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 
@ Ark: Do you think those of us who came to faith say from the age of 13 or younger suffered a mental aberration?
LikeLike
@ Zoe.
I am no doctor, Zoe, but I would say ”no” to mental aberration when we are dealing with indoctrination from childhood. After all, we beleive in Santa and fairies. But later on, to continue to maintain this delusion in the face of overwhelming evidence? That’s a different story.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark: Not at all. Although I’m not fond of his debate style at times (he tends to use a “Gotchya” debate style instead of one which attempts to constructively educate his opponent) I believe that he is 100% sincere. He restructures whatever objective evidence is presented to him to fit the subjective evidence “in his heart”; subjective evidence which he has convinced himself cannot be wrong.
Let me give an example: If you are 100% certain in your heart that your wife loves you and is faithful to you, no amount of objective evidence presented by other people is going to convince you otherwise. If someone tells you that they just saw your wife coming out of a motel room with a strange man, your brain will devise excuses for why your wife is not having an affair. I sincerely believe that this is what goes on in the brain of UnkleE and moderate Christians like him. They PERSONALLY must experience evidence that Jesus does not exist; until then, all other objective evidence will simply be explained away.
LikeLike
Unklee
I don’t think syncretism carries negative connotations. I believe I am saying the same thing as the historian you mention. Christianity excels at adapting to, evolving with, and absorbing characteristics of different cultures. That has made it a much more diverse religion — it encapsulates traditional and modern Catholics, Unitarians, Baptists, Russian orthodox, Coptic christians, Mormons, Quakers, Anglican, Episcopal, Mennonites, and many other radically different Christian groups — which means there are many more people who can find a comfortable place within Christianity. If you dislike the rigid tradition and doctrine of Catholicism, you can be a Protestant. If you dislike the liberalism of mainline baptist churches, you can be a Southern Baptist. If you dislike the modernism of western churches, you can become Eastern Orthodox. And so on.
I think the adaptability of Christianity has indisputably been an asset to its success.
I think a true religion must have truth and that truth must be discoverable and immutable. I mean, that’s almost tautological. If a religion makes fact-claims, then those claims should stand up or be discarded. If a religion makes no fact-claims, then it is irrelevant.
If you agree that the NT makes moral claims that are false, I think we can agree. But I think you would have to accept Nate’s point — “How could anyone tell the difference between his own thoughts and the Holy Spirit?” In this case, we have both scripture AND a revelation from the Holy Spirit….but it turns out, they are false. Or, at the very least, they are not accepted by Christians.
I doubt you will find anybody here who doesn’t appreciate the merit and value of “love others”, or understand that different moral values sometimes conflict and must be balanced or reconciled. But that idea predates, and is independent of, Judaism and Christianity. I think we can all appreciate and honor the moral ideas that we share in common.
It seems to me that you are treating your own interpretation of Christianity as authoritative, while simultaneously crafting a version of Christianity that is so vague and slippery that it is virtually impossible to pin down any specific meaning. It’s closer to Unitarianism than to any orthodox understanding of Christianity.
That doesn’t make you wrong. I appreciate your interpretation far more than those of fundamentalists. But I do think fundamentalists make a valid, serious point about the reliability and authority of the Bible. If it is full of errors and flawed moral guidance, that certainly supports our argument that the Bible is a man-made product, just like the Quran, the Book of Mormon and the scriptures of various other religions.
I would say that Christianity is a diverse set of religious beliefs that evolved out of Judaism after the death of the Jewish preacher, Jesus, when his followers tried to reconcile his death with their apocalyptic beliefs that he was a Messiah who would bring about the end times and elevate them to rule alongside him in the new kingdom of Heaven on earth. While specific beliefs vary widely, the most common shared beliefs within Christianity are the belief that Jesus is God (whether part of the Trinity or the Godhead), that Jesus died and was resurrected to save mankind, and that people will be judged in some sort of afterlife (the details of which might involve eternal reward/torture, annihilationism, or universalism).
