My friend UnkleE and I have been having a wide-ranging discussion on several topics related to Christianity that ultimately come down to epistemology, or how Christians know God’s will. The discussion began in my last post, which critiqued a doctrine common to more moderate circles within Christianity. UnkleE had more to say on the subject than could reasonably fit within a comment, so he decided to do his own post in response, which is worth reading. We conversed a bit within that comment thread, where I said:
The President of the US and his spokespeople now regularly say things that are factually untrue. Yet plenty of his supporters are content to ignore reputable sources and only listen to the sources that they want to agree with. Where do you go from there?
It seems to me that the view you have of Christianity is similar. Why does the New Testament speak so much about false teachers, if it’s perfectly fine to get your beliefs from private revelation? If Paul and Hymenaeus have a disagreement, perhaps Paul is the one who’s wrong? Or maybe both of them are right, simultaneously? How can one use scripture to “teach, reprove, and correct” in such a system?
In the end, isn’t such a religion just anarchy? How can there be such a thing as “truth” when each person’s version is just as good as someone else’s? At least as an atheist, I can point to my understanding of reality and the physical world to try to reach a consensus with others. And if they can provide data that invalidates some position I hold, then I can change. But if I took my own random thoughts and feelings as revelation from the supreme creator of the universe, how could I ever be convinced of anything else?
Once again, this opened a big topic that was better suited to a full post, rather than a comment, so UnkleE offered his response here. And as my reply to that post grew and grew, I realized that I needed to offer it as a post as well. What follows will reference and borrow quotes from UnkleE’s latest post.
What Is the Gospel?
Under a section called “Another Gospel?” UnkleE gave this introduction:
Nate references Galations 1:6-9, which warns of accepting another gospel. But what does Paul mean by “gospel” (or “good news”)?
He then listed out 5 main points that he views as central to what the gospel is:
- Jesus, the “son of God”, lived and taught about the kingdom of God.
- He died to deal with human sin (how that happens is very much up for debate!).
- Jesus was resurrected and so conquered death.
- We need to change our thinking, turn away from behaviours that displease God, and seek forgiveness.
- Our new way of life should include loving God, loving neighbour, and even loving our enemies.
But it seems to me that the New Testament spends time referring to false doctrines that are ancillary to those 5 points. The entire book of Galatians has Paul accusing the Galatians of turning their backs on the gospel and trying to follow the Law of Moses, when it really just sounds like they were trying to follow both:
Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
— Gal 5:2-6
To me, that sounds like something that we’d view as a matter of personal preference, today, certainly not something that would qualify as a “different gospel.” And look at 2 Cor 13:5-10:
Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test! I hope you will find out that we have not failed the test. But we pray to God that you may not do wrong—not that we may appear to have met the test, but that you may do what is right, though we may seem to have failed. For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. For we are glad when we are weak and you are strong. Your restoration is what we pray for. For this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.
We don’t know the specifics of what Paul is criticizing here, but if these individuals were still present in the congregation to see Paul’s letter, then it’s likely they still held to the basic principles that UnkleE outlined above. What else could they be lacking that would make them “fail the test”?
In 2 John 7, it was considered heresy to question whether or not Christ had actually come in the flesh (like docetism, I guess):
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.
To me, this seems kind of minor in many ways, though it was a huge deal back then. If someone still believed that Christ was the son of God and brought salvation in some way, should it have mattered if they didn’t fully understand how that happened? But 2 John shows that some early Christians had a huge problem with the doctrine.
2 Tim 2:16-19 talks about another form of false teaching:
But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”
To me, this also seems like a minor quibble that runs outside the principles UnkleE laid out as the core of Christianity. Again, exactly what people believe about how/when the resurrection works, or even exactly what the writer means by “resurrection” here seems minor if an individual still believes Christ is the avenue for salvation, etc. Incidentally, there’s an interesting discussion of this passage here.
