I’ll ignore the majority of your post that is repetitive and combative, and focus on a few points where you reveal your position with new clarity:
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. You give “mainstream medical science” veto power over the the teaching of the Bible. Your principle is that if the most natural and historically normal way of reading of the Bible is incompatible with what the majority of modern scientists think they know, then either (a) the Bible must be regarded as teaching something that is false about reality; or (b) the Bible must be re-interpreted in a less natural way in order to yield an interpretation which the majority of modern scientists will allow.
No wonder you liked BioLogos so much. Like BioLogos, you give scientists veto power over interpretation of the Bible, but you give the Bible no corresponding veto power over the conclusions of science. You were a perfect fit with them. So how come you’re not posting there any longer?
I guess that in your version of Christian faith the most natural reading of the text of the Gospels doesn’t count as a “theological argument.”
How could I not be? But of course, Bultmann’s position is roundly denounced by virtually all orthodox Christians of every denomination. It’s mainly popular in very liberal Christian circles. You can hear Bultmannesque ideas about “demythologizing” in sermons preached in, say, the United Church of Christ or the various liberal branches of Anglicanism; and of course his ideas are very popular in secular Religious Studies departments among those professors of Biblical Studies and Christian Thought who want to retain some vague connection with Christianity and the Bible even though they have dumped many core doctrines.
You mean, “even some scholars.” Without the word “some” your words sound like a generalization which your single example can’t sustain.
You’re imputing thoughts to him; and “simply can’t be defended anymore” is your opinion.
I find it telling that you find the stories about demon possession in the New Testament incredible, but don’t also find the stories about feeding thousands with less than the equivalent of seven Happy Meals incredible, or the story of the Plagues and the Red Sea incredible, or the story about walking on water incredible, or the stories of instant and total healings of leprosy incredible, or the story of the Resurrection incredible. Or are you consistent in this regard? Do you perhaps also have alternate interpretations for all those narrative, interpretations driven by what you think “the consensus of modern science” permits?
No, any views I express on the meaning of the Biblical text are based on literary exegesis, not my personal theology. I take into account the Greek (or Hebrew) grammar and style, the literary structure, etc. What I don’t do is phone up profs from the nearby biology or physics departments and ask them what interpretations of the text are allowed and what ones are forbidden. Ironically, you accuse me of bringing something outside and foreign to the text (my personal theology), when it is you who is bringing something outside and foreign to the text (the judgments of a supposed consensus of scientists about how God could possibly have acted in the past).
I couldn’t care less how a phrase is used by fundamentalists. I’m not a fundamentalist. I’m not going to discontinue the use of a perfectly good English phrase merely because some fundamentalists misuse it.
Like God, and creation out of nothing, and miracles, and the election of Israel, and the Red Sea, and the giving of the Law, and the prophecies, and the miracles of Jesus, and the Resurrection, and the Trinity, etc. Which of those are “stupid” ideas, in your view?
Are you arguing that the misuse of a doctrine during some periods of Christian history means that the doctrine is not true?
You’re misunderstanding the thrust of my argument. I’m actually quite comfortable with disagreeing with either the majority of Christians, or with the great Christian theologians. But I find it quite telling that you think the majority view on global warming or evolution should be sacrosanct, to the point where any dissenters should be browbeaten into submission, whereas you think majority views of competent Christian theologians should be treated as of no force, and thumb your nose at them if they don’t match your personal sectarian theological views. Your demand that I kowtow to the majority of experts seems to rest on a pretty shaky foundation, given your own behavior in theological matters.
No, I said that it was not certain.
I never used the term “alarmist” to refer to the view that the earth has warmed one or two degrees in the past 150 years; nor did I ever use the term “alarmist” to refer to the view that human activity, including human generation of CO2, has contributed, even significantly contributed, to the warming. I have used the term “alarmist” only in relationship to the use of “apocalyptic” scenarios, sketched with great rhetorical fervor, in an effort to get governments to adopt massively interventionist and sometimes ill-advised economic and political policies.
But let’s come back to your theological views. You wrote this:
I see, so the Christians who have believed that Jesus was God were “totally wrong” and “didn’t know what they were talking about.”
I’d like to hear from Joshua, Daniel Ang, Glipsnort, Chris Falter, Jon Garvey, Daniel Deen, and the many other Christians who post here. Do they agree with your conclusions about Jesus? Do they agree with your conclusions about any of the other matters you list?
@AllenWitmerMiller
@swamidass
@Jordan
@dga471
@Philosurfer
@jongarvey
@Chris_Falter
@glipsnort