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 
Hi Nate,
”I wouldn’t agree with the assumptions in the first 2 premises or the conclusion of the 7th, for instance.”
This illustrates why a formal argument is good – it is the only way we can accurately know what the other person is saying. Your comment shows I don’t know what you are trying to say when you raise God’s hiddenness, which makes things difficult! And I don’t think your argument can stand without those first two premises. But we’ll never know unless you actually express your argument in propositions.
”But I feel like we began by discussing your view of this rather than mine”
I can’t remember how we began, but this is your argument, not mine. I think the degree of God’s hiddenness vs evidence is a slightly interesting but not very important question. It’s not something I’d spend more than a few idle thoughts on if you didn’t think it had some important implications.
”Therefore, God does not reveal himself to humans.”
I’ve got to say this surprised me and set me back a little. Is this what you really think I think? Have we been totally like Gary Larson’s sheeps passing in the night all these years?
For years now I have said in comments here that I believe there is excellent evidence for God’s existence, that I think the evidence points to the strong probability that he exists. I have particularly defended the historical reliability of God’s revelation in Jesus and the NT. I have just concluded a long discussion with Sirius about the different ways God reveals himself to us. I cannot see how you can have concluded this.
So no, that is NOT how I think about this question. I agree wit P1, I think P2 overstates the extent of freewill (it can never be total) but otherwise I agree with it. But P3 is quite crazy and no christian could ever agree with it. So C is therefore totally wrong (IMO). The argument also oversimplifies – God’s purposes for people cannot be summed up in “total free will”, but are much larger and more complex and more glorious than that.
You suggested before that perhaps we should finish this discussion. If you still think that way, I’m inclined to agree. If there’s anything more you want to explore, please say so, otherwise, thanks.
LikeLike
obfuscation?
LikeLike
I wondered if my conclusion would raise objections. I should have been clearer. I know you think God reveals himself in certain ways to certain individuals, but I think you acknowledge that God doesn’t reveal himself to everyone, right? That’s all I meant. As a general rule, God doesn’t reveal himself to humans — certainly not all of us.
And if you disagree with P3, then yes, I really don’t understand your position. In fact, I thought it was almost a regurgitation of things you’d already said.
I’m also okay with just dropping it here, unless you’d like to respond to any of the things in this comment.
Thanks
LikeLike
YES! YES!! PLEASE drop it! The scrolling is taking forever on my phone!!!
Nate … you certainly instigate discussion with your blog posts! 🙂
LikeLike
A footprint is a revelation that someone stepped in a certain place, but a revelation that a specific individual stepped in that place.
An indention could look like a footprint, but doesn’t mean that it is, and this indention could be evidence of some unspecified person’s past location, but not necessarily now – and is not evidence of a specific person’s past location. Right?
So it seemed like to me, we may not even be on the same page in regard to hiddenness. We have life and matter, some call it stuff and others call it creation. Is it a footprint or is it an indention?
A person can hear a voice and think they know who the owner is, but if only they hear the voice, others can take their word for it, or can doubt to varying degrees, because there’s no verification, they can doubt because people are routinely mistaken or liars.
We say hiddenness, because all we see is an indention – and if it is a footprint, then we see not clear evidence for who specifically left it. You believe that you know, and people of other faiths believe that they know – yet we have seen no clear evidence that it’s anything but an indention…
And, if God is all powerful, then why not just let everyone know for sure that it’s his footprint? Without that, he is sort of hidden. and the bible is a couple of guys who only claimed certain things, are they telling the complete and accurate truth, or are they mistaken or lying? We cant say for sure, because if God is real, he remains hidden to the extent that many doubt that he’s even real at all.
LikeLike
Several years ago evangelical Christian historian and apologist William Lane Craig held a public debate with agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman. Craig led off the debate with a fifteen minute presentation of a very complex mathematical formulation “proving” the near certainty of the bodily resurrection of Jesus! He placed the long mathematical formulations up on a huge screen in front of the audience, and by the reaction of the crowd (composed mostly of Christian believers), you could tell they were very impressed.
When Craig’s time allotment expired, he confidently looked over at Ehrman and waited for his response as if to say, “I dare you to prove my complex mathematical formulation false!”
Ehrman completely ignored Craig’s mathematical argument.
