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 
And is this not simply your subjective perspective?
If some people believe that Yahweh was justified ordering the slaughter of Canaanites who the hell (sic) are you William with your Ivory Tower morality to tell anyone that Yahweh’s actions were ”bad”?
Or the Manchester bomber for that matter.
LikeLike
Ark
No promises, but I’ll try to work it in today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark
Ark
Yes. How could it be anything else?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hate watching fellow skeptics going at each other. Can’t we all just get along???
🙂
I would much rather hear from UnkleE regarding how he knows that the still small voice in his head is his god and not just himself talking to himself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, it’s like Unklee being mistakenly booked as the Guest Speaker at a YEC rally.
I think Jon’s just feeling a little crabby and embarrassed that he’s beginning to sound like a Watered-Down Theist. He’s so off kilterat the moment he is even posting comments twice. I reckon he may need therapy after Nate closes this thread.
I’ll bet he has been emailing unklee. Always a bad move. Before long he’ll be using words and phrases such as:
I attempt to analyze things rationally, dispassionately, and … That is a good question, but I think too broad a question. .
Oh … er … hold on a sec.
LikeLike
@William
Yes it does, and they are fully encapsulated in the word religion.
LikeLike
Gary
Relax, debating ideas is enjoyable.
Ark
Given the fact that others don’t seem to agree with your argument, perhaps you might consider the possibility that you are either incorrect or, at least, failing to communicate your idea adequately.
I posted the comment twice because I failed to close a blockquote, so I did it again with the blockquote closed. I have not emailed Unklee. And I don’t particularly care whether an argument I make is helpful to, or compatible with, theism. My non-belief in a god is irrelevant to the view I outlined above about judging beliefs, intentions and actions.
LikeLike
Most of the ”others” are ex-believers, and some were fundamentalist. Letting go of that amount of indoctrination and fully realise how deep those ”claws” actually went it cannot be easy, even if one does declare oneself an atheist these days.
Look at you – you’re are still trying to defend it.
And yes, Jon, I did realise that you had failed to close the blockquote.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark:
Zoe: No, not easy at all. Especially, when so many of us are surrounded by various systems of belief that on the surface appear to present themselves as benevolent and compassionate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary,
What then did your friend say? Did the conversation go anywhere else interesting from there?
LikeLike
No. He has stopped communicating. I’m going to give him some more time before I ask him what’s up.
LikeLike
I just want to throw this out there to Ark, Jon, and maybe anyone else following their conversation:
The progress of your discussion highlights the drawbacks of trying to make general claims about the negative aspects of religion. Usually the first response to a general claim is some easy exception. Speaking from experience, that search for an exception is automatic when regarding a general criticism of faith. That is, people often look for wiggle room to say that the criticism doesn’t apply.
I know it’s difficult to limit oneself to specifics, but it does a better job at addressing concerns regarding religious thought. And there are good specific examples out there. A few weeks back, I read a Christian blogger’s post where he flat out advocated for an atheist blogger to commit suicide. Rather than getting shunned by fellow Christians, the post got quite a few likes and positive comments from the community. Some of those people are otherwise polite and amicable, but supporting the tribe allowed them to dehumanize someone completely.
If Ark is barking up the wrong tree, stuff like that should not exist. While it might not be the root of all evil everywhere, its inability to stop people from dehumanizing each other is a fair, general criticism.
LikeLiked by 3 people
@Zoe:
Thank you, Zoe. Perhaps you or Nan ought to explain it to Jon? It might be more believable coming from one who has been ”through the mill”?
@ Serius Biznus.
Thank you S,B. I reckon your comment and the one from Zoe pretty much vindicate what I am trying get across, but I suspect Jon and maybe William, will try to ”explain it” once again.
@ ratamacue0
The conversation between the Pastor and I hit a major reef when his only answer to my question about asking him to explain how he would get across to an Amazon tribe ( the Amazon in South America not the one on the Internet) that the bible was divinely inspired and inerrant as he claims it is. After much Theological Two-Step he elected to go with the Scripture is the Word of (his) God (sic) because Scripture says it is the Word of (his) God(sic) and anything else would be guided by the ”Holy Spirit”.
Rather than accept the evidence that flatly refutes his claims of inerrancy, and divine inspiration he simply deleted the post.
Oh, and Gary can attest, I was polite, cordial and thoroughly diplomatic throughout. I gave him every opportunity to fully explain and even bit my tongue when he opened and closed the post with steaming moronic Fundy Apologetics, even though over at Gary’s spot I had asked him nicely please not to, and mentioned it was irrelevant to the question and simply got my back up. And for the record not once did I call Pastor Jeff Baxter a Disingenuous SOB, nor a Dickhead or a Giant Creationist Child Abusing Arsehat throughout.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Sirius,
I’m sorry to be so long in replying, but I’ve been having problems posting a comment – dunno why.
I’m sorry if you think I’m adding things to what you’re saying. I don’t think that’s what I’m doing. You appear to be misunderstanding me and christianity. You said at the start that you wanted to understand me fairly, so I have been trying to explore why you have these misunderstandings.
