Relationship Boundaries and God’s Ways

Notice that all healthy relationships function within a mutually agreed upon set of standards and rules sometimes known as boundaries.  This is also true of one’s relationship with God.  These standards and rules are known as God’s ways and are found in the Bible. 

Viewed in terms of human relationships, if boundaries are missing or unclear, there is at best a dysfunctional and chaotic relationship.  As well, if there is not agreement as to where boundaries exist, then most often there is no relationship.

Now have a look at man’s relationship with God.  Maybe you’ve noticed that some make statements that are based upon man’s view not God’s.  Such are little more than a designer approach to some sort of god.  Such is the, “My god would never…” statement.  The simple question is this.  Can such a view, that often rejects God’s ways, allow for a relationship to exist? 

This view questions whether a relationship with God functions within mutually agreed upon sets of standards and rules?   When it does not, one can conclude that at best it is a dysfunctional and even destructive relationship as man seeks to fashion a god according to his own “good’ ideas.

The Bible lays out very clearly the standards and rules necessary for relationship with God.  Therefore, the choice is up to the one who would be in relationship with God.  Such a person can choose to accept God’s ways as set forth or reject them.  Such a person by making choices can choose to be in relationship with God or not.

Remember that God invests each individual with the power to choose to accept Him and His ways.  Also one can choose to reject God’s ways and in doing so reject Him.  The outcomes of such choices are beyond man’s capacity to control.     

Think about it this way.  Should one expect to enjoy the guidance, protection, comfort, and care of the very One whom they have rejected.  Yet, the very one rejected calls for all who find themselves in need of these very things to, "Come unto Me all you who labor and are heavily laden and I will give you rest."

Honest Inquiry and Cynical Skepticism

Honest Inquiry and Cynical Skepticism

The following quote may be found in a previous post.

"The point is that some things have to be believed in order to be seen. The reverse is also true! Some things have to be doubted in order not to be seen. The argument that God is illogical is only logical to the one who steeps his mind in such skepticism and doubt."

What is most interesting is that those who fail to give an honest look fall into the black hole of cynical ignorance or an ever increasing apathy.  As to cynical ignorance it compounds exponentially in such a mind with the result that such a person basks in the skeptical, positing that it is some kind of intellectual achievement or higher plain of understanding. 

Assumptions

Of course the basis for such ignorance lies in the assumptions that one is prepared to accept and as well what one is prepared to dismiss due to skepticism and doubt.  Of course some skepticism and doubt are healthy in that such is what fosters inquiry.  Often such it title as curiosity.  However when extreme skepticism and unchecked doubt run rampant through the corridors of one’s thought processes and conclusions the outcomes are most dire.

Rampant Skepticism

When rampant skepticism thus become too ingrained in one's basic assumptions then one goes to the extreme.  Such a skeptic in its extreme form then questions all reality.  Such a person asks, "Is the chair upon which I sit real or a creation of my mind/imagination?"

Studying the Bible and Textual Errors

Now to the main point which is this.  If a person could at least acknowledge that the Scripture might be valid and based upon that acknowledgment then make a serious and honest inquiry into those Scriptures, such a person might then discover a whole new world of vistas.  "No" not in a casual reading but studying and reading the Bible for all that is there.

What about the supposed errors in the text.  Please note that no other book is subject to such criticism.  In reality, every day more and more of these are being put to rest as archaeologically, linguistically, and culturally more and more is discovered about the times and cultures in which the Bible is set and the languages in which it is written.

English Text and Errors

When a person chooses to conclude that the Bible is full of errors and therefore not be trusted based upon their assumptions about the English text very simply such a person is incredibly naive or they are not intellectually honest.  Such is likely birthed of a cynical critical attitude rather than honest scholarship and genuine academic pursuit of the truth.

It takes no particular talent to go to the web sites, hosted by skeptics, cynics, and critics and thus bolster one’s negative attitude about the Bible and the God of the Bible.  Problem is many if not most of their supposed problems do not stand up under genuine scholarship.

At best they are "hack" students of the Bible who are loaded down with agenda and erroneous assumptions, and who if they took the trouble to do research, would find that their arguments can be easily disassembled even by those with a smattering of understanding of the previous referenced culture, language, and times of the Bible.