Ehrman instead addressed the lack of good evidence to support the claim that a first century corpse really did come back to life in circa 33 CE. You see, no matter how complicated and sophisticated their defensive arguments, Christians such as William Lane Craig and UnkleE, at the very core of their argument, are still trying to convince us that an ancient ghost god took the form of a human being in circa 3 BCE, by impregnating a young Jewish virgin, giving birth to….himself, dying on a tree, coming back from the dead three days later, and then levitating into outer space where he now sits at the edge of the universe on a golden throne as Lord of the Cosmos.
It is a silly ancient folk tale, my friends. No matter how complicated and sophisticated they try to make it sound…it is still a silly tall tale that no educated modern person should believe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
well, Gary, when you say it like that…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Nate,
“And if you disagree with P3, then yes, I really don’t understand your position.”
I think it’s at least worth clarifying this. A lot of times our misunderstandings seem to come down to you taking a fairly binary approach whereas I see things as much more nuanced. So in this case.
P3 said: “If God reveals himself to humans, this will violate their free will.”
No I don’t think that. I thought I had said all along that if God revealed himself fully to humans we’d be left with no choice because God is overwhelmingly powerful. I think God reveals himself in many, many ways, none of them anywhere near fully – through scripture, Jesus, direct revelation (in words, healings, visions, dreams, etc), through nature (the universe and the human race) and even though subtle interactions with our consciences, thoughts and feelings. Different people experience different levels of the different forms of revelation. My guess (and obviously this cannot be certain) is that he keeps a balance between too much information, which would overwhelm our freedom and autonomy) and too little information (which would leave us too much in the dark).
Just to correct another area where we have misunderstood in the past, I don’t think God sets us some sort of knowledge exam for us to be in relationship with him. I think that depends on our “heart” – our will, our wishes, our choices, our willingness to accept his kingship, etc. The “pass mark” for that “examination” varies with the knowledge we have, so that everyone is treated fairly. This is known as inclusivism, and was strongly taught by CS Lewis, and I’ve seen Billy Graham say the same thing, so it isn’t some fringe view. And that is why I think the hiddenness argument doesn’t have legs, because it doesn’t (in any form I’ve seen) address that form of christianity.
LikeLike
P3 said: “If God reveals himself to humans, this will violate their free will.”
Unklee:
Is he serious ?
What the Gehenna does not fully reveal himself mean?
Does he play peek-a-boo from the clouds or is this a partial reveal as per the Moses on the Mountain story?
Or, is he like some flasher at the bus stop whispering ”guess who” in one’s ear as he exposes himself to passers- by?
No, seriously this is just way too much. Dreams? . You have got to be frakking kidding! Is this not the blathering of one who is so thoroughly indoctrinated as to be delusional?
”My guess!”
That must surely be the last straw(man). A cherry-picking apologist with no verifiable evidence for a single foundational claim, who is utterly dismissive of every other Revelation claim from other gods, trying to second guess his god, Yahweh.
You couldn’t make this shit up.
And we are expected he is credible? Seriously, this man is off his rocker, going senile or both..
LikeLike
Hi UnkleE,
While I wouldn’t express it in quite the way Ark does, I think he has a point. Can you give examples of these varying degrees of revelation that God uses? I don’t know what “fully revealed” means. Cher has been revealed enough to me that I believe she exists. However, she has not been fully revealed to me, and she certainly hasn’t been revealed enough to me that I could say we have a relationship.
My initial reaction to this is one that would come across as offensive, and I don’t mean for it to be that way. It’s just that this strikes me as so nebulous that it’s practically meaningless. I disagree with many things that CS Lewis and Billy Graham have said, so it doesn’t surprise me that I disagree with them on this as well. The first criteria that needs to be met in order to have a real relationship with someone is to know that person exists.
As I’ve repeatedly said, and as Jon pointed out the other day, the Bible is full of examples of people who had actual relationships with God. The Bible also claims that God does not show favoritism, yet he’s certainly never revealed himself to me. And I know that he hasn’t to most other people as well, or we’d have some actual evidence by now. The idea of inclusivism is not fringe because it’s one of the only ways to try to explain this discrepancy: if God revealed himself to people in the past, does not show favoritism, could reveal himself to people today without violating their free will, then where is he?
