John Dominic Crossan On Bible Literalism

I thought I had posted this video before, but I couldn't find it---so thanks to Shuck and Jive: Crossan on Fundamentalism: "Rev's Rumbles" and The Rev's Rumbles: The Dangers of Fundamentalism -- John Dominic Crossan---I am finally posting it.

See also: Living the Questions, Peter Rollins: On the difference between literalism and fundamentalism and The Dangers of Fundamentalism -- John Dominic Crossan.

Genesis And Theistic Evolution: Part 2

Continuing from the previous post: TheoPoetic Musings: Genesis And Theistic Evolution: Part 1---the second issue to look at is the contradictory creation accounts in Genesis. The first account is:

First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)
Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Genesis 1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

In technical terms, the first account is considered to be the general universal creation account, whereas the second account is considered to be a local account. Here is the second account:

Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)

Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Genesis 2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Notice all the differences in both accounts. Here is a good summary of questions for bible literalists:

WHICH CREATION STORY?
Rev. James W. Watkins
Creationists call us to believe the Biblical creation story as a literal account of historical events. However, Genesis contains two distinctly different creation accounts. Which creation story are they calling us to "literally" believe? For generations, serious students of Scripture have noted stark divisions and variations in the age of the Hebrew, its style and language within Genesis. As we have it now, Genesis is actually a composite of three written primary sources, each with its own character, favorite words and distinctly different names for God. Such differences all but evaporate when translated into English, but they are clear in the ancient Hebrew text.

The first creation account, Genesis. 1:1 to Genesis. 2:4a, was written during or after the Jews' Babylonian captivity. This fully developed story explains creation in terms of the ancient near eastern world view of its time. A watery chaos is divided by the dome (firmament) of the sky. The waters under the dome are gathered and land appears. Lights are affixed in the dome. All living things are created. The story pictures God building the cosmos as a supporting ecosystem for humanity. Finally, humanity, both male and female, is created, and God rests.

The second Creation story, Genesis 2:4b to 2:25, found its written form several centuries before the Genesis. 1:1 story. This text is a less developed and much older story. It was probably passed down for generations around the camp fires of desert dwellers before being written. It begins by describing a desert landscape, no plants or herbs, no rain; only a mist arises out of the earth. Then the Lord God forms man of the dust of the ground, creates an oasis-like Garden of Eden to support the "man whom he had formed." In this story, God creates animal life while trying to provide the man "a helper fit for him." None being found, God takes a rib from the man's side and creates the first woman. These two creation stories clearly arise out of different histories and reflect different concerns with different sequences of events. Can they either or both be literal history? Obviously not.

(Read more: Here).

As a Moderate Progressive theologian who'd be labeled a theological liberal by inerrantists because I do not believe in the absurdity of biblical inerrancy, I'm a firm believer in progressive revelation of which the above is consistent with. Tying this post back to the Phillip Johnson book, here are a few more thoughts:

....
Yet according to fundamentalists like Phillip E. Johnson in his book Reason in the Balance, the case against Naturalism in science, law, and education, and other Christian fundamentalists, the child roasters and cat killers were correct after all and science has everything all wrong. Everything we know of modern science is wrong, as he hints at some evil atheist conspiracy to lock out God in the science community. His proof is simply the fact everything that happens isn't contributed to some supernatural theme as opposed to it just happened.

As fundamentalist religion and New Age mysticism consume millions, our nation is falling into a bottomless pit of mediocrity and irrational thought that dominated the Europe for over 1000 years. The fact is that many people just don't have the knowledge to understand what separates issues of faith and humanity from the natural world. What is worse, they don't want to know because they have withdrawn from reality.
...
Debunking Myth

Most people would be shocked to know that the ancient Greeks invented concepts of reason, modern science, modern history, and democracy 2500 years ago. They knew the world wasn't flat and even touched on evolution knowing the world wasn't 6000 years old. Even the church fathers such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas figured out the earth was not only very old, but life also sprang from a common source.