The Bible is Uniquely Treated

The final point is this.  People reserve the Bible for special treatment.  You hear of virtually no one who subjects any of a number of other subjects (e.g. science, psychology, sociology, human anatomy and physiology, and higher mathematics etc.) to the same rigorous scrutiny, negative criticism, extreme skepticism, and pessimistic cynicism.  Yet history is replete with examples of these and other subject failing when subject to serious academic scrutiny.

Honest Inquiry

Again go back to where this started.  While some cynicism and skepticism is necessary to further inquiry, one cannot bring complete cynicism and extreme skepticism to any discussion for there to be honest inquiry. The problem is that little else beyond Christian faith and its Scriptures is subject to the same cynicism and criticism.  As well, notice that such biases result in flawed assumptions which compound the problem and bring a further intellectual downturn. 

However when one seeks genuine reality/truth the outcome is far different.  Consider then that one must at least in some degree be willing to hear the truth to in fact hear the truth.  Such is never more so than in matters which pertain to the following of Jesus Christ.

The Bible - Is it Reliable?

Why is the Bible Suspect?

Unlike any other piece of literature, the Bible is suspect until proven otherwise!  Simply taking it as a piece of literature like any other literature the prudent person asks, "Why?"  If one doubts the Bible as being the word of God, why is it not left alone?  

Then when one factors in the supernatural nature of the Bible it really evokes a great deal of criticism.  Again there is the question, "Why?"  Why if you do not believe it to be any different than any of a number of other ancient writings would one feel the need to discredit it?

The Age Old Question

From the opening chapters of Genesis until the present there is a question that has dogged the pages of Western history.  It is ever present in a number of different forms but none-the-less is there.  The question is this, “Indeed, has God said…” (Genesis 3:1)?

Biblical Scrutiny

The Bible is unique in that it has undergone such vast scrutiny.  Yet, over and over again those who set out to disprove the Christian Scriptures and their message end up proving the veracity of same.  Therefore, they resort to finding some supposed error or another and thus claim that such invalidates the whole.

Why is this attempt at discrediting the Scriptures so?  The whole notion of Christianity not to mention Judaism is based upon the validity and reliability and thus the authority of the Biblical text.  If there is no validity to it, then the messages thereof may be called into question.  It is therefore no wonder that the Bible is under attack.  

What the cynical critic generally does is to point to supposed errors in the English text and then discount any explanations that rely upon the culture of the day, the difficulties of translating one language into another, different dating systems employed, and/or explanations that have to do with dispensational or covenantal theology.   Indeed there is a reason that the Bible is to be studied, not just casually read!

The Root Issue

If the Gospel accounts prove accurate, then the central figure of those accounts, Jesus Christ and all that He was and taught must receive careful attention.   As well, the Gospel's insights into the condition of mankind also must be considered.

If on the other hand, the reverse is true as some postulate, then the divinity of Christ, the teachings of Christ, and His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension may be called into question.  For that matter even the existence of Jesus may be questioned.  As well such allows for a high view of man.  

To say the least the view one takes of the Gospel accounts effects every aspect of one's life, even those which seem only remotely connected.

Plausibility Argument

In considering the following one must ask whether each of the items and what they suggest is plausible or one might say reasonable and likely.  Also keep in mind this is one plausibility track, there are others. 

The Bible was written over a period of some 1500 to 2000 years by as many as 40 different writers and yet the various books are completely consistent with one another.  Is it not plausible that there is a supernatural element to the writing?

The comparison of the Hebrew text with the Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered in 1947) gave evidence to the accuracy of the Hebrew text.  Is it not plausible that the text is accurate as written?

The Hebrew text contained 300 or more prophesies of the coming of the Christ, the latest of which was written some 400 before the opening of the Gospel accounts.  Is it not plausible that such prophesies are true and accurate?

Jesus fulfilled all of those prophecies.  If one was to calculate the chances of only 50 of the prophecies being true depending upon which 50 one chooses the chances of one man fulfilling those prophecies is something on the order of one chance in 10 with 157 zeros.  Does it not follow then that it is plausible that Jesus is the fulfillment of those prophecies and thus the Christ?

If Jesus is the Christ, then is it not plausible that His testimony about Himself and His teaching is true?

Compare one chance in 10 with 157 zeros with the Jesus Seminar which argues against the teachings of Jesus.

The Jesus Seminar

The arguments of the Jesus Seminar come from a gathering of supposed scholars which met to decide the validity of the Gospel Text.  Even from the left or liberal perspective there is a problem with the Jesus Seminar. 