LikeLiked by 5 people
Nate,
” Cher has been revealed enough to me that I believe she exists. However, she has not been fully revealed to me, and she certainly hasn’t been revealed enough to me that I could say we have a relationship. ”
Do I detect a note of ‘wistful’ thinking there? 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
And when that is read by U-No-Hoo, it will very likely be the cue for a pithy final comment and an exit.
LikeLike
UnkleE:
Here we have you saying that you don’t think God sets up a knowledge exam. Third sentence in you tell us there is a “pass mark” for an examination.
Second sentence we actually see the criteria for passing the exam that you tell us you don’t think God sets up.
Our heart
will,
wishes,
choices,
willingness to accept his kingship.
Then it seems God has a bell curve in there for those who well, because they lack a certain amount of knowledge and God wants to be fair. And you see annihilation as fair? Oh wait, not you of course, God. And you call that inclusivism? Oh wait, not you, Lewis and Graham and God.
LikeLiked by 2 people
UnkleE,
I think Zoe makes a good point. You probably don’t mean it this way, but your last comment suggests that those of us who are non-believers have a problem with “our heart, will, wishes, choices, willingness to accept his kingship,” etc. This is basically the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
In a lot of ways, I get it. Christians have to balance a difficult equation: They believe in God, believe he’s good, and believe he wants everyone else to believe in him, too. But lots of people don’t. Why? The only satisfactory answer for a Christian is to say that the problem lies with everyone else.
If they would ever open up to the idea that the rest of us are being honest when we say we really tried, they’d immediately have reason to doubt their conception of God. It’s kind of like Paul’s statement in Romans 1 that all people know God exists because of nature — but he’s absolutely wrong about that. It’s one of the clearest flaws in the Bible, yet Christians dismiss it by refusing to believe the rest of us when we say we honestly don’t believe in such a being.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Nate, you nailed it. If only the believers would accept this and move on. *sigh*
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly, Nate! Spot in, and ultimately it goes back to the claim that, irrespective of the reason you walked away from Christianity you were never a real Christian in the first place
LikeLiked by 1 person
To further illustrate the point unklee is subtly making, here is that fatuous arse, Mike Licona, who while holding on firmly to the belief that his god, the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, a bunch of Dead Saints rising a couple of days beforehand is simply analogy, and never really happened for real. Good one, Mike! And when you lost your job because of Geisler for this view didn’t you feel like a <em<proper Dickhead?
How about this one from someone called John Warwick Montgomery.
And finally, everyone’s favorite sack-of-shit Divine Command Theory proponent, William Lane Craig.
So Nate, Nan, Carmen,Zoe, SB Gary, Ken,William, Travis, and the rest of you, unlike these three and Unklee, you lot were never Real Christians. Even though you declared it with all your heart and mind you were nothing but a bunch of immoral lying backsliders.
The Real Christians have ”said it”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They’re in a difficult position. Consider:
As non-believers, we recognize that people can believe different things without being “bad” or stupid. Sometimes, we humans are just mistaken. Typically, the consequences aren’t that severe.
But Christians believe that they are the possessors of TRUTH, and that this truth was delivered by the supreme, all-powerful, Creator of the Universe. And turns out he’s a really great dude who wants everybody to come live with him in his gated community in the sky. Trouble is, there’s a whole bunch of us who don’t believe that story.
While it’s easy for us to see those who disagree with us as just fellow humans travelling through life the same as we are, Christians (and other direct-revelation-style theists) have to look at the rest of us as reprobates. We’re doing it wrong. Or we’re belligerent and rebellious. Or all of the above. They’re unable to actually listen to us and take us at our word.
When a Christian comes here, I accept that they sincerely believe what they say they believe. And in most cases, I can tell that they’re good, well-meaning people on top of it. But it’s harder for them to accept the same things of us, because what would it say about their god if it turned out that there really are decent people who won’t be saved simply because they weren’t convinced? We like to think that effort counts for something… why wouldn’t it count with God?
To be fair, there are Christians who are exceptions to this. Some of them accept that we’re good people who haven’t had enough evidence and are forced to say “I don’t know” when wondering why God hasn’t granted us that evidence. But for many of them, I think the analysis I laid out above is pretty accurate.
LikeLiked by 2 people
.
