George Lippert

Darren Bell

George and Darren are having a conversation about faith and worldview.  George is an artist/writer who is a christian, and Darren is an engineer who is an “agnostic.”  The last several days they’ve been having a conversation on martyholman.com based on this question:

MH:  In a world full of opinions and thoughts and gray, as opposed to previous eras of black and white, it can be tough to really know where someone’s coming from. As a writer/artist (George) and an engineer (Darren), What is the basis for your worldview?

They talked for some time of the Bible and rationalism and belief and knowledge and have shown the utmost respect for one another in the process.  But coming to the end of the conversation, will it get intense?  Here’s the finale of George and Darren.  And in case you missed them -

part 1
part 2
part 3 – with Jeff

The first comment from George is from part 3, but is important to read before Darren responds, as Darren references several parts of George’s comments:

George Lippert:  The claim that Truth is unknowable is, in itself, a Truth claim. What is the basis for this Truth claim? Using your previous comments, I’m led to the next few questions.

I appreciate that you use analogies. You describe us as people wandering aimlessly in a foggy wood. We are unable to know the full Truth about this wood because none of us can see the whole of it. I’ll call this the Holistic Quotient.

On the other hand, you compare Truth about spiritual matters (vague and disparate) to the Truth about the mass of an electron (measurable and uniform). I’ll call this the Disparity Quotient, and I think it is a very fair question, one that I consider myself at length.

The Holistic Quotient is one you already addressed by acknowledging that, eventually, one has to make logical assumptions based on the available evidence. Thus, you do not need to measure every electron on earth to determine a logical assumption of its mass. And yet you say that since we cannot experience the absolute totality of God’s alleged omnipotence, said omnipotence cannot be assumed. Why?

The Disparity Quotient is admittedly trickier, methinks. Still, how does disparity of beliefs about spiritual matters deny that there might be one absolute Truth? Many people might disagree about the contents of a mysterious box (think of the classic thought experiment of Schrodinger’s Cat), but that does not imply that there is not one constant truth regarding what actually IS in the box.

To claim that disparity of beliefs means there is no such thing as Truth seems to me like saying that in a world of second graders there would be no such thing as algebra. Mathematical Truths exist even if the second graders have no concept of them (although they themselves may deny it vehemently).

So. All that to say, how do you back up your Truth claim that there is no way of knowing Truth? I believe I know Truth (albeit in a limited form, revealed by God’s revelation through the Bible, and through NO act of wisdom, wit, or worth on my part). Your worldview denies mine. Therefore, I would be curious to know what your basis is for it. Why, in short, am I wrong?

Darren bell:  I don’t actually have a problem with faith, but I believe faith should be put within reasonable limits. Faith should be salted by an understanding that as humans our perspectives are very limited, and we cannot make claims larger then what we actually have knowledge of.

I don’t believe any ground exists where it is possible to say that one religion is right and one is wrong, or that there is one true path, etc. To say that you need the top of the mountain view, and no human being has that.

All tertiary claims of having a top of the mountain perspective to me are no better. To say, “I do not have knowledge of the top of the mountain, but I know the creator of the mountain, and he told me what the mountain looks like from the top” or any variation of divine revelation through a secondary source whether person or book still claims to have irrefutable knowledge of the source. The source makes claims greater then humans can reasonably make, but you trust the source, so you allow it to make greater claims then you would yourself. At different points in our lives we all do this. I had a conversation with a friend of mine earlier this week about a relationship, and she was giving me advice and I recognized that in my current circumstances she had more perspective on my life then I did so I listened to her. Because I know her I trusted her and I recognized that my decision making ability was impaired.

I have three problems with extending what I mention above about my friend to religion. 1) I’m still responsible for that decision, and almost all of the facts surrounding the decision are obtainable by me, it’s just confusing. Meaning that the advice I accepted wasn’t out of the circle I have drawn around myself for what I can and cannot know, she was just helping me make sense of the facts I had in my circle. That I had observed or experienced firsthand and involve people I know. 2) The evidence required to substantiate the claims that because you know God in your own sphere means he is God everywhere and over everyone in order for you to extrapolate his seeming omnipotence to you to the universe are very high, and as far as I can tell unobtainable. 3) The subjectiveness of the argument, and the fact that the subjectiveness of spirituality does not lead to consensus but leads to dissent and that there are literally millions of people all claiming to know absolute truths, or claiming to know the creator that has told them the Truth, that contradict each other should concern any person. It is highly concerning.

