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 
HA! Well, for one … you just admitted it in your comment to Carmen … I know….I’m so brainwashed,
Everything you say is Christian teaching. It’s what has been preached and taught by church leaders (who learned it from their church leaders … who learned if from their church leaders … who learned it … ad nauseum) for several hundreds of years. Even though there have been multiple biblical scholars, scientists, and even philosophers who have pointed out the fallacies of the bible, those who “believe” refuse to see it … because they have been persuaded, influenced, and induced that what they have been told is THE way … and all others are wrong.
The signs of brainwashing/indoctrination are never apparent to the “believer” because they live in a world of others just like them. But to the “outside world” picks up on it immediately.
LikeLike
Well, the dating for Jericho has been determined through more than one dating technique, and it doesn’t work out for the biblical narrative. And I don’t think it’s established that the walls actually show signs of being pushed outward. At best, there’s disagreement about that.
The camel thing has never been a big deal, for me, though Finkelstein may have a point there. Really, it’s just the preponderance of evidence. Archaeology does support much of what we read about the later Israelite and Judean kings, but there’s just no evidence for a united kingdom, and certainly not one at the advanced levels that the Bible describes for David and Solomon. Multiple lines of evidence show that from multiple sites. And we add to that the complete lack of evidence for a 40 year exodus of a multitude of people.
Just as problematic (maybe more so) are the problems in the Book of Daniel and the issues with Ezekiel’s prophecy of Tyre.
But this idea that archaeology always supports the Bible is completely wrong, and as long as you’ve been blogging, I would think you’re already aware of that. I mean, even if you’ve convinced yourself that there are explanations for those problems, surely you recognize that the majority of experts do not think archaeology always backs up the Bible.
LikeLike
I was saying that sarcastically to Carmen. 🙂 Since I have been brainwashed to believe that Christianity is the truth…can you point to a specific lie I believe in? Something that you can prove is a lie?
LikeLike
I don’t see Tyre as an archaeological problem.
If the city of Tyre wasn’t left desolate, why hasn’t it been rebuilt? In fact, just to insure that it not be rebuilt, the World Heritage Committee has added Tyre to its list of treasured sites that have Outstanding Universal Value, meaning that its ruins will be preserved. There is a city built up around the site, called Sour, but the ruins of Tyre are still intact and have never been rebuilt. Here are some pictures of Tyre’s ruins found at the UNESCO website:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/299
Nebuchadnezzar fulfilled part of the prophecy and Alexander the Great fulfilled great details of the prophecy. The point is that the Bible prophesied that Tyre, one of the greatest ancient cities would be destroyed and never be rebuilt. The ruins of the city remain as a testimony to the truth of that prophecy.
The prophecy was fulfilled with great accuracy, even fulfilling the fact that the city’s ruins would be thrown into the sea, which is what Alexander the Great did in order to build a bridge to reach the people of Tyre, who were finding refuge on an island off the coast. In fact, the causeway he built became a permanent fixture and actually merged the island to the mainland permanently. The causeway can still be found!
I don’t think the prophecy failed at all. If it failed, there would be no ruins and the city would have been rebuilt – which it obviously wasn’t and probably won’t be in the future since it has become a World Heritage Site.
This is just another example of archaeology that supports the truth of biblical prophecies.
There have been skeptics who question archaeological evidence, only to be quieted because new findings have supported the Bible.
I think it’s interesting that the evidence you present for your belief that archaeology isn’t supported by the Bible is . . . nothing. Your faith is based on the non-existence of evidence. Since we haven’t found the proof for Solomon’s temple, we’ll overlook all the other evidence that supports the veracity of the Bible and stand on nothing. Again, the Temple Mount where Solomon’s temple is located is unable to be excavated!
LikeLike
When evidence for something should exist, but doesn’t, that’s a problem.
But back to Tyre, there’s a bit more to the situation than what you laid out. I recommend you check out the series I did on Tyre. We can discuss it fuller detail there. The first post is here:
https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/an-examination-of-ezekiels-prophecy-of-tyre-part-1/
LikeLike
Nate,
–“Where does it say that in Genesis, Diana?