The simplest definition of Christian is probably what Paul said in Romans 10:9: “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
As far as “what Christianity actually is”, I would favor a descriptivist approach, rather than a prescriptivist approach. You are describing how you believe Christianity should be understood (prescriptivist). That is a theological argument. I don’t think it is even possible to settle that question, in part because I don’t think “Christianity” has to mean any one particular thing beyond the very broad descriptivist outline I described. From a descriptivist stance, Christianity means many different things to different people.
I think Nate (and I) are talking in fairly broad terms about problems with various conceptions of Christianity. If those criticisms do not describe your personal interpretation, that’s fine. But you should understand that they do address the beliefs of large majority swathes of Christianity.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If one is presented with irrefutable evidence about anything from the real world, then maybe I could agree with your perspective. But we are dealing with an impossible situation – the Resurrection, and thus, by its very nature, it is impossible ( as far as I am aware) to disprove a miracle.
Note: I am not talking about magic.
To compound this we have prayer and the claims of communing with Jesus and as mentioned by unklee, the Holy Spirit. Something he considers is very real, even though he claims not ti understand it.
So, if he is, according to you, being 100% sincere then this is a mental aberration/form of mental illness/delusion.
LikeLike
Delusion: “a belief that is held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.”
UnkleE’s belief is based on a dogma (teaching), therefore I doubt his belief meets the standard for “delusion”. You and I may consider his belief delusional, but our culture in general probably would not. His belief is still socially acceptable and therefore fails to meet the definition of a delusion. No medical doctor in the western world would diagnose UnkleE as delusional based solely on his moderate Christian beliefs. In 100 years, that may change.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gary.
Actually, if his own partial testimony regarding the incident in his car is anything to go by, I would say it is as much delusional as dogma based.
Certainly there was a foundation of dogma, as who from a Christian culture has not experienced to a degree? But his moment of conviction, and the definite belief thereafter, comes across as purely delusional.
LikeLike
The entire Christian belief system is based on mystical experiences not much different than that of UnkleE, yet our culture accepts this belief system as a non-delusional, culturally acceptable belief system. If someone today claimed to be “God’s chief apostle” after encountering a talking bright light on a dark, desert highway, we would institutionalize him, or at a minimum, medicate him. But 2,000,000,000 people across the planet today are certain that a man living two thousand years ago was correct when he made the same (looney) claim.
My hope is that one day, our culture WILL see this belief and all beliefs based on mystical/supernatural experiences as delusional, but until that day…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Would that be with cool wind in his hair and the warm smell of colitas?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark
This seems extraordinarily uncharitable. People arrive at different beliefs. They can do so without being mentally ill. The non-existence of a God is not prima facie obvious and the God hypothesis is not demonstrably false. There are good arguments against it — very persuasive arguments, I believe — but it is not obviously irrational to believe in the existence of a God.
I would agree that Christians give disproportionate weight to arguments and claims that support their beliefs — the evidence for the resurrection being a prime example — but we all do that. If they are mentally ill for giving too much weight to arguments and evidence in favor of their beliefs, so are you and I. If they are mentally ill for accepting a worldview that has unexamined or unsupported premises, so are you and I.
Remember, beliefs are part of a framework. If you don’t share the same framework, then of course somebody else’s conclusions will seem absurd to you, and perhaps yours to them. Evaluating other people’s conclusions through the lens of your own framework is a good way to get upset, but a bad way to understand why other people reached their conclusions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gary
Tell that to Thomas Monson, Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Or their Quorum of 12, who claim to be Apostles of Jesus Christ because some other old white guys voted them into the position.
LikeLike
. . . And that’s not delusional??
LikeLike
@Jon.
Uncharitable? Yes, I am sure we should hold more charitable feelings toward former ( now dead) believers’ such as that very misunderstood chap from days of old, Torquemada.
I am not talking about a ”God” as in deism, but rather the sheer idiotic notion of the veracity of the Resurrection: The ability to hand-wave almost the entire bible if necessary, but still hold on to the notion of a supposed dead Messiah being brought back to life by the hand of a God-In-the-Sky.