In the 21st century we literally lock people up that say they have received divine revelation or know personally the God of the universe, unless they are part of an established church. I don’t believe any of the evidence of the Bible stands up to modern critique and the rigorousness by which we judge it is watered down because of it’s antiquity and the mysticism surrounding it. If anyone claimed that someone rose from the dead today we don’t believe them, it doesn’t matter how much proof they have or what they say. As modern people we believe that to be impossible. But it was possible 2000 years ago!

But in the end I concede that to my mind there is enough room for God even in the most reasonable and rigorously defined formulation of knowledge. Our doubts and unknowable are just too great. And though I have serious concerns about that moral compass of mine leading me towards religion just being sociological and cultural baggage . . . there the needle rests none the less.

Faith salted in this way leads to respect of other people, it leads to humility when viewing yourself and it leads to you putting yourself in a worldview that includes other people and is able to be widened by others experiences also.

GL:  Thanks Darren.

DB:  I wouldn’t say that my worldview denies that there might be Truth, or even that the Bible reveals God through revelation. I like your analogy about the second graders and algebra, but the only thing I would say about it is that you say that second graders can’t comprehend something higher then them, but that that higher thing exists in spite of their knowledge of it. And yet, if you give second graders the chance to advance mathematics . . . you would wind up short of algebra or calculus. You would end up with a mess.

Sans an algebra book of course, which is what we all claim we have.

Here indeed is the crux of the whole issue:

“But honestly, here’s the nub of it: if Christianity isn’t true for everyone, then it isn’t true at all. That’s evident in Jesus’ own words. Call it arrogant, simple-minded, and culturally insensitive, but none of those things are arguments against the veracity of the claim.”

I agree with you that this doctrine is true. And it is the chief conflict of my religious thought at the moment.

Because I assert that you do not have the authority to say such a thing. To make such a claim. And more to the point: I think it is too far reaching to allow the Bible the authority to make such a point.

It is beyond what it is possible for a human to know. I do not believe that any amount of historical or psychological evidence can support the claim (especially in light of the conflict of other people against such views) that the Bible is the revelation from God that is applicable to all human beings.

The more I look at myself and the arguments and evidence I rely on. The more I see other people saying the opposite thing from me who rely on the same subjective experiences, cultural momentum and historical evidences backing up their antithesis. And it shakes my foundations and makes me questions the basis of all my beliefs, correctly so.

That being said, I don’t reject that God may exist. But my rationality forces me to frame God within my known limits of what I can have the ability to declare. I do not have the ability to know whether the Bible is God’s inerrant word for all human kind, and therefore I do not claim it is, regardless of the fact that according to it’s internal doctrine I must claim that in order to adhere to it perfectly. I can BELIEVE, I can have FAITH, but I cannot KNOW.

GL:  I like it when we find places that we can agree upon, even if our perspectives on them are totally different. Again, I suspect this could go on forever, so for now I am content to say “good topic everybody!”

George Lippert

Darren Bell

Round three took place on a quiet Monday afternoon, as George worked at his computer in St. Louis and Darren nodded off at his workplace in Philly.  But just when things were starting to quiet down, my friend Jeff asked to read the conversation, and believing the conversation to be a part of an ‘all-in’ facebook thread, he intervened, and brought new life to the conversation.  You can read parts 1 and 2 here and here.

Jeff Campbell (JC):  This is Jeff Campbell. What an awesome go around. There’s a whole bunch of things I’d love to chime in on. But I think I’d like to muddy the waters in one quite specific way. I think this really applies to both of the positions I’ve seen lain out here.
The question (which I’ll admit is a wee bit loaded) for me is this:
In most of our relationships, we don’t wander around looking for propositionally sound logic. I don’t make any attempt to inductively or deductively prove my love for my wife.
Why does this appear to be our sole mode of discussion about God?
I’ll buy that some of this belongs– since George has never met my wife (Darren has) I might owe him some sort of scientific/mathematically sound argument to prove her existence.
I believe in Truth with a capital T but agnowledge I only percieve truth with a lower case t; I believe the whole thing is wonderously and glorioiusly subjective in this life…
Any thoughts?

