Putting the Con in Conservative

Putting the Con in Conservative January 24, 2015

Bible vs Evolution

The God of Evolution Facebook page shared the above image. It reflects the tactic to which the anti-science crowd, and other so-called Biblical literalists, have to resort in their attempt to dupe people.

Depending on whether you think the figure on the left is supposed to be Satan, or just a mere human being, the tactic that many conservative Christians use is to depict their viewpoint as “what God says,” making whatever one says in disagreement with them at best “mere human reasoning” and at worst “Satanic lies.”

But the figure on the right is holding what is supposed to be a Bible. And the biggest fraud that conservative Christians have perpetrated is to pretend that the Bible is not a product of human authors and thus of human reasoning.

And so the next time someone tries this tactic on you, be sure to call them on it. Don’t let them frame the conversation in terms of “what God says.” Point out that they are relying on ancient humans and their reasoning. You might also want to point out that, in the process, they are treating those human words as though they are divine, which is idolatry. But even if you don’t pursue that point, insist that they discuss the issue fairly, and explain to you why you should accept ancient human claims rather than modern ones.

 

""I have no time for Ad hominem blanket comments on the "mind numbing Vridar Crowd""I ..."

Response to Raphael Lataster
"Mark, please see below for a link to the James Crossley piece.https://brill.com/view/book...I have no time ..."

Response to Raphael Lataster
"From a Certain Point of View: Was Obi-Wan Right to Say Darth Vader Killed Luke’s ..."

Teaching Talmud through Science Fiction and ..."
"Leigh, Where did you find this foreward by Crossley?This seems to be becoming a vogue. ..."

Response to Raphael Lataster

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • R Vogel

    Good luck with that – Probably more productive to just talk to the book itself.

  • TomS

    Does it seem that the evolution-deniers are turning away from arguing against evolution to arguing the supposed evil consequences of accepting evolutionary explanations? (Their strong point never was presenting alternative explanations and arguing for something.) When their only answer to “deep time” is to show their willingness to throw out vast areas of knowledge with an inane “where you there”, it was a token of the troubles they were in. Is this another sign of the growing realization that there are no fatal flaws ?

  • “Con” is short for “confidence,” as in a confidence trick.

    Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
    Ephesians 3:12 confidence through faith
    1 Timothy 3:13 increased confidence in their faith

    • Drew

      The article is saying the bible is not the Word of God, but the result of man’s reasoning. The author would appear to claim to be a Christian. If that is so his christianity is based on a human philosophy and is no better than any “ism” that we hear about, and his opinion is as worthless as any one elses’ human philosophy

      • Not all human philosophy is worthless, much less equaly worthless. Some fits the evidence better than others, and some not at all. But the attempt to claim to have a means of bypassing questions of evidence is indeed a con.

      • I think Christianity is worse that worthless; it’s a con. The con being that one is taught to hate and sacrifice what good one may enjoy in this life on earth (e.g., Luke 14:26, John 12:25) to gain a better status in a magical “afterlife.”

        Paul confirms that if his confidence trick about a magical afterlife isn’t true, one is better off choosing an Epicurean philosophy of enjoying life here on earth. (1 Cor. 15:32)

        P.S. Christianity is just the latest in a long line of evangelical con games that peddle a better status in a make-believe afterlife.

        […] they perform their ritual, and persuade not only individuals, but whole cities, that expiations and atonements for sin may be made by sacrifices and amusements which fill a vacant hour, and are equally at the service of the living and the dead; the latter sort they call mysteries, and they redeem us from the pains of hell, but if we neglect them no one knows what awaits us.

        Plato (4th century BCE) The Republic. Book II.
        classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html

        • Neko

          It’s a con if religious authorities are cynical about their theology and their institutional mandates. I don’t doubt that many a priest and preacher lady are agnostic, but all of them? No. They’re believers.

          The earliest followers of Jesus seemed genuinely to believe that God raised their defeated Messiah from the dead. Or do you think Paul and his successors cynically constructed a syncretic religion to mitigate hostility toward the Jewish people and pave the way for accommodation with empire? If so, they certainly settled on a peculiar narrative.

          You wrote:

          Paul confirms that if his confidence trick about a magical afterlife isn’t true, one is better off choosing an Epicurean philosophy of enjoying life here on earth.

          Clearly he doesn’t believe it’s a con.

