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 
If someone such as unklee understands the term devious when applied to a normal scenario then he would surely recognise the same action when being applied a supernatural scenario.
Thus, when science and archaeology demonstrate the fallacious nature of some aspect of his religion then denying it and then finding a way to fit this in with his faith is devious.
His belief in the Virgin Birth is as good an example as any.
LikeLike
Just in case ….
devious
ˈdiːvɪəs/Submeter
adjective
1.
showing a skilful use of underhand tactics to achieve goals.
“he’s as devious as a politician needs to be”
LikeLike
For Christians who do not believe that an inerrant Bible is the highest authority in their belief system, it is surprising just how far they are willing to go to rationalize any new evidence which contradicts their current position on a specific issue, even going so far as to completely abandon that issue.
Case in point, the Virgin Birth. Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown says in his book “The Virginal Conception and the Resurrection of Jesus” that if evidence came to light that Jesus did have an earthly father, this would NOT change the Catholic Church’s position on the divinity of Jesus. Why? Because God can make Jesus divine without needing a virginal conception.
In other words: We don’t care WHAT evidence skeptics put forward, we are going to believe in our superstitions come Hell or high water!
LikeLiked by 1 person
And we have all seen that this is exactly the approach unklee takes. This is devious behaviour.
And it is justified in much the same fashion as it is claimed Eusebius chose to present his ”evidence”.
But we still have not addressed the issue of how we get someone like unklee to recognise the falseness of his position.
LikeLike
One possibility would be if we could convince Christians like UnkleE to “test the spirit”: Ask Jesus to prove his presence within you. Not by doing something big, like levitating the dining room table which Jesus won’t do, but by doing something small; but still something that could not be coincidence.
The problem is that the founders of Christianity have already told Christians NOT to test God (I forget the Bible passage, but its in there). So if nothing happens after a Christian has asked Jesus for proof of his existence, Christians will say, “Well, nothing happened because God doesn’t like to be tested.”
LikeLike
God forbid someone should be a ‘doubting Thomas’! 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
It is highly unlikely to work with some like unklee. He has already stated he would change if the evidence convinced him and we have all seen how he manipulates anything and everything to ensure he remains a Jesus follower.
I don’t believe there is anything anyone could do or say or wrote that would convince him.
He has to come to the realization himself.
I have made mention before that his arguments seem more like one who is trying to convince themselves rather than anyone else.
And it is a given that, based on evidence, nobody here would ever return to the fold , and certainly not on the arguments presented by unklee, which are plainly ridiculous and, quite frankly, disingenuous in some cases.
I would imagine that along with the frustration of dealing with such an obtuse individual as unklee, many of you must cringe with embarrassment knowing you were in many ways much like he is.
LikeLike
@ Ark:
No one got someone like me to recognize the falseness of my position. It had to come from me. I don’t think you can get uncleE to change. He’s the only one who can.
LikeLiked by 2 people
unkleE that is
LikeLike
Oops. I didn’t read this far. I see you came to this conclusion already.
Ark:
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suggest that in the future, skeptics who choose to debate Christians such as UnkleE establish strict debate guidelines in advance before proceeding. I believe that experience on this blog demonstrates that the debate will be completely pointless and extremely exasperating for the skeptic if the Christian is not forced to agree to the following caveat: The probability of historical events in Christianity’s Jesus Story must be determined based on the same standards used by historians to determine the probability of all other historical events.
I’ll give an example: In numerous debates with Christians I have pointed out that even if a Creator God exists, he (she, they, or it) has never before or since resurrected a brain-dead corpse. Resuscitations, yes, but the resurrection of a dead corpse, giving it a new, super-hero body, no. (Even Christians are forced to agree with this point). So the prior-probability of the resurrection is ZERO. Therefore, it is much more probable that a natural explanation is the explanation for the Empty Tomb than a resurrection. It is much more probable that the very improbable event that a devout Jew moved the body on the SABBATH, a terrible sin for a devout Jew, than that a resurrection occurred.
Christians reject this logic because they say that existence of God (Yahweh) outweighs all prior probability.