And if God had been working directly with people, why would they stop doing the kinds of sacrifices he wanted in favor of different kinds of sacrifices? That makes absolutely no sense.
Come on, think this through a bit more. Don’t you acknowledge that you could possibly be mistaken?” —
The tradition of sacrificing a lamb was passed down by Noah, just as the tradition was passed down to Noah from Adam and Eve. People have always corrupted what was taught by God. Just look at how the Catholic church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ must be done over and over again by a priest who administers the Eucharist which becomes the actual blood and body of Christ. This is a corruption of the message of the Lamb who was sacrificed “once for all.” (Hebrews 10:10)
According to the book of Acts, the disciples waited for the Holy Spirit to come down. It came down on Pentecost. This was the same day the law was given to Israel. When the disciples received the Spirit they went out into the streets to preach the Gospel…and it was a form of reversal of the Tower of Babel. The people were able to understand the Gospel in their own language. God comes down to us. If God were to let people think they could climb up to him, then they would never come to him in the way he prescribed…through the blood of the Lamb.
Think of all the religions of the world…all of them say their followers must do some religious effort to please their god. They must travel to Mecca, wash in the river Ganges, light candles and incense, achieve karma, etc . . . But Jesus says his followers must repent from these dead works (Hebrews 6:1) and come to God through his blood, not through their own efforts.
Be blessed, Nate. I hope you find the truth you’re looking for.
LikeLike
Hi Nate, on with the show! 🙂
” I simply meant that Paul was not telling Christians that they had such liberty in matters where they had been given clear instruction, like all the passages I quoted at the beginning of my post.”
And my point was that these commands are not the core of the gospel, which is the point under discussion.
But let’s look a little more at this issue. I believe the commands you refer to (and not all the passages you quoted gave moral commands) are indications of God’s attitude to various behaviours, at least for the time they were given. But to interpret them too rigidly gets into the sort of legalism Jesus condemned, not least because situations are different, and sometimes conflicting principles apply, sometimes situations change. Let’s look at a couple of examples.
1. Divorce (which you mention). I think it is clear that God would prefer that divorces didn’t happen. But he also knows that sometimes situations will make divorce the less bad option (e.g if the wife or children are in danger). Jesus even says that God relaxed his command because of people’s unwillingness to follow his guidance. Further, the command Jesus gave was into a patriarchal society where men could treat women almost as property, and relatively easily discard them. So his command is addressing patriarchy, poverty and mistreatment, not just marriage. So we have to consider all that in applying the command, I think few would disagree.
2. Slavery. People make much about the fact that the NT says little against slavery. Paul does say that people should gain their freedom if they can, owners should treat slaves humanely (in which case the slaves were often better off than if they were freed), but to say more might have only led to a Spartacus-like rebellion and mass crucifixions. But the NT as a whole speaks of the worth of all human beings with ideas that were way ahead of their time, and when the issue arose again in a culture that allowed dissent, the christians knew exactly what was right and were at the forefront of ending slavery in UK. They are still among those who are fighting modern day slavery.
So commands may be commands, but for various reasons other factors have to be taken into account. So that is where I believe I should use my brain but also seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance. I think it is clear that, in general, the more rigorous and strict a command is given and taken, the less situations in which it can be applied.
I suggest that you owe your view to a form of christianity that neither of us respect or think is correct. Surely what I say here is both reasonable and faithful to the NT teaching? I’ll stop there and hope to get back more briefly to your other comments later. Thanks.
LikeLike
This is a very selective view of what scripture says. First of all, it’s irrelevant whether a religion requires works or not — neither of those options automatically makes the religion true. But secondly, the Old Testament was all about works, putting it in the same category as these other religions that you’re criticizing. But even the New Testament does the same thing — it’s full of prohibitions about the kinds of actions God disapproves of (showing how people’s “works” are still very relevant) and James in particular talks about the importance of works in their relationship to faith. Christians are told to preach the gospel, which is a work. And even Ephesians 2, which talks so much about grace, still talks about the works people are to do. Jesus said that he “never knew” those who failed to take care of those in need, which would be works.