And if God is unchanging, it’s hard to overlook some of the judgments he supposedly handed out in the Old Testament, like killing Nadab and Abihu for not getting their sacrificial fire in the right way. Killing Achan and his entire family when he didn’t follow the command about not looting Jericho. Honestly, there are tons of OT examples, and I won’t take up any more space with going through them. But they each show how particular God was in seemingly minor things. Now, I agree that most of the New Testament argues that such legalism is no longer necessary. But I think the passages I listed above show that it still isn’t just free rein, especially if God’s character is unchanging (Psalm 102:25-27; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).
The New Testament gives parameters about divorce and remarriage that are pretty strict. In Matthew 19:9, Jesus is speaking, and he says:
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.
That’s a rigorous standard that most Christians don’t really apply today, in that a large number of Christian marriages are actually adulterous, according to Jesus. Marriage and remarriage does not fall within the 5 precepts of the gospel that UnkleE laid out, but it still seems like it would be a big deal. After all, we’re told in 1 Cor 6:9-10 that adulterers can’t “inherit the kingdom of God.” What does that mean, exactly? I think it’s referring to salvation itself, and I think 1 Cor 5 bears that out. In that passage, Paul is telling the Corinthians to cast out the member among them who is sleeping with his father’s wife “so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.”
Apparently, this Christian was in danger of losing his salvation if he didn’t repent of his wrongdoing. And to go back to 1 Cor 6 for a minute, we see that far more than just adulterers would be in danger of the same fate:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
That’s quite a laundry list. Those sins might fall within the 4th and 5th points from UnkleE’s list, so does this include married couples who didn’t divorce their previous spouses for infidelity? For consistency’s sake, I would think that they would have to be included, yet very few churches make an issue of it.
In the end, I think when Paul uses terms like “the gospel,” he’s not always strictly speaking about the 5 basic points that UnkleE outlined. I think he’s also talking about any specific instructions that he (or other apostles) laid out in their epistles. Yes, passages like Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8-10 talk about issues that individual Christians may have differences of opinion over, but that’s because those were issues that no specific instruction had been given about. But today, there are so many issues, like divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, and women’s roles in the church that are considered minor by moderates today. And this is where the idea of authority comes into play. How do they justify their positions on these things?
Principles Not Rules
UnkleE goes on to argue that the New Testament focuses more on principles of how to live versus hard and fast rules. I do agree that it focuses more on principles than the Old Testament did, but I think the passages we’ve already looked at show that hard and fast rules still played a part.
UnkleE offers the following supporting points:
We serve God not according to a written set of rules, but guided by the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:6, Romans 7:6). Note that he uses as his example in the latter case nothing less than one of the Ten Commandments!
But I don’t think these 2 passages really illustrate UnkleE’s point. He makes it sound as though Paul is saying that written sets of rules no longer apply, but that’s not at all what he’s saying. He’s specifically talking about the Old Law (the Mosaic Law) in those passages, and UnkleE and I already agree that Paul argues the Old Law (including the 10 Commandments) has served its purpose and is no longer binding to Christians. That doesn’t mean there’s no longer any kind of written law — what about all the teachings in the New Testament, including the gospel?!
We can legitimately hold different views on moral issues. Paul gives several examples, some of them significant issues in his day – the eating of meat that had been offered to pagan idols (1 Corinthians 10:23-30), and the keeping of rules about Sabbath days and “unclean” foods (Romans 14:1-23). But he says quite definitely (Romans 14:13): “Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.”
But as we saw above, these passages are dealing with issues about which there was no direction given in the New Testament. They were true matters of personal conscience. Paul does not give permission to make these same kinds of judgments on things like divorce and remarriage. And while Paul says that they shouldn’t judge one another about these kinds of things, 1 Cor 5 talks about how they’re supposed to judge the actions of fellow Christians.
UnkleE’s third supporting point is:
Therefore, Paul’s conclusion on even important matters of behaviour is that we are free to decide (1 Corinthians 10:23), we should leave the judgment to God (Romans 14:4) and it is not rules but faith that will decide, for whatever is not done in faith is wrong (Romans 14:23) and all should be done to God’s glory (1 Corinthians 10:31).