So let me just point out the places where you misunderstand, and I’ll leave it to you to decide if you want to follow tham up (after all, it was your questions in the first place).
”I find it incredibly interesting that our discussion began with me asking you determine between what you think is truth versus mistake”
Your question related to personal revelation, but that is only a very small part of the truth I believe.
”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.”
I’m sorry, but I have no idea what you are saying here.
”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.”
Almost all christians know that personal revelation is highly fallible on its own. We need other sources of knowledge too.
” 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).”
What christians think doesn’t necessarily = God saying something!
”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).”
Yes, exactly. What people think may be personal revelation is fallible because we are all fallible. We need other sources of knowledge too. We don’t always get everything right. That says a lot about people but very little about God.
” I find it strange that you haven’t met anyone who believes hell exists because they believe everything in the bible is true. “
If you check back, you’ll see I didn’t say this. I don’t even understand what you mean here, I’m sorry.
”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?”
Your last comment here (Does it even matter?) is what I have been saying all along. Jesus warns his hearers to be concerned to be on the right path that leads to life rather than destruction. That is what is important. The exact nature of that destruction isn’t highly important.
”After all, who cares if a deity says opposite things if it gets people closer to whatever truth it wants to convey?”
Now you are again assuming “God says” without having shown that is the case. I repeat again – if you want to go from personal opinions that may or may not come from God, to “God says”, you need to justify that enormous jump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Jon,
Apologies to you too for the delay.
“Given all the evidence, it sure seems like Christianity both evolved and flourished more as it got farther from Jerusalem.”
I don’t have any problem agreeing with that. After all, Jerusalem was a sacked city after 70 CE, and most of the christians had scattered. But I think that is a long way from your original statement or inference that christianity didn’t flourish among those who knew Jesus. It flourished among them, but remained a relatively small movement until it spread out from Jews to Gentiles. After all, there were far more Gentiles than Jews.
But we both agree that the movement started among Jews and ended predominantly among Gentiles, or at least hellenised Jews in the diaspora. We may disagree over the exact percentages, but not much because neither of us know. So our disagreement is mainly over our interpretation of those facts (such as they are), and given our respective worldviews, that is hardly unexpected. I think I’ll leave it there.
“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 ….”
I’m curious to know where you were going with your question, whether you have any other responses other than mine, and what you think about it all. Just curious. Thanks.
LikeLike
“And is this not simply your subjective perspective?”
sure. I may not be capable of sharing anything other than my perspective.
“If some people believe that Yahweh was justified ordering the slaughter of Canaanites who the hell (sic) are you William with your Ivory Tower morality to tell anyone that Yahweh’s actions were ”bad”?
Or the Manchester bomber for that matter.”
Ark, I’m not sure what your point is.
I agree that religion is man ,made and not real. I agree that many do bad things due to their religions, or that they can allow religion to justify their hatred in many cases. But I’m only saying that if a Church of Christ Scientist digs a well for poor an impoverished African village, that they are doing a good work, and while their religious motives may play a part, they are still simultaneously capable of doing it out of genuine love and compassion. And I also think it’s noteworthy, that the well diggers and overall do-gooders, typically aren’t the ones bombing people. They may refuse a wedding cake to someone they think shouldnt get married, but I doubt that they’d refuse medical or food to anyone who needed it.
In their minds it’s, “I want to help you live and be healthy, but I dont want to help you sin.”
while I see the problems there, I also see how that mentality is different than a suicide bomber’s.
I’m not really sure that I get this whole discussion anymore.
LikeLike
Sirius,
It’s a fare criticism in certain applications, but not all. To apply that generalization across the board is going to create problems and inaccuracies, like most generalizations do.
In general terms, the USA is a fertile place, but it’s stupid to zero in a Death Valley, CA and say that it is fertile, because it’s in the USA, and USA is fertile… To me it seems just as absurd to say that a good deed acted out by a religious person isn’t really a good deed, because sometimes some religious people are jerks, is just wrong and looks a lot like trying to invent reasons to despise something. Ironically this resembles a tactic that we routinely criticize apologists for using.
I’m not defending religion, but I see no point in pretending the good actions of some religious people do not really count, or somehow aren’t really good, because either they’re all secretly douches or they’re only motivated by the personal reward of heaven or whatever…
I disagree.
There are many religious people who give a lot of themselves and who do real and tangible good. That does not make their religion right or real, but the fact that they’re religious does not mean their actions and efforts aren’t really good beneficial, nor does it mean that they don’t somehow have true compassion.
LikeLike
There was a band called Soft Cell in the later seventies and they had a hit called Tainted Love.
The act (of kindness) is not in question, only the religious motivation.