As to your point about the Tower of Babel, I just want to be clear — your explanation for why God scattered the people and was so unhappy with them is not found in the text, correct? And you’re rejecting the explanation that is there, which is that God was worried about what all they might accomplish if they managed to build a tower?
I hope the same for you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the comment, UnkleE, and it’s probably best that we take the points in smaller bites anyway. 🙂
“I suggest that you owe your view to a form of christianity that neither of us respect or think is correct.”
I think I can agree with that. 🙂
“Surely what I say here is both reasonable and faithful to the NT teaching?”
In a way, I do think what you’re saying is reasonable. Obviously, you know that I think Christianity is a false religion, so I’m not saying that I fully agree, but I do think you’re taking a reasonable approach. I like that you try to marry so many factors into your faith (I just happen to think you’re a much better person than the religion you hold to!).
As for “faithful to the NT teaching,” that’s what I’m not as sure about.
To your points about divorce, yes, Jesus tells them that God allowed divorce under the Law of Moses because of the people’s stubbornness. But I don’t get the impression that he’s saying it’s cool for that to continue — in fact, he tells them the opposite. To say that it can relax again is taking a liberty that I just don’t think the text allows.
“So his command is addressing patriarchy, poverty and mistreatment, not just marriage.”
Well maybe, but that’s also conjecture. The only thing we can know for sure that he was addressing is marriage, divorce, and remarriage.
When you get time, I’d appreciate it if you’d take a stab at answering Ark’s questions, because I’m very curious about how you’d approach those issues as well. I think they relate directly to this part of the discussion that we’re currently having:
As always, thanks 🙂
LikeLike
Diana,
You’re referring to “the Bible” quite a bit. Translation aside, which do you mean? Catholic (73 books), Protestant (66 books), or Eastern Orthodox (72-75 books, depending on if/how you split Maccabees)?
LikeLike
Nate,
“The law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” (John 1:17) The Old Testament points to Jesus as the Messiah. The New Testament reveals the Messiah in history. Yes, there were laws and “works” in the Old Testament (such as sacrifices and laws), but the New Testament reveals a new and different way of coming to God. (Hebrews 10:19-20) There is a differentiation between working in order to gain access to God, and working as a result of loving God and his ways. As you know, James said our works were an evidence of our faith. They weren’t a way to gain salvation.
I don’t understand how you can say “it’s irrelevant whether a religion requires works or not — neither of those options automatically makes the religion true.” Hebrews 6:1 lists “repentance from dead works” as the first foundation principle of the doctrines of Jesus Christ. Dead works are those religious efforts as I mentioned in the previous comment, but the love of God is shed abroad in the Christian’s heart and, as a result, leads us to share the Gospel and love our neighbor. The thief on the cross did nothing but acknowledge Jesus as Lord and he was saved.
LikeLike
ratamacue,
I’m a Protestant, so 66 books.
LikeLike
I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that because Christianity (at least as you understand it) is all about grace and faith rather than works, somehow indicates that it’s truer than all the other religions out there. I’m just saying that those two things aren’t related. I mean, Jedi-ism is the only religion that teaches about the Force — does that unique quality make it truer than any other religion?
Uniqueness != truth.
LikeLike
Sorry, “!=” means “is not equal to”
LikeLike
Diana, why?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Notice that Diana does not seem to want to address how she knows for certain that the spirit within her is not just herself talking to herself. Notice how both Diana and Eric (UnkleE) both want to continue debating theological topics and whether or not OT prophecies were fulfilled. Why? They do this because discussing these topics sounds very intelligent. These topics sound rational.
They do NOT, however, want to address that at the core of their belief is the claim that a three day, bloated, decomposing, brain dead corpse somehow escaped its sealed mausoleum in circa 30 CE Palestine, ate a broiled fish lunch with its former fishing buddies, and later flew off into outer space, where it currently sits on a golden throne on the edge of the universe as Master of the Cosmos!
That story does NOT sound intelligent and rational. That story sounds certifiably NUTS!
It
is
an
ancient
ghost
tale!