But again, all of the passages here come exclusively from 1 Cor 10 and Romans 14, which discuss issues that are merely matters of personal preference.
The Holy Spirit
This is really where my biggest concerns lie. UnkleE has this to say about it:
A key fact, which many christians as well as critics can forget, is that christians believe we have been “given” the Spirit of God. Again, I don’t pretend to fully understand how this works, but it is clearly taught in scripture. Each believer has the help of the Holy Spirit in following Jesus in our lives and – crucially for this discussion – in guiding us to truth.
The Spirit is God, which means he is above the Bible, not lesser!
This is exactly what I was trying to get at in my initial questions to UnkleE. If the guidance of the Holy Spirit can trump scripture, how can any position ever be tested? If a man is married, but strongly believes that God wants him to be with his next door neighbor, who’s to say he’s wrong? Sure, the Bible contradicts his feelings, but the Holy Spirit has authority over the Bible. Yes, common sense contradicts his desire, but “God’s ways are higher than man’s.”
UnkleE also says this:
This merits a longer discussion than I can give now (but will post on soon), but we are told that the Holy Spirit will guide us into truth (John 16:13), so we can even know God’s will for us (Romans 12:2). We see examples of the Spirit guiding the believers in Acts (e.g. Acts 11:1-18, 13:1-3, 16:6-10). But we do, I believe, need to ask (James 1:5, Matthew 7:7-8).
So far from being “random thoughts”, if we pray, and take the precautions that the Bible gives us, we can have faith that God guides us (not just me, but his whole church) through his Spirit into true understandings – not infallibly, but steadily over time.
But to me, such a system looks exactly like “random thoughts.” How could anyone tell the difference between his own thoughts and the Holy Spirit? How could Paul rail against false teachers and false gospels if guidance from the Holy Spirit carries more weight than scripture? If 1000 different Christians all believe God has given them personal revelations that happen to conflict, there’s no way to sort among them to separate the true revelation from all the false ones.
In effect, it seems to me that such a religion can end up saying everything, which basically means it says nothing.
One More Thing
I know this post is painfully long, but I wanted to add one more thing. In his closing, UnkleE makes this point:
I suggest we should always start with what the scriptures say and expert knowledge about what it means – what would this or that passage have said to the people of the day, what do the words actually mean and how do experts understand them? We must read more than one viewpoint.
Then we must pray, consider, wait if necessary, and see if we receive guidance, and see how the Spirit is working and leading the body of believers as a whole. Our own experience and thoughts (if we are allowing God to transform our thinking) will help us.
Isn’t this exactly what we, as atheists, do as well? I’m quite familiar with the Bible (more so than many believers that I know), and I try to pay attention to what Biblical scholars have to say. I consider more than one point of view. I don’t pray, but I used to. And I believe that I’m open to being wrong — I’m even open to guidance. And I would love for God to give me some kind of message, personally. Used to plead for it, in fact. What else is there for me to do?
Closing
Let me stress that I really appreciate UnkleE’s willingness to discuss these things with me. As he knows, I was raised within a very fundamentalist version of Christianity that believed in biblical inerrancy. UnkleE has a very different perspective, and it’s difficult for me to fully understand it. My arguments here are how I try to come to terms with his beliefs. If I’ve missed some obvious answer to some of my questions, it’s solely due to ignorance, not obstinacy.
Finding Truth 
Unklee said:
You have previously given an example of the incident on the road that you state prevented you from having an accident.
If memory serves, you claimed it was a direct communication from your god and you acted upon it.
Belief communicated – Belief acted upon.
However, to date, you have still not demonstrated how you discerned it was a communication from your god and not a minor delusion.
As you refuse to dialogue with me would you mind explaining this to SB or someone else who you feel more comfortable ”talking to?”
Thanks.
LikeLike
SB said: ”I’m saying that a deity needs to be uniform when logic demands it.”
Unklee said:
If a hundred people were in a burning church and fifty truly believed they had heard the voice of your god who had stated he would save them and the church if they remained in the building as a demonstration of Truth Faith you would likely consider this sheer insanity. In fact, it could be considered culpable homicide on the part of those who chose to remain if minors were involved.
