolutely believe that God is preparing his Bride, and that His People have made progress since they were mere “children” worshipping a golden calf and various other things. 🙂
        Of course, I realize it’s a nuanced conversation. I realize we still have “idols” of different sorts. But–seriously–it’s a good thing that we’re not still offering children on altars thinking that’s what God wants.
        So, I’m not afraid to talk about the evolution of mankind.

        Like

      3. juan devevo

        My take is that Man fell. To fall would mean that at some point, humanity was at some pinnacle above where it is now so that there is not a progression, but a regression. So at some point, maybe you could say we devolved? I think when we fell, we carried with us the residue of that lifted state, and you can see it in wonders of the ancient world and inventions that are still with us running with the current of the Ultimate Good. Like Democracy and Hammurabis Code and The Pyramids. And like you say, we, as a species (I lack a collective word) are in a state of separation from God, but you can see when societies have entered periods of enlightenment, and periods of (almost willful) ignorance. And often the ignorance follows after enlightenment (I realize now how I phrased that may make it sound like ignorance came from enlightenment, but I mean them to be separate periods). I don’t think we’ve progressed, but instead we’ve stood up and fallen many times.

        Also, I wouldn’t mind in some other venue to talk about Slippery Slope, because now it interests me, but this is the wrong time to start a bunny trail.

        PPS. Do you think the physical sacrificing of children on a burning altar is more evil than a spiritual sacrifice on the burning altar of one’s passions for themselves? More Barbaric? maybe yes. but is it more evil? Some one could say the spirit of Molech is alive, he’s just chosen a slower method.

        Like

      4. mrsmcmommy Post author

        I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying. And, no, I wouldn’t say that abortion is LESS EVIL. But, the fact that it’s a “slower method,” as you say, is still progress. I think most of humanity is shocked and sickened by violence against children, which is different from 3000 years ago. It makes the abortion conversation somewhat easier, because people KNOW taking innocent life is just bad, and it’s never what God wants, although I agree that it’s still evil the way we play games with the concept of whether a fetus is really “life” at all.

        Also, most of us agree slavery is wrong, and now it’s done underground instead of made part of government policy. Now, is underground slavery less evil than the old loud-and-proud brand? NO! But I do think it’s a good thing that we’re not making public heroes out of Lynch mobs anymore…

        I do understand what you mean about taking steps forward and then steps back again. But I tend to see it as two steps forward, one step back. We’ve never gone back to complete barbarism, because God has put his light in the world and we’re still carrying it… Slowly and even pathetically at times. But there’s a general upward trend as we interact with Truth and Goodness. (And I don’t care what the Humanists say, there is no explanation for this unless Truth and Goodness exist outside of our own imaginations.) 🙂

        Like

      5. juan devevo

        You know what? I had to go back and re-read the blog, and I believe I’ve gotten us off course. I don’t want to take up your space here if it’s not to the original thought. I end up rolling my eyes and getting tired when comment sections go off the rails. AT ANY RATE, I would like to explore this thought further, about people and ideas trending upward as opposed to circular “progression”. So this is the last I’ll say unless you want to keep going. You say that we’re progressing because things like slavery and child sacrifice are now collectively thought of a reprehensible, but I say that while those heads get squashed, the trans humanism movement pops up and says its okay to let little children decide for themselves about their bodies and are willing to chop them up and toss them in the fire in the name of bucking tradition and “social constructs”. Its like a cosmic game of Whack a Mole out here! (this and teaching kids other things that will keep them in the dark was what I meant about a “slower method”. I’m definitely against abortion, but it is by no means a slower method than just tossing them in a fire).

        Lastly, to your original point, I can say that people who stake it all on Genesis believe that is the most important battle in a post truth society. Just like you believe its important to have a faith built on more than just a few verses in the Bible. There’s probably a whole series of blogs you can do on the vitality of Truth, and can it be killed or masked or cover up completely. The question is, what do you believe is the most important thing that everyone needs to know? And to Christians, apart from Jesus, the answers are different. It may have to do with your gift, or personality, or a past that you had to escape and now you feel like you want to try to rescue others like yourself. I don’t see a problem with evangelizing on the grounds of Science, but I do think, as you say, you need to be able to talk to people on their terms in order to give them a reasonable argument to think about. (See Paul in Athens. Acts 17)

        Like

      6. mrsmcmommy Post author

        Good stuff to think about!
        I don’t mind a little side discussion… Though, I’m about to run into the gym for a group class.