I truly believe you are overlooking a vital element which exposes the flaw in your reasoning, Nate.
Faith.
You walked away because the evidence was plain enough to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that what you had believed all of your life to that point was false.
The Christians around you, and I’m not sorry to include unklee in this, would expect you to then hand your self over to the Lord and have faith in the guidance of the Holy Spirit that, (in time) the Truth (sic) would be revealed and to accept that this was possibly a test.
Based on your eventual naturalistic view you rejected Faith out of hand and walked away.
This clearly demonstrates in their eyes that you could not possibly have been a True Christian , because, Once Saved Always Saved.
( or whatever the correct terminology is that these people use)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Nate, this is in response to several recent comments by you.
”Can you give examples of these varying degrees of revelation that God uses?”
Think of how you relate to your wife or kids. You can talk very directly, you can impart information by a single look, you can talk on the phone, or if you are at work you can email. You can leave a message when you go out unexpectedly, and you can give a hug. All are communication, some more direct, more verbal, containing more information, than others.
So I believe it’s the same with God. Human communication is analogous to communication with God. He can reveal directly and indirectly, we can respond. So Bible, prayer, Jesus, miracles, visions, guidance through our thoughts, coincidences, etc are all examples, and more besides. Of course some are more common than others, and all have different properties.
”I don’t know what “fully revealed” means.”
When my kids were young, we would sometimes play cricket in our yard. If I had played to win, I could easily beat them (even though I am not very good at cricket), so I played “easy” to make it fun, just as nay father would. If God exerted too much force he would overwhelm us, and likewise if he showed himself too clearly to us, we would have no choice. I suppose an analogy might be trying to land a spaceship on the sun or to fly into a black hole.
”The first criteria that needs to be met in order to have a real relationship with someone is to know that person exists.”
You keep taking too short term a view. Another analogy. You could say the first requirement to work as a teacher is to have a class to teach. But if I apply for a job teaching, I don’t immediately get put in front of a class. Generally I will sit before a selection panel and answer questions. This life is analogous to the selection panel, not the full job.
Another analogy. There are folktales of a prince seeking a woman who didn’t just want him for his wealth and position. So he disguises himself to see who will prove of worth even when he appears as an ordinary person. Or a more mundane example – hidden speed cameras on the road (not sure if you have them in the US, but we do). The idea is to check how drivers are behaving when police are not visible. In both cases, it takes a degree of separation or anonymity to allow people to be who they really are. I think it is the same with God. He allows us freedom to be who we really are, and then that determines whether we would even want to be with him. I don’t think the analogies are perfect, but you get the idea.
”he’s certainly never revealed himself to me”
I think you’ve probably had pretty much as much as I have had (leaving aside a few personal experiences that came after I chose to believe). You have Jesus, yet even though he is well attested historically (not everything about him, but enough), you don’t believe in him and, as far as I can tell, don’t think he was the admirable character I think he was. You see the same universe, you experience the same humanity, and the accounts of other people’s experiences of God are there for you just as much as for me, but you don’t think they point to God whereas I think they do. So I don’t think it can be the evidence alone that leads us in different directions.
”You probably don’t mean it this way, but your last comment suggests that those of us who are non-believers have a problem with “our heart, will, wishes, choices, willingness to accept his kingship,” etc.”
A few points come to mind here.
1. On this forum, atheists are saying all this and far more about me all the time. I long ago stopped reading those comments, so I can’t say much about what has been said recently. But I will bet a fortune to nothing that they are far more personal, derogatory, demeaning to my motives and intellect than anything I have ever said. Now I recognise and respect that you have never behaved like that. But the record shows that the unbelievers here have to remove enormous beams from their own eyes before they complain about specks in my eye.
2. I don’t think I have ever – ever – suggested that any individual has shown a lack of intellectual integrity in their unbelief. If I have, I apologise, and if you point out any clear cases, I will apologise. I don’t think that way and I try not to say that sort of thing. I don’t know anyone’s motivations and so I don’t have any knowledge on which to pass judgment. What I do try to do is understand and point out why people like you and I think differently, and I guess that can sound the way you have said. So let me say unequivically that I DON’T think that about you. I respect your integrity and I respect that you have reasons that seem good to you why you disbelieve.