Also, that they would believe they are called to spread this garbage as truth, with a capital T to boot, like a disgusting theological STD, or face eternal damnation and torture after death is almost culpable.
Certainly, this should be regarded as abuse.
Now, to hold such a belief in Resurrection the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is tantamount to a form of mental illness. And if you read Valerie Tarico’s recent post you might reconsider your current position.
LikeLike
Spoken like a true fundamentalist.
The belief in the resurrection presupposes the existence of a God, and specifically of the Christian God. With those presumptions, the resurrection is not so unlikely. Obviously, if you presume the non-existence of any God, then the resurrection is infinitely unlikely.
Again, I don’t think there is good evidence for the resurrection, but their conclusions arise from their own theistic framework.
Yes, people like to promote things they believe are true and important. Like just about everybody, I have moral and political beliefs I cannot prove, and which may very well be mistaken or even harmful, yet I advocate them.
If you are referring to her recent interview with David Fitzgerald, I think this essay by Tim O’Neill addresses it well.
http://historyforatheists.blogspot.com/2017/04/easter-existence-of-jesus-and-dave.html
If you are referring to something else, can you provide a link?
LikeLike
Are we going to resort to asinine comments now?
The main thrust of Nate’s last couple of posts has been the cover given to Fundamentalism by moderate/liberal Christians such as unklee.
And now it seems you are trying to white wash the Inquisition with another hand wave comment.
Christianity is a sum of its parts and unklee’s watered-down version has the likes of Torquemada to thank as much as it does Constantine and Luther.
The fact there is no evidence for the foundational claims and that it should be recognized as a delusion could well be the key to its eventual dwindling away to nothing but a quaint reminder of how stupid we once were.
Most people no longer recognise Thor as real and any tat do/did would likely be regarded as mentally ill, especially if they started preaching any sort of veracity.
The posts I was referring to were the ones Valerie wrote concerning pathogens.
LikeLike
Links, man!
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://valerietarico.com/2017/04/27/can-bacteria-help-us-understand-religion-part-1-the-brain-changing-power-of-religious-belief/
It’s a 4-part series.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Jon,
”I think the adaptability of Christianity has indisputably been an asset to its success.”
I’m glad I misunderstood you (sorry as well, of course, but you know what I mean!). Obviously some truths cannot change or it isn’t the same religion, but I believe adaptability is important. If christianity was a series of rules, then change would be harder to justify, but since I believe it is, ultimately, a relationship between me and a living being, then it must be that relationships develop and change as the participants grow – or in this case as the participants here on earth grow. I am not a very experiential christian, but this still remains true.
”I think a true religion must have truth and that truth must be discoverable and immutable. I mean, that’s almost tautological. If a religion makes fact-claims, then those claims should stand up or be discarded. If a religion makes no fact-claims, then it is irrelevant.”
Yeah, I agree, this is critical. But I have several caveats here. (1) Only a small part of christian belief is core and immutable. Creator God. Jesus and all that christians believe about him. Core ethics, etc. But heaps is variable with situation, or open to discussion and liberty of opinion. (2) There is a difference between truth being immutable and our understanding of truth being immutable. Science is the same in this regard. If we learn more, we develop our understanding. A God who created via evolution seems to prefer gradual growth and change and development, and I think it has been happening right through the period of the Bible and right up to the present day.
That seems to me to be the thing that you and Nate struggle with – that we might still be learning about God, his world and how to live in it.
”It seems to me that you are treating your own interpretation of Christianity as authoritative, while simultaneously crafting a version of Christianity that is so vague and slippery that it is virtually impossible to pin down any specific meaning. It’s closer to Unitarianism than to any orthodox understanding of Christianity.”