WRONG! You can’t do that, Christians! Not if you have agree to the debate parameter above. Professional historians are not going to allow such an argument in debating any other event in history so why should we allow it for this event?
LikeLike
Hi UnkleE,
Yes, it’s good to be back, thanks 🙂
I see what you’re saying. Mostly, I’m just trying to point out that Christians sometimes disagree about what constitutes a “salvation matter.” I don’t think it’s always easy to parse which is which, considering the different ways scripture can be interpreted. So the assumption that some doctrine may not be that relevant to what God really wants could be dangerous (Nadab and Abihu, the young prophet in 1 Kings 20, Saul’s failure to annihilate the Amalekites, etc.).
I think that relates to what we’ve been talking about, because if two Christians feel that the Holy Spirit has led them to two different conclusions about whether or not a specific doctrine is vital, how could anyone determine which (if either of them) is right? If we go back to scripture to see which was right, what use was the Holy Spirit in the first place?
To me, that still seems unfalsifiable. I don’t see how you can assume that either is an actual revelation and not just one of your own thoughts.
I think such a thing is possible, though I’ve never noticed anything I could label as “sufficient.” I also just find no reason to think the Bible or its gods have any connection to an actual possible deity. I think it’s an interesting book, but I think its flaws are too numerous to have any hint of the divine. I completely understand why some people believe in a god — I just don’t know why they would connect it to Christianity.
Incidentally, if we assume Christianity is true for a moment, I don’t see how God’s hiddenness gives us any kind of autonomy. It seems quite the opposite, to me.
LikeLike
Hi Sirius,
”At the outset, I’m curious as to why you think biblical revelation is safer than personal revelation, yet personal revelation can overrule parts of the bible.”
Biblical revelation is objective, fixed, amenable to academic study so it can be tested and interpreted. On the essentials, its interpretation doesn’t change much. The Apostles Creed is still pretty much the core after nearly 2 millennia.
I don’t think I ever said my personal revelation can overturn scripture. If you think I did, can you point out where please? I think the Holy Spirit can guide the body of christians to new interpretations, but that is a bit different.
” To give the latter category the same weight as a verified idea doesn’t strike me as very wise.”
Again, I don’t think I ever said this, so if you think I did, can you also point out where please? I think I have consistently said the opposite. That there are many ways to know things and we should use all of them, with appropriate levels of confidence for each one.
”the conversion experience prompts Christians to make all sorts of decisions about other specific beliefs about the Christian deity”
Yeah, and the deconversion experience does exactly the same for unbelievers. Sometimes (in both cases) the decisions they make are more rational than other times. That’s people.
”Me misunderstanding you isn’t the problem here; it’s why I restated your position and had you correct any errors beforehand.”
I appreciate that you have tried to be fair and tried to verify what I think (though I’m not sure why you’re interested). But even in this reply I’ve twice indicated I think you have understood me wrongly. perhaps if you respond to those two examples, it will help us understand what is going on here.
” I said that they’re taking a lot of shots in the dark. Because of their beliefs, Christians are probably going to be fine with this. It doesn’t mean that non-Christians have to be okay with it.”
You would see it as shots in the dark, because you think our basis is erroneous. I think very little is so unsure. Perhaps this is because your interest seems to be in personal revelation, whereas I have said that it is a small part of my overall decision-making.
Really, most christians are very normal people. We vote, laugh, marry, get sick, hold down normal jobs, etc, just like everyone else, and we mostly make decisions just like most other people, except we have some additional sources of information that are relevant in some situations. I worked for decades as a civil engineer and environmental manager. I got to be reasonably good at the latter job, and was respected by most of those I worked with. Most of my colleagues knew I was a christian and respected me for it while disagreeing with me. None of them ever suggested my decision-making was any less good because of my beliefs. I was the same person – an environmental manager and a christian at the same time, not some hybrid that behaved differently in different situations. Most christians are the same. I suspect you are trying to prove or find something that isn’t there, but I am quite happy to keep answering questions.
LikeLike
Hi Nate,
”I’m just trying to point out that Christians sometimes disagree about what constitutes a “salvation matter.” I don’t think it’s always easy to parse which is which, considering the different ways scripture can be interpreted.”
