Duh Bible

Aight, here's my well thought-out take.  

A) There's people who say the Bible is the “inerrant” “Word of God,” and they know what it means so don’t disagree.

B.) There's people who say “The Bible is just a selected collection of myths and meaningless stories,” and it means nothing today.

I disagree with all of them.  Here’s why.  

“Inerrancy”: What does that mean?  There are clearly factual errors in the Bible, and many of the stories are so clearly mythical (Job, Jonah, The Creation, etc.) that “inerrancy” cannot refer to factual inerrancy.  So it must mean some sort of “spiritual inerrancy.”  Well, what does that mean?  Here’s what I think.  There is a message for people in the Bible, and that message comes from God, and that message is, obviously, inerrant.  But the Bible itself is not a manual or a collection of incantations, nor is every word in it (in which language and which translation?) to be taken as literally true or even “binding,” if that makes any sense.  Moreover, while the message God has for all of Mankind is the same, the message He may have for or “with” any one individual man or woman – like a conversation -- is probably going to be different from the “group message,” simply because every individual is distinct or unique.  

Finally, whenever someone says the Bible is inerrant, you can be damn sure that guy also means: “And my like-minded friends and I know what it means and are going to drill it into your head, without variation and allow no dissent.”  

Now, if someone came up to me and said “the Bible is inerrant, but I have no idea what it means or may mean to others, but I kinda think I know what it means to me,” then I would be happy to agree with that person.  

Next, as I understand it, the Word of God was with God at the beginning, all life was created through Him, and then he took on flesh and lived among us, etc, etc, John 1:1.  That does not describe the Bible, which consists of ink on paper surrounded by an outer covering of leather, paperboard and the like.  

What I think the Bible is is this:  It is a collection of writings by human beings with all of their individual prejudices, foibles, cultural blinders, mental hang-ups, and on and on, of the very real revelation of God to a small tribe in the Middle East, and later to an even smaller bunch of fishermen and shepherds and tax collectors, etc.

So there ya go.  Are there myths?  Sure – these people were writing about the genesis of the cosmos eons before there were even telescopes.  But the darn creation stories have an awful lot of depth to them.  I’d venture to say that the choice of these stories – “false” as they are from a sort of newspaper reporter’s perspective – was inspired because they also say so much that is universally true.  Is it all myths?  Nah.  The historians agree that David and Jesus existed, at least, though plainly there isn’t any agreement on exactly who they were.  And the records of Jewish Kings seem to be real, especially since so many of them are not flattering.  Plus, don’t forget the poetry (Psalms/Song of Sol.) and the Prophets.  

So a pox on ye both:  The revelation is real, and the message(s) is(are) in there.  Now go read it and leave me alone.

Impeach Bush! Please! Bwaa hahahahahahaaaaa

Let's see. Democrats -- whose Congressional leaders were told two years ago that President Bush would institute a surveillance plan that has been used before by prior Democratic Presidents Clinton and, stretching the term "President," Jimmy Carter, based on war-time precedent going back to F.D. Roosevelt's administration -- are actually talking about impeachment for instituting that plan. Democrats apparently are astounded that the President did not announce the plan to the public before instituting it, so that legitimate targets of the plan would have lots of time to avoid communication methods that might be monitored. Duh.

Every time a Democrat opens his mouth I realize once again that the USA dodged a real bullet when J.F. Kerry was humiliated in 2004. Oh wait, he won. I forgot.

Is war about keeping soldiers "safe"? News to me

From Drudge: "Statement by Kerry spokesman David Wade: 'Ken Mehlman’s filthy and shameful lie about a decorated combat veteran is disgraceful. Political hack Ken Mehlman and draft dodging, donut eating Rush Limbaugh have something in common. Neither of them know anything about how to make American troops safe. John Kerry will continue to speak out about how to succeed in Iraq and protect brave American troops'..."

Is war about keeping troops safe, or about putting them in harms way to protect the rest of us? Is this a stupid question? Well, duh.

John Kerry accused American troops in Viet Nam of committing war crimes. Now he's doing the same for our soldiers in Iraq. What an ass. But now he wants to make sure the baby killers are "safe." WTF? Is the role of a soldier to be safe? I thought it was to kill enemies. Silly f-ing me. Jesus, these Democrats lose credibility by the minute.