Jeff Campbell

GL:  Hi Jeff,

Just to try a quick stab at this: as you say, if I (for some reason) decided to deny that your wife exists, it would not be enough for you to tell me that she exists because you love her. I would require SOME sort of scientific, objective proof. While I myself am content that the Bible’s claims are true, that Christianity is the one way to God, etc, I respect the doubts of those who require more concrete, measurable evidence. In the case of your wife, you could merely point at her and say, “there she is,” case closed. Making the case for Christian belief with those who do not immediately except the inerrency of the Bible (or my subjective experience of it), etc, is a very different prospect.

Fortunately, I think the truth of Christianity can indeed be shown (although not conclusively proven) by historical, psychological evidence. As you know, many skeptics have approached the historical record with intention to disprove Christianity only to become converts themselves.

Thus, I am reluctant to merely state “Christianity is true because this is how it subjectively effects me”. The Truth is not true because I believe it. It’s true even if no one believes it. That’s what makes it Truth. I respect the doubter and the true skeptic enough to deal with the issue on their terms.

At least, as much as possible.

DB:

Darren Bell

George Lippert

Yesterday I introduced a conversation between my friends George and Darren.  I know them from two completely different contexts, but from my recent facebook interactions with them, I noticed that they were very similar in some ways and very different in others.  So I thought I would ask them to answer some questions for me via email, then replay the action here at martyholman.com.  The following is part 2 of that discussion.  You can find part 1 here.

George Lippert (GL):  Intellectually and spiritually stimulating, Darren.

If I understand you correctly (and pardon me if I am boiling down a stew to make a pill), is it a fair summary to say that your perspective is basically that everyone’s truth is true for them but not necessarily true for anyone else? All religions are equal (different paths up the same mountain)? In essence, is it the case that all truths are relative to he/she who believes them, based on the proposition that, to them, those truths order their world, give them clarity, and therefore serve the basic purpose of a belief system?

Darren Bell (DB):  Partly. But mostly I think I’m trying to say something deeper.

To take the mountain analogy and the famous humanist scenario of many people walking up the mountain from different sides all moving towards an ascendancy, the top of the mountain. A friend once told me that that story has the major flaw of all bad philosophy, that it fails to take itself into account and be self-reflective. The story requires a view from the top of the mountain to propose.

When I was thinking about your summary earlier today my first response was “No! I’m claiming there is no mountain at all!” Then I realized that is also claiming a knowledge that I don’t have.

To keep the mountain metaphor going in my view people are walking around in a forest with ~20 yards of visibility. In walking around we meet other people and talk to them about what they have seen walking around. And sometimes you meet people that are walking around that claim that we are all on a mountain, and that some people are going the correct way in the forest and others are going the incorrect way.

I hate the word truth. The sentence “Everyone’s truth is true for them” to me is the whole problem, and it is what most people do. They have experiences, they put those experiences together and then they blanket the world with them and operate like they are true for everyone. I think it is a very subtle difference but it is to me, an important difference in attitude about how you view your ‘own truth’ or ‘own worldview’. And that you DON’T let your personal truth become Truth.

Because Truth is unknowable.

To talk even briefly about the God thing. To know for a fact that God existed using the faculties we have you would have to be able to witness his infinity. Literally, to say God is infinite you have to see his infinity, you have to see or experience his omnipotence everywhere and through all time. Maybe there is a very strong force that operates in my cubicle at work, as far as I know it is omnipotent. But when I go to my co-workers cubicle he is no longer powerful there.

Now I understand that at some point for knowledge to grow you have to extrapolate knowledge from your circle of experiences and make assumptions about the way the rest of the world works. The problem with most of spirituality though is that the experiences people have are GLARINGLY DIFFERENT!! In science when a scientist measures the mass of an electron every other scientist measures the same mass. However when people follow their ‘internal moral compass’ everyone scatters like cats each chasing their own cubicle god and claiming it is God. “Well he is god in my cubicle so he must be God everywhere.” That is bad extrapolation. And the myriad of human experience tells us that is bad extrapolation because there is no consistency of experience between one person and the next.

I don’t have Truth. I have experiences and perspective, and those things can never be wrong, only my interpretations of their meaning can be wrong. Because of that I try to be very careful with my interpretations of there meaning and confine that interpretation into what I believe claims that can be rationally asserted and are also going to be true for the next person that has the same experiences as me. You know . . . more or less.

GL:  Thanks for going into it again, Darren. Obviously I disagree on some major points, but I won’t spend anymore time in this post hashing over it (unless you and Marty wish it). We could go on for volumes, I am sure. I do agree with you vigorously on the futility of seeking Truth through subjective personal cogitations and speculations. I suspect we humans no more contain Truth than lightning bugs contain Lightning (to paraphrase the immortal Twain).