LikeLike
Nate,
As for your comment about Babylon. I don’t deny the reason given in the scriptures. The motive for building the tower and the city was pride–to make a name for themselves, to ascend up to heaven. This brings to mind another–Lucifer–who aspired to ascend. (Isaiah 14:13-14) This was the concern of God:
“And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” (Genesis 11:6)
Perhaps the Lord was concerned about the horrendous things that a sinful and proud group of people in unity with no restraints on their imaginations could do. I have concerns that the same scenario is going to play out in the world today. How many organizations use the word “one” in their attempt to unify the world and its religions?
Babel was a picture of a false political/religious attempt to overcome the Fall. Instead of humbling themselves, they exalted themselves. But Jesus said, “And whoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” (Matthew 23:12) We cannot ascend to heaven, instead Jesus came down to us and saves us when we humble ourselves and receive the finished work of his shed blood on the cross.
Why did God demand a blood sacrifice? The scriptures tell us that Lucifer rebelled. He convinced one third of the angels to go along with him. What was God to do? If he cast Lucifer out of heaven, then he could appear to be a tyrant who ruled with might and power. If he let Lucifer and the rebellious angels stay, then sin and destruction would infect the universe. What was the solution?
The Bible says Jesus Christ was the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world. God devised a plan, before he even created the world, that would reveal his love for the universe. It would show the angels (who “long to look into these things.” [1 Peter 1:12]) that God was a loving God who was worthy of their service and praise. He had to emphasize a blood sacrifice because that was a way he could point to himself as the lamb who would become the payment for sin.
Can you see it? The whole plan was an attempt to reveal to the universe what the world would be like if sin was allowed to run rampant. And even the greatest of Utopian imaginations, attempts to order the world, would end up in horrific failure since they rejected God’s Word. Isn’t this the history of the world? Gulags, genocide, concentration camps, wars, and violence?
And now the whole universe can see why God cast Lucifer out. They can see the justice in destroying Satan and the rebellious angels. They can see that God is just and loving in his judgments. And along with the angels, we can now love and worship him with all our heart.
This message of God’s great love has traveled across the globe, bringing light and joy with it. This isn’t a fairy tale. This is truth. The cannibals of the South Pacific Islands responded with joy to the message and since the 19th century they were no longer cannibals! William mentioned Denmark in a comment to me. Denmark was part of the Viking stronghold until 1000 years ago when a missionary brought them the gospel and they responded with joy and gave up their violent ways. Mary Slessor, a missionary to Africa, brought the gospel to the cannibals, and they stopped their warfare. There are countless stories. “The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light.” (Isaiah 9:2)
LikeLike
And yet this fairy tale inspired people to sell their own bodies in order to redeem others from slavery. This fairy tale inspired Martin Luther to say he would not recant even when he knew he could burn in the fires of the Inquisition. It inspired George Paton to travel to far off islands and share the gospel with cannibals and set them free from their warfare and vengeful hearts. This fairy tale inspired Martin Luther King, Jr. to “have a dream.” It caused Frederick Douglass to rise up against his master and bravely work against science and the slavery it supported. It gave Harriet Tubman the courage to lead others to freedom on the Underground Railroad. It caused Corrie Ten Boom to hide Jews in her attic even though it landed her in a concentration camp. It caused Martin Niemoller to refuse to shake Hitler’s hand. It led people to establish Sunday Schools where little children were taught to read. It caused the hearts of Americans to fight with righteous anger against southern slavery. It inspired people to establish hospitals and orphanages around the world. It led to the rescue of abandoned babies who were left to the elements and the beasts.
What TRUE story do you have that has inspired so much goodness and heroism in world history?
LikeLike
Hi Nate, it looks like we’re in a subroutine!
“As for “faithful to the NT teaching,” that’s what I’m not as sure about. … To say that it can relax again is taking a liberty that I just don’t think the text allows.”
I’m going to say again what I said before, and I hope you aren’t offended by it. I think you are still thinking too legalistically and over-literally. We need to look at the whole NT and get an overall picture.
Let’s look at an example, from John 8, where Jesus addresses the question of a woman that was in danger of being stoned for adultery. (Now I know that this passage wasn’t in the original texts, but I think few doubt it is a genuine incident from Jesus’ life, and it is illustrative.) The OT Law gave stoning as the sentence for adultery, so by not supporting that action, Jesus was actually going against the OT Law. There are other cases where Jesus did the same. In other cases he condemned the religious leaders for being over pedantic about their interpretation of the law, and putting (metaphorically) loads on people that they couldn’t bear.