I’m really surprised that you think this, and I feel sorry that I’ve given you that impression. On all the main doctrines of christianity – God as ultimate creator, Jesus as son of God, saviour, teacher, his virgin birth, his real resurrection, his future return, the necessity of forgiveness (in relation to God and in relation to others), the atonement, the kingdom of God, the Holy Spirit, the commands to love God and love neighbour, etc – I am boringly orthodox. I present some of those things in different ways, perhaps, I am less dogmatic about most of those things, and quite flexible about non-core teachings. The only places I am not “orthodox” are my rejection of the traditional hell, my belief in inclusivism (shared by CS Lewis and Billy Graham by the way), my acceptance of the Bible as the historians conclude (which includes a gradual shift from legend/myth/folk tale to history through the Old Testament, also shared by CS Lewis), my greater openness re women, gays & LGBTI people, and of course other things that Jesus taught like care for the poor, non-violence and mistrust of power and wealth that conservatives tend to reject.
I don’t think my christianity is at all vague and slippery, I am just flexible about some of the things we are discussing here, and I am different from a lot of US christianity. It is very far from Unitarianism. And there is a strong movement in the same direction all over the place (people like NT Wright, Peter Enns, Denis Lamoureux, Greg Boyd, Benjamin Corey and so many others are part of this).
”But you should understand that they do address the beliefs of large majority swathes of Christianity.”
Yes, I understand that (at least for the US). But they don’t describe many others. My points are that (1) if you are only aiming at conservative fundamentalist US christians, then you aren’t attacking christianity as a whole, for to attack christianity as a whole, you need to attack the most plausible versions, not the least plausible. (That is a fundamental principle of debate.) Anyone can shoot fish in a barrel! (2) When discussing with me, it isn’t very relevant to argue against things that I don’t believe.
I’m not being critical. It isn’t easy for you to separate out different beliefs. So understanding that, I try to point out where I think you are not addressing the most plausible version of christianity. I think that gives you the opportunity to either address a more plausible version, or else say you are just addressing the less plausible version.
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify these things a little.
LikeLike
As has been mentioned for quite some time …. delusional in other words.
Belief in the virgin birth is the perfect example and this doctrine has been soundly refuted by Raymond Brown.
And what’s worse is that you probably know this and yet still maintain an Orthodox approach.
You have absolutely no idea what the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth taught and neither does anyone else for that matter. And I am sure you are fully aware that all you are doing here is making erroneous statements based on your/Christian beliefs concerning the biblical text, a text that is fraught with interpolation, myth, and outright lies. So all you do is cherry pick the bits that appeal to you.
We are arguing against the things you DO believe, and the Resurrection is prime among these beliefs.
It is the core doctrine – that you admit adhering to – which is utterly implausible, and it is you that steadfastly refuses to address these core foundational tenets.
And as Jon has pointed out, it is for this reason you come across as …..so vague and slippery that it is virtually impossible to pin down any specific meaning.
Here you have the perfect opportunity to demonstrate the veracity of your beliefs about the claims you make on a blog where the host, a deconvert from extreme fundamentalism,bends over backwards to accommodate you, and is unbelievably /em> forgiving toward the things you espouse.
Someone like Bruce Gerencser, a former fundamentalist minister, would likely tear your ridiculous hand-waving drivel to shreds and hand you your backside on a plate!
I challenge you to pop over to his site and try and tell him where he is going wrong and why your belief in the resurrection et alles is perfectly sound and reasonable.
I think I might even pay money to read that debate!
You also might like his page: Why I hate Jesus.
It will certainly give you something to think about, especially in context of the cover moderate religion gives to the fundies.
Please Note: LINK!
https://brucegerencser.net/
Therefore, while you continue to champion these core tenets as immutable without offering a sound basis for their belief then you cannot complain about anything which you perceive as a pejorative and will likely be called out every time.
LikeLike
Absolutely correct!
Which is why I would not likely evaluate Creationist claims or Flood Geology for example, without scientific evidence to turn to, and for this reason I expect nothing less from those touting the Resurrection etc.
But of course we all know this is a very short stretch of road that leads to a cul-de-sac, don’t we?