MH:  Actually, I wish it. Would love to hear your answers to his, and maybe another round or two.

GL:  Well, honestly, my answer is just a couple more questions. I really don’t mean for this to be belligerent, so I apologize in advance if this sounds obtuse.  The claim that Truth is unknowable is, in itself, a Truth claim. What is the basis for this Truth claim? Using your previous comments, I’m led to the next few questions.

I appreciate that you use analogies. You describe us as people wandering aimlessly in a foggy wood. We are unable to know the full Truth about this wood because none of us can see the whole of it. I’ll call this the Holistic Quotient.
On the other hand, you compare Truth about spiritual matters (vague and disparate) to the Truth about the mass of an electron (measurable and uniform). I’ll call this the Disparity Quotient, and I think it is a very fair question, one that I consider myself at length.

The Holistic Quotient is one you already addressed by acknowledging that, eventually, one has to make logical assumptions based on the available evidence. Thus, you do not need to measure every electron on earth to determine a logical assumption of its mass. And yet you say that since we cannot experience the absolute totality of God’s alleged omnipotence, said omnipotence cannot be assumed. Why?

The Disparity Quotient is admittedly trickier, methinks. Still, how does disparity of beliefs about spiritual matters deny that there might be one absolute Truth? Many people might disagree about the contents of a mysterious box (think of the classic thought experiment of Schrodinger’s Cat), but that does not imply that there is not one constant truth regarding what actually IS in the box.

To claim that disparity of beliefs means there is no such thing as Truth seems to me like saying that in a world of second graders there would be no such thing as algebra. Mathematical Truths exist even if the second graders have no concept of them (although they themselves may deny it vehemently).

So. All that to say, how do you back up your Truth claim that there is no way of knowing Truth? I believe I know Truth (albeit in a limited form, revealed by God’s revelation through the Bible, and through NO act of wisdom, wit, or worth on my part). Your worldview denies mine. Therefore, I would be curious to know what your basis is for it. Why, in short, am I wrong?

MH:  Feel free to comment your thoughts and opinions.

George Lippert

Darren Bell

George Lippert and Darren Bell.

A creative  and an engineer, both who happen to be friends of mine, and today I’d like to introduce you to a new feature of Martyholman.com.  Both George and Darren are really really smart.  Now I wouldn’t tell them this, but when I see them write on facebook or their blogs or when I chat with them, their insight and thoughts have inspired me to think more, so as a connector, I had an idea.

Why not get them to help more people think in a gentleman’s dual of intellect.

So I asked George and Darren, as two men who think very different from one another in some ways, and very much alike in others, to answer a question that I would ask via email, and then chat back and forth about their answers.  Along the way, Jeff Campbell gets involved in the conversation, and he makes things even more interesting.  Because this conversation was so lengthy, these posts will last most of the week.  I trust you’ll be inspired to think thorugh their conversation and ask questions to all the participants.  So I’d like to introduce you to George (GL) and Darren (DB).

MH:  So tell us a bit about yourselves.

George Lippert:  I’m a full time CG artist and part-time writer currently haunting the suburbs of St. Louis. Between being a husband, a father of two awesome little kidlets, paying taxes, cooking Mexican food, mowing the lawn, keeping my 100-year-old house from falling down, and playing lots of racing video games, I formulate lots and lots of “controversial” opinions. Some of them I will surely share below.

Darren Bell:  I’m Darren Bell. I’m a Chemical Engineer living in Philadelphia that lived for 6 years in New England mostly going to college and one of those years attending Fellowship Church. Spiritually I’ve been all over the spectrum from an Ayn Rand-esque athiest to going through 40 Days of Purpose. The last couple years I’ve been away from the church and Christianity, in the past 6 months I’ve found a church I really like in Philadelphia. Although aesthetically something appeals to me in Christianity and also I find it helpful to be reminded of certain morals I tend to forget I am pretty much agnostic.

Navigating through life gets you through that  life, but navigating through change helps you to flourish through that life.

Anybody can get through life.  And the ways we find to cope are typically mechanisms to help us simply survive.  they are the easy ways.  They are ways to communicate like complaining, arguing, sarcasm, laying low, just get by, or bitterness.  These might help us to get through life, but they won’t help us flourish.