Logic demands that your god would be uniform in such an instance and communicate the same command to each individual in the church, and one would assume he would tell them to immediately get the hell(sic) out of there.
Of course, if he was truly able to communicate one could logically expect that he could also contrive some way to extinguish the fire with minimal damage and no loss of life.
As is so often the case, your focus seems to be on semantic gymnastics to demonstrate how adept you are at apologetics.
Of course, this may simply be be a misunderstanding on my part, but to my mind you have always come across as one for whom winning at all costs – the extended dialogue you had with Bernard over Nazareth always comes to mind in such circumstances
While you may think me uncivil, and I most certainly do not have your level of acumen when it comes to theological jousting, I was at least brought up to believe that honesty was a virtue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey UnkleE,
I think our biggest problem here is that you’re adding things to what I’m saying that aren’t there. For example, you said:
That’s an interesting thought, except I haven’t gone into anything about my personal criteria for what is true. I’m sorry you’ve got that impression, but it isn’t there. On my end, this discussion has solely (at least as I’ve tried to keep it that way) been about the points you raised in your own post concerning determining what is true.
I find it incredibly interesting that our discussion began with me asking you determine between what you think is truth versus mistake, and the answers I received didn’t mention your concerns about that possibility. It almost seems self-serving that you’d ignore mistakes in interpreting divine guidance in your statements about pursuing divine truth and then rely upon them to defend against the consequences of what you’re talking about.
But since you’re offering it now as a defense to the system of thought you’ve put forth, let’s consider the consequences of that. It means that a Christian could follow all the steps you list for finding truth and still get it wrong. At the least, it means that the system is not completely effective for finding actual truth.
Without knowing actually how effective it might be, we can still evaluate potential problems. Supposing that the system still miraculously guides Christians to truth almost 100% of the time, my previous criticism still stands: you have a deity which can say logically inconsistent things to different people (like hell existing and not existing, or like saying you can sing in church or not sing in church). Upon further reflection, it doesn’t quite matter if these beliefs are critical to the faith. What matters is that you have an intelligent, supernatural being saying completely opposite things to people.
But let’s suppose that mistakes happen more often. As they occur, it makes the efficiency and reliability of the system you put forward become less desirable. In other words, I’m asking what’s the point of having a car that will only start 9 out of 10 times? What about 5 out of 10? What if it only starts 1 out of 10 times? People might disagree on personal preference, but I think that some people might not like the lower reliability. At any rate, if mistake or just plain inaccuracy deprives people of divine truth, then the system you’re using for divine truth actually has a failure rate. This means that people can’t quite trust what other people get from it (and they can’t fully trust what they get from it themselves).
The “certain things about hell” I was referring to actually was from the notion of biblical inerrancy, and the certain thing specifically is that it exists (I did leave that part out). Hell is mentioned in the bible, and Christians who believe in inerrancy must believe everything in the bible is true. It’s how they justify salvation and everything else they confess to believe. And in the bible, hell is alleged to exist (even by Jesus, Matthew 10:28 comes to mind off the top of my head). So, I find it strange that you haven’t met anyone who believes hell exists because they believe everything in the bible is true. Maybe they should visit your neck of the woods!
Happily, we now have a very good example of what I’ve been talking about with regards to people being moved to find truth in opposite places. You believe hell doesn’t exist (and some other Christians do as well), and others believe hell does exist (for whatever reasons they have). Can hell exist and not exist at the same time? If not, is there a way to objectively determine if they’re mistaken? Does it even matter?
It seems like that last question figures into your reasoning. After all, who cares if a deity says opposite things if it gets people closer to whatever truth it wants to convey? An issue here arises with regards to the utility of such a system in the first place. If your method of finding truth is just going to give me a bunch of random things that don’t have an objective impact on my life, then the vast bulk of what anyone believes doesn’t matter. At that point, adopting it is purely an act of personal preference, which is fine if that’s what floats your boat.