          • While most modern financial confidence men don’t believe in their own con games, it seems that many religious confidence men do actually believe in their con game.

            But some evangelists do realize it is a confidence game, e.g., Marjoe Gortner.

          • Neko

            “Some evangelists” doesn’t quite rise to the status of “Christianity.”

          • Disbelief in a con isn’t necessary to a con being a con, as you purport.

          • Neko

            I’m not sure how I purported that. It’s only a con if the perpetrator intends to deceive. Do you think St. Paul, the evangelists, the Church fathers, Martin Luther, MLK, Pope Francis intend to deceive? In your view they’re deluded. That doesn’t make them con artists.

          • Faith-mongers and the typical financial con-men all require one thing: your confidence. I consider somebody seeking your confidence for such to be a con-man.

            At any rate, “Con” in the context of this blog post means “confidence.”

          • Neko

            Forget it.

        • Drew

          Make a mockery of Christians but then try to use the bible (the basis of Christianity) to prove your point. Some what 2 faced methinks!

      • Drew

        The comment I made was “The author would appear to claim to be a Christian. If that is so his christianity is based on a human philosophy and is no better than any “ism” that we hear about, ……”
        I made no comment re the value of human philosophy as such. I drew the comparison between the Word of God and Human Philosophy. I was therefore querying your priority of the two and pointing out that not putting the Word of God first means your ‘belief’ as a Christian would be no better or of greater value than any other belief system.
        As for bypassing the questions of evidence – evidence of what. Evolution?. I’m still waiting to see/hear irrefutable evidence of this theory.

    • Is Tim Hamner an alias for Isaac Edward Leibowitz?

      Your comments sound remarkably similar.

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/12/explaining-the-fossil-evidence-from-a-yec-perspective.html

      • Neko

        You totally busted that guy!

    • John Drake

      LOL! Tim, you post is the “con”.

      • Sure.

        …implied that all religion was a sophisticated confidence trick…

        Greenblatt, S. (1988) Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England. University of California Press. p. 27.

        • Thanks for the random 27 year old reference, Isaac, sans annotation. I’m sure we’re all running to look it up.

          • Got a burr up your tail about faith being a “Con?”

          • Since you were previously banned for spamming (copying and pasting the same things here as elsewhere on the internet) and trolling (trying to turn every conversation in a particular direction and refusing to engage in normal appropriate converation even about those points, and having returned under another alias merely to do the exact same thing, I think the time has arrived to say farewell.

          • Not sure where you got that impression … my comment was about your unexplained reference to an old, seemingly irrelevant text.

            And ultimately about the inefficacy of trolling behavior, whether or not people agree with your assertions.

  • Herro

    So because fundies think that the bible is divinely inspired they’re guilty of “fraud”? Aren’t they just “wrong”?

    Should I react in the same way when a “progressive Christian” tells me that Jesus was a god? Are they also con artists? Their view seems to fit your criticism rather well:

    >And the biggest fraud that [progressive] Christians have perpetrated is to pretend [Jesus was not just a human, and thus his thinking not the product] of human reasoning.

    >Don’t let them frame the conversation in terms of “what God says.” Point out that they are relying on [an ancient human and his reasoning]. You might also want to point out that, in the process, they are treating those human words as though they are divine, which is idolatry. But even if you don’t pursue that point, insist that they discuss the issue fairly, and explain to you why you should accept ancient human claims rather than modern ones.

    • There are people who describe themselves as progressive Christians and who say Jesus is “God”?

      Fundamentalists don’t just say that the Bible was “inspired.” They claim that it is divinely authored and inerrant. The first claim is vague and could perhaps be understood in a manner that is compatible with taking seriously what the Bible says and shows itself to be. The latter is simply a lie about the Bible which the Bible is Exhibit A in any counterargument.

      • Herro

        >There are people who describe themselves as progressive Christians and who say Jesus is “God”?

        Of course there are “progressive Christians” who say that Jesus was a god. Just look around here on the “Progressive Christian Channel” on Patheos. Here’s an example: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/about-unfundamentalist-christians/

        Ok. Fundies don’t just say that the bible is “inspired” but also talk about it being “divinely authored” and “inerrant”.

        So, can one not just simply say the same about Christians who talk about Jesus as a god? Isn’t that just “a lie about [Jesus]”? And aren’t they just fraudsters?

      • Andrew Dowling

        I think you’re conflating progressive with liberal Christians; I’ve found the umbrella of ‘progressive’ Christianity to be fairly large, and lots of them accept the basic Creedal formulations (Jesus as God, miracles, virgin birth etc.); it’s more about the Biblical hermeneutic and rejecting conservative emphases and interpretations.

        And even many liberal Christians will accept Jesus as a unique ‘manifestation of God’ and since they don’t believe God is a particular ‘being,’ have no problem saying Jesus=God.

        • There are indeed some liberals who would use that language. But most would be using it in a way that is as relatively unproblematic as claiming that the Bible is “inspired” or of “divine origin” without insisting that it is therefore inerrant, the definitive answer to our questions, not a human product, etc.

          It is true that the “progressive” umbrella seems to be much larger than (and to include under itself, for the most part) the liberal one. I still like to use “liberal” in the interest of making important distinctions. But those of us who are the kind of liberal chastened by postmodern criticism of the Enlightenment enterprise will often find that the “liberal” label more naturally refers to an older stance.

          Be that as it may, talk about Jesus as “God” is indeed often as problematic as talking about the Bible as written by God, and liberal Christians, and many progressive Christians, have been at the forefront of pointing this out.

          • Nick G

            as relatively unproblematic as claiming that the Bible is “inspired” or
            of “divine origin” without insisting that it is therefore inerrant, the
            definitive answer to our questions, not a human product, etc.

            If it’s not claimed to be those things you deny it to be, what coherent account can be given of the claims that it is “inspired” or of “divine origin”? (I don’t think you make those claims, but you describe them as “relatively unproblematic”. Isn’t that just because they are hopelessly vague?)

          • Yes.

  • I’d call this a cheap shot, as it not only implies that those who reject Darwinism are all “Conservatives”, but that all “Conservatives” reject Darwinism. Thus the argument is constructed in an extremely self-serving way.

    • I’m speaking specifically with respect to the title, of course. I know that you used “many” in the body of the post, but the biased title typical political propaganda.

      • I don’t think that it is fair to expect everything to be encapsulated in a headline. This post is explicitly about conservatives who do this, not about all conservatives. But you seem unable to resist making a comment – and using your favorite word “Darwinism” – whenever there is any kind of post related to the biological sciences and the deceptions that SOME Christians and others engage in on such matters.

  • Drew

    Not realising how the comments work I find I answered myself when I wanted to answer the Moderator’s reply. So reposting this but not as a reply but a new comment. (original comment is 3rd one of this thread)
    The comment I made was “The author would appear to claim to be a Christian. If that is so his christianity is based on a human philosophy and is no better than any “ism” that we hear about, ……”
    I made no comment re the value of human philosophy as such. I drew the comparison between the Word of God and Human Philosophy. I was therefore querying your priority of the two and pointing out that not putting the Word of God first means your ‘belief’ as a Christian would be no better or of greater value than any other belief system.
    As for bypassing the questions of evidence – evidence of what. Evolution?. I’m still waiting to see/hear irrefutable evidence of this theory.

    see more 0 You must sign in to down-vote this post.

    • I deleted the duplicate comment above.

      You seem not to have understood the post, since your comment is making that very claim which the blogpost is about, namely that a collection of ancient writings is the “Word of God” which can then be contrasted with human reasoning.

      Your comment about evolution is very odd. If you wish to inform yourself about a topic, sitting around waiting for someone to present you with evidence is not an effective way to go about it. Why not read books, written by people with genuine expertise and a mainstream scientific and also Christian perspective (obviously one cannot get an accurate sense of things reading a charlatan like Ken Ham)? And if you are looking for a particularly clear individual piece of evidence (even though the case is a cumulative one), start with human chromosome 2. The genetic sequence that correlates with that of other primates, combined with the presence of telomeres in the middle of the chromosome, its elongated character, and our having one fewer pairs than other primates, are more naturally explained in terms of evolution. If you wish to claim instead that God created humans directly and made us look as though we were related to other primates, that seems a far more dubious stance.

      • Drew

        Rather, you have misunderstood my reply. I am saying you CANNOT call the Word of God a series of writings based on “ancient humans and their reasoning”. You appear to call it that to justify your non-acceptance of its patent truth.
        My argument is based on the fact, It is the Word of God.

        “Why not read books, written by people with genuine expertise and a mainstream scientific and also Christian perspective” I have. Still haven’t found conclusive proof of evolution.
        I said as I did because obviously you base your blog around evolution.
        As for the genetic sequence you quote, I would say obviously there are similarities and probably exact duplications. Not too surprising with a common Creator and a common function. E.g. Why should it be surprising if genetics match in primates where both are air breathing and have lungs. There is no genetic link I know from single cell to multi cell organisms which is explainable by science.
        Going by the outward appearance as ‘proof’ of relationships between creatures has been shown to quite unsafe as creatures which look nothing like each other have been shown to be related.

        • Just calling something a fact doesn’t make it so. When Paul signs his name to a letter, saying that it is nonetheless authored by God is ignoring evidence. And in what sense is God the author when Paul says in 2 Corinthians that he is speaking “as a fool, and not according to the Lord”?

          You are trying to dodge the evidence for evolution, and refusing to discuss the specific example I suggested it would be worth focusing on. That simply won’t do. On your view, why did the Creator place telomeres in the center of the chromosome to make it look like a fusion event had occurred?

          • Drew

            Sir
            “Just calling something a fact doesn’t make it so” – such as evolution?

            I don’t call the Word of God a fact, it does. You will know the relevant gospel texts better than me.

            If it is man’s thoughts, what distinguishes it from Buddhism, Marxism, Hinduism etc. A point I raised and YOU have declined to address.

            Since I consider the whole bible is God’s inspired word I take this passage “Paul says in 2 Corinthians….” as inspired as well. Paul is simply saying that he has as much right to boast about his credentials and authority as an apostle as anyone – BUT, if he did so he would be wrong, as his boasting would be about himself INSTEAD of about the Lord Jesus Christ.

            Ref the genetic sequence, I answered to my ability on that subject. If you want a full discussion on genetics why not speak to John Sanford. Mind, I notice you didn’t comment on the reply I did give.

            As a layman, God could make anything He wanted and to make it look how He wanted. What is the problem with that.
            I note the supposition in your statement “to make it look like a fusion event had occurred?” This is what I find most unconvincing about evolution, the amount of assumption and supposition that is involved

          • The reply you gave wasn’t relevant, and as I suspected, you reject mainstream science without knowing the evidence – you think there is assumption and supposition because you get your information from charlatans who tell you that, and you are gullible enough to accept what they say without fact-checking it. I’d encourage you to consult a mainstream scientific source, written by an Evangelical Christian if you prefer. Why not try Francis Collins? His credentials both as a scientist and as a Christian are beyond reproach.

            As for your view of the Bible, you are not making it different from other religions, you are emulating what Muslims say about the Qur’an and saying the same kinds of things about the Bible, instead of accepting the Bible for what it is. If you want a sacred text that claims to be something other than the work of humans, there are such available. Don’t distort the Bible to make it what you think it ought to be.

          • Drew

            “The reply you gave wasn’t relevant, and as I suspected, you reject mainstream science without knowing the evidence -”
            How you reach this conclusion is beyond me as you don’t know what science I have looked at. Or are you saying John Sandford isn’t mainstream – considering with the ‘gene gun’. I replied re gene similarities in my previous post and you ignored it!
            Your next statements I find patronising.
            You are either ignoring or deliberately misunderstanding my words on the uniqueness of the bible. I WAS ASKING YOU IF YOU DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN IT AND OTHER ‘ISMS’. You have tried to turn it round.
            So, I will you ask 2 straight questions and hope for 2 straight answers;
            a) Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God and as such is infallible
            b) Do you have a personal relationship with God through the Lord Jesus Christ.

          • The short answers to your questions are (a) no, of course not, I accept the Bible’s own testimony and evidence about what it is, and refuse to impose the human dogma of inerrancy upon it when it involves twisting and distorting the Bible, and (b) yes, I am a born-again Christian.

            My impression from both this comment thread and your discussion with Chuck is that you begin with what you want – e.g. to be certain – and then you twist the Bible into what it would need to be so as to provide you with that. In the process, you ignore or wilfulfully reject everything the Bible teaches about the human condition (e.g. the fact that we do not know everything because of our limited human perspective and therefore need to trust completely in God), and substitute a false doctrine about the Bible upon which to build inappropriate arrogance and claims to certainty.

            If you find it uncomfortable when people point out your lack of knowledge of biology, the appropriate response would seem to me to be to learn about the topic from mainstream sources, and not to complain about others being patronizing.

          • Drew

            “The short answers to your questions are (a) no, of course not, I accept the Bible’s own testimony and evidence about what it is, and refuse to impose the human dogma of inerrancy upon it when it involves twisting and distorting the Bible, and (b) yes, I am a born-again Christian.”

            This is where we fundamentally disagree. I believe the testimony of the Bible is that it is God’s word, and therefore it is infallible. I am not and I accept my interpretation may be.

            I am certain as you disparagingly say, because the bible says certain things as historical fact. Where those things are said, yes, I believe them to be infallible. As for the human condition, I am a sinner. I know that because the Bible tells me!

            You complain about my lack of knowledge but you still haven’t refuted my answers or shown them to be wrong.

            Therefore I do find it patronising because you cannot give me a gracious answer to my ‘wrong’ answers. I replied to your question but you have not replied to my answers.

            I asked “Do you have a personal relationship with God through the Lord Jesus Christ”. and you replied you are a born again Christian. I am curiou why you made that distinction.

          • The Bible by definition cannot offer testimony about itself as a collection, since the collection does not yet include any given writing until after that writing has been composed.

            Did I miss a comment in which you explained why you believe that God gave humans one less chromosome than other primates, and made one of them elongated and placed telomeres in the middle of it, with sequences of DNA corresponding to those on two chromosomes among other primates, making it look like a fusion event had occurred?

          • Drew

            I believe ALL the Bible to be inspired.

            Christ’s use of the OT, + 2 Tim 3 v16. If the NT isn’t likewise inspired what is my faith based on. (What is YOUR faith based on? ….”that the Bible is .. a product of human authors and thus of human reasoning”. If it is, you can keep it.)
            The NT also substantiates the OT.

            No you didn’t miss a comment ref one less chromosome. As God chose to do that I have no place to question Him. Any answer at best is speculative, at worst is mischievious. As you’ve ignored most of the answers I’ve given and ignored challenges I’ve made to you for answers I do gather I’m wasting my time as you will only raise questions as strawmen, not to look for real answers.

            Incidentally, I saw that Francis Collins, who you promoted, does not agree with your understanding of the origin of the Bible

          • You have not offered answers. And you are happy to claim to be providing answers when you think what you have said is a defense of your bizarre ungodly assumptions, but when a question is asked about the implications of your claims, you then claim it is inappropriate to take seriously the Creator’s handiwork. What deceitful duplicity on your part, you shamefully fraudulent pseudo-Christian! Why not accept the evidence from what God made regarding how things are related to one another, and how long these processes have been going on, instead of idolatrously claiming that what ancient people wrote is the very Word of God? How can you engage in these tactics and yet claim to be a Christian?

          • Drew

            I know that my Saviour has redeemed me. I doubt you can say that from the evidence you have provided. How can you claim to have a faith in God when you do not accept His Word. I’m still waiting for your answer to this.
            Your diatribe above neither demonstrates the fruit of the spirit nor an understanding of anything I have said. I can only trust and pray that God will forgive you and open your eyes

          • A sad attempt to turn the tables by pretending that you somehow know that Jesus wants you to think that Paul’s letters (for instance) are “His Word.” The rhetorical ploy of commiting idolatry with the Bible, while pretending that the problem is with the one who rebukes you for this sin of yours, would be laughable were it not such a serious matter.

          • Drew

            I asked and asked again, on what basis do you have assurance of salvation if the Bible is not God’s inspired and infallible word.
            Stop trying to be superior and come down to my level.
            Why can’t give me a simple testimony of your faith and how you are assured of it.

          • This is exactly the point. You want not just assurance but to be sure, and so you have redefined faith in a manner that all but inverts its meaning.

          • Drew

            You are the most reluctant person I have met, who says they are a Christian, to testify to your faith.
            My fear is, you have great knowledge of the bible but do not know the one it reveals. How sad. If I’m wrong and I meet you in heaven I will apologise.
            I still aver – not withstanding your jibes – IF IT IS NOT GOD’S WORD ON WHAT IS YOUR FAITH BASED.
            You may ignore this, but I hope it may make someone else consider the Bible in the correct light.
            Farewell for now, you will be in my prayers.

          • Your placement of your faith in ancient human writings instead of God is idolatry. Your claim that I am likely to be missing the one that the Bible reveals, when you are the one who refuses to honestly acknowledge that the Bible is a human pointer to God, is ironic.

          • Nick G

            Of course Sanford is not mainstream. He is one of the very few cdesign proponentsists with relevant qualifications, but his claims are rejected by the overwhelming majority of experts in genetics, including Christians. In almost every scientific field you will find the occasional individual who rejects settled consensus conclusions – physicists who reject relativity, Peter Duesberg, the top-flight virologist who still (as far as I know) denies that HIV causes AIDS, epidemiologists who deny that smoking is bad for you, and so on. But they are, by definition, outside the mainstream.
            Edited to add: It’s also worth noting that Sanford makes claims far outside his area of expertise – for example, that the earth is less than 100,000 years old. He has no qualifications in geology, paleontology, planetary science or any other relevant discipline, as far as I am aware.

            On the other hand, you have a valid point concerning the Bible and Christianity. If the Bible is not the Word of God, Christianity is no different from any other “ism”.

          • Drew

            As co inventor of the ‘Gene Gun’ Sanford is Very mainstream.

          • That is absolute nonsense. If his view on a particular subject isn’t mainstream, then it isn’t mainstream. What he invented doesn’t change that, obviously.

  • ChuckQueen101

    Grew up in a conservative Christian environment and all my family and friends from those years are still conservative Christians. Always comes back to, “But the Bible says . . .” Love the sentence: “The biggest fraud . . . ” What does it take to break through that illusion? I wish I knew.

    • Drew

      Chuck, you can’t break through this ‘delusion’ as you call it. As a person who believes in scripture as I do I see it as a fact. If I don’t believe in the whole bible how can I pick and choose, how do I know Christ died for Me, how do I KNOW that salvation/redemption are true. Simply, because God says so. From Genesis to Revelation a history of God’s dealing with Man and the promise of His future dealings with Man.

      • ChuckQueen101

        Drew, you believe scripture is a bunch of facts that are infallibly true. That is, I believe, an “illusion.” When I read scripture I see the flaws, limitations, and fallibility of the human authors on every page. The Bible, I believe, is a sacred book of stories that reflect the human struggle to understand and relate to God and do God’s will. The reason I didn’t see this for many years was because I was indoctrinated “not” to see, like I’m sure you have been. The Bible is clearly filled with inconsistencies and contradictions. For me, that is part of the beauty and power of the sacred stories. They invite me to think for myself, to be part of the drama, to weigh the different perspectives, and enter the struggle to know God and do God’s will. This perspective makes me a more inclusive and tolerant and compassionate person.

        What you really mean when you say “because God says so” is that this is how you read the Bible which you think is a direct word from God. Here is the “illusion” – you equate the voice of God with the voice of scripture. I would say that God’s voice can be discerned through Scripture, it’s one medium through which God can speak to us, but the scriptures are not literally God’s word. Those who make the equation – the Bible equal God – end up with a little god no bigger than their readings and interpretation of the scripture.

        You say you don’t “pick and choose” but of course you do, you just don’t realize it, and that is another illusion. Everyone brings their biases with them to the text and those biases inform and guide our reading/interpreting. You don’t “see” it because you have been indoctrinated not to see it. What you actually do is either ignore, deny, or do exegetical gymnastics with the texts that say something different than what you want them to say in order to avoid all the perspectives in the scriptures that contradict and counter your point of view.

        One of the ways I like to talk about God is that God is the great Mystery of Unconditional Love. How do I know this? I can’t prove it. I believe it because that is how I have experienced God, and so I bring a bias toward love to my reading and interpreting of the sacred stories. Not to be aware of and admit your biases is another great illusion.

        • Drew

          As you would expect, I do not accept your understanding of the bible nor have I been indoctrinated. I read it and seek my own understanding of it, and through my personal experience of God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
          I would like to hear your answer to 1 question. If the bible is not infallible and is the result of ‘Man’s reasoning’, how do you have any assurance of salvation.
          Can you sing ” Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine, O what a foretaste of glory divine…..” with any conviction?

          • Apparently you think that you can allow a favorite hymn to take priority over the Bible…

          • Drew

            Do you always twist things to suit yourself. I don’t remember mentioning favourite hymns. Oooops, sorry, that’s part of your twisting.
            At what point did I put it before the bible. I’ve already clearly stated how I view the Bible.
            Good to see that at last you are attaching greater importance to it.

          • Perhaps you have forgotten what you wrote in the comment to which I replied?