Monday, May 26, 2014

Strawman Dialogues: The Evangelical Conservative Ditches Inerrancy

Liberal Christian: So! Word is you've finally come around on the subject of biblical inerrancy.
Conservative Christian: Yep. It was a big step, but it became easier once I realized it wasn't necessary for belief.
LC: Good, good. So, I can expect your vote of support for recognizing gay marriage in our church?
CC: Hahaha, what?
LC: ??? But you said you had ditched inerrancy.
CC: I did. Gay marriage is still as absurd as it ever was. It's right in the Bible.
LC: But the Bible has errors!
CC: Sure does. I told you I agreed with that.
LC: Well, how about letting women preach in church?
CC: Also absurd.
LC: What the... Where do you think the errors in the Bible are anyway?
CC: Oh, to start with, that crap about loving our enemies.
CC: Yeah. It's pretty clear Christ intends to damn at least some people, and God was content to judge people throughout both testaments. Forgiveness is in limited supply, as is love. So in context, those bits have to go.
LC: That's absurd! Christ says to love our enemies and...
CC: Buddy, c'mon. Do even you believe that? How much love do you have for Brendan Eich? Phil Robertson? Hell, Rush effing Limbaugh?
LC: That's... different.
CC: Sure it is.
LC: There's ways to account for that! That's only an apparent contradiction!
CC: That's what I always said, but you insisted otherwise. But now that I realize the Bible has errors, what's it matter? I can just accept that the Biblical authors got something wrong.
LC: That's not the verse you're supposed to question!
CC: Why not? Errors are errors.
LC: Why would you want to worship a God who doesn't command mercy?
CC: Uh, a God who's light on mercy seems like exactly the sort one should be particularly obedient to.
LC: If that's what God allows then you're better off not believing He exists!
CC: That's insane. I think Obama's an asshole, should I doubt his existence too? Is that what this was always about?
LC: What?
CC: That you'll only believe in God if God fits your image of Him... and otherwise, you'll doubt His existence altogether.
LC: ...
CC: I may accept an errant gospel now, but that doesn't mean I get to shape God in my image. If God exists, He commands what He commands, and it makes sense that He may make commands that I don't understand or even find wholly appealing. That's our difference here. For me, accepting the Bible may have errors means finding out just what those errors are after study and investigation. Not deciding where they must be in advance because I don't like the teachings.


RD Miksa said...

Just my two cents....but brillant, just brillant. In my eyes, a devastating point made in a great and pithy manner. Excellent.

RD Miksa

Crude said...

Well, thanks. I call them the Strawman Dialogues for a reason, so I know this is a bit unfair, but glad to know the point comes through all the same.

rationalityofaith said...

Absolutely fantastic :) Your post bring out clearly the difference between those who treat philosophy or theological as a massive self-projection and those who prioritise truth over what we would like or desire.

Andrew W said...

*snerk* :)

nv said...

Lol! This post made my day, I sort of felt like this [the conservative in your post] when I try to engage lothar over at his blog.

Acatus Bensley said...

You should really do a post about Unions or even a strawman post about a member of a union. I know this is off topic, but that would be entertaining.