Yes, I think I can understand. But I still wonder if you think that God has very stringent requirements deciding who gets in – sort of like the examination to award a high distinction requires getting 90% of questions correct. Some christians may have that idea, but I don’t think many do. The Bible (New Testament) suggests God has very few requirements – generally summed up as believing or repenting or changing.
Now if you think the God portrayed by Jesus is nasty, then you might be scared that you haven’t got things exactly right – but you wouldn’t want to be with a nasty God, and you wouldn’t have confidence he would do what he said anyway. But if you believe, as I do and as most people find when they read the NT, that God is portrayed as loving and gracious, then you know he isn’t trying to trick us. Jesus accepted tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers and social outcasts. He offered them forgiveness first and then suggested they smarten up their lives second. That’s what christians believe God is like. So precision and trying to trap us are not what he’s about.
”if two Christians feel that the Holy Spirit has led them to two different conclusions about whether or not a specific doctrine is vital, how could anyone determine which (if either of them) is right?”
I don’t think I have ever suggested that doctrines are decided that way. The only examples I have of apparent personal revelation are personal matters. Doctrine is decided by scripture and by the Holy Spirit working through the larger body of believers. Martin Luther wouldn’t ever have change christianity if he didn’t have scriptural support and the assent of many other christians.
”To me, that still seems unfalsifiable. I don’t see how you can assume that either is an actual revelation and not just one of your own thoughts.”
I have said exactly the same – that I don’t know generally until later – that applies to both the few “personal revelations” I believe I have had, and the more common thoughts that I believe were Spirit-guided. Hence my example of the warning of the truck accident. I didn’t know that thought from any other thought, but I acted on it just in case, avoided an accident, and felt that it was too coincidental to be anything other than a thought God put there. So it was verifiable, if not totally falsifiable.
” I completely understand why some people believe in a god — I just don’t know why they would connect it to Christianity.”
I find that quite surprising from a former christian. The historical evidence for Jesus is very good, and based on that evidence, the case for Jesus as son of God is strong (IMO). That’s why I connect the God of philosophy with the God of the Bible.
”I don’t see how God’s hiddenness gives us any kind of autonomy. It seems quite the opposite, to me.”
I’m interested to hear why you think the opposite. The old saying is “when the cat’s away, the mice will play”. I think God’s relative hiddenness works the same way.
LikeLike
Hey UnkleE,
I’ll address the two misunderstandings first.
A. This quote is one expression of the idea I’m getting at:
(emphasis omitted).
Although you have mentioned that the idea is different (you listed personal revelation and Holy Spirit revelation separately), you’ve been using them as the same thing. For example, you listed Paul’s Damascus road conversion as a personal revelation – but it was a personal revelation from the Christian deity. This at least implies that personal revelation is from your deity and not purely the product of the individual.
The Holy Spirit is but one aspect of the triune Christian deity. It seems a bit odd that you’d argue god can guide people through one aspect and then disclaim that aspect from working on the individual level (after having used an example of that individual level in the presentment of your idea). In short, if I did misunderstand you, you might want to use a different example.
B. Here’s something you said right after listing the 6 new ways of knowing things:
At the outset, it might seem like “some circumstances” might rescue you. However, this matter was dealt with when I restated your position and said it was “an avenue for discovering truth just like any other[]” (see my comment May 31, 2017, supra). Your response on June 1 stated you were happy with it.
There’s another point I wanted to clear up as well when you said, “None of [my colleagues] ever suggested my decision-making was any less good because of my beliefs.”
The problem with this and the paragraph it’s in is that I’ve never asserted Christians are somehow all incapable of making decisions all the time. If we’re being fair here, you would need to find in our discussion where you felt I said or implied that. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you could limit the discussion to things I’ve actually said or implied.
It seems like this conversation has suffered from your perception of me saying things that aren’t there. This is the third or fourth time I think I’ve called attention to it. Perhaps all the different conversations are blending together, and I’m just a convenient target?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I said:
And unkleE replied:
Great question! Let’s stick with the “mice will play” saying. Why are the mice playing? Is it because they know there’s a cat around but don’t care, or is it that they simply don’t realize the cat is a real threat?