        I think we agree that the things you mentioned (trans-sexuality and humanism in general) are bad and they are steps backward. I guess it’s kind of hard to get a grasp on how deep and wide an issue is, in this culture where we declare a campaign to prevent deaths from children sleeping in carseats after THREE children died. 🤔

        In a whack a mole game, the same mole pops up multiple times. I danno… I think slavery is like Polio. Sure, there are rogue cases here and there. And–yes–we will have cancer and the flu and AIDS. But I just have to stop and celebrate the fact that we’ve cured Polio at some point. 🙂

        Like

  6. Pingback: As for Those Agitators… | Cultures at War

  7. juan devevo

    Hey…Long story, and I’ll spare you all the details, but I promised I’d watch the video, and I can’t find where I’d promised to do that, so I’ll respond here.

    here’s the original for reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOWg6dzYL8

    I agree with his main idea, but since this is a medium for negativity, I will focus on that

    1. I think his language may have been inaccurate as a whole, and I might just be being picky, (and hypocritical) but when he says “the Bible ABSOLUTELY contradicts itself, so stop saying that it doesn’t”, then he goes on to prove that his strongest case for contradiction is actually a problem of perspective and who is telling the story. So it looks like a contradiction, but not truly is one. Maybe he would be happier if we said that the Bible is harmonious? Or that all Scripture is in harmony with itself? I’m not sure if he reads this blog, but feel free to comment, sir.

    2. I’m still hung up on him saying that we’re getting “better” we’re certainly more “civilized” I guess, but my understanding is that mankind is and always will be broken until “that Day” that Paul talks about. The way I understand History, we eventually just end up exchanging one thing for another. The Enemy would gladly let us, as a society, quit being racists if we pick up the cause against our own humanity by advocating that whatever Feelings we have are right and valid and we should act on them.
    2a. He goes on about this generation being more “chaste” than the Boomers. I hardly think that sexual frequency is a measure of Chastity. If I lock myself in a closet and watch Porn, but have no sexual partners in my life, by that definition, I’m chaste. They may be having less partners, but their view of marriage and family is on its head. And so, we exchange one moral for another and make a lateral move at best. I think it gives this false sense that we’ll just arrive at some point. I think he was trying to protect against some fatalistic view that everything is hopeless when we actually have all our hope in Christ, but that’s the significance of the picture of the Ark.

    3. I don’t like the picture of God strolling along and saying, “I like what you guys are doing here, let me bless it”. He thought the thoughts to begin with. I feel its like saying “I invented electricity” or “How do you like this Math I made up?”. God put it there, and we discovered it, not to mention He directly spoke to some people. God didn’t institute animal sacrifice to get them off of human sacrifice like some religious methadone, it is all a shadow of Christ to come. It did put it in to perspective of Abraham’s thoughts to think of it that way, but everything after the Garden of Eden was meant to point Man to Christ. Intentionally, not coincidentally.

    Lastly, I’ll put in a word about the Slippery Slope fallacy because this isn’t long enough yet. I think, like the word “tyranny”, that slippery slope is called out too quickly. My dad used to see my socks on the floor and somehow that meant to him that I was going to end up being a homeless person. That’s a slippery slope fallacy. But when someone says that if you go to prove that one part of the Bible is inaccurate, that you can call into question other things in the Bible, that is not a slippery slope, its the next step. Here’s an interesting example of “is this a slippery slope?” I saw https://twitter.com/conservmillen/status/1074729039787646976 people didn’t even engage because they were yelling “slippery slope”. I’m curious if you think that is an example of it, because I haven’t decided yet.

    Oh my gosh, I forgot to ask about the fact that he keeps hammering “static” and “dynamic” records. And I wasn’t sure what he meant by that. It furrowed my brow, because its the same language that Rob Bell used to say of Truth (“that Truth is a spring”) just before he went complete heretic, and its also what revisionists say when they want to challenge the original meaning of the Constitution. I will say that he might have covered it elsewhere since the video is of one session in a group at a conference, but I have’t seen those.

    Thank you for your time, I am neither awaiting or expecting a response, since my own has been so long in coming. Just had to get it out.