Please try to understand that this very same well-digger might consider it an act of kindness to buy the book, The Cage and spend half an hour every night before bedtime reading it to his/her four and five year old children because as devout Christians they are desperately afraid their kids must understand all about Jesus and God(sic) and heaven and hell and punishment for their sins and that they can never actually enough to truly be worthy but they must at least try or they will got to hell and be tortured and burn for eternity they do not. Because we all know that ”God Loves You!! ”
You know what? If I was the child of such a parent and I had enough maturity to exercise critical thought at that age instead of crying myself to sleep and peeing my pants in terror, I would say this:
”Well, fuck this hell, fuck this religion, fuck the bible and last but not least fuck this god.- what a load of absolute rubbish!. Only a delusional bloody idiot would believe in such nonsense? And you are my parents and supposed to be grown up, which makes it even more ridiculous. And you want to indoctrinate me with this shit? For goodness sake, mum and dad, get a life! And for the record, even if this Yahweh character was real, he is obviously not worth shit, and I would not do a damn thing for him or in his name. Thanks all the same, but can I read Alice in Wonderland now please? At least no Dickhead apologist is ever going to try to convince me what Lewis Carol wrote was fact.”
LikeLike
Hey UnkleE,
Thanks for your response!
With regards to your point that you never said you haven’t met any Christian who thinks people should believe in hell:
While I might not have a complete and accurate depiction of your particular views on Christianity, I think it’s a bit overreaching to say I don’t understand it at all. Our problem here is you’re adding things into what I’m saying that aren’t really there, and it moves the conversation away from the ideas I’m trying to discuss.
It goes back to my initial line of questioning. They weren’t just about personal revelation; they were about how you can tell the difference between “personal opinions” and what a deity is trying to communicate. You outlined a process by which a Christian can determine if a thought is from a deity versus personal opinion. There was no other information given as to whether a person can follow that process and still get it wrong.
As it stands, the idea you conveyed (that personal revelation is a way to get at divine truth) doesn’t have any component for which one can say it is fact or opinion. In other words, you’re asking me to justify the jump without giving me enough information to evaluate it. It’s like telling me I have to walk across a bridge that hasn’t been built yet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark,
sure, but again, you’re going to an extreme and trying to apply that to the whole.
I was raised in fundamental Christian family, who taught hell fire and brimstone – and I didn’t piss my pants in fear. I didn’t shake if constant fear or worry. Eventually, even if it took longer than it should have, I came to question and then shrug off such “faith.”
I also know that no one is perfect and no one is going to always be perfectly rational or objective. While that’s not really an excuse for bad or stupid behavior, it is a reason to expect that people will make mistakes to varying degrees, despite best efforts.
So the well-digger who tells terrifying bedtime stories about hell to their children is one action, and digging wells is another. If we’re all only going to be judged on our mistakes, then none of us are good. I find this to be little better than the hell bedtime stories you’re criticizing.
And it doesnt even take a religious person to use scare tactics on their children, with misplaced good intentions.
“you go in the street and car will kill you.”
“You have sex you’ll get aids or get pregnant.”
“You do drugs you’ll die.”
“You dont stop throwing tantrums the police will arrest you…”
These are all stupid and overly dramatic to the extent that they will likely lead to the opposite of what the parent intends. While it’s not good and needs to be corrected, it doesn’t take away from the fact that they love and hug their children, provide for them and would likely wade through a sea of broken glass to save them.
There are problems with religion. I do not disagree at all. I just don’t see the point in making out like nothing about a religious person is good – it’s just not true.
LikeLike
Hey William,
I get what you’re saying, and I think my comment reflects that I don’t prefer absolute criticisms of religion (i.e., all religion is bad). However, I am saying that one doesn’t have to get to that point to criticize religion as a whole. Religions make some really big claims, and those claims need to be evaluated like everything else. Essentially, it’s the difference between saying, “I think all religion is bad,” and saying, “I don’t think religion promotes goodness.” These are similar statements, but the latter lets people evaluate the issue more thoroughly without running into the problems you’ve mentioned.
LikeLike
I am struggling to fathom why I am not making myself clear on this topic and I am wondering if perhaps you are misreading what I’m writing? Zoe seems to be getting it and I’m pretty sure Gary is as well.
But I will explain … again.First. Religion is the problem. All religion. Because it invokes a supernatural agent. I don’t want to come across as condescending but let that sink in for a second.
As a rule,or up to a point, it is not the person and it is strong>not the actions but the motivating factor behind the actions . And that motivating factor is … religion
( and this applies even if you want to call yourself simply a Jesus-Follower or what ever other tripe you come up with).
And the (non-religious) parents who warn their children about traffic, drugs and sex etc have no need to invoke a deity as part of the warning, now do they? No. Of course not.
I really hope that this time I have explained myself fully?
If not please tell me where I am falling down?
LikeLiked by 1 person
UnkleE: “Almost all christians know that personal revelation is highly fallible on its own. We need other sources of knowledge too.”
We know that the Bible is highly fallible. Now UnkleE agrees with us that personal revelation is highly fallible. What’s left? How do Christians KNOW that Jesus of Nazareth is God the Creator, Ruler of Heaven and Earth, if they have no reliable source confirming this claim?
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you recall what Jeff Baxter wrote to me … The Holy Spirit.
I am going to guess that this will be the answer you receive, or words to this effect.
LikeLike