3. But there has to be some reason why, with the same basic facts, people like you and I, who might otherwise think alike (e.g. on politics or ethics), conclude so differently about God. I have said many times I don’t think it is the evidence alone, so it must be something else. I have said many times I think in the case of you and I, I think we make different assumptions (that comes under “choices” in my list). I also suspect your experience of christianity makes you more suspicious than I would be (that might come under “heart”, by which I mean attitudes, etc). I also think we all invest ourselves in what we come to believe, and we don’t find it easy to change. That applies to you (now) just as much as it does to me (that probably comes under “wishes” and “will”). Finally, do you really think Richard Dawkins would be quite willing to accept God’s kingship?
4. Finally, psychologist Jonathan Haidt says we all – believers and unbelievers – form our religious and moral views intuitively and then rationalise them afterwards. I don’t know if you accept that (I’m not sure that I do fully either) but it adds to the possibility that none of us are as rational as we’d like to think, which means personal factors like the ones I mentioned come into play.
So I think what I said is just common sense and no slur on anyone. Whether anyone is honest or not, rational or not, devious or not, is not for me to say. Likewise whether everyone will remain in the belief they now have for the rest of their life is impossible for any of us to know.
So I feel it is best to discuss in good faith as you and I mostly manage to do, and explore each others’ and our own ideas to mutual benefit (hopefully!). But I think to assume that external facts are the only factor is mistaken, though they may be the only things we can discuss easily.
But if you think I have said anything that is personally derogatory to anyone, please let me know. I don’t want such an impression to remain.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are absolutely correct, unkleE. I, for one, could not put my hand on my heart and state with any degree of honesty that you had said such a derogatory thing.
In fact, you have never needed to suggest it as your somewhat unique cherry-picking style and oft-times sycophantic and condescending approach say more than any overt attack on the lack of intellectual integrity of the unbelievers here and elsewhere.
And I would also suggest this is a view shared by most unbelievers here, and on other blogs where you have engaged in any form of extended dialogue.
But as you won’t read this comment, because Ark is nasty and a real meany and shouldn’t go all ad hom on your arse, you won’t lose any sleep about how people such as Zoe, Victoria, and SB who did not have such a jolly time when they were Christians – and neither did Nate for that matter – and often still struggle to come to grips with what they were put through because of your farking god-belief crap.
Lots of Love
Ark
LikeLike
Hilarious! ”Good faith” as opposed to good evidence, I presume?
LikeLike
Nate,
I just read that UnkleE probably doesn’t read anything I post along with others. Thank you for teasing out a bit more from my comment. My main concern was that on one hand UnkleE appears to be saying “no exam” and then tells us there is an exam.
As a believer I found the times I spoke up I often received no response in return from those who not only considered themselves spiritually superior to me but also intellectually superior. As well, it was very common for men to ignore anything a woman contributed to discussion. The times I drew courage to speak and did, I was left with silence. Absolute complete silence. Talk about feeling ignored and invisible.
One story I’ll share here from my time in the church.
A pastor was doing an 8 week course on the gifts of the Spirit. Early in the course I put my hand up to ask a question. It left him speechless and he stumbled to recover the class. In his moments of silence, you could hear a pin drop on the floor as the class collectively stopped slurping their coffee and stopped chomping their donuts and stopped breathing.
Crap I thought, I’ve done it again. I felt just sick to my stomach as people sort of kind of glanced at me. This happened a lot in my life. What in the world is that woman doing talking or asking questions? Doesn’t she know So and So is the expert? Oh my God she’s a mere peon and a woman and she’s never gone to Seminary or studied or read the scholars like the pastor &/or prof’s have. Geesh!
I left the class feeling mortified. As it turns out I could not finish the course due to illness. When I recovered I approached the pastor to inquire about the next course. He was doing it all over again. He told me I didn’t have to finish the course. Didn’t need to as I clearly knew my stuff. I thought this odd and queried further.
He said, I need you to know I completely revamped the entire series based of your question. I stood there shell-shocked. Vindicated? Perhaps. But that’s not the point. I suffered horribly because of my giving voice and then being left in no-woman’s land. I sought to take the opportunity to speak up again and told him I had suffered terribly by his silence and the silence of the class. That I felt like a dweeb (worse) and was so embarrassed. He then told me that he was the one embarrassed and he couldn’t sleep for nights! And you see, he wasn’t angry at me but if I had not inquired I don’t think he ever would have told me that. He actually humbled himself and I thought it brave he told me that he had been just sleepless over it all and had revamped the program.
