Why is it that as a Christian I am suspicious of anybody who forms their entire worldview - scientific, political and eschatological - on the basis of Genesis, Daniel and Revelation?
While understanding I would look like a goose for answering a rhetorical question. I went on boldly anyway.
It's because you're a cynic. And rightly so.
However, as I said to Nathan, I've often put down my Southern American brothers as simpletons. As ill-informed as it is to read the Bible so literally, it is also admirable. Their mistake is the failure to read the Bible as the Bible indicates it should be read. Yet more and more I am softening in my stance towards them because they are coming from a right mindset of approaching the Bible. They see the Scriptures as the inerrant word of God and we would all be much better off if we held God's word in such high regard. I would rather literals than liberals.
James Warren said something on this a few months back.
In Sydney, if we don't believe in literal seven-day creation and aren't willing to go to the stake for our view of Revelation, we're Bible-believing evangelicals. In the US we'd be called liberals.
DISCLAIMER: I am not claiming that all Sydney evangelicals hold a unified view on Revelation or literal seven days creation (or more accurately six days creation). I am also not necessarily putting my own view forward on these matters.
ReplyDeleteI'm actually surprised that nobody took me to task for essentially nailing my colours to the mast on all of those books - ie counter fundamentalist orthodoxy...
ReplyDeletePlease check out these references which criticise ALL of the self-consoling definitions of what is usually called religion -- especially by dim-witted literals
ReplyDeletehttp://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-religion.aspx
http://www.dabase.org/noface.htm
http://www.dabase.org/proofch6.hm
http://www.dabase.org/dht7.htm
@ Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteI have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.