Good Game, Good Game - For The Record

A Statement of my Non Faith in the infallible bible 

Following on from my confessions last week. I got to thinking how I used to encourage people in my church to read our Statement Of Faith. In fact it transpired that some had never read it. I found that quite shocking at the time. I wondered how people could attend and claim to belong to an organisation without finding out what it stood for. In truth there was nothing to hide, there wasn't any subversive encouragement to worship goats or attack infidels. It was a fairly standard declaration not too dissimilar to most christian faith groups, based around the Apostles Creed which was the West's adaptation of the Nicene Creed (loosely speaking). It's the “I believe” document that church organisations ask their “members” to sign up to.

Our church had actually a rather extended version and as such I thought it important to as I say encourage folk to read it. Not only that to then ask the question - “Do I Believe That”? When I handed over the pastoral care of our church I thought it very important for me to truly question my beliefs concerning my faith. It's a bit of a strange situation to find one self in actually – surly my faith should support my beliefs? No. I don't think that is so. My faith is an intangible thing. I can put my beliefs in out right facts easily enough. But my faith is a trust in things that there are no tangible facts or out right proofs. That is why some atheists and some scientists have trouble accepting that people honestly and truly believe in an invisible god. I'll spare you the apologetic answers and evangelical diatribes I've gathered and spouted over the years (many of which I still hold to be true) to support our faith.

Opposers of faith and in particular the christian faith hate the arrogance of the christian claims. Personally I don't have a problem with that arrogance I think it goes a long way to demonstrating that you actually DO believe in something. However, it's whether the arrogance is pious and dogmatic or humble and accepting that there may indeed be alternatives but “I've checked them out and they're not for me thank you, but I respect your right to differ”.

So where was I? Ah yes, my own personal statement of faith. I decided that after I “left” our church I really should compile my own manefesto. So I did. Maybe I'll dig it out and post it up here over the next few days.

However, back to the past couple of months and weeks when I've decided that I no longer believe in the god breathed status of scripture. I thought it important to clarify my position here on my blog to a few friends who are honestly and truly in fear for my soul. I love them and thank them for this and I want them to know that I am humbled and ask that you keep to your word and continue to pray for me and mine. I believe in prayer!

Here it is then. My new (current – I will change it I'm sure in the future – I will continue to question my beliefs thoughout my life) standpoint.

I do not have faith or trust that the christian bible is the infallible, inerrant, "god breathed", word of god. 

I do not (and will not) twist scripture to my own ends or those of others - 

I have no agenda other than to better understand god and to grow closer to him though my faith in Jesus - doing my best as one of his followers. This includes reading the bible. 

I have no intent to try to convince others nor lead them astray to my non belief in the authority or divinity of the written words in the bible - these are my personal thoughts. 

I have no doubts that the belief of some (possibly all) of the writers of the books in the bible (all books including the omitted "apocryphal"texts) were inspired by their faith in god to write of him and to him. 

I am convinced that it still goes on today and that many written works of many styles, authors and many eras have true godly inspiration . 

I am not convinced that this necessarily makes the writings divine or "god breathed". 

I am open to the possibly that some writings, ancient and modern could be of a genuine supernatural nature - both biblical / scriptural and non. 

I am not convinced that all the writers of the bible were commissioned by God to write of him and to him however. 

I concur that there is power in the texts of the bible. Power to change lives. Power to convince that Jesus as portrayed, represented and taught in the bible is God - that Jesus the man was executed for his claims, died and was resurrected - thus proving his divinity. 

I declare that God has spoken to me powerfully and supernaturally through the written words in the bible - he has also done so in non biblical texts - many different and diverse texts both fact and fiction. 

I have no problem in acknowledging that he uses this and many other methods to communicate himself to me. 

I uphold the belief that the various and different translations of the bible hold a common thread in their intent and each version is as potentially valid as the next. 

Equally I maintain that non of them are by my reasoning's above automatically divine nor worthy of an inerrant status or a controlling authority. 

I believe that the bible is a wonderful collection of texts, poems, songs and documents, that serve as an amazing library of literature that can point as a signpost towards the existence of god and to the incredible revelation that Jesus is God. 

I believe the bible is a conveyor belt but not the prize. 

Dangers, Toil, Snares & Richard Dawkins.

It's official. I no longer believe in the divinity of the bible. 

There I've said it.

I read this the other day;

"The Bible is like an elderly senile citizen who is usually incoherent and out of touch with reality, but because of the love of her children (the believers) and with their denial and ingenuity of support (apologetics), she is lovingly taken by the arm and theologically helped to shuffle along".

It both tickled me and struck a nerve. Whereas I don't necessarily concur entirely with it's rather (un)veiled sarcasm, I reckon it more or less states where I am in terms of The Good Book's status with me at the mo.

I've recently had a FaceAche conversation with a friend. I call him a friend not because we go out for a pint and share a history or jokes. No, I call him a friend because he acts like one. He's a pastor of a church some of my "real friends" go to. I got into conversation with him by high jacking a post he made on his personal wall space.

The post obviously sparked a response that had been brewing and niggling me.

So I started to ask some questions and come out of the closet re my denunciation of the 4th member of the Trinity - the bible.

The exchanges that took place were in the main placid on my part and very humble from my friend.

I received some council and warnings about my non belief in the bible as totally God Breathed, but unfortunately the "argument" against me was always via the use of scriptural quotation. Unfortunate, not because there wasn't wisdom in the references (there is - the Bible is a brilliant book - the best in terms of pointing towards God and I definitely believe in God. ).. It was unfortunate because I'd already gone naked and exposed my disbelief in the bibles authority over me. Ergo I not going to be swayed by bible references.

I have no beef with people teaching the bible.

However, my problem lies with how it's messages (not The Message) is used to manipulate and control congregations. Be that conscious or unconscious. 

My mistake I suppose was to get involved with something that was non of my business ( a pastors words of encouragement to his church).. I had no right really to evangelise my non belief in the bible. There is possibly a time and place for discussions of the nature I undertook and in future I'll keep my nose out of other peoples business.

My own misgivings led me towards paths that I know deep down I'm better than. They took me into Richard Dawkins territory in terms of a potential arrogant and bigoted attack.

I may officially be a divine bible disbeliever but Dawkins is officially A Twat.

Dawkins regards the intellect as the only accessor of information – and I nearly fell into that trap.