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

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.

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.