It is that it is neither a fair academic discussion of textual issues nor does it conform to the basic assumptions of academic scholarship.  In fact, it would approximate medieval European scholasticism as certain dogma was assumed as opposed to beginning with a “blank” slate and from that begin academic research.   Such is explained in an article, “Unmasking the Jesus Seminar: A Critique of Its Methods and Conclusions” by Dr. Mark D. Roberts © 2005.*

*Article available at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/unmasking-the-jesus-seminar/

Even the most liberal of academics would and has questioned the methodology employed and in fact in at least one case and perhaps others, left the Seminar for reasons of academic integrity.  The point is that if the main source for one’s conclusions is not reliable, neither can the conclusions reached be of any certainty. 

Wild Accusation without Foundation

Another rather ambitious statement found in the article that prompted this posting is as follows.  “These texts have been amended, translated, and re-translated so often that it’s extremely difficult to gauge the accuracy of current editions—even aside from the matter of the accuracy of texts written decades or centuries after the death of their subject.”

Once again such a statement is pure speculation as no foundational material is presented.  As well it demonstrates the ignorance of the writer in these matters.  There is no credible evidence that such is so.  It simply lacks support and therefore credibility.  However, it is consistent with the tone and purpose of his writings.

In reality the original documents were scribed in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.  Later due to the Western Church and the Eastern Church, Greek and Latin translations came into being.  Today’s translations carefully translated out of the original three languages and from the oldest and thus the most reliable of documents would in no way conform to such speculation. 

Rudimentary Investigation

Additionally, the critic of the Gospel accounts and of the story of Jesus makes several errors.  They fail to even do rudimentary investigation into the validity of the Gospel Text.  Consider a few.

Historic Accuracy:  The historical references in the Gospel text lines up with Roman and Jewish History.

Archeology:  Over and over again archaeological discovery validate places of which the Bible speaks.  As more and earlier archaeological evidence is unearthed, there is nothing comes to light to disprove the Gospel accounts but only to validate.

Integrity:  There is an internal integrity between the four Gospel accounts even though they were writing over a period of sixty years by four different writers with different purposes.

Verifiable:  At the writing of all of the Gospels, there were people living who had personally witnessed the events described or who were one generation removed from eye witnesses.

Dating:  The existing copies of the Gospel text are great in number (24,000) and dated close to the original writings.

Consistency:  The various manuscripts enjoy a certain integrity and consistency with the other manuscripts.

Prophetic consistency:  The gospel accounts are consistent with the writings of prophets dated hundreds of years earlier. 

It is therefore quite possible to conclude that as with the Jesus Seminar, the genuine “scholarship” of the below referenced source is non-existent and with such as the case much may be read into the text! 

As an aside, honest scholarship will yield that the manuscripts for the Bible are a great deal more reliable than the manuscripts of such men as Aristotle, Plato, and the story of Homer etc.  In fact, the sheer number of manuscripts and the dating which puts quite a number in the first century plus the consistency and accuracy across the various manuscripts speak to there veracity.

Why then does the secularist disregard the Scriptures and embrace these other writings?  The answer is found in the word “inconvenience.”  The Bible even in its most rudimentary teaching is inconvenient!

Background

To see the list of subjects to be discussed in this series see my blog (Christianity – Is it a Faith Driven by Fear? http://alviesthots.blogspot.com/2012/11/christianity-is-it-faith-driven-by-fear.html).  Contained within that blog is a reference, 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity and in that reference is a list which is the springboard from which this subject has been discussed.

"Does the God Gene Prove God?"

As If God Needed Someone to Prove His Existence!

There are I suppose two positions one might take when it comes to genuine science.  One can join the weight of history and view science as that which reveals and explains Scripture and faith.  There of course is another option.  It is that one can join the relatively recent (post enlightenment) group and seek to discredit Scripture and faith by using Science.

The discredit crowd will choose their particular issue and claim that the Bible in general and Jesus in particular could have said something about it.  Of course, such would turn the Bible into a science book rather than what it is, the revelation of just who Jesus is and what He has done for mankind.

Then too, it really would prove nothing for the skeptical would find some other lack and make the same claim that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are invalid because they do not treat ____________ (you fill in the blank)l

That being said the Bible does contain a great deal of indirect reference to matters of nature.  For example Jesus talked about the coming day of the Lord in terms of various activities in the Jewish household.  Since the coming day of the Lord is a point in time event and since being in bed, grinding, and being in the field would point to that which we call time zones or different parts of the day occurring at the same time.