Because of your misstatements of my position above and wrong impressions of what I’ve commented earlier, I feel like I should reiterate that I’m not arguing about the merits of Christianity here, or that people need to adopt a certain set of beliefs. I’m an atheist, so I don’t blame any deities for anything. Rather, I’m offering an evaluation on some points you’ve made above and elsewhere. While they are reasons to disagree with the position you’ve put forth, it’s just disagreement with that position. If people don’t care about the points I raise, that’s okay. It means they’re considering different points of view in evaluating a thought, which I think is a good thing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The strongest evidence for Christianity for most Christians is not biblical scholarship or archeology, it is “answered prayer”; in their lives and in the lives of the two billion fellow Christians living on the planet. If I understand what he has said in the past, I believe that answered prayer is the strongest evidence for UnkleE. But think about this: If two billion people regularly pray about practically EVERYTHING, random chance tells us that a good percentage of those prayers are going to be “answered”. That is A LOT of “answered prayers”! How then can intelligent, educated Christians who understand statistics—that the success rate of prayer to Jesus is no better than random chance—use this as proof of the effectiveness of praying to a two thousand year old dead man?
Can UnkleE or any other Christian prove that prayer to Jesus is more effective than random chance? If not, they should be honest and admit that their supernatural belief system is not based on evidence but simply on wishful thinking.
LikeLike
Unklee
First, let me say that this was a solid answer. I appreciated the research and papers you linked, and I very much agree that the lack of 1st century sources and data means there is a great deal of guesswork involved.
My own view, in a very general way, derives from a few observations. 1) The progressively more anti-Jewish tone of the NT and early Christian fathers seems consistent with a faith that failed to take root among Jews. 2) The early Church seemed to be very house-based. If Paul was writing to “the church in [whatever city” and this church could meet in private homes, then it seems fairly likely that these were still relatively small communities. 3) The lack of substantial independent attestation of the early Christian community suggest that it probably had not grown so large that it would be particularly remarkable.
Of course, all of this is made even more complicated by the diversity within early Christianity, even before the gnostics of the 2nd century. Paul talks about many people preaching a false gospel of Jesus. There are also the Ebionites, about whom we have relatively little information, but who seem to have remained more Jewish, and perhaps akin to the James or Nazarene view. Do they count as Christians? It’s hard to say.
Given all the evidence, it sure seems like Christianity both evolved and flourished more as it got farther from Jerusalem.
This is mostly an argument from silence. We don’t really have much idea what Jesus’ jewish opponents said, especially in the decade or two after his death, except from (a) later 1st century Christian responses, and (b) much later Talmudic references. If I recall correctly, Matthew said something about Jews claiming the body had been moved, though that just seems like the obvious response to a “his body was not there” claim.
As far as the Talmudic stuff, my impression is that it is much later, inconsistent across different manuscripts (e.g., names and details or outright inclusion differs widely), and so on. It is difficult to say whether it’s about Jesus at all. And if it is, it’s still difficult to say whether it represents some early critique or just a later polemic.
Celsus (latter 2nd century) does mention the Pantera and magic claims, but he also says Jesus was doing “certain magical powers on which the Egyptians pride themselves,” so it seems more like the “magic” was just the sort of superstitions or trickery that were common in that time and place. I don’t think we can really extrapolate much from that.
I do agree that we have no evidence of Jesus’ Jewish opponents questioning his existence, his role as a preacher/teacher, or his death.
No, absolutely not. I could agree with the idea that Jerusalem was an unlikely place to launch a resurrection story and that the creed was likely pre-Pauline. That does not mean I accept the empty tomb. As it happens, I am agnostic on the historicity of the “empty tomb.” But the question here is only whether scholarly acceptance of some argument that could be used to support the Empty Tomb constitutes acceptance of the Empty Tomb itself. I think that is an unjustified leap. If Habermas had intended to say that 75% of scholars endorse the empty tomb, he could have just said that. He does say that when talking to laymen. But when writing a more critical academic paper, he gives a more cautious description of his finding.