So when you combine these cases with the passages I quoted before about law and Spirit, I think there is a strong teaching across the NT against legalism and in favour of freedom (up to a point at least). Not that the scriptural commands don’t have force – they do – but they should be applied flexibly and sensitively. Your dismissal of my comments on divorce seem to me to miss that overall teaching, and focus just on that one text – which is a legalistic approach.
OK, your question about delusion and religion. Since Dawkins, so many atheists have made these sorts of connections, but they are largely without foundation or even against the evidence. So before I answer the specific question, I need to look at the larger issue, which is complex, and of course I am not an expert.
Delusion these days is a psychiatric term. Here is one definition from the American Psychological Association:
“A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith).”
On this and other definitions, religious belief is not normally considered a delusion by psychiatrists.
So does religion make a person more liable to delusions or harmful behaviour, as in your question? I have read a little on this subject, and it is hard to get a firm answer, but we can say that:
– “Religiousness …. usually has a positive association with good mental health.” (Reference) There are of course studies that show the opposite, but these are in the minority.
– Religious people are less likely to be involved in destructive or antisocial behaviours. And this study showed that paranormal beliefs were no more common among religious believers than the non-religious.
– Mental illnesses like schizophrenia, which may cause people to have delusions, have a mostly physiological cause (hence can be treated by medication). People of different beliefs will have different types of delusions.
– Religion can be a significant help in treating mental illnesses and ameliorating bad decisions and thought processes, not least because religious communities can provide good support communities. Religion “militates against pathological delusion”.
– Many studies show that those who have religious or mystical experiences are not generally delusional or psychotic, and the experiences generally have a positive impact on their mental health and wellbeing.
So that is background to my answer to your question.
1. All sorts of people have delusions and make irrational decisions, and religious people appear to be no more prone to them than anyone else. In my 54 years as a believer, I don’t recall coming across a single case where any obviously harmful decision was made, except by those with a diagnosed mental illness. I’m sure they occur, but I doubt they are common. However we guard against bad decisions in the general population, we can guard against them with the religious.
2. The studies show that religious belief, and membership of a religious community, provide positive assistance in combatting delusions and avoid destructive decisions. Perhaps I ought to ask you as an atheist what you do to prevent delusions and destructive choices in others??
3. I don’t have any magic bullet for deciding if a decision is delusional or not, just the common sense judgment inherent in the definition I gave earlier. There are fairly standard guidelines among christians for this sort of situation. Discernment of the Holy Spirit’s guidance is seen in the NT as a generally community thing (I could give many references but I imagine you know them), which fits with #2 above. Guidance contrary to scripture is problematic without wider support from the community and from a good understanding of scripture (as I mentioned in my blog post). It is good to sit with decisions like this for a while – if they are indeed induced by anxiety or stress they will pass when those conditions pass or ease.
4. If I was trying to help someone who made what seemed to be a destructive choice, I would seek medical help if I thought that was warranted. If medical help wasn’t warranted (or in addition to it perhaps), I would encourage a person to follow some of the guidelines in #3, and possibly pray with them and work through the issues with them if they wanted that assistance.
So I don’t think the problems you raise are limited to religious people, they just take a slightly different form, and I think religion has better resources to limit the damage.
Thanks.
LikeLike
The same Americans who considered that slavery was justified by your god and who were still busy slaughtering Native Americans and had in fact committed what is considered by some the worst genocide in human history.
All perpetrated by people who were recognized as Christian.
All Christians, should feel nothing but shame for what Christianity have done to humanity.
I am not in the least bit sorry in stating that you are a patently mentally unstable, and a rather unsavoury hypocritical individual who, while adhering to such a disgusting and erroneous religious belief should not be allowed access to children.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Diana,
I’m not sure that you’re being honest in your dealing with the Tower of Babel story. Genesis 11 says nothing about the people being prideful, nor does it say they were trying to reach God, make themselves equal to God, or anything like that at all. It says very clearly that God (or the gods) confused their language, because he (or they) was concerned about what humans could accomplish when they worked together in that way. Of course, what the writers couldn’t have known was how well we’d be able to eventually cross language barriers, how tall our towers would eventually come, or how far beyond this planet we would eventually explore.