Even more shocking to many people in America today is the gifts the Arabs would transmit to the modern world. They would not only preserve the great discoveries of the Greeks, but would greatly expand them. They would invent algebra (an Arabic word), and transmitted from India the base 10 number system (the concept of zero did away with the cumbersome Roman system), and expand science and math far beyond even Greece. Greek philosophy, destroyed or lost by the Catholic Church, would be brought back to light by contacts with Arabs in Spain. Arab writers in the 10th century even knew that mountains were formed by rain, wind, and land upheavals over a long period of time and figured out what Christian Europe rejected until the age of Charles Darwin.

The Christian churches knew of all of this, but rejected them for political reasons and mindless dogma.
...
So what is the problem with Johnson and other fundamentalists? To quote Johnson himself, "Rational beliefs are those that are consonant with reality." (P, 10) Because science doesn't attribute everything to supernatural micro-management of God and leaves some elements to chance, he feels it undermines the Bible. Sorry, science works on reason and verifiable proof, not revelation. The other fact is science/reason actually produces results, something the claims of magic have always failed to do. Science at the same time doesn't address the matter of God at all. It comes down to a literal Genesis and the Adam/Eve story and original sin, which Jesus never mentioned, but was created by the Apostle Paul.

How revealed religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam derive truth is by divine revelation. That is direct communication either directly from God via voices visions, etc. or by angels and other divine massager. All we have is the word of the founder, because Christians (as an example) claim angels can't be seen. This revealed "truth" can't be disputed and all other ideas must be derived from it. So anything "observed" must be seen in the light of revelation. To quote Tertullian of Carthage: (150-225) "Divine revelation, not reason, is the source of all truth."

Phillip Johnson is a law professor and lawyer and knows little about the workings of science. Science is based on naturalism and thus deals only with what can be observed. Johnson considers naturalism a religion. (He uses other terms such as modernism and liberal rationalism, etc.) As a lawyer he plays a deceptive game of words mixing liberalism, rationalism, etc. then claims they have no relation to nature. (Which he says is God) What he really object to is a marginal treatment of Christianity; "the establishment of a particular religious philosophy does not imply competing philosophies are outlawed, but rather they are relegated to a marginal position in private life"

On a California textbook policy change, "this policy encouraged textbook publishers and teachers to give much greater emphasis to accepted scientific doctrines and to relegate any consideration of nonscientific subjects such as divine creation, ultimate purpose, and the ultimate cause of the physical universe to literature and social studies classes." (P. 40-43)

Science does not deal in questions of God or ultimate purpose to begin with. Even he admits these are nonscientific subjects, thus they don't have any place in the science classroom. The facts are only 5% of the population is atheist, 95% believe in God. Over half believe in evolution as fact, but over 80% of those believe in theistic evolution or evolution as the work of God. What they don't buy is his particular Protestant Evangelical religion. To Johnson and other fundamentalists, he is in a cosmic battle of good and evil. There is no in between and he means literal six-day Creationism and a historical Adam.
...
What is more important is Darwin never invented any "Theory of Evolution." He promoted the hypothesis (oh, that word again!) that species evolved by random mutation and random chance. Modern science provided the proof he was basically right and thus it accepted by many as fact today. The "fit" would survive by some natural advantage and the least fit wouldn't. Does that mean if the bubonic plaque wiped out the human race that the decease was more intelligent (fit) than man? Of coarse not, that is an element of chance.

Today most scientists know evolution works within known parameters but there is also an element of chance as well. Darwin did not use fossils or radioisotope dating (radioactivity would be discovered in the 1890's after his death) nor did Darwin ever apply natural selection to civilized human beings. To quote Darwin himself: "Under civilized conditions the social and cooperative virtues were useful characteristics assisting in survival, so that we may expect that virtuous habits will grow stronger, perhaps becoming fixed by inheritance."

And evolution doesn't deal any deathblow to Christianity because most reasonable Christians (excludes fundamentalists) see the Old Testament as symbolic and reject Mosaic Law as done away with Jesus. I know several very strong church-going Christians who have no problem with evolution. Many fundamentalists today follow a cult known as Christian Reconstructionism that does away with Jesus (they refer to Jesus/Jews and their God as Satan) and prefer the Old Testament as the Law and themselves as the new chosen people. Followers of Jesus who actually believe in Him have no problem with evolution.