When people live in a way that violates Christian teaching, is it because they think Christianity is a valid authority, but they don’t mind being rebellious? Or is it because they don’t think Christianity is true? Should there be a distinction between those groups?
If the Christian god is real, and he wants to know which people will worship him, how does it help to keep his existence hidden? It’s likely that some people who reject Christianity do so simply because they haven’t been convinced, not because they’re the kind of people who would refuse him either way.
To me, true autonomy requires a knowledge of the environment. If the Bible’s stories of Solomon are true, then he was actually making an autonomous choice when he stopped serving Yahweh in later life, because he knew beyond a doubt that Yahweh was real. Ashurbanipal, on the other hand, had no firsthand experience with Yahweh, so his serving Assyrian gods over the Israelite god is not a surprise. He didn’t really have the “autonomy” to choose between them, because he didn’t fully understand them in the way that Solomon did.
Logically, there’s just no good reason for God to hide himself from us today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The major problem with arguing the toss with someone like unklee, who is reasonably skilled in apologetics ( read obfuscation and cherry picking), is that the questions become too long-winded and allow for way too much latitude when it comes to providing an answer.
People like William Lane Craig are expert at this tactic and before one realizes, not only has the original question effectively, not been answered honestly or lost among the strung-out reply, but the reply has put the questioner on the back foot, having to defend once more.
Question need to be short, and precise, leaving as little margin for waffle as possible.and to sta
Any response that begins along the lines of ”I don’t think it is like this …etc ” needs to be brought back and qualified.
For those asking the questions there is no need to delve into elongated tracts of prose for the sake of other readers – preaching to the converted is unnecessary
The question pertaining to divine revelation and how someone like unkle can discern the difference between revelation and delusion has still not been answered with any serious degree of honesty.
He needs to be asked to answer directly and to stay on topic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Nate, it seems we have a very clear question to discuss, which is good.
Your assumption seems to be this: ”the Christian god is real, and he wants to know which people will worship him”.
This is a plausible assumption, but I have some problems with it.
(1) The word “worship” may suggest that God has some need to have people fawn over him like some petty tyrant, a concept I reject. You might substitute “believe in him” and that might remove that problem.
(2) But manifestly, if we are talking about the christian God, not everyone alive now, nor in the history of the world, have heard of him, so that would be unfair. So either God is unfair, which I reject by definition, or there’s still something wrong with your formulation. To fit the definition of God that he is fair, we need a formulation that works for all people.
(3) The Bible suggests in a couple of places that God judges people according to the light they have been given – that’s where we began all this – and CS Lewis and many other christians follow those hints, and the logic, and say that must be so. And to achieve his goal of giving us autonomy, free will, that choice mustn’t be coerced by fear. It needs to arise from who we have freely chosen to be (within the limits of our hereditary and environment).
(4) To achieve this goal, all people must have a moral sense, a conscience, and an awareness of what is truly right and true. On this understanding, they have to freely act according to the information they have. If they have no information (no conscience) they have no criteria, and if they have too much knowledge of God, their decision is as forced as having a gun at their head. Such coercion can be mitigating circumstances in a court of law, indicating that such a person has been unable to act freely. So the free will explanation seems reasonable.
(5) It needs to be said that christianity, as I understand it, is not all about pie in the sky when we die, as you and many others may think. It is about the kingdom of God on earth, and one day in the age to come, a new heaven and a new earth. People who respond to the light they have been given can gain God’s approval for the age to come, but it is much harder for them to serve the kingdom of God now. So it is still better to know about Jesus and be following him. But knowledge of Jesus may also provide an indication of where a person’s “heart” is – I believe it may be true that if someone has the heart and conscience that God is looking for, they will find belief in Jesus attractive and see its truth. I believe in the Holy Spirit.