I think Habermas’ claims are not even very clear, much less his research. The fact that even his supporters cannot describe his methodology is a pretty significant problem. Unless he can produce the underlying data, so that we can understand his methodology and check his results, I think he is asserting a claim and not producing research.
Fair enough. I agree that many of our beliefs rest on un-tested assumptions and cultural indoctrination. That applies to every human. I don’t really have a strong sense of what exactly makes a view “rational”, but I do think that theistic belief is reasonable, given A) the social/cultural dynamics that normalize such beliefs, and B) the human tendency to see dualism, teleology and agency in the world around us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And what about all the alleged benefits of Christianity that UnkleE has mentioned? I believe that these same benefits can be found in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and most any other “-ism”. Why? Answer: Because “-isms” denote a herd activity; a herd mentality. They are not movements of solitary individuals living nomadic existences. Those of us who are atheists or agnostics derive some of these same social benefits of which UnkleE speaks here on Nate’s blog. In other words, there is nothing special about Christianity. It is one of many “herds” in the world today which provides the individual members of that herd the benefits of a herd. That’s it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think the thing that most religious people fail to realize is if God cares about everyone like he does a sparrow, why do they think they are special ? To state, “I believe christian faith is the best explanation of all the facts” is one of arrogance. Most religions promote this arrogance that theirs is the “right one” and they all believe they have “The evidence” to support this..
It’s all part of man’s dna to say, “mine is better than yours…….mine is bigger than yours”. And some attribute this to a God………..Hmmmm
LikeLiked by 3 people
@ Ken
And meanwhile, thousands of children across the globe, many of whom are kids of devout christian parents, die of starvation as we speak while arrogant Christian Dipshit Apologists kneel on the floor of their nice comfy lounge in their nice comfy house in the their nice comfy suburb and pray that their god, Yahweh, will ensure they have a nice day, find their car keys, their kid passes his finals, the mortgage will be granted to their best friends, some of those the stingy bastards at church will fork our more dosh for the repairs to the spire, especially that snotty cow from number 9 who thinks she’s the Bees-Knees just because her fat husband got a raise and a new company car, and finally hope the atheist SOB next door will be led to the Lord.(sic).
Amen.
Makes you want to vomit, doesn’t it?
LikeLiked by 3 people
No one puts it quite like you, Ark. 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ark
I want those things for myself, my family and my friends, too. I also spend/donate money on things that are less important than starving children. And I am sometimes that doughy jerk who takes a little too much pride in their material possessions.
And while I also think very little of people who think prayer is a substitute for action, it’s worth remembering that Christians organize missions to poverty-stricken places to help people. Sure, they may proselytize while they are there, but missionaries don’t just walk around handing out bibles to starving people. They help dig wells, build hospitals and feed the poor, too. Are you willing to do that?
You believe that helping the poor and needy is more important than praying. I agree. But there are a couple Mormon missionaries I talk to sometimes who volunteer at an Episcopal food pantry to help feed poor people every week. I have never been there. I may be right about the value of prayer, but prayer + helping feed poor people is a whole lot better than just ridiculing prayer.
Christians are not all that different from the rest of us. Some of them are complete jerks, some of them are thoroughly wonderful people and most of them are somewhere in between.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jon, you’re absolutely correct. There are “complete jerks” on both sides of the aisle. But what disturbs many non-believers are the “jerks” that make out like a bandit by preying on those (many who are barely making ends meet) who sit in the pews each week. These vultures are rarely the ones on the “front lines” helping the poor and disadvantaged.
There’s no doubt there are individuals who truly try to live by their leader’s commandments. But if you notice, Ark pinpointed the “arrogant Christian Dipshit Apologists.” They are a breed in themselves.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sorry, Jon. On this you are wrong.
Dead wrong.
That you have to try and rationalize it and then justify it demonstrates you simply will acknowledge the issues at stake. And the problem with bending over backwards to accommodate religion on these grounds means you will eventually see your arse.
The primary focus of the Christian ( as with all religious evangelizing) is to infect people with religion.
