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 
The other thing I would argue is this, Gary: Anyone who believes in an invisible spirit somehow influencing their lives (even if it’s positive) – indeed perhaps guiding their lives – suggests that a person is not fully in control of that same life. To me, this is the very definition of delusional.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Okay, my definition of liberal would not include universalism.
LikeLike
:
All gone to Fucking?
http://www.motoringbox.com/cars/entertainment/the-grand-tour/the-truth-about-fucking-the-town-in-austria/
LikeLike
Let’s HOPE!! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark
I thought comparing Unklee to Torquemada crossed that line. My point was, the kind of thinking that doesn’t distinguish between a moderate Christian who believes in his religion and the brutal leader of the Inquisition is fundamentalist.
Sometimes you just gotta accept that people — you, me, Unklee, Nate and everyone — are wrong about stuff. You have unjustified beliefs, too. We can and should debate beliefs, attempt to persuade other people when we believe they are wrong, and consider the possibility that we are wrong. But at the end of the day, we have to learn to live with and look past that disagreement, even if we think the other guy is really, really wrong. That’s what secularism is all about. We can fight tooth and nail, if necessary, when it comes to imposing beliefs on others by law. But otherwise, we gotta have a little chill.
Almost everybody can agree that most religious beliefs are delusional. I mean, if Christianity is true, then Muslims are deluded. If Judaism is true, then Christians are deluded. If Hinduism is true, then all western religions are delusional. And so on. As the saying goes, we atheists only go one religion further. Instead of getting angry over delusional religious beliefs, I prefer to take the Carl Sagan’s advice, “the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the [God] hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.”
I find religious beliefs curious and unpersuasive, and I wonder why other people believe them. But I also know that sane, intelligent, thoughtful people hold those religious beliefs — including people of every religion who are far smarter than any of us! — and so I try to just judge the belief and not the people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unklee
I mean, that still gives you plenty of room to fit into the Unitarian tent.
Most of the beliefs you identified there are unfalsifiable, in the sense that they are purely theological beliefs and not really subject to verification. However, I do think the evidence for how the virgin birth story developed strongly suggests it was invented. The Septuagint used the word associated with “virgin” in Isaiah, so Matthew used that particular translation to create another typological fulfillment. But in reality, the passage was not about a virgin. It was just an accident of translational history.
Anyway, I don’t think you are inventing some new form of Christianity. You just don’t feel a need to accept or defend all the many doctrines that characterize the vast majority of Christian sects/denominations. Which, if it works for you, is fine. But I think what Nate and others are pointing out is that the implications of a lot of Christian beliefs are problematic. If you get off the train before the station we criticize, so be it. But there have to be *some* implications of your fundamental beliefs. Like the Kalam Cosmological argument, you can’t just say “things that begin to exist have a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause” and then dismiss critical concerns about what that belief implies about the existence and nature of time. It might be of little concern to you, but it is pretty critical to the overall argument.
Maybe! Billy Graham certainly seemed open to the idea early on, but a book published under his name more recently seems to have been more dogmatic about hell. That said, I think it’s very possible that his worthless kids exploited their dad to push their ideas under his name.
I agree with that.
LikeLike
Unklee is Australian and Torquemeda was Spanish. I would never have insulted dear Tomas by singing Tie me kangaroo down, sport.
I can only think of two: the Monkees were the greatest rock band in history, and purple flare trousers are the epitome of mens’ fashion.
Including those who condemn the use of contraceptives … or those who persuade kiddies that unless they acknowledge they are vile sinners and swear unconditional love for a narrative construct they will be burning in hell for eternity (you can even buy a book called the cage, so it must be true) or, that blowing themselves up is exactly what their god wants.
Tell me, how’s that working out for you so far, Jon?
Ark.
LikeLike
I would sooner endorse the resurrection than your fashion choices. In fact, your fashion sense may be a greater crime than the Inquisition.
In defense of atheism, though, I think the fact that God has not struck you down for such beliefs is clear evidence that he cannot exist. Or, if he exists, that he is not good.
I do judge behavior, as we all must. But I understand that beliefs are socially constructed, too. None of us are immune from that. If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, you would be a Muslim and probably a pretty radical one. If you had been born in Utah, you would probably be a Mormon. If you had been born in India, you would probably be Hindu. And so on.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Jon.
I am aware of the basic social dynamics of religion and the inevitability of cultural influence, but when ”faith rules”, the likelihood of ( a non-believer) reasoning someone such as unklee out of his faith in a one on one situation as we have here in Blogland, is about minus 273.15 degrees Celsius … or Absolute Zero, if you prefer.
Unklee is not here to look for a way out of faith but to attempt to undermine and demonstrate why you ( and the rest of us) are in our own sweet way Doomed, and also rather silly for not accepting the ”Consensus of experts” regarding his god, God … or at least his interpretation and all that entails.
Someone seeking verifiable affirmation of their religious beliefs does not come onto an atheist blog and argue the toss when, in reality, all he has to offer is the equivalent of a *Wish Sandwich.