To flourish, we must fight our desires to take the easy route, and navigate head first into change, especially in a world full of extraordinary and fast-paced changes.  And in every area, we must meet those changes with the fierceness of someone who wishes to flourish.

Your friends may change.  Your technology will change.  Your clubs, groups, and churches will change, so too, will the things you’re able to do.  Your job will change.  Your likes and dislikes will change.  And most of the people around you will change.  This blog post sounds a little like the book of Ecclesiastes.  The tone seems a bit down, but in the end, there is only one great common denominator, and He does not change.

But He helps us to change, and to navigate through those changes, so that in the end, we begin to understand that He is the one we rest upon.  He is the one in whom we rest.

Something about the human nature that you’ve no doubt seen or experienced, and the chances are good that you’ve done it:  Most of us have probably gone on record in social networking either by blogging or twittering or “facebook statusing” to make some sort of reactionary statement against something that has either happened to them in the past or a perceived popular notion that easily has another side that’s been apparently neglected by whoever came up with the notion.

I’m thinking about this because recently I’ve seen many people take a few jabs at Rick Warren in the Facebook world.  Now I understand taking jabs at some extremes like the KJV only position or preaching against alcohol or any number of insane extreme personal convictions that are not backed up by Scripture but simply by the Holy Spirit convicting an individual (this of course is not wrong, and I applaud those who have different convictions from others), but come on, Rick Warren?

The guy preaches what he preaches, and it is the gospel, gives away 90% of his income, and so now countless numbers of people decide that this guys fluff, why?  Because he’s not reformed or uses his influence to reach far outside of the church?  One thing I’m learning about the church and myself:  We need to pick on someone.  We have a desire in our hearts (clearly not from the Spirit, so where’s it coming from?) to find what we assume is a weakness in someone because of what they didn’t say or what their book didn’t point out, and we call them out.  I call them out.

Enough of that crap!  I’m not doing it anymore.  If someone’s preaching a gospel that’s different than the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus, that’s one thing.  But Fellowship Church in Massachusetts will not be known for our who we pick on or who we call out.  We are called to build up, and encourage, and esteem others better than ourselves.  And that starts with me.

And that starts now.

Today we tear trailers down at Fellowship Church.  Trailers that have been around for a lot of years, have a certain amount of nostalgia associated with them, and currently house scores of little furry creatures that, for years, have caused much headache on our property.

We would like to have built first, a children’s facility or a new sanctuary, but before we did that, the trailers had to come down.  Years of use, abuse, decay, and becoming the habitat for skunks, raccoons, and ground hogs have left the trailers unusable for us, so before we put another building up, and continue to improve our facilities, we had to ask ourselves, “What has to go?”  I think before we said, “What do we need to do?”, we needed to say, “What needs to go?”

This was a must in terms of our  future maturity.

I’m forgiven and …

I’m sorry if you don’t forgive me or you remember who I was back then or you can’t get over what I did,

But I’m forgiven by my Father who sent his Son to come to this earth,

and to do some miracles, and feed the hungry, and give mercy to the merciless,

Then they killed him.  Or he gave his life.

Either way, it was through that killing, that sacrifice, that blood, that I was forgiven.

But it gets better.

Because sacrifice is important, but it’s not unheard of.  Many have died, many have sacrificed,

but the next step made all the difference.

Then He rose from the dead by way of the Father.

That meant my forgiveness wasn’t just from a man, it was from a God, the same God who loves the world.

So you may or may not forgive the person I used to be,

or you may not like me now and decide to talk about that amongst your friends.

But it’s ok, because I’m forgiven.

permanently.

And my God is alive to prove it.

So because of all that, and because I’m still not perfect, but I’m working on it,

I would just like to say, here on this “good day”

I love you.  With all God’s heart.

Many know by now that Easter is another word for Ishtar, who was a self-proclaimed, real life Babylonian goddess, said to have been married to the biblical figure of Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-10) and long before it (meaning “Easter”) was celebrated by Christians around the world, it was celebrated by pagans worshiping this goddess who happened to specialize in fertility (I guess if you’re going to specialize in something…).  This celebration apparently drew world wide popularity because King Herod Agrippa celebrated it after killing James, one of Jesus’ disciples and then decided to imprison Peter during the party, which at the time had no connection to the resurrection of Jesus. (see Acts 12:1-5, KJV)  It happened to occasionally connect with the Jewish celebration of the passover.