As far as I am aware, they are not willing to forgo this.
And many hungry, destitute people will be infected.
LikeLike
I will add … It is good that we have someone like you playing Devil’s Advocate.
LikeLike
Nan
I wholeheartedly agree. There are a lot of people exploiting faith and religion for fraudulent ends. The perpetual “Noah’s Ark” discoveries come to mind, along with the prosperity gospel preachers. Those frauds are awful.
LikeLike
yeah, Jon had a great point
LikeLike
Ark
Can you point out the specific quote that was wrong? Because I think what I said there was completely factual. For instance, I never suggested missionaries forgo evangelizing. I know they evangelize.
If you can point out a factually incorrect sentence or inference, please do.
LikeLike
When I say you are wrong I do not mean your are factually incorrect in your assertions about Christians helping people but was referring to your tacit implication that we should not tar all Christians with the same brush and some are good while others are … to use your word ”Jerks”.
This misses the point.
It is the religious motivation that is wrong. And anything that is motivated by religion is at its core wrong.
I hope this is clearer and sorry for any ambiguity in my previous comment.
LikeLike
HI, Nate.
I posted this video of Danial Everett on my blog and Ken suggested I give you a heads-up as he felt you might also like to post it on yours and get some comments from … interested parties?
If you haven’t seen it, I thoroughly recommend it either way.
Best
Ark
LikeLike
Oh, dear. I did not mean for it to post without permission. Sorry. Delete if it’s not your ”bag”.
LikeLike
Ark
I just can’t agree with that. If Bob Smith is motivated by his religious beliefs to give his money to the poor, does that make giving his money to the poor wrong? If a Hindu devotes his life to serving the poor, is that good or bad? What if he does it because he thinks it will result in good karma? Does that change either the practical or moral value of what he did?
Think of it this way. We can evaluate/judge people by three different things: 1) Belief, 2) Intent, 3) Action. Let’s look at an example….
Person A believe in God X, and so they Act to deliver medicine and education to a poverty-stricken area because they believe that helping the needy (glorifies God/may help the recipients consider their faith/is a religious duty/etc).
1. Does the accuracy of their Belief in any way effect the practical value of their Act? I doubt the recipients of medicine and education are any less healthy or grateful.
2. Is the accuracy of their Belief relevant to the moral value of their Act? Not from my point of view. I think helping the needy is a Moral Good. I don’t think a religious Belief is morally relevant to the Goodness of their Act.
3. Is their Intent practically relevant? Probably not. Unless the Intent changes the Act — e.g., the person spends their time proselytizing rather than helping — I don’t think the recipients will be less healthy, educated or well due to the Intent of the person helping the needy. If I give to the Red Cross just because I want the tax deduction, that doesn’t change the practical value of that donation at all to the recipients. If a religious person believes helping the poor will rebound to religious person’s benefit in the next life or afterlife, that does not have any effect on the practical value of their Act.
4. Does Intent undermine the moral value of an Act? I think you can make a decent case that Intent can undermine the Moral value of an Act. For example, Pablo Escobar provided a lot of medicine and education for the people of Colombia. Of course, his Intent was not just their well-being, but also to gain popular and political support that would help protect his drug cartel. Less compromising would be Acts that are done out of some sense of religious duty or for the favor of God. While that might compromise the Moral value of an Act somewhat, I don’t think it compromises it much (or any) more than the sense of self-satisfaction a non-religious person gets from doing a Moral act.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Then can we say the work of Mother Theresa was good or not?
LikeLike
Watch at time 1:50 what Christopher Hitchens has to say about Mother Teresa.
LikeLike
Thanks, KC. It was this I had in mind. I am not sure if Jon will agree though.
LikeLike
You are welcome. There are probably no statistics for this, but I wonder if there have been far more physical and psychological adverse effects on recipients from religious humanitarians or from non-religious humanitarians ?
When unkleE likes to tout belonging to a religious organization promotes better physical and psychological health, I wonder if there is an equal or greater number of people damaged from it ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great question, KC!
LikeLike