And to keep coming back suggests he is simply an intransigent, argumentative SOB, because surely he cannot honestly expect anyone here to suddenly turn tail and reconvert, showering him with blessings in the process for showing them the error of their ways!
That would make him not only delusional but utterly bloody stupid as well.
I would imagine someone such as Zoe would rather spend the rest of her life listening to Rolf Harris songs even to contemplate for one minute … one second the horror of returning to the fold.
Therefore, I have no qualms about calling him out. It isn’t personal, by the way. He just keeping poking his head out the trench, babbles a stream of semi-coherent supernatural crap, whilst providing no verifiable evidence for his outrageous claims and simply invites getting his head metaphorically blown off.
If there is any aim in engaging such folk it is the hope that the ridiculousness of their religious belief is shown up for what it truly is, and maybe … just maybe, some who are reading along but not commenting may be given pause for thought; if not from my delivery style, then perhaps because of more subtle writers such as you, or SB, Nate, or even Gary.
Ark.
* Wish sandwich: Two slices of bread wishing they had a piece of cheese to go between them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark, I think you will find that unkleE likes coming over to Nate’s Blog for the attention he receives too. If you look at his posts at his blog, he usually doesn’t receive a lot of comments. (kinda like mine LOL) . He knows if he visits Nate’s Blog , he’s sure to get a lot of attention and if it starts to get nasty, Nate will step in and save the day. Just an observation ……..
If unkleE would truly use “logic” instead of pretending to, he would be one of us ! 🙂
LikeLike
@Ken.
Pictures of scantily clad wimmin … or kittens. You can’t lose. Sure fire winner. Loads of comments. Honest.
LikeLike
You seem to do pretty good with spiders, butterflies and cakes. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Of course, the birds and the bees make for interesting commentary, too. 😉
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hi Sirius,
1. It’s not a big part of my belief or experience. I would think I’ve only had a few times when I thought God had communicated in a discernible way in over half a century as a believer. Many more times I think he has guided my thinking, but that’s not the same.
2. If you’re thinking of things like voices or visions I’m sorry, I can’t help you. All I have had are thoughts and “coincidences”, and of course, thoughts are thoughts, wherever they come from. I have had a few times where I felt that God put a thought in my head, but never at the time, only later, as I considered how unexpected the thought was and the outcome.
3. And so I dealt with those thoughts just like I would deal with any thought. When I have been feeling low, I have occasionally thought destructive things, but I know that’s a futile pursuit, so I put them aside. When I have crazy thoughts, innovative thoughts or just bog-standard ones, I consider them. And so on. So when I had thoughts that I later felt were God-given, I just considered them in the same way. One was perhaps an exception, the time I was warned about a car accident, and then I responded immediately, not because I knew it was from God, but because I pray for protection each day and it was prudent (i.e. more logical) to stop and risk wasting 30 seconds rather than keep going and risk something really bad.
4. By far the way I believe God relates to me most is via my normal thinking, conversation and reading – things I come across, the way I respond etc, have led me over the years to change my thinking, become (perhaps!) a better person, etc. I think that has been God, but I couldn’t point to many standouts and I couldn’t prove any of it. My belief in God depends on other evidence, and leads to this “relationship”.
So I hope that answers your question.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Jon,
”that still gives you plenty of room to fit into the Unitarian tent”
Jesus = son of God, Holy Spirit, Unitarian?? We must have different definitions.
”Most of the beliefs you identified there are unfalsifiable, in the sense that they are purely theological beliefs and not really subject to verification. “
Historians verify that Jesus lived, taught, was known as a miracle-worker, gave people reason to think he was (in their terms) Messiah, was executed but his tomb was later found empty and his followed reported visions of him alive, and this belief converted the adversary Paul and turned a struggling bunch of nobodies into a force that changed the world. Nobody has come up with an alternative explanation of those historical facts that satisfies me.
Add to that the arguments from the origin and design of the universe, the human experience of consciousness, free will, ethics and rationality, the very many experiences of God via visions, dreams, mystical experiences, healing, comfort and guidance, many of which can be well verified, and the findings of psychology and neuroscience that belief enhances rather than sours life and health, and I think there is a formidable case.
I recognise that you disagree, but I don’t think my beliefs are “purely theological”.
”Like the Kalam Cosmological argument, you can’t just say “things that begin to exist have a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause” and then dismiss critical concerns about what that belief implies about the existence and nature of time. It might be of little concern to you, but it is pretty critical to the overall argument.”
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you are getting at here. If you are disagreeing with the Kalam argument, that’s fine, I think it can be formulated in ways that defeat the problems. But if you are using it as an example of something else, I’m sorry it isn’t clear to me.
”Almost everybody can agree that most religious beliefs are delusional. I mean, if Christianity is true, then Muslims are deluded.”
I have two problems with this.