Another is found in the Book of Ecclesiastes where Solomon writes of wind currents and the water cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7).

Then too consider that much early science was accomplished by people of faith.  Now there were differences in doctrine but the following men were committed Christians.

Copernicus, the first astronomer of the scientific revolution

Galileo discovered the laws of dynamics and is known for his achievements in astronomy. 

Kepler, the German astronomer, a contemporary of Galileo

 Newton on the Scriptures

Newton's mathematics influences optics, mechanics, and celestial dynamics*

These are but a few of the men who are joined by women who made a difference not because they devalued Scripture by their science but because they valued both Science and Scripture.  In fact, if you read the article cited below you will find that Newton wrote over a million words in his discussions of Scripture.  

Well, then what happened?  Why the change?

 

"Shifts in Thinking"

Perhaps the greatest influence was as the result of the Great Enlightenment and the coming of rationalism.  The point of agreement between Judeo-Christian (European thinking) and Rationalism is that there at least is genuine reality.  They did not agree on what constituted truth but they at least could agree that there was such a thing as truth.  Such difference was largely based upon the difference between revelation and rationalism (Modernism).

Again, there were different beginning points the outcomes were many times divergent but at leas there was an agreement that there was some kind of genuine reality.  However, a third movement would enter the picture--a movement that begin with yet another starting point.  The movement is Post-Modernism and further distanced itself from Scripture and matters of faith. 

Beginning some 150 years ago, the shift became more pronounced with a further move away from the Divine and toward secularism.  Secular Science came to the fore with the result that it was not even willing to exist along the side of Faith and Scripture.  In many cases it sought to discredit the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. 

Hitchens

 

"Extensions of Science"

As many will know, if you follow mathematics, physics, etc. out far enough they begin to merge into a philosophy as opposed to what we think of as algebra or geometry.  When that happens others enter the discussion, philosophers.  So it is that the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens not only enter the discussion but as their thinking gains traction, they begin to influence what happens back up the process and in the arena of research.

Now the outcome of research is that it is not so much science but philosophy and so instead of provable science you now have speculative or theoretical science with it emphasis on probabilities etc.  Of course the more speculative and probability you add to the discussion the more one's biases and presuppositions can enter into the discussion and such is not without influence in the outcomes.  Empiricism is now lost.

 

"The God Gene"

Now add the "God gene" into the discussion.  Of course such spawns a plethora of discussions and debates.  What secular science cannot answer is the reason it is there for it serves no evolutionary purpose.

For those who accept the notions of there being a Divine designer and Creator, the idea of a God gene is not problematic.  Such being a genetic reality (if it is true) is consistent with something that Christians have been saying for years.  God created man with a need for the Divine.  The Bible tells it this way, "...that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them." (Romans 1:19).  Once again, the Bible is not a science book but peaking through its pages is science.

On the other side of the discussion the secular evolutionist would say that such is simply a mutation, a quirk of the evolutionary process.  Further they would argue that this is a genetic dead end and that one day it too will mutate away and man will become completely free of the need for religion.

 

"Secular Spirituality"

Of course, this presents another problem.  What is one to do to meet the need fostered by the God gene when it is activated?  The answer is a fairly recent division of spirituality and religion.  That is to say that one can have a spiritual dimension in life without the inconvenience of Scripture, doctrine, creed, and denomination, etc.   

At a recent lecture on the subject, it was presented that things that speak to the deepest parts of man, speak to this spiritual dimension.  Such things as poetry, music, other of the arts, and a whole host of physical experiences will plunge the individual to a revelation, a consciousness of this arena of the individual.  Even Richard Dawkins give some credence to the notion of spirituality calling it "sexed up atheism." 

+ + + + + +

In closing, it seems to me that this notion of there being a spiritual dimension to man even though conflicted still in all takes us back to the beginning point of this post.  It seems to me that it takes us back to the Judeo-Christian notion of revealed reality.  However, since God is not involved this time it is getting in contact with the inner self.

That being said, would it not be easier just to give in to the God that is, rather than seeking the god that is within.  Remember the God that is, is infinite while the god within is finite and temporary.finite and as fragile as our mental capacity to understand and choose our way.


An interesting treatment of the "God gene" may be found at http://www.bethelcollege.edu/users/berkebj/Marian/God%20in%20Our%20Genes%20TEXT%20ONLY.pdf 

___________
* see article at http://www.christianity.co.nz/science4.htm