I came away from that conversation still upset though because you see, in a way I was still ignored just by the fact that he never reached out after the class again to tell me, ‘Wow, I’ve never thought about it that way before. I think you’re right. I’ve thought about it, prayed about it, read the Word about it, asked the Lord about it and I have changed my entire approach and reworked the course.’ And the other thing that bothered me is, all those other people in that class, never spoke up, never asked me anything nor were ever told that the pastor changed the program because of me.
So, was I treating the pastor in a derogatory fashion by asking the question? Was I pointing out a beam in his eye without examining my own? Was my heart in the wrong place? Was I lacking faith in asking the question? Should I study a kazillion of his approved scholarship list to be worthy of a discussion? Should I read my Bible AGAIN? Should I point out this? or that? or wonder? or care? or believe that I am worthy to be part of a discussion? Should I apologize to those in the room for bravely taking a position away from the back wall and pointing out something that doesn’t ring true? (I don’t expect anyone to answer those questions.) 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hi Zoe, you seem to be disappointed that I didn’t respond to you, so I think it best to explain a little in case that helps.
I have been discussing with Nate and others on this blog for maybe 6 or so years, I can’t really remember. For much of that time, I have been the only christian posting regularly, or one of the few. Sometimes I have 5, 6 or more other commenters asking me questions, disagreeing, and making comments about me. It takes time to respond to each one, and I have a life outside this blog. Sometimes I wake up and come to my Inbox (I receive notifications of comments by email) and find 40-60 comments to go through.
I used to try to respond to each question and each person, but after a while the discussion often reaches a certain point – we reach a stalemate, or we start going in circles covering the same ground, or the person starts to be rude, or we both just get tired of it, and the conversation stops. When that happens a few times, especially if the discussion becomes personal and insulting, I stop responding to that person. I don’t usually say anything, I don’t want to inflame things, I just stop replying. Or I reply only to occasional comments. Sometimes I try again a little later, in hope that it will be different this time, but often it isn’t.
Note that I haven’t said it was all the other person’s fault. I don’t necessarily think it comes down to fault. People have different ways of speaking, and we all make choices. And so not replying to everyone is my choice.
There are some people who I don’t have a good track record of discussing with, and there comes a point where I trash their comments without reading them. And sometimes, when I have dozens of comments to go through, I miss someone out without having a real reason, it just happens in my hurry to get through all the comments.
So I have to say I’m sorry, I didn’t read your earlier comment. I don’t remember seeing it, and I didn’t trash it because I have any “issues” with you. I saw your later comment, and went back to read the earlier one. But if I had seen it, I don’t know if I would have answered it because I don’t really understand what you were saying. The tone sounds critical, but that may be just because I don’t understand.
But I do understand the second one, and I feel sorry about your experience with your pastor. If I have left you feeling the same way, then I’m sorry, that wasn’t my intention. I’ll make one clarification. You said “My main concern was that on one hand UnkleE appears to be saying “no exam” and then tells us there is an exam. My original comment was that there’s not a “knowledge exam” not just no exam. i.e. God doesn’t test us on theological knowledge. And when I said there was a different “exam” I put the word exam in quotes to show it was not a literal exam, but something which does test us or judge us.
So I hope that helps. I’m happy to hear more of what you have to say if you want to say it, or leave it at that, whatever you wish. Thanks.
LikeLike
@unkleE
Could well be me.
Probably me …
>blockquote> There are some people who I don’t have a good track record of discussing with, …
Almost certainly me.
How about you putting away the schmaltz for a few moments and tell us exactly how you know the difference between a Divine Revelation to you from your god, God, and a mini-delusional episode and why you seem to be able to recognise this difference and every single former Christian on this blog has never experienced such a Revelation?
Do you consider you are so much more open to the Spirit than they ever were or:
Even though many have pleaded and prayed for endless hours and stressed, and discussed with preachers, and pastors and theologians and fellow Christians ’til it felt like they were bleeding tears that they were never, in their hearts, True Christians?
Or, finally:
Your god, God, is simply capricious?
Ark
LikeLike