What really upsets many people is uncertainty, that the universe isn't really an orderly, predictable thing. Yes it is orderly within certain points; such as gravity will make a bowling ball dropped on one's foot painful. One could simply never bowl again or go near a bowling alley and be fairly assured that a bowling ball won't fall on their foot. If a meteor the size of a bowling ball hits you in the head, you are dead; there was no way to prevent it. That is random chance.

Life in reality is both, 50% random chance beyond our control, and 50% what we make it. Genetics plays the biggest part of all in cancer, so those who eat only brown, organically grown rice may die of cancer as easily as anyone may. One knows that not smoking tobacco lessons the chance one may get lung cancer, but sometimes we still can. Our choices in life only change the odds, but in the end we all die, nobody knows for sure beyond that.

I don't believe in modernism which says everything is relative and there is no right or wrong. Humans have intelligence and are not animals vulnerable completely to the whims of nature. To quote Einstein himself, "I shall never believe God plays dice with the world." We can make choices if we can separate what is certainly and stop wasting our time chasing phantoms. God gave us the ability to make choices for good or evil.

Life is uncertain as social, technical, and economic changes are a fact in today's world. Many people refuse to, or just can't handle the world around them, so they turn inward. In America this is made worse by an appalling education system that leaves millions in confusion unable to separate science from science fiction and religious faith from blind superstition and mysticism. All of this confusion limits many choices one could make.

Mr. Johnson's entire 245-page book never mentioned anything Jesus ever said, just his own frustration with the world. He wants his version of a spiritual world to be physical reality. Jesus clearly separates the spiritual from the physical world and is right on this matter as are many church fathers. I don't think these people believe what they preach, because if they did they wouldn't care what others think, and would be happy with life. The happy Christians, the ones who actually follow Jesus, who live as He says to live, aren't screaming at the world from the pulpit. I salute them.

The problem with fundamentalists like Mr. Johnson is we live in a technical and diverse world and they just can't handle it. Nobody tells any Christian in this country how to pray, when and where to go church, or what to believe. Nobody! They preach politics, power, and money, not God. If they want to remain ignorant and uneducated, that is their choice. If they refuse to read the Bible and substitute their own self-revelations and political nonsense over the words of even conservative Christian scholars, they are free to do so. If Mr. Johnson wants to write a book claiming some unfounded garbage that the science community is conspiring to destroy Jesus, he is free to do so. (I bought his book, which I'm certainly free to do.)

If these fundamentalists want to attack even their fellow Christians because they don't see the same flat, 6000-year-old earth they see, that's fine. If they choose to be beyond reason and live in some fantasy world, it is their choice.

But they can't force the rest of us to follow them or meddle in the personal lives of other people. I've been in the scientific and technical fields for over 25 years and the fundamentalists leave us only two choices: believe in their flat-earth world or atheism. They drive millions out of the Christian community and often into irrational New Age religion. There is a third choice.

Get an education and read the Bible for yourself. I'm glad I did or I'd be an atheist! Stops adding in things that are not there! The recent Y2K fiasco was the work of fundamentalists Christians (along with New Age technophobes) who thought they knew more than the Bible did. These people are preaching politics, not Jesus. The Bible is not a science book or was not meant as a history book.

The earth is not 6000 years old, evolution is accepted scientific fact, and the Bible isn't threatened by it at all if properly studied and considered. Most of all allow an element of reason into these discussions and stop hunting for Satan under every rock. Finally, if being a Christian produces only anger and resentment of others, go find a new church. There are plenty of good Christian churches around that don't act like cults or endlessly attack everything they don't understand or refuse to deal with. It is up to you!

(Read more: Here).