It’s simply an ancient story that attempts to explain why different people speak in different languages. All the clues are there.
Your ability to tie this story to Satan, pride, etc, is certainly impressive and imaginative, but it’s not true to the story itself.
No, I don’t see that at all. Blood sacrifice is the last thing we should expect from an actual deity. Sacrifice in general is borne from the human notion that god(s) must want something from us. Perhaps if we give up something that we value, we’ll be blessed with a good harvest, etc. It’s just a primitive concept. After all, what could a deity possibly need from us?
Furthermore, since all sacrifice is an attempt to appease gods, there’s no incentive for mankind to do it wrong. If they were getting actual instructions and feedback from god, there’s simply no reason for them to go off in a different direction. The wide assortment of beliefs and religions that we see is exactly what we should expect if there’s no one around to give direction.
Finally, Ark already answered the statements you made about how wondrous and peaceful Christianity is/has been. I don’t have anything else to say about it.
Diana, I admire your fervor for your beliefs, but I don’t understand how you’ve been able to maintain them after blogging for so long. It truly surprises me that you haven’t either shifted away from Christianity entirely or shifted to a more moderate view, like UnkleE’s, where you can pull out the good bits of Christianity and chalk the rest up to the imperfect people who were relaying it.
LikeLiked by 4 people
UnkleE, thanks for the feedback. I don’t have time to reply right now, but I’ll get back to you soon as I can. 🙂
LikeLike
@ Unklee
Are you being purposely obtuse or are you simply a blathering old fool who is slowly but surely going senile?
The entire basis of Christianity is founded on a delusion – that a human being was brought back to life by a deity named Yahweh.
And you are living, breathing proof of this!
Christianity is fraught with cults … upwards of 30,000 of them … and each one is riddled with doctrine that encourages destructive decisions.
Off the top of my head ….
Teaching the notion of Hell is a perfect example.
The Inquisition
The Anti-Semitism
Bush went to war on the back of his claimed communing with your god.
The Native American Genocide was carried out by Christians.
Slavery was sanctioned by Christians. In the States they had a civil war when one group decided it was no longer Kosher. And all that left was racism. Whoopee frakking do! Again your god was cited. And still is in many cases.
Apartheid in my country was justified and sanctioned by Christians.
The Catholic Church’s stance against contraception. Just look at the modern-day devastation that has caused.
Creationism is another that causes destructive decisions and many such religious communities purposely separate themselves from the community in general and indoctrinate children to consider everyone else an outsider who are doomed.
Seriously, you are one of the most disingenuous individuals I have ever come across who espouses Christian diatribe.
When it comes to integrity you demonstrate time and again that you have little if any and will bend and twist any stats or data to enhance your position.
LikeLike
Nate, good observation. I think it’s exactly as Nan has suggested – Diana’s indoctrination is so thorough that – even after years of interacting with people who’ve studied every bit as diligently as she has – she hasn’t loosened her fixation with, “The Bible says it, so it must be true”. So dogmatic. It must be mentally exhausting to have to keep digging to find support for Creationism when there’s overwhelming scientific proof of evolution.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Oh … and in case there are any arguments over terminology.
delusion
dɪˈluːʒ(ə)n/
noun
an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
“the delusion of being watched”
synonyms: misapprehension, mistaken impression, false impression, mistaken belief, misconception, misunderstanding, mistake, error, misinterpretation, misconstruction, misbelief; More
the action of deluding or the state of being deluded.
“what a capacity television has for delusion”
synonyms: deception, misleading, deluding, fooling, tricking, trickery, duping
“a web of delusion”
delusional
dɪˈluːʒ(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective
characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
“hospitalization for schizophrenia and delusional paranoia”
based on or having faulty judgement; mistaken.
Christianity and Christians to a ‘T’.
LikeLiked by 1 person