    Like

    Reply
    1. mrsmcmommy Post author

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Juan. I don’t think you’ve contradicted yourself at all, that I can see. So your comment is inerrant. Or maybe harmonious with itself. Or something. 😉

      I still appreciate that he’s pushing back against this idea that you can read the Bible like an instruction manual, and any confusion or contradiction can be explained “easily.” I’ve heard so many questions from Atheists about the size of the Exodus and whether the flood was a global or local flood and how long ago Adam and Eve were created and whether God used Evolution to some extent or if he “poofed” everything into existence full-grown…

      Twenty years ago, I would have said, “Read the Bible. It’s clear!” Because that was what was told to me. But when I began to read and think for myself, I realized the Bible is just as “clear” about the number of Israelites who left Egypt as it is clear that the Earth has corners.

      Maybe I was an idiot for thinking that clear meant clear and inerrant meant INERRANT. I agree with you that the contradiction which was referenced (about the census) had an explanation regarding perspective: God’s vs. David’s. But the fact that the Bible is full of HUMAN PERSPECTIVE is a giant complication, which will result in potentially dozens of contradictions like the census one. And the Bible is unlike any other book, which calls out and explains its own contradictions by the end…

      Also, I’m still not convinced by the idea that all of humankind is only moving “laterally” when it comes to morality. If we’ve only been moving “laterally” for thousands of years, and will continue only moving “laterally” until Jesus returns again, I confess it leads someone like me toward fatalism. What’s the point of preaching and confessing and trying to change if we’re all just waiting on God to make his next move because he’s the only one who can make any real improvements anywhere?

      Like

      Reply
  8. juan devevo

    Ha. Sorry. You were saying

    “What’s the point of preaching and confessing and trying to change if we’re all just waiting on God to make his next move because he’s the only one who can make any real improvements anywhere?”

    So I took that to mean that it’s futile to strive for change if we’re just waiting for God to wipe it all away. So my question was is it also futile to strive for change if it’s all getting better?

    I think we have a couple of perspectives that aren’t connecting. The point of preaching and changing is the same for believers now as it was for Noah. Jesus refers to it in the last part of Matthew 24.

    In the micro perspective, the point of trying to change is that for one the Holy Spirit is in me urging me to change. Secondly, imagine the kind of monster you’d be if given in to every whim of desire. In every moment we are becoming something.

    Like

    Reply
    1. mrsmcmommy Post author

      I totally agree with this. That’s why I’m saying that I believe we’ve been making progress. (Or, rather, Christ has been making progress through us. However you want to phrase it.)

      We’re not as monstrous as we used to be. God revealed what is right and true, and He slowly has been showing us how to rise to the next level. My understanding is that you don’t think we’ve done any rising… Only moving side to side on the same level. ?

      Like

      Reply
      1. juan devevo

        Ok. For one I said “at best” and for another, I think of Christ’s view of the future “better that they were never born” and “flee to the mountains”. And I think of Paul who talks of people only listening to those that “their itching ears want to hear”, and I don’t think progress. Are we more peaceful? For now. Is racism on the decline? It depends on who you talk to, but the offenses are certainly more trivial than in the past. So the new thing is, in the name of Peace and Acceptance, we are supposed to venerate those with the courage to hate their own bodies, or their unborn children. Progress in one area, declination in the other. Not “two steps forward and one back”, but tit for tat. When Atheism declines, Spiritualism takes its place. God revealed what was right and true in the beginning, we turned away from it. And the picture I’m trying to draw is that of a sinking ship while those of us who believe try to get people on the lifeboats. You can believe the world is going to Hell in a handbasket and believe that your efforts for change are not futile. Except that God will resurrect the ship, or build a new ship, or something that, this analogy is bad. So what’s the point of thinking that way? Urgency for one. It’s the same motivation to know that I don’t have long on this Earth. To make the most of the time I’ve been given. Also, I keep a humble view of the present while finding value in the past and not putting my hope in the morality to come, but in God alone
        “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way, though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam, though the mountains tremble at its swelling. Selah”
        ‭‭Psalms‬ ‭46:1-3‬ ‭ESV‬‬
        http://bible.com/59/psa.46.1-3.esv

        . I personally believe the thinkers of the Middle Ages could run circles around today’s intellectuals.
        So in the same way that I can’t think that it was better “way back when” (nostalgia) we also can’t say that it’s better than its ever been or longing for the future. We’re still broken and until all is put right, we won’t be less broken, just hopeful.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s