Levitical Arguments

Oh yes I love it when people use Leviticus in their anti-homosexuality arguments---someone did just that in the Sunday School class I visited today, but I guess they've never read this letter:

it first appeared as a response to something that Dr. Laura Schlessinger said about homosexuality on her radio show a few years back. So, if you’ve seen this before (which you probably have) then I apologize for being off the pace. But if you haven’t, then enjoy. It’s pretty funny. And oh, so true about so many of us, other than Dr. Laura. But remember people, it’s satire.

[Dr. Laura Schlessinger was a radio personality who once said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident]

Dear Doctor:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own a Canadian?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should ask the police to do it?


A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Thank you,
Jim

The Absurdity Of Biblical Inerrancy

Tony Cartledge has an interesting article on inerrancy on his Blog.

An anonymous poster raised these valid questions---

Anonymous said...
Well, at the risk of starting the fight all over again, here are the questions I asked then and have never heard an "inerrantist" answer yet:

1. How do you KNOW "the Bible" is without error?

Which "Bible" are you talking about? Which translation? Which set of manuscripts?

A. No one alive has ever examined a single one of the original manuscripts.

B. And if you did have one of the original manuscripts, just exactly to what would you compare it to establish that it contains no error?

What is the available standard by which accuracy would be judged?

It seems to me that if "the Bible" was inspired by the Holy Spirit, you'd have to take that original manuscript to the Holy Spirit and ask Him, "Would you please check this to see if the writer got it right?"

The whole question of "inerrancy" is specious. It is a question that is impossible to answer. And if a question is impossible to answer, then it is not a reasonable question in the first place.

That's about like asking, "Can God create a boulder so big that He can't move it?"

As a statement of faith, I can accept someone's declaring that he BELIEVES the Bible to be inerrant.

But when it comes to someone's "proving" that the Bible is inerrant, he has absolutely no available tool with which to perform the analysis and evaluation.

Therefore, for one to demand that SOMEONE ELSE subscribe to HIS BELIEF about the inerrancy of the Bible, especially in order to qualify for or be retained in a position of employment, that is absolute arrogance and presumptuousness. And it's done as a demonstration of power in order to control.

How does one person DARE to demand that another person subscribe to a postulate that the first person cannot PROVE?

What EVIDENCE has ever been produced that the Bible is without error?

Just as a personal observation, one of my Bibles has a misspelled name in it--twice. At least it is misspelled in comparison to the other Bibles of the same translation I've examined. But I must admit, I haven't checked it against the original manuscripts.

Still, I'm fairly confident that this is ONE BIBLE that is not without error!

And if this one is not, how do you propose to be certain that all of the others are not?

IMHO.

Brother Deaux

---------------------------------------
Additionally I'd like to ask inerrantists:

Where is the support for Mosaic authorship of the Torah in the Torah itself?

If then the theory of Mosaic authorship doesn't come from the canon itself but Apocryphal sources, does that mean that those sources are inerrant, too? Why or why not?

If Apocryphal sources then are errant but contain truth in them---why not the canon itself?
Additional questions: How can mere humans decide what God's truth looks like?

Is God's truth something that we can vote on?

Fundie Nuts Vs. Harry Emerson Fosdick

Steven J. said on Ray Comfort's Blog ...

(Shiver)Curtis quoted John MacArthur saying:

"The result is that over the past couple of decades, large numbers of evangelicals have shown a surprising willingness to take a completely non-evangelical approach to interpreting the early chapters of Genesis. More and more are embracing the view known as “old-earth creationism,” which blends some of the principles of biblical creationism with naturalistic and evolutionary theories, seeking to reconcile two opposing world-views. And in order to accomplish this, old-earth creationists end up explaining away rather than honestly exegeting the biblical creation account."-------Fundie Nut

Valid Response: Please note that an old Earth is not part of evolutionary theory: that the Earth was much older than 10,000 years was realized before evolutionary theory was proposed, and was not inspired by the need of evolution for large amounts of time to work with. Old-earth creationists are, after all, creationists.