(6) Finally, I think it is interesting that this supposed hiddenness of God has become a reason for some people to disbelieve (John Schellenberg, and maybe you too). I think this is a strange argument. For when I ask you and others about how the universe came to exist out of nothing and without a reason or cause, I’m often told “I don’t know, but I’m OK with that.” And when I ask how did such an unlikely universe get to be so “finely-tuned” that it produced against all the odds a universe that evolved stars and planets and eventually life, I sometimes get a similar answer. Now this is curious. Those two questions are big important questions about events that are highly improbable and which lack any reasonable natural explanation, yet they don’t seem to cause any disquiet at all, and yet this rather obscure matter of the alleged hiddenness of God, for which there is a plausible explanation, does cause disquiet.
I can’t help feeling there is an inconsistency here.
LikeLike
Hi Sirius,
”It seems like this conversation has suffered from your perception of me saying things that aren’t there. “
I want to start with this. I’m truly sorry if I’ve not understood you or have made wrong suggestions about how you may be thinking. I have genuinely tried to understand and be fair. But I think the “problem” is different to what you say.
You are asking me questions. I have tried to answer them accurately. But I am finding that your questions seem to me to change emphasis sometimes, and to be based on misunderstandings of what I think. I try to correct these misunderstandings, and when they seem to persist, I offer suggestions as to why you seem to be misunderstanding, in the hope that will help you get accurate answers. If my suggestions don’t help, then please ignore them. But I’m not trying to accuse you of something you haven’t said, just trying to help you get a true picture. Anyway, I’m sorry for the misunderstandings.
”Although you have mentioned that the idea is different (you listed personal revelation and Holy Spirit revelation separately), you’ve been using them as the same thing.”
I have distinguished personal revelation and Holy Spirit guidance. The first is direct, noticeable (after the event at least) and (for me) rare. The second is constant (I believe), not obvious, and a matter of faith. They are different degrees of the same thing, I believe, but worth distinguishing.
”This at least implies that personal revelation is from your deity and not purely the product of the individual.”
Yes, of course. I’m not sure why you would ever think otherwise. All “revelation” must by definition be from God, but takes many forms. There is scriptural revelation, the revelation in Jesus (recorded in scripture but quite a different thing because people saw and heard him at the time before scripture was written), personal revelation (personal because it comes from God to a person – Paul’s conversion was a more dramatic than usual example, but people today report visions and other phenomena too) and the subtle guidance of the Holy Spirit. Each of these forms of revelation are different (after all, revelation is just a communication, and we humans communicate in many different ways), and each has its own level of reliability, and so each needs to be received and tested differently.
When I said ”The Spirit is God, which means he is above the Bible, not lesser!”, I was discussing how the Spirit guides christians into understanding the Bible correctly for our current situation if we ask him to (many don’t). I did NOT say that the Spirit’s revelation was more certain than scripture (check my original post to see that), I said the two should work together. But many christians neglect the Spirit, so I stated the obvious that God is higher than the Bible in status – but because of human weaknesses, personal revelation is less sure than scripture. If you only read Nate’s quote, and not my original post, you may have missed that.
”It seems a bit odd that you’d argue god can guide people through one aspect and then disclaim that aspect from working on the individual level (after having used an example of that individual level in the presentment of your idea).”
I’m sorry but I can’t understand what you are saying here, and I don’t think I said anything that might lead you to say this. Perhaps my previous answer might help.
”However, this matter was dealt with when I restated your position and said it was “an avenue for discovering truth just like any other”
That is consistent with what I have always said, and have repeated above. There are several different forms of revelation, some more reliable than others because they are more objective and therefore less subject to individual human frailty and error.
So I hope now it is clear. I didn’t say or mean the things you said last time, and if anything gave you that impression I’m sorry. So here is a summary.
1. It is a fundamental of communication that successful communication depends on several factors, including the knowledge and skill of the source, the quality of the mode of communication and the attitude and reliability of the receiver. These things are all important in revelation.
2. Scripture is the standard objective revelation endorsed by virtually all christians, but needs to be interpreted, understood and applied. It is interpreted by learning (linguistics, history, culture, etc) but also by the collective guidance of the Holy Spirit (as happened for example with slavery and apartheid, where nasty practices were justified from the Bible until a groundswell of opinion, guided I believe by the Spirit, led to that interpretation being dismissed as quite wrong). Individual interpretations remain that until and if the larger body endorses them (a sign – hopefully – that the Spirit is guiding that way).