(1) Deluded is a technical psychological term, and I think you are using it too freely. If you mean it in the psychological sense, then I would be interested to see papers in support, because I think I can show that the connection between belief and delusion is quite wrong. But if you don’t mean it in the psychological sense, why not just say “mistaken”?
(2) You are treating this in too binary a fashion. There are things on which all/most theists agree – the existence of a creator God, likely many aspects of ethics, sometimes more. So I don’t think of Muslims as necessarily being deluded (though some may be), I just think they are mistaken about some of their beliefs. That’s very different.
LikeLike
Of course you do! The surprising thing is you are able to contain yourself and limit them to only two.
Firstly …. what frakking tomb? You keep playing this card. Where is it? There is no record of this supposed tomb outside of the bible so to introduce it as any sort of evidence is disingenuous.
The problem you are faced with …. and of course refuse point blank to honestly deal with is that adherents of other religions will posit very similar objections about your religion.
Your rationalization of the empty tomb scenario and dismissal of Muslim belief as simply ”mistaken’ is the perfect example
So is it possible that you might consider that you are also mistaken about some of your beliefs?
For example: You raised the issue of the Virgin Birth in an earlier comment.
You have been shown (more than once if memory serves?) that this is patently false, acknowledged as such by the late Catholic scholar Raymond Brown, which I pointed out to you and I am damn sure you were already aware of this.
And of course you are unlikely to be so blinkered as to not realise the degree of ”gymnastics” that had to be performed to arrive at the Virgin Birth Prophecy, as Jon mentioned.
That you still acknowledge this as part of your personal credo suggests what I wonder?
And just how do others see your patent intransigence concerning such nonsense? That you are willfully ignorant?
Or delusional?
As an interesting aside the ”Original gown” of the Virgin Mary is currently on display in Cyprus.
No doubt it will attract a great deal of interest from other not delusional Christians like you who will make obeisance, say a prayer or two in the hope simply looking at might cure their cancer or perhaps their dandruff
and the church will rake in several,more million as it fleeces even more dumb-arsed sheep.
Why do you not feel a little ashamed over such shenanigans, Unklee?
Ark
LikeLike
Ark:
Zoe: Maybe. I don’t know who Rolf is. 😉
LikeLike
You Tube.
All Hail Oh Mighty Google…
LikeLike
Ark you know that the once beloved Rolf Harris is now in prison?
I found this video amusing, though the language is a bit ripe:
To think Rolf even painted Queen Elizabeth’s portrait.
LikeLiked by 1 person
unkleE,
Did you see my questions to you [1] on this post and [2] on the last?
LikeLike
Hey UnkleE,
I think maybe my questions might have been a little vague. What I’m asking for clarification on is this idea of divine guidance as was quoted by Nate in his post above. Admittedly, it can get referred to sometimes as divine revelation, divine inspiration, plain revelation or inspiration, talking with god, and many, many other things. All I’m really asking here is how you personally separate divine guidance (in whatever form it might take) from ideas that might not be divine in origin.
For example, how I would have answered my own question when I was a Christian, I would have said that I compare anything that might be guidance to what I already understand from biblical precepts. Therefore, if another Christian tried telling me that god wanted me to more publicly condemn sinners, I would have looked to bible verses to help evaluate it.
I hope this clarifies what I’m asking, but if it doesn’t, just let me know!
LikeLike
Growing up fundamentalist/evangelical I was taught that God speaks to a true Christian in his “heart”. God “moves” you, “leads” you to do his will. What was odd to me would be to see half of a church determine that God had “moved” them to do exactly the opposite of what the other half of the church believed that God had “moved” them to do…and thus, a new church or denomination is born.
When I became a confessional (conservative) Lutheran, I was told that this “speaking in your heart” stuff was evangelical nonsense. I was told that God only speaks in one manner: through his Word—the Bible. God has given Christians his principles to live by in the Bible. It is then their responsibility to use their brains to make wise decisions.
Roman Catholics of course consider this nonsense. They believe that the Church, the Magisterium, is the manner in which God has chosen to communicate his will to humans, not through the worship of a book.
So which is it:
–God speaking through a group of old men in Rome?
–God speaking through an enchanted book?
or, God speaking as a ghost inside your head?
LikeLiked by 5 people
It really is quite amazing what the brain can conjure up, eh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good question …
LikeLike
I went back to ratamacue0’s and re read this post.
https://aspiretofindtruth.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/what-started-my-questioning/
I think you would rather enjoy the conversation between Victoria and Unklee from a couple of years ago.
It will give you a clearer understanding of just how. as Jon put it (so) vague and slippery that it is virtually impossible to pin down any specific meaning.(/em>
And this s important too:
Unklee: ( in reply to a comment from Nate)
And yet he ”swears” by the Virgin Birth …. which is a prophecy from the OT of course. Slippery indeed!
Tells you pretty much all you need to know about our resident non-delusional denominational christian, I reckon!
The fun starts about here …
N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ
February 27, 2015 at 5:38 pm
LikeLike