The biblical creation account mentions the canopy of the sky, with "windows" in it (these are opened to let in the rain for Noah's Flood). This view of the sky as a solid artifact is repeated throughout the Old Testament, from further references to the "windows of heaven" in Malachi to Isaiah's reference to the sky being set up like a tent over the (presumably flat disk of the) Earth. John MacArthur, to be more consistent, should complain about all those ministers who explain away, rather than honestly exegete, the biblical passages that teach a geocentric, flat-earth cosmology. Or, conversely, he could take the approach of "Verandoug" and recognize that he has allowed his interpretation of the Bible to be shaped by scientific discoveries, and be less disdainful of those who carry this process further than he does, to acknowledge that the Earth is, in fact, immensely older than the human species (which is itself older than 10,000 or so years). I suppose it is too much to ask him to go so far as to allow his interpretation of Genesis 1 to be shaped by the evidence in favor of common ancestry of humans and other species, but he could make a start down the road to self-consistency and respect for evidence.

June 27, 2008 12:28 AM

---------------------------------------------------

Harry Emerson Fosdick long ago said:

The Real Situation

When, therefore, Mr. Bryan says, "Neither Darwin nor his supporters have been able to find a fact in the universe to support their hypothesis," it would be difficult to imagine a statement more obviously and demonstrably mistaken. The real situation is that every fact on which investigation has been able to lay its hands helps to confirm the hypothesis of evolution. There is no known fact which stands out against it. Each newly discovered fact fits into an appropriate place in it. So far as the general outlines of it are concerned, the Copernican astronomy itself is hardly established more solidly.

My reply, however, is particularly concerned with the theological aspects of Mr. Bryan's statement. There seems to be no doubt about what his position is. He proposes to take his science from the Bible. He proposes certainly, to take no science that is contradicted by the Bible. He says, "Is it not strange that a Christian will accept Darwinism as a substitute for the Bible when the Bible not only does not support Darwin's hypothesis, but directly and expressly contradicts it?" What other interpretation of such a statement is possible except this: that the Bible is for Mr. Bryan an authoritative textbook in biology--and if in biology, why not in astronomy, cosmogony, chemistry, or any other science, art, concern of man whatever? One who is acquainted with the history of theological thought gasps as he reads this. At the close of the sixteenth century a Protestant theologian set down the importance of the book of Genesis as he understood it. He said that the text of Genesis "must be received strictly"; that "it contains all knowledge, human and divine"; that "twenty-eight articles of the Augsburg Confession are to be found in it"; that "it is an arsenal of arguments against all sects and sorts of atheists, pagans, Jews, Turks, Tartars, Papists, Calvinists, Socinians, and Baptists"; that it is "the source of all science and arts, including law, medicine, philosophy, and rhetoric," "the source and essence of all histories and of all professions, trades, and works," "an exhibition of all virtues and vices," and "the origin of all consolation."

Luther and Bryan

One has supposed that the days when such wild anachronisms could pass muster as good theology were past, but Mr. Bryan is regalvanizing into life that same outmoded idea of what the Bible is, and proposes in the twentieth century that we shall use Genesis, which reflects the prescientific view of the Hebrew people centuries before Christ, as an authoritative textbook in science, beyond whose conclusions we dare not go.

Why, then, should Mr. Bryan complain because his attitude toward evolution is compared repeatedly, as he says it is, with the attitude of the theological opponents of Copernicus and Galileo? On his own statement, the parallelism is complete. Martin Luther attacked Copernicus with the same appeal which Mr. Bryan uses. He appealed to the Bible. He said: "People gave ear to an upstart astrology who strove to show that the earth revolves , not the heavens or the firmament, and the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, whic of all systems is, of course, the very best, This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy,but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

Nor was Martin Luther wrong if the Bible is indeed an authoritative textbook in science. The denial of the Copernican astronomy with its moving earth can unquestionable be found in the Bible if one starts out to use the Bible that way--"The world also is established, that in cannot be moved" (Psalm 91:I); "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be moved forever" (Psalm 104:5). Moreover, in those bygone days, the people who were then using Mr. Bryan's method of argument did quote these passages as proof, and Father Inchofer felt so confident that he cried, "The opinion of the earth's motion is of all heresies the most abominable, the most pernicious, the most scandalous; the immovability of the earth is thrice sacred; argument against the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and the incarnation should be tolerated sooner that the argument to prove that the earth moves."