3. Personal revelation will generally relate to personal matters and rarely touch doctrine at all, except to reinforce a “lost” truth. It can often be tested after the event, but often remains private and even forgotten unless its relevance becomes clear. The boundary between Spirit guidance and personal revelation is an arbitrary one, and a grey area, but they are different in the awareness of the christian.
I hope maybe now we have resolved these misunderstandings.
LikeLike
As genuine biblical scholars can now say with an ever increasing degree of certainty that the bible is little more than historical fiction, containing, interpolation, fraud, geographical and archaeological error, biological nonsense, and even outright lies, such christian claims of revelation can also be shown to be nothing but personal interpretation based solely on wishful thinking.
Demonstrating once again there is no way to differentiate between divine revelation or Spirit Guidance(sic) and delusion.
As we know of the erroneous and fallacious nature of the claimed source – the bible – one is inclined to dismiss any claim of Divine Revelation (sic) and lean toward the latter assertion of delusion.
Also, when we consider the above and factor in other core beliefs – the Virgin Birth for example – it is clear that unklee is attempting to justify his faith by trying to attach some form of intellectual integrity. Even when he stipulates these are areas of faith there is usually a caveat of some sort that will use terms and phrases such as ”scholarly consensus”, and ”I think it is reasonable therefore….” . (paraphrase)
We have also seen him tacitly and overtly dismiss other forms of Christianity that fall outside of his personal christian worldview, including those that adhere to versions of an evangelical/fundamentalist/literal persuasion,
thus tacitly ridiculing any form of Creationism.
Yet he sees nothing wrong in continuing to assert the validity in his claims of a virgin birth, resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth, and the efficacy of intercessory prayer, among other things.
I am not sure what others may label this behaviour, but to me, it comes across as blatantly dishonest.
Ark.
LikeLike
Hey UnkleE,
I read your post again (the link you provided in your comment is broken) after reading your comment, and your position is coming across as a distinction without a difference. In short, you mention Holy Spirit guidance and personal revelation separately, but here and elsewhere you’re still relying upon an idea that a deity is communicating with people. The factors and distinguishing characteristics you mention do not change my conclusions at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Scripture is the standard objective revelation endorsed by virtually all christians, but needs to be interpreted, understood and applied. It is interpreted by learning (linguistics, history, culture, etc) but also by the collective guidance of the Holy Spirit (as happened for example with slavery and apartheid, where nasty practices were justified from the Bible until a groundswell of opinion, guided I believe by the Spirit, led to that interpretation being dismissed as quite wrong).”
So in circa 1861 the “Holy Spirit” concluded that slavery was “nasty” and decided to do something about it. Praise him! What a shame that he didn’t reach that conclusion several thousand years earlier. It would have spared hundreds of thousands of people a lot of suffering. But of course, “our ways are not His ways”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Slavery and Apartheid ended due to the influences of the Enlightenment, not due to the secret whisperings of a Ghost.
LikeLike
@ Gary.
Exactly. Excellent illustration, and once more we see the lengths the likes of unklee will go to justify his beliefs
Surely there must come a point when it becomes glaringly obvious to one and all that he is simply being willfully ignorant?
LikeLike
“In his essay “What Is Enlightenment?” (1784), the German philosopher Immanuel Kant summed up the era’s motto in the following terms: “Dare to know! Have courage to use your own reason!”
Englishman John Locke argued that human nature was mutable and that knowledge was gained through accumulated experience rather than by accessing some sort of outside truth. Newton’s calculus and optical theories provided the powerful Enlightenment metaphors for precisely measured change and illumination.”
Gary: Locke’s statement is FUNDAMENTAL to the modern worldview of the western world. No longer due we look to a pope, church council, holy book, or holy ghost for the acquisition of knowledge. We look to accumulated experience (the Scientific Method) and reason for the basis of knowledge and truth.
Human beings must finally let go of all vestiges of our superstitious past (including the belief in “holy ghosts”) and embrace the truths of the Enlightenment. The world will be SO much better off without the belief in ancient ghouls, devils, ghosts, and gods.
LikeLiked by 2 people