I’m not sure I agree

20140217-093623.jpg

Define “require”… define “truth.”

For instance, the pastor who died over the weekend because he “had the truth.” The truth for him is in the KJV. He doesn’t rely on humanities or theology, nor on the simple science that if you get bit by a snake you may die, regardless of prayer.

I get the sentiment, that science is not all there is, but surely it can be better expressed than this?

Post By Joel Watts (10,085 Posts)

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

Website: → Unsettled Christianity

Connect

2 thoughts on I’m not sure I agree

  1. In so far as truth is concerned, it’s the parable of the blind men and the elephant. There is your version of the truth. There is my version of the truth. Then, there’s actuality/reality.
    .
    Require is equally as subjective. The game seems to be put more of a burden on science than on religion. It is something that Jesus would have probably recognized quite well had the argument arisen in his day.

  2. If you replaced “truth” with “facts” this would be unexceptionable. Whether facts are equivalent to truth is a different matter…

Leave a Reply, Please!