The Hebrew Universe

Indeed, as everybody knows who has seriously studied the Bible, that book represents in its cosmology and cosmogony the view of the physical universe which everywhere obtained in the ancient Semitic world. The earth was flat and was founded on an underlying sea (Psalm 136:6; Psalm 24:1-2; Genesis 7:11); it was stationary; the heavens, like an upturned bowl, "strong as a molten mirror" (Job 37:18; Genesis I:6-8;Isaiah 40:22; Psalm 104:2), rested on the earth beneath (Amos 9:6); Job 26:11); the sun, moon, stars moved within this firmament of special purpose to illumine man (Genesis 1:14-19); there was a sea above the sky, "the waters which were above the firmament." (Genesis 1:7; Psalm 148:4) and through "the windows of heaven" the rain came down (Genesis 7:11; Psalm 78:23); beneath the earth was mysterious Sheol where dwelt the shadowy dead (Isaiah 14:9-11); and all this had been made in six days, each of which had had a morning and an evening, a short and measurable time before (Genesis I).

Are we to understand that this is Mr. Bryan's science, that we must teach this science in our schools, that we are stopped by divine revelation from ever going beyond this science? Yet this is exactly what Mr. Bryan would force us to do if with intellectualconsistency he should carry out the implications of his appeal to the Bible against the scientific hypothesis of evolution in biology.

---Courtesy of: http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/fosdick2.html

A little more on John MacArthur

John MacArthur Responsible For A Suicide
----------------------------------------

MacArthur has been a central figure in several controversies, the most notable of which was the first time an evangelical church had ever been sued for malpractice. Kenneth Nally, a 24-year old seminary student, committed suicide in 1979. The following year, MacArthur and several members of the staff were brought to court to determine the legality of counseling people from the Bible rather than modern psychology, although Nally had been receiving psychological help elsewhere as well. After seven years of court rulings, challenges and appeals, the California Supreme Court found that the "evidence presented by plaintiff [was] insufficient to permit a jury to find in his favor."[2]

----

http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/2007/07/john-macarthur-and-kenneth-nally.html

------Such a fine case of a bible literalist. If it were up to bible literalists, people with mild cerebral palsy such as myself wouldn't be allowed in church or even considered Christian, because the bible is clear, when taken literally: “No man who has any blemish or defect may come near my altar: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or is a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. For he has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. Because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary.” Leviticus 21:18-24 ---see this hate site for further details---which sounds all too much like a Nazi hate program.

----------------------
John MacArthur Says That The American Revolution Was A Sin

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Hst/US/AmRevGodly.htm

---but what do you expect from a nutcase who thinks Christians should've obeyed Hitler, Stalin, Sadaam et. al.

-----------------------------
See also: Spurgeon's Profanity for something different.

HOW TO POOP IN A BIBLICALLY CORRECT WAY

A satire of John MacArthur:


POOP BIBLICALLY: A SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY ON HOW TO POOP IN A BIBLICALLY CORRECT WAY---SO AS TO PLEASE OUR HATEFUL VENGEFUL GOD OF WRATH AND GIVE HIM ALL THE GLORY IN YOUR POOPING
By
John “Funky Smell” MacFarter

1 Kings 14:10 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
10 therefore behold! I will bring disaster on the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam every male in Israel, bond and free; I will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as one takes away refuse until it is all gone. “one burns dung, until it is all gone.” (NIV)
----What does this verse say? It tells us to burn our excrements until they are all gone, but man exercising his humanistic pride thought he was better than God by inventing plumbing and toilets. The secularized carnal minds of New Agers and that old line of theological liberals want to deceive the Elect into thinking the Elect can use the modern conveniences of indoor plumbing and toilets (which are a sin) instead of the God ordained method of getting rid of our excrements as prescribed in His Holy Inerrant and Infallible Word.