And I really don’t get upset, Jon. 🙂
LikeLike
“The only places I am not “orthodox” are my rejection of the traditional hell, my belief in inclusivism”
The good news is that UnkleE is very close to being a liberal: someone who believes that God does not punish non-believers for rejecting the Christian truth claims. If we could only nudge him over the moderate-liberal divide, we then would no longer need to concern ourselves with his superstitious beliefs in ghost impregnated virgins and corpse reanimation.
Can we get UnkleE to say that he is COMPLETELY “inclusivist”; that there is ZERO punishment for non-belief? If so, we should stop getting ourselves so worked up over his beliefs. Liberal Christianity is no more dangerous than belief in Santa Claus. However, if he remains a true moderate; a Christian who hides his fundamentalist belief in eternal damnation behind a façade of complex theo-babble, he merits our continued opposition.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nate:
*My emphasis.
It is worth remembering that the subject of ”cover”: Moderate Christianity providing cover for extremism, was a major part of the past couple of posts.
While the core tenets of Christianity continue to be followed, no matter how liberally, there will always be some who will interpret doctrine and the bible literally to push extremes. The toll on human suffering and misery is almost incalculable and it continues day in,day out.
And when you have a US President who cited his god as further authority prior to going to war you really should be sitting up and saying: ”Now hold on just a damn minute …”
I am quite prepared to acknowledge that good things have been done by religious people, and continue to be done. However, I would wager the bad outweighs the good, and what good we can directly measure cannot be said without question would not have been done had it not been for religion.Although, ironically, we can likely say that some people only did good because they felt it was their duty to gain religious ”merit points”.
If people who adhere to such beliefs wish to come on an atheist blog where they are welcomed, and express views that run contrary to the beliefs of the majority of the visitors, and especially those of the blog host, then they should have the integrity to demonstrate their bona fides by providing verifiable evidence to support their contrary views.
In my experience such people demand similar standards for those of other religions and usually will not accept claims of flying winged horses for example.
As far as this blog and Christianity is concerned, around 2000 years have passed and no evidence has been provided to back a single claim. Therefore, I do not consider it at all unreasonable to state that such claims are a load of hogwash, and anyone pushing said beliefs is either delusional or disingenuous.
Under such circumstances they should be shown very little tolerance.
Ark.
LikeLike
Hey UnkleE,
I apologize if you’ve already covered it here (there are a lot of comments, and I haven’t been able to get through all of them), but how do you specifically determine whether you’ve received divine revelation? In other words, how can you tell if you’re receiving instruction from a deity versus a thought that’s not part of a relationship with a living deity?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Gary you mentioned:
Zoe: The idea that liberals don’t believe in divine punishment, is that really the case? Do liberals believe in an after-life and if so, is that life in heaven? If they do believe in heaven, do they actually believe that non-believers are in that heaven too? If not, where are the unbelievers post-death?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess it depends on one’s definition of “liberal Christian”.
My definition of a liberal Christian is someone who is a universalist: “Everyone will be saved.” My definition of a moderate Christian is anyone who is not a liberal Christian (universalist) and who is not a fundamentalist (biblical inerrantist).
My former pastor (a moderate) believes that non-believers will SUFFER eternal separation from God, not eternal burning. In and of itself that doesn’t sound too bad, but the “devil” is in the details. When I explained to him that I would not consider separation from Yahweh and Jesus to be suffering as I consider Yahweh an evil monster and I consider Jesus to be delusional and narcissistic, insisting that “all men come to him”. He didn’t like that answer of course, and replied that separation from Jesus would be PAINFUL in some sense whether I wanted it to be or not!
THAT folks, is torture! Even if it is simply psychological pain, if it is inflicted on me simply because of my choice of beliefs, it is eternal torture for a thought crime and is EVIL to the core. This is why we must fight moderate Christianity’s dangerous superstitions as well as those of fundamentalist Chrisitanity. The claim that moderate Christianity is “good” is simply a front; a façade. Behind it is a cultish attempt to blackmail you into giving up control of your mind.
LikeLiked by 2 people