What I am and what I am not.
I recently took some flak for some comments I made on scribe's blog. Ok, fine. I can deal with that. These comments of mine have been perceived to be an "attack" on his newfound "spirituality." You'd think I was attacking the man's moral character or manhood or some other such nonsense.
DO I regret making them or take them back? NO.
Whenever I make comments like that (where I obviously disagree with something) I am not trying to start an argument. My main goal is and always has been to try and make people be introspective and think about why they believe the way that they do. Maybe perk up a little discussion. But because of the nature of religion and such related topics as beliefs and faith, these prompts are viewed with me in the position of aggressor.
This has led some people to believe that I am a zealot when it comes to my faith. I'm now #1 on Scribe's list of most annoying people, because I'm a Bible Thumper (and sanctimonious about it)!! If these are the labels I've earned, fine. So be it.
Some people may say I'm intolerant of the beliefs of others. That's not true at all. I respect your beliefs as I hope you will mine. But if I happen to ask you WHY you believe something it's probably because I'm curious as to how you've reached your conclusions. This aspect of human nature fascinates me. So please don't automatically assume that I'm jumping down your throat or that I'm going to beat you in the head with my Bible. You should - anyone should - logically be able to explain why (even if only to yourself) you believe the way that you do. Even if no one ever asks you why publicly you still ought to have some idea.
No, I don't expect everyone to believe things the way that I do and I don't have a problem with that. However I AM NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT and have never claimed to be. I'm not going to blow sunshine (you know where) just to see you smile or to receive a compliment in return. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, I'm going to call it a duck. I'm not afraid to throw my two cents in, whether it's asked for or not. If that seems too abrasive or strikes you the wrong way, well I'm sorry you feel that way.
What I do know is this: my Christian faith is grounded in facts and evidence, which I would be glad to share with you anytime you like. If it weren't I wouldn't believe the way that I do. As you may have guessed, I am very passionate about the subject. This faith of mine is solely based on the Bible, which is the inerrant Word of God, and the foundation on which this country and the western world was built.
WHAT I AM AND ALWAYS STRIVE TO BE IS CONSISTENT with what the Bible teaches and how it should be interpreted. Now if you ever catch me being inconsistent in this way, I expect you to immediately call me out on it.
I'll be the first to admit that I am not perfect and I certainly am no expert at understanding everything that the Bible has to offer. That being said, the Bible is the most profound collection of books that you will ever read - if you read it in the right light and with the right attitude.
And yes, there are principles for sound and consistent Bible interpretation. It's called Hermeneutics and Exegesis (see Webster's definitions below). I'll post more about why this is so important at another time.
HERMENEUTICS: 1) the science of interpretation, esp. of the Scriptures. 2) The branch of theology which treats of the principles of Biblical exegesis.
EXEGESIS: critical explanation or interpretation of the Scripture.
The problems in Biblical interpretation arise when people spiritualize the text or claim it is all allegory. In another post I'll clarify (or attempt to) why interpreting the Bible as entirely allegorical is not good and why it really annoys me when people say they do it all of the time.
More later. I need to go to bed.