Job 20:6-8 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
6 Though his haughtiness mounts up to the heavens,
And his head reaches to the clouds,
7 Yet he will perish forever like his own refuse;
Those who have seen him will say, ‘Where is he?’
8 He will fly away like a dream, and not be found;
Yes, he will be chased away like a vision of the night. “he will perish forever, like his own dung; banished like a vision of the night.” (NIV)
--- What does this verse say? It tells the Elect that God decrees them to defecate at night---that any other time of day is a prideful sin against the Divine Sovereignty of our Hateful, Vengeful, God of Wrath.

Deuteronomy 23:12-14 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
12 “Also you shall have a place outside the camp, where you may go out; 13 and you shall have an implement among your equipment, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and turn and cover your refuse. 14 For the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and give your enemies over to you; therefore your camp shall be holy, that He may see no unclean thing among you, and turn away from you.
--- What does this verse say? Here is where the Orthodox Doctrine of the Holy Pooping is clearly laid out, which we can know with Absolute Certainty as our Divine Sovereign Hateful, Vengeful, God of Wrath spoke with His own lips in His Holy Inerrant and Infallible Word to defecate outside and that all other places for defecating are sinful. Our Holy Sovereign Creator, God of Wrath, is most pleased when we (the Elect) obey and submit to the Orthodox Doctrine of the Holy Pooping as clearly laid out in His Holy Inerrant and Infallible Word. When the Israelites obeyed our God of Wrath not love (Theological liberals want to delude you into thinking God is a lovey dovey inclusive God of let’s hold hands and sing kumba-yah but the Bible is clear on this matter when it says: “God is an all consuming fire, a God of Vengeful Wrath and no respecter of persons”) by defecating outside, they gave God the glory by defecating in a holy manner.

One other thing I would like to say to Bible-minded Christians is to remain Bibliocentric and hold onto Biblical Integrity, one ought to confront all Christians living in the sin of using toilet paper as toilet paper was invented by Pagan Chinese, who worshipped false gods and not our God of Wrath as Revealed in the Inerrant and Infallible Holy Bible. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_Paper) Also, paper itself was invented by Pagan Egyptians to inscribe their demonic and blasphemous scriptures to their false gods, in their dark, morally and spiritually corrupt religious practices---so that if the Elect falls prey to the sin of using toilet paper, they in affect may be welcoming in false gods (disguised as seducing demons) into their lives. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus) So as we can see using toilet paper is an unholy sin of humanistic pride against our Divine Sovereign God of Wrath, who in His Absolute Sovereignty created (6000 years ago in 6 literal days) our hands, wool, lace or hemp, wood shavings, leaves, grass, hay, stone, sand, moss, water, snow, maize husks, fruit skins, or seashells, and corn cobs for us to use to clean our anuses. Toilet paper then is for that old line of theological liberals, evolutionists, secular humanists and atheistic communists and not True Bible-Believing Christians.

In conclusion to my God-honoring Expository Sermon (the only sermons recognized by God are Expository, because that’s how Calvin and Spurgeon preached), I pray that the Elect Church purges itself of the errors of the modernistic and post-modernistic ways of thinking about defecating before the Holy Rapture in the Predestined and God-ordained Premillenial Dispensationalist End Times and returns itself to the Fundamentally Orthodox Doctrine of the Holy Pooping as clearly laid out with Absolute Certainty in the Inerrant and Infallible Holy Bible that we please and give glory to our Absolute Divine Sovereign Hateful, Vengeful, God of Wrath by: defecating only outside at night, burning or burying our excrements and using the God-ordained method of our hands, wool, lace or hemp, wood shavings, leaves, grass, hay, stone, sand, moss, water, snow, maize husks, fruit skins, or seashells, and corn cobs that our Absolute Sovereign Wrathful Creator created for us to use to clean our anuses. Amen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of John “Fruity Loony Toon Nutcase” MacFarter, Disaster of Disgrace Community Cult and Foundationalist of Disgrace To You Monasteries--- http://www.gty.org/ and http://www.gracechurch.org/home/