Would it be fair to say, then, that you got tired of asking “why” without receiving satisfactory answers?

Not really. While I also have incomplete answers, I have found materialism allows me something I can piece together better than a theology can. Yours and the blogs I frequent illuminate that I haven’t performed some of the possible hermeneutics, which is why I frequent those blogs. I’m curious about the discussion and want to be well-informed and rounded with my stance.

Tom´s last blog post..Hulk theology

I have come to the conclusion that what is adequate need not always be wholly satisfactory, that what is unsatisfactory is not necessarily dispensable, and that incompleteness should not automatically be reckoned false.

Good quote. I like that. May steal it

BTW adding your blog to my feed.

Originally Posted By Tom
But non-fundamentalists still revere it as a substantial document — something to wage wars over, swear an oath over, etc. And as Pete says, God doesn’t speak to us in dreams, through animals, and other ways. This document is really it.

To a large extent, this is true, but “this document” is still sufficient if all it gives is spiritual truth.

Given that this document is it, I’m not saying that it has to be infallible and clear. I’m asking why it is not. What was God’s masterful purpose in making a document that was open to an infinite number of interpretations?

I wouldn’t say that God “made” the Bible at all – only that, much like creation itself, He ordained that it would be here for us. It’s really not all that confusing, is it? We need a savior because we fall short of God’s glory; Jesus is that savior; we confess him as Lord and live by his principles and teachings. Maybe it’s really that simple. It wouldn’t matter how clear it was, people would find a way to obfuscate it.

Is it just so things are more interesting — much like if we knew the end of LOST, we would not sit it out?
Interesting speculation, and it may not be far from the truth. But like LOST, we can’t even guess what’s going on because we’re not the writers. It’s this mystery that, given the premise of a supreme and transcendent deity, I’m willing to accept.

Don’t presume to know my path to apostasy.

I apologize; I thought it was a reasonable speculation due to the recurrence of this question from you in all the blogs I’ve seen you frequent.

The acceptance of a supernatural requires many hoops that simply can’t add up — Justice, the problem of evil, the bodiless spirit, etc.

Would it be fair to say, then, that you got tired of asking “why” without receiving satisfactory answers? In my case, I have come to the conclusion that what is adequate need not always be wholly satisfactory, that what is unsatisfactory is not necessarily dispensable, and that incompleteness should not automatically be reckoned false.

As always, I appreciate your thoughts, Tom, in case I haven’t told you before.

You’re still claiming more for the Bible than it does for itself.

I’m not really claiming anything. I’m just asking. But non-fundamentalists still revere it as a substantial document — something to wage wars over, swear an oath over, etc. And as Pete says, God doesn’t speak to us in dreams, through animals, and other ways. This document is really it.

You think God is logically required to provide an infallible, completely clear guide to all Truth; I do not. You apparently require God to keep people from having misconceptions; I do not.

Given that this document is it, I’m not saying that it has to be infallible and clear. I’m asking why it is not. What was God’s masterful purpose in making a document that was open to an infinite number of interpretations? Is it just so things are more interesting — much like if we knew the end of LOST, we would not sit it out?

I suppose you mean you think we should ask that question because you did and couldn’t find an answer to it, from which you concluded that the whole shebang was phony.

Don’t presume to know my path to apostasy. Several factors weighed in on that decision that are not so simplistic and binary. That being said, yes, I did ask the question of errancy in the Bible. This pointed me to historical accounts as well. Obviously, I saw a book of errors, which I already knew existed when I had faith. If you imagine a universe without God, you can make other interpretations of the Bible — what was meant by these men writing it, what they thought about their God, how it was used in the culture. When I began reading the Bible with an atheist hat on, I found it made much more sense, and probably like you (if I shall make my own presumption), I read it as people’s culture at the time and interpretations of their God.

After years of struggling, and in a nutshell, I could not make an image of God from even scraps of my own picking and choosing from God-images in the Bible that I could believe in. I can’t make an image of any God, Biblically or not. What it boils down to for me is the choice to not live in a world containing supernatural powers.

The acceptance of a supernatural requires many hoops that simply can’t add up — Justice, the problem of evil, the bodiless spirit, etc. This is the reason the Bible contains errors, has holes, and is unclear. It’s a square peg and round hole. It’s why theologians will always argue.

Originally Posted By Pete
And could someone please tell me what your supposed to tell your children, age 7 and 5?

Wonderful question, Pete. I’m in the same boat with an inquisitive 6-year-old. My wife and I teach the children the stories in the Bible as we do the stories from any other book; the stories have innate value as stories and as ancient literature, and the embedded/underlying doctrine will be distilled at much older ages. The important thing with our kids is to get Jesus right: if I thought the Gospels were too unreliable to teach as (broadly) historical, I probably wouldn’t be a believer at all, but as it is I don’t see any reason to throw out the teachings of Jesus or the events of his life as described in the Gospels. At the same time, I don’t expect 100% accuracy from anything or anybody in the world, and I still trust people, news media, and my own fallible senses and reason enough to function quite contently – so why should it be different with this?

We’ve got to be careful not to overreact, as well: just because the Patriarchal stories are largely saga and not historiographical doesn’t mean that none of the characters or stories have a basis in reality, and much less does it mean that they have absolutely no value for teaching as stories about men who were faithful to God and His ways. Are all the stories about David or the prophets true in fine detail? Likely not, but why should anyone then presume them all to be unhistorical characters? Historians don’t believe that any historical accounts (even much more modern ones) are 100% accurate, but they don’t throw them out, either. As adults, we’ve got to avoid the childish “all or nothing” approach. Kids see things as all or nothing, and so at the earliest stages, I’m not sure how we can do other than err on the “all” side until they get older.

It’s not easy, and I do feel for your confusion and insecurity.