Years go by and the church becomes official and the church becomes THE CHURCH.  THE CHURCH decides, in honor of their risen Savior to mix holiday metaphors a bit, and copy the culture that exists.  Easter then becomes a THE CHURCH holiday.  The problem is the former holiday never really goes away, but the two begin to meld together in a bunny loving, egg coloring, candy eating, oh yeah, and by the way, Jesus rising type of way.

By the time it’s too late, THE CHURCH becomes THE CHURCHES and wonders what all the confusion is about – this thing, after all, is about one thing.  The one thing that, somewhere along the way, was not enough, and needed to be pepped up or apologized for or altered a little bit, because it’s been years since anyone’s seen anyone rise from the dead.

So this Sunday, THE CHURCHES are going to do everything they can to ‘pull out all the stops’ and wow you with classy production, excellent gimmicks, and the pastors best 3 point outline.  None of those things are wrong and none of those things are going to be demonized here, but none of those things are also the reason why we meet together and call ourselves “followers of Jesus” or “Christians”.

But the reason we are gathered as the church is not because of a holiday or a tradition or because we’re supposed to, but because a man walked this earth (many have done this), did amazing, miraculous things (many have done this, too), could not be found guilty of anything (no one else has done this), gave His life for the glory of God and for the salvation of mankind (wait for it…), then three days later rose again, after he was indeed (not figuratively) dead. (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

The hope that we have because this happened is unimaginable, as our trust can now be placed firmly outside of our own hands and into the hands of a Savior and a God who made a way for our world to be healed and redeemed back into His arms.

Call it whatever you want, but just celebrate the right thing.

When I read a book, I don’t read details and individual points.  I read general concepts.  This is how I do it.  This is who I am.  So when I tell someone I’ve read a book I’ve enjoyed, and they totally believe it’s blasphemous or heretical or even absurd, then they proceed to show me why on pages, 22, 47, 89, 217, and of course, 666, I am wrong for enjoying the book.   I don’t even read there emails or letters in depth.  I read, “Wow, they are against that book in a way that I am not.”

In truth, I am a bit envious of people like that.  People who can take the time and have the skill set to completely parse each corner and section of a passage written by an author, then tell me what’s good and/or bad about said topic as far as each section/line of the book.

I also wonder how they’re not bipolar (see “A Beautiful Mind”).  For no human can possibly get everything right, and I’m sure there are agreements and disagreements about every human author’s writings, namely because there are agreements and disagreements between the writings of the book inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.

With that said, On December 28th, 2009, I began to read the Bible within a 90 day period.  Some called it B90X, after the popular and intense workout video series.  I wouldn’t suggest this type of reading for everyone, because it’s not for everyone.  I would say its for people who are like me.  They read quickly and take away the one or two main concepts of the book being read.  Reading an average of 16 chapters a day probably wouldn’t work for those prone to taking apart every line they read every time they read.

But for those like me, I found the quick trip through the Scriptures refreshing and wonderful, learning things and seeing things I had never seen before.  From the beginning of time when God’s amazing creation breathed its first breath to John’s last apocalyptic visions, I was introduced to a story like no other, all of which I’d heard before, but never in an entire complete scenario at one condensed time period.  In this reading, for the first time in my life, the writings of Moses and Samuel and David connected so tightly with Luke and John and Paul that I could see the family resemblance.

The Gospel of Jesus came to life once again, as I read about how my Saviour, the Messiah, would live and serve, then apparently be crushed and killed, then be raised again to be with His Father, but not until after He spent a bit more time teaching those He had walked with  and discipled for three years.

The best way to describe this way of reading through Scripture is the difference between Watching “Lost” week to week for years and years, and the watching it on DVD through the whole story in one short portion of time.  If you’ve ever sat together with your spouse or a friend and watched episode after episode and season after season of a show, this is the way it feels.  It comes to life in one shot!

For me, this way of reading the Bible is going to be a habit, for it screams of my best chance to learn and grow from that reading.  This is who I am.  If you’re an adventurer, I suggest you try it out once and see how you like it.  If you don’t, stop.  But I suggest that a regular reading of the Bible is important, not only because of what God did those many years ago in Creation to the redemption of the world through Jesus, but because of what He’s doing now in our world.

You can find a 90 day Bible reading plan or another 29 or so plans at youversion.com, a ministry of Lifechurch.tv

Bible reading rocks!