I am not sure what you believe Christianity to be? A set rules to get to a better place? A system of self-improvement? A guide to living a better life? It is none of these things.

My faith is a personal daily active interactive real tangible evidential real life relationship with a living God who has shown himself to the humanity he created both in nature and in person. He has backed up this evidence with his word – which is consistent, constant, everlasting, true and trustworth. His word contains promises with actually come true – I can depend on his word because it has never let me down. I find answers to questions, I find support in exactly the right way at exactly the right time, I find instruction that when I apply it works, I find admonishment that exactly pinpoints errors at exactly the right time and place – I could go on and on and on but you are not in a place to want to believe me.

Your writings come across as if you may be anxious to prove that I am not right because if I am right you would have to chance so much in your thinking?

Have you ever been in love? Can you or anyone prove that love is real? Just because it is not scientifically “provable” doesn’t mean that something doesn’t exist surely?

Actually there is tons of evidence (especially in countries such as Africa and India – of many many healings confirmed by the medical profession but again I suspect even a doctors’ affidavet would not be sufficient for you – you would suggest that the doctor was biaised or paid off or something – anything not to actually have to consider the evidence in front of you.

I agree with you it would be amazing if I was firm enough in my faith to walk into hospitals and start healing the sick – hey I’m not there yet but I live in hope – start small but have big visions!! Currently I am content that I and those around me are experiencing better, fitter, healthier, happier and more fulfilled lives because of God’s amazing miraculous power working in and through us.

Maybe you ought to try it before you knock it!!

As regards the atrocities carried out by the church in any age you care to mention – I agree and believe these have really happened – but I struggle that you look at the church and assume that equals God? God is not the church – the church is supposed to reflect God – but sadly churches that have done this in any generation are few and far between. Please please don’t judge God by the way his followers behave – we have all got it so wrong – sadly because we tend to trust ourselves and our own interpretations rather than following God’s word doing it his way and trusting his promises.

If you want to see how God would have us work in the world I can only suggest you study the life of Jesus – the only perfect man on the history of the planet. Find me a church acting like Jesus and I guarantee you they will not be performing atrocities on the people around them!!

Since we’re all pragmatists, though, and none of us qualified scientists, either, it seems counterproductive to get too technical. Let’s stick with that magic word: criteria. Yours is faith, mine is empiricism. Their only equivalence is when both are subjected to the afore-mentioned epistemological skepticism, where both are rendered moot, and we end up unable to prove the objective existence of the world, of other people, or even ourselves. See what I mean about pragmatism?

On the subject of our ‘alternative’ interpretations of history, that may be irreconcilable. You say:
“all ages have made the same mistakes because the root problem of man is his pride and arrogance and the mistaken belief that man can at some point know all the answers.”
This is naive. The obvious ‘truth’, is that there have always been people who believe they have all the answers they need. It is they, and not those who SEEK answers, that are the problem. I was tempted to bring up the church’s atrocities in the Middle Ages, as well as the Dark Ages, but I’m sure it wouln’t interest you greatly, as you already have your answers.

Now you believe in evolution in just the same way – for you theory becomes evidence even in the light of ridiculous assumption and the non ability to actually “prove” anything – have you seen the latest theory – the NASA WMA probe seeking to try and prove the inflationary theory that says : The key idea behind inflationary theory is the notion that the universe underwent a period of accelerated expansion during the first 10^{-34} seconds (0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds). During this inflationary period, the universe doubled in size at least 90 times. http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

Do you know what – believing that the universe doubled in size at least 90 times in the first 10 to the minus 34th of a second – kind of takes a lot more faith than believing God did it in Six days!!!! It also suspends the laws of nature that the whole of science bases its experimentation on.

Ian and I disagree fundamentally on how the Bible should be read. I do not believe we need to read it in the light of history – if this were the case then only academics could understand the word of God and the only way to grow as a disciple would be to study academia more. I believe God’s word is available to ALL – and at any level must be relevant and applicable to growth so you cannot need to know and understand history, culture, relevant experience, timescale etc to allow the Bible to speak to you. Yes it’s fun and interesting to study and find out more about the background etc. but at the end of the day – it is not necessary.

Ben – you bring up the middle ages as if I would instantly say – yes I see your point – all I understand from History is that time and time again men have gone again the teaching of the word and got into trouble – and I don’t think you need to single out any particular age – all ages have made the same mistakes because the root problem of man is his pride and arrogance and the mistaken belief that man can at some point know all the answers.

This is repeated so many times in the NT, I think it must be important!

Personally, the basic, foundation level of meaning has to be:

“Don’t ignore the words of Jesus / the words of God”

There are probably a lot of people that will read a lot more into it, maybe rightly, maybe wrongly, but in essence, that works for me.

Ian: You and I have had another discussion on the similarities between the Abrahamic god, and the surrounding pagan mythologies of the ancient world. I presume we are using pagan in its old definition (i.e. any non-christian religion/cosmology), yes? I agree that Abrahamic monotheism brought something rather different to the table… unlike you, I do not take a positive reading on these differences. Where you see “The Genesis account” (giving) “human beings great worth in the eyes of God” and “The pagan texts have human beings at best as victims of the gods constant wrath”, I see pretty much the same scenario: a series of one-sided covenants with (a) capricious superbeing(s). I don’t think you grasp that, about my perspective.
No one has clarified to me ‘how’ people became more liberal in their interpretation of the Bible? To your credit, you do a fair job explaining (as alluded previously) how when interpreting the Bible (or any text from that era), it is useful to consider when it was written, and whom it was written for. Then you say something I find VERY interesting:
“Neither of these (historical context and original writers) exist anymore and so we do our thinking and our research in the understanding that ultimately this is God’s book and he will guide our interpretation of it.”
I’d like to know more about how you think god guides your interpretation. I realise you can’t speak for all Christians, but at some point I’d really like to hear it explained to me starkly. I am honestly very curious.

Apologies, guys, if this all comes across as fractious. Heh, it’s possible that you’ve answered me, and I’m not ‘getting it’.

So, when we read the peaceful, ordered account of creation where God has a plan, and declares each thing ‘good’, the message being conveyed is that the God of Israel is radically different to the pagan deities many other nations worshipped. Genesis undoubtably parodies and alludes to other texts, featuring similar characters and ideas yet seems to communicate an entirely different message about God, about creation and about human beings. The Genesis account gives human beings great worth in the eyes of God. The pagan texts have human beings at best as victims of the gods constant wrath.

No, before you interject I don’t suppose for a second this makes God’s word any less authoritative or binding for the Christian. Understanding this has, however, unlocked the Old Testament for me far more than I could have imagined.

This leads me nicely on to discuss the timeliness of Scripture. The texts we have as the Bible today were written at a specific time, for an intended audience with an intended meaning to be expressed. That meaning would be expressed in ways the original readers would be able to understand and thus the writers often employ metaphors and concepts we are unfamiliar with. Thus when we interpret scripture it is very helpful to know about both the writer and the original audience. Neither of these exist anymore and so we do our thinking and our research in the understanding that ultimately this is God’s book and he will guide our interpretation of it. I think scripture is at once both timely and timeless. For then and for now.

So, our interpretation of scripture is affected by the culture in which it was written and our culture – whether we like it or not. That doesn’t mean the Bible isn’t inspired – it means the Bible is not a textbook.

Now I’m intrigued Ben – on what basis you do suppose that the Sumerian creation-poem was the original work as opposed to the writings of Genesis? I presume you have irrefutable evidence of this?

The word God used for “help” when talking about and creating Eve for Adam is only ever used again in the bible when talking about God being “help” to his people – this particular word means far more than just “helping” it is the very help that a creator, redeemer, superior being offers his creation – this is the very word he used for woman in creating her for man. Hence God’s view of a woman’s role in society was far far greater than what subsequent generations of men made of it!!

I do not believe many of Paul’s sentiments are glossed over – just not presented accurately. The passage you quote regarding women actually refers to wives specifically – not women in general (there was a perfectly good greek word for “women” which Paul actually uses several times when talking about women in general and not wives in particular). The instruction for wives to be silent has to be taken in context of all the other teachings in the bible regarding a wife’s role in a relationship – and of course equally – there are instructions for a husband’s role in a marital relationship – like – loving his wife like he loves himself!! and being head of a woman IN THE SAME WAY as Christ acts as head of the church – now I speak as a wife – if my husband acted like Jesus every day – I would have no problem at all respecting him!! (although conversely – I am called to respect him regardless of whether he acts like Jesus or not!! I can’t disobey my instruction just because he disobeys his!!!!

So you see the danger of taking verses out of context and not comparing with all the other verses in the bible relating to the same subject leads every single time to a misinterpretation of scripture.

The second half of your verse is very interesting too – a) as mentioned above for women read WIVES and for man read HUSBANDS – there is a role for each person in a marriage – this is not the same as a hirachy . Imagine a plane being flown by a pilot and co-pilot or a captain and first mate. Both are competent and qualified pilots – both can fly the plane equally well – but for this flight they have each been assigned a specific role to carry out – they have a job to do – both have a different job – only by each carrying out the different role assigned to them can they safely fly the plane – the same applies to marriage!

Note that the second half of the verse is actually about Adam being told off here not Eve because Adam was the first sinner – he wasn’t deceived by the devil – he KNEW the truth – the command not to eat was given to him not Eve – he ringfenced the command by telling Eve she shouldn’t even touch the fruit – hence the devil was able to deceive her by persuading her to touch the fruit and finding out she didn’t die (God said nothing at all about touching the fruit!). Adam was at fault – Adam was to blame. Also he was standing right by his wife all the time she was being tempted and did nothing to stop her although this was his role. as head of the house.

Was also interested in your bracketed “interpretation” of these verses – not sure where you got these from but don’t believe they are a correct interpretation of what this passage means. http://www.awmi.net/bible/1ti_02_15

So no I disagree with you – true interpretation of biblical text should never never be affected by outside cultural pressure (or indeed pressure within Christian circles) and Paul wasn’t a product of his time – nor was his teaching for a specific time and place. All scripture including this teaching is as relevant today as it has ever been. Woman’s role in society was always supposed to be special and important. Wives were always supposed to submit to their husbands but husbands were always supposed to act like Christ acts …….. now if we saw more of that – just